2006-10-04 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1.. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a
request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a member of the public.
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.
2 -B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
2 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract agreement with
WRT /Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning
activities for Alameda Point
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long -Term Lease.
3 -B. Alameda Point Project Update.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15.
ARRA Agenda — October 4, 2006 Page 2
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at
least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 2, 2006.
2 -B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 4; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Recommendations to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Three -Year
Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. in the amount of $325,000.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented an overview of the Trident Management
Agreement and the port services they provide to Alameda Point, primarily to MARAD and the
Navy to Service the ships. Trident has been providing port services for Alameda Point since
September, 1996. Their original contract expired in 2002, and they are currently on a month -to-
month status with an annual rate of $474,636.
In 2004, the operating subsidy to Trident was reduced, and in return, the ARRA relinquished its
share of the Trident sublease revenue. In the fall of 2004, Trident and the City Manager (Jim
Flint) mapped out an agreement for a new five -year contract, which was never memorialized into
a contract. Since that time, staff has been attempting to renegotiate the contract.
Before the Board tonight is a three -year contract that can be mutually agreed upon by the City
and Trident
Page 2
Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of why we did not go out to bid. Ms. Little explained
that, since Trident was the inaugural port service provider, we tried very hard to work something
out with them that was less expensive than what would have been charged historically. Staff
also recommends that at the end of this three year contract that we do go out to bid.
Member Matarrese requested that the Board receive the policy on bidding and what the contract
is, recognizing that it is a legacy and wants to make sure, going forward, we eliminate that
uncertainty.
Approval was motioned by Member Gilmore and seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow (9/7) and will have a report in
October.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, Elected East Bay Regional Park representative, Doug Siden, Alameda
resident. Mr. Siden discussed as background that the EBRPD has been participating with the
City of Alameda in the planning process for the former Naval Air Station over the last 10 years.
EBRPD's concern has been to see parkland included at Alameda Point located at what has been
called Triangle Park (between the Hornet and the City's mini park along the shoreline). It has
always been shown in the studies that this property was going to be a parkland. In support of the
City's process, the EBRPD has applied to the State of California for a grant from Prop. 12
monies, and EBRPD has received $250,000, which is designated for the Triangle Park.
Mr. Siden expressed the concern of the EBRPD that under the provisions of Measure 12, land
tenure has to be secured by the end of this year, and the project has to be completed and the
money expended by the end of next year. So there will be another planning process, but the
money will be lost in terms of the City of Alameda using it at the Triangle Park, if it cannot be
expended by the end of next year. The Park Agency will re -apply and be able to use the grant
money somewhere else, but will need to move forward on an alternative grant use because of the
same requirement of completing the project by next year. EBRPD would like to get started with
the first portion of improvements to the Triangle Park. Included in their plans is to begin
creating a grassy area for picnics, parking, and tie -in with the City park upgrade, with an
interpretive center. They would also like to showcase green building, install solar cells for
energy and upgrade for an aquatic center.
Page 3
Mr. Siden also discussed Measure AA, a $225m bond with the first 25% going to cities based on
population. The City of Alameda received over $2m, and that money would soon be expended.
EBRPD is looking toward the year 2008 to ask the voters to extend the same provisions so that it
would not be a new tax but rather a continuation of an existing measure.
Member Matarrese and Chair Johnson asked what portion of Triangle Park improvements the
$250,000 would buy us. Referring to a map, Mr. Siden described the lower end toward Encinal
High School and the City's mini park and said that the EBRPD will maintain it.
Member Matarrese asked the ARRA Executive Director, Debra Kurita, to get staff to work on a
way to accomplish us getting this investment in town. He expressed concern that the deadline
for getting the land dedicated and completing the project is fast approaching and requested this
item be moved up on the priority list and brought back to the ARRA Board.
Debra Kurita responded that staff will agendize and bring this item back to the Board at its next
meeting on October 4, 2006.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
rma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
October 4, 2006
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ: Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point
Background
At the December 2004 ARRA Board Meeting, the ARRA elected to review and approve all subleases at
Alameda Point.
Discussion
Attachment "A" describes the business terms for the proposed subleases.
Fiscal Impact
The rent for MAKANI POWER is $242,640 annually or $1.15 per sq foot for the building and $0.35 per sq
foot for the shed. Makani Power is an alternative energy company that will use Building 19 and the
associated shed for office and some light manufacturing of their product. Building 19 is the former airport
control tower, which is in good condition since being renovated in 1999.
The rent for TRANS - FREIGHT EXPRESS is $278,616 annually or $0.21 per square foot. Trans - Freight
Express will relocate their corporate headquarters to Hangar 11 and use the high bay space for distribution
of coffee beans and other related items. Hangar 11 is in good condition since its renovation in 1999.
Recommendation
Approve the proposed subleases.
DK/LAL/NB:dc
Respect ly submitted
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: Nanette Banks -
Finance & Administration Manager
Attachments: 1. Proposed Sublease Business Terms
2. Site Map
Honorable Chair and Members of the .
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
ATTACHMENT "A"
PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS
October 4, 2006
Page 2
TENANT
BUILDING
SIZE (SF)
TERM
RENT
Makani Power
Bldg 19 &
Shed
16,888 &
3,993
1 year with four
1 -year options
$20,220/mo.
(includes shed)
Trans- Freight Express
Bldg 11
110,561
60 months
$23,218/mo.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
October 4, 2006
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ: Alameda Point Update
Background
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has been working to integrate the
former Naval Air Station Alameda (Alameda Point) into the City of Alameda since the Navy
announced the base would be closed in 1993.
The ARRA has achieved numerous key milestones over the years including:
• Completing a Community Reuse Plan in 1996;
• Entering into a Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) with the Navy in 2000;
• Executing a No -Cost Economic Development Conveyance Memorandum of Agreement
with the Navy for conveyance of the property in 2000;
• Selecting a Master Developer in August 2001;
• Managing a leasing program at Alameda Point that generates over $10 million in revenue
a year;
• Pursuant to Federal law, providing a homeless accommodation that includes housing for
200 formerly homeless families;
• Undertaking a "new beginning" initiative with the Navy to expedite conveyance of the
property in March 2004;
• Completing a community -based planning effort for Alameda Point that resulted in a
Preliminary Development Concept in February 2006; and
• Completing a draft term sheet for property conveyance with the Navy in June 2006.
On September 21, 2006, Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) informed the ARRA that,
after working with the ARRA for the past five years on developing Alameda Point as the newest
Alameda neighborhood, it was withdrawing as the master developer. APCP cited the continued
downturn in the residential market as the key reason for not moving forward. APCP indicated
that the negotiated land price of $108.5 million could no longer be supported given the weak
homebuilding industry. APCP also expressed concern about its ability to secure environmental
insurance for the project given the uncertain nature of the environmental industry. Obtaining
environmental insurance is a key requirement of any deal involving early transfer and privatized
environmental clean -up of a portion of the property.
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Discussion
Chronology of Negotiations with the Navy
October 4, 2006
Page 2
Following the initial rounds of base closures in 1988 and 1991, the Defense Department and the
Congress were faced with the challenge of disposing of "small cities" using the statutory and
regulatory tools then available. Moreover, economic incentives could not be introduced into the
process to address the primary complaint of communities, i.e. the need to spur job generation to
replace the lost Federal jobs. In response, the Congress, with the active support of the Clinton
Administration and the Defense Department enacted legislation that created the Local
Redevelopment Agency concept to comprehensively guide the disposal process. At the same
time, t hey authorized t he d isposal o f b ases as a c omprehensive s ingle u nit for j ob g enerating
purposes, the so- called "Economic Development Conveyance" (EDC).
The early EDC negotiations between the Defense Department and the L RA's, including those
between the ARRA and the Navy, were very slow and complicated due to the need to "value"
jobs against the fair market value of the surplus property, (i.e. each job is worth $2,500 as in the
case of the first Air Force EDC). To speed up the process, in 1999 Congress amended the EDC
authority to mandate that all EDC's would be at no cost, the "no -cost EDC." Not all disposals
were by EDC, but all EDCs were now at no cost. The ARRA's renewed EDC negotiations were
conducted under this new regimen. And because job generation was the motivation for the EDC
process, it was incumbent on all LRA's seeking a no -cost EDC to demonstrate that the reuse plan
would generate jobs to replace those lost due to the closure. Housing was not thought to generate
permanent jobs (only temporary construction jobs) and residential uses were therefore deemed
ineligible for inclusion in an EDC, other than those necessary to support the job generating
activities.
In June 2000, the Navy and ARRA executed a N o -Cost Economic Development Conveyance
Memorandum of Agreement (EDC MOA) in accordance with amendments to the Federal Base
Closure Act. Those amendments were designed to aid communities adjacent to closing military
installations recover from the closure by allowing the local redevelopment authority to acquire
the surplus federal property at "no- cost" in exchange for generating jobs at the closed
installation. In order to qualify for such a "no- cost" conveyance, the LRA was required to
prepare and support a reuse plan that favored job - generating activities over other land uses such
as residential development. In order to recover from the closure of NAS Alameda, and to qualify
for the "no- cost" Economic Development Conveyance, the ARRA's 1998 EDC application made
certain development assumptions that favored job - generating activities (such as commercial
development) over residential uses. In the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, the no -cost
EDCs were again made permissive, and in subsequent legislation, Congress required the Defense
Department to seek fair market value for all closed military property closed after January 1,
2005.
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
October 4, 2006
Page 3
In 2002, as the City began work on a General Plan amendment to incorporate the Community
Reuse Plan policies and land uses into the General Plan, the Navy expressed concern over what it
perceived as a discrepancy between the ratio of commercial and residential development
identified in the 1998 EDC Application as compared to the 2002 General Plan Amendment. (i.e.,
more residential construction and less commercial construction). As a result of analyzing the
2002 G eneral P lan A mendment, t he N avy q uestioned w hether A RRA r emained e ligible for a
"No- Cost" EDC conveyance.
The ARRA asserted its continued eligibility to receive the property at no cost. However, in
January, 2004, the Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy sent the ARRA a letter asking it to
formally submit an amendment to its EDC application based on the newly amended General
Plan. The letter did not indicate a timeframe for reviewing and acting upon the amended
application. The letter further stated that without such an amendment, the Navy could not
continue to work with the ARRA. In lieu of ARRA submitting an amendment to its EDC
application, the Navy expressed a willingness to convert the transaction to a "for cost"
conveyance and to negotiate a purchase price for the property. The Navy assured the ARRA that
the negotiations would be streamlined, consistent with its current practice of conveying property
based on fair market value, and focused on an early transfer.
The ARRA, working with its master developer, determined that negotiating a land price with the
Navy would provide a quicker resolution to property conveyance than protracted efforts to
convince the Navy that the ARRA was still eligible for a no -cost conveyance when the Navy
would be the final decision maker regarding the ARRA's eligibility for a program it no longer
embraced. The ARRA' s goal was to expeditiously receive property that could be cleaned up and
put into active reuse to provide the community with jobs, affordable housing, new recreational
opportunities, enhanced open space and access to the waterfront, and a vibrant new
neighborhood. This goal could be jeopardized if the Navy did not act timely on an amended EDC
application.
The Navy's desire to obtain economic value for the property was consistent with changes in
national policy relating to developing closed military installations. While the Congress and
Department of Defense supported a subsidy to communities surrounding closed military
installations previously, by 2003, it was clear that the Federal Government would seek "fair
market value" for all base closure property. In fact, by 2004, the Defense Base Closure Act was
modified t o e liminate a 11 "no- cost" e conomic d evelopment c onveyance for 2 005 c losures. In
March 2004, the ARRA and Navy announced a "new beginning" to develop a term sheet for
property conveyance and prepare a conceptual land plan that supported a negotiated land price
for the property.
The ARRA, in a joint effort with APCP, prepared a land plan and project pro forma that was
deemed economically viable by APCP and included a land purchase price to the Navy of $108.5
million. $40.3 million of the land purchase price was an in -kind contribution for environmental
clean up of Phase 1 (approximately 300 acres in the northeast comer of Alameda Point). The
remaining $65.2 million would be paid over time and would be tied to the Navy's clean up of
Phase 2 land. The Navy proposed to retain ownership to a third phase of the property for
alternate disposal at fair market value to a third party. The land price, negotiated over a two -year
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
October 4, 2006
Page 4
period, was contained in a draft term sheet that was completed in June 2006. Neither the Navy
nor the ARRA formally approved the term sheet.
APCP
APCP has been the ARRA' s master developer since its selection through a competitive process
in August 2001. APCP is a consortium of two homebuilders, Shea Homes and Centex Homes
and one commercial developer, Shea Properties. In November 2003, the ARRA and APCP
entered into a Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA). The CAA required the ARRA to
undertake a community -based land planning process to refine the Community Reuse Plan and to
negotiate a term sheet for property conveyance with the Navy.
The CAA anticipated a project pro forma that would provide fiscal neutrality for the City, a
sports complex, various community buildings, affordable housing, preservation of historic
structures, and other community amenities. The CAA also provided a minimum economic return
to APCP. The CAA stipulated that if the agreed upon economic return was not achieved based
on the negotiated term sheet, APCP would have an opportunity to re- evaluate its commitment to
the project.
Over the last 24 months, APCP was actively involved in negotiating the term sheet with the
ARRA and Navy and in preparing the Preliminary Development Concept that contained a land
plan and program that was the basis of the project pro folina. APCP agreed to the $108.5 million
land price as described above. Unfortunately, in the six months between agreeing on the land
price and finalizing the draft term sheet, the residential market across the country began a rapid
decline that continues today. In June 2006, the ARRA notified APCP that it had completed its
two obligations under the CAA and that APCP had 60 days to elect to proceed with the project.
While APCP provided the ARRA with a conditional election to proceed in August, 30 days later
it terminated its involvement in the project citing the inability to support a $108.5 million land
price in the current housing market. With the ARRA's obligation to prepare a PDC and negotiate
a term sheet concluded, it was estimated that it would take another 24 months to entitle the
property and perfect the conveyance. That timeline and uncertainty regarding the ability to
secure environmental insurance and project entitlements, along with a requirement to spend $5-
$7 million, was deemed too risky by APCP.
Recommended Initial Next Steps
ARRA staff has met with the Navy to discuss going forward with property conveyance now that
APCP has withdrawn from the project. While APCP determined that the project was not
economically feasible given the negotiated land price, a number of developers have expressed
interest in the project. The project, as outlined in the draft term sheet, may be economically
viable for another developer with a different approach to entitlement risk, with funding that is
appropriate to a long -term project, with an emphasis on land development vs. homebuilding, etc.
Accordingly, it may be appropriate to test the market through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
process. The Navy would support such an effort if it is conducted over a specific period of time
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
October 4, 2006
Page 5
and at the end of that time period a conclusion is reached (e.g., a new developer is identified or it
is d etermined t hat t here is no d eveloper i nterest) and i f t he p rocess i s focused o n i dentifying
developer interested in signing on to the previously negotiated $108.5 million land purchase
price.
The RFQ process would involve notifying the development community of the opportunity to
evaluate the draft term sheet, PDC and other relevant documentation and determine interest in
submitting qualifications and financial information to support the developer's ability to assume
the project as negotiated. Outreach would include expanding the project web site, alameda-
point.com, to include a link from the City's web site, the RFQ, the draft term sheet, and other
useful information for determining interest in the project.
Developers submitting a Statement of Qualifications would be required to post a non- refundable
fee of $20,000. The Statement of Qualifications would be evaluated by staff and an economic
consultant to select the most qualified developer to recommend to the ARRA Board for an
exclusive due diligence period to determine interest in the project. The selected developer would
be required to deposit $100,000 with the ARRA, which would be non - refundable if the developer
does not elect to go forward. Depending on the number of Statements of Qualifications received,
a number two and number three developer may be identified in the event the first developer
declines to go forward. It is anticipated that this process will take 90 -120 days.
In the event that a developer is not identified within a set time period, the Navy and ARRA will
cooperatively explore alternate disposal strategies. The Navy's most likely strategy would be
some sort of public sale of the property. There are several issues that would need to be resolved
if any form of public auction were to be viable as a conveyance strategy. One key issue is that
much of the base is encumbered with the State Tidelands Trust. Tidelands Trust lands belong to
the State of California and the City acts as trustee of those lands. These lands cannot be sold to
anyone other than the State or the City of Alameda as the designated trustee. There is existing
State legislation that permits the City to reconfigure the Tidelands Trust property in a manner
that permits a rational reuse of the former Base property, but that legislation requires that title of
all of the property flow through the City.
Another issue is that the Navy would prefer to auction the property in "as is" condition prior to
completion of the environmental remediation activities on the property. Alameda Point is a
federal Superfund Site so both the federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) have regulatory authority over this
property if it is conveyed by the Navy before all necessary actions to protect the public health
and environment have been taken. Support of these environmental regulators for a public
auction of property that has not been remediated has yet to be determined. In addition, it would
need to be to determined if the Navy could convey land to the ARRA for purposes of the
Tidelands Trust exchange if that land has not been previously cleaned up. The Navy would
explore these, and other, issues during an RFQ process, but would not act on an alternate
disposal strategy until the conclusion of the RFQ process.
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Fiscal Impact
October 4, 2006
Page 6
The ARRA adopted a FY 2006 -07 budget that included a contingency budget in the event that
the master developer did not move forward with the project in this fiscal year. Therefore, the
ARRA has the funds to pay for its obligations including staff costs, property management, debt
service on bonds, etc. during the current fiscal year (Attachment A). The $3.5m bond issued to
assist in pre- development has a remaining balance of approximately $322,006 (Attachment B).
The ARRA will continue with its active interim leasing program that generates approximately
$10 million a year and supports the ARRA' s obligations. The requirement to post a non-
refundable fee in the event a developer selection process goes forward will allow that process to
pay for itself.
The ARRA will review its FY 07 -08 budget and determine if any adjustments are required.
Recommendation
Authorize the Executive Director to initiate a Request for Qualifications process to select a
substitute master developer for Alameda Point as described above.
Respectfully submitted,
David Brandt
Assistant City Manager
By: Debbie Patter
Acting Alameda Point Project Manager
Attachments: A: ARRA cash flow ('05-'17) and staffing levels
B: AP Bond Proceeds Project Expenditure Report
VJN3VHOVI1b
(sivaubied uogeegiw
aauele8 pund 6ulpu3
En
0) (o
9) NJ
co b
No
co 4°. co
in co
o a) co
4). -4 co
En
69 En
CO -4 IV
() o)
CO -4 0)
CD CD OID
4.
CO CO
0) (.3 01
Ct) C:) CD Z • CO M
C C
g >oo-oc› 5 gi g>oc,8>,..„0„K 03
-03i.q,..--a 8. "" -0-cnoa5-e8 c so • P. = cai ''''' 2 53 Fr] .3' gi 8 = c. ci 8 g: > S' a Q" 1)
5r T m gq w a) cn 7! lo cu 2? . co. : !! 2.co (-3): .7 : (3): : : m
m
=0"@ ' c'ac--(1.0)111-0c3°Etaicagogoa 1p...2-6.02.<4.20g3g)g z
Fi : SL 2 91 ec. ,Ctt?
3 0. 0 rt3 g > 0 It — 0 z Q -0 a .0) 0 co -in-
x..< „R 8 a a 0) m 0- c(1.1 >114 E3 cm 0
to o3 cf,, co 0) K ° 0 Ko coc co co 6 0 -- 0 (CD' 0 0) -d^
R (3 0 — - — CT 2 a ') li,' g 0. 5- ,,,-1: ,?, 3 P, mw to
-- 3 a co — m 6 to:. z).-. 3 cit. a
c). c Er, 9.;,' z' ri . ,,,- 0
° tE) 8z:'
0 2,
-rt w @ 60 3; 0 ") X
C co = (1, -- . 5 = EI i:. §
3' 3 2 (2 E'
2 K B E (° 'T1 -8
* a -0 -
Ci S 'V
C4 5- 71 01 (D
5. 0 3 4
m 2
i
g 5 s .
o 0
0= )
LT CC/ .Cat
g..
Li —..s.
ca. —
Vi
0
0
0)
enuanaa letol
S3f1N3A321
33NV1V8 GNfld a31a3road
69 0
61 En 01 E4 69 NJ (1) -4 69
"4 69 69 A 69 0 EA 69 0 NJ 69 0) to Eft En 69 69 69 CO co (ID ,(.4). p„,,,,, -..1
S° -4:4 1.3 p.,) :4 no:4:4 "4 SA) P to to to en 12 12 so EA ..) ." to to ..' 69 to (.3 (0 :A P. SD CD .S.4
A -4 -4 "n"o o a) o 1 4 o ) 0-.1 ' COD 10 (3(9 C C, CO 4 CD - (9 NJ c cn o 0 0) N 4(4 o) NJ 4 0 o cCD , 4 D CCCn 4 C0N001. 004 C10 cn 0 5> "4 0 K4 (71
9) SO CD c D 0)0) 0) C CD , NJ 4 - CO C CO , CD 1.3 C C 03 D NJ 4 0
-4 4, CD 0
CD OD ZD 14 ■4 4, 4, CD 14 -0 ZD 10 gp 0 7 CD ZD ZA "NJ CD In -CD -0 PO 0 ID -0 0 ZD -4, CD '0 CD CO CD -CD CD 14 14
CD -4 0 CD NJ CO -4 CD 44 (A 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C - 0) (4 C 0 NJ A 0 0 (31 0 ND C CO T 2 CD D D D D D 0 0 D -4 C C43 0 0 0 0 0 0) C (33 CO - t
0 NJ - 0
En En
CD NJ
En 69 En En En En EA ER
4 4> co En -4 03 2 w ZD NJ
:-::'' CO
4, CD NJ 60 g
SA SA OD A so NJ Cn
4, Iv
CD 14 ID CD CD -CD 1.4 -0 CD -CD CD
0 0 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 En en en 0 CD
ND NJ CD CD CD CD CD 00 cp 0 (D 0 CD
69 En
SD EA 69 En En 69 ER ER 69 to Is) co
co N3 CD CA CD NJ
CD 8 CA Cf) -4
-"IP--.0' C) 03 N3 0 0
p G3 0-40
0 ZD ZD -0 ID ..4 ". ■4 ZA -CD 14 0 4> CA
23 .. CD CD C7 CD 07 C7 CD CD 44 CD 0 69 64 CO OD
CD
0 C7 CD CD 0 CD Cn 0010 CD 0 CD CD CD
En
ln En En En 69 69 En En 69 EA
-4 f..) CD Winn) a) N3 0 01
NJ cp CJ C) CD 0 CO
SD CD co 4, CD SO CD
Cn ZD V 0 ZD ZD Zn ZA ZD NJ In
: o C NJ 0 V D V ao D Cn D 4
CD CD C4 C) OJ (.4 A CD CD QD C)
EA
Sn 69 En En En 03 (4)
0) -4 0 -4 69 -4 69 En C33 -4
CO CD CD 0 4, CD N3 CD NJ CD
A D D C N C A C C D
0000 0 00 00 0
CO CD CD CD CD En E9 CD CD CD C) CD
CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0
En
(3(43(7) En EA En En 14
NJ 0
NJ 61 CD CD OD -4 CD OD
A Z0 D C 0 D D :4
CD C 00000
0 8 8 2R 0 0 0 " 8 0 0
69
(ID
o to En En En 69 52 6n 664 K
^4 ' 0)0)79n (303 NJ NJ V CO NJ
.8 0)0 -1.010)-.J(31('30 .4 (A) 01004 0
) En 7 01 D - SD SO 40. SD C 0) C 0 p0 4 4
0 CD - C D C D CD ZD " C D 1 0 ca ca a c ) 0 0 0 0
co CD 0 -6,9 69 CD CD CD CD co CD CD CD 0 CD eo ca CD CD Cn CD 01
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C7 CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD C) CD
E9
$n 64
NJ A 0 EA T 6 0 t n ft 3
o 4)A 790)EC4 -4
NJ NJ -4 -4 C4 C.43
co -, al ^4 ^4 0 NJ CD CO CD -4 NJ ND A ND
14 CO CA NJ N3 .4 CD SD p CD ND -4 NJ OD NJ
A Zn CD ZO :4 CD ZD CD CD
NJ 0 En En 69 CD CD cn CD 4, CD CO 0 CD 0 CD 0 -4 0-J 07
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 44 CD -4
01 0 VI
-4 (ID-' 69
.74 Po co -' co c.),
a) (o n. co 'a) 7.4.
NJ -4 Cn CD 0 V
...4 N.P.P co P
to cn p co -a° co
g
8
44 0 CD A
to
o
5) -o
o iso A C0 N
CD CO 04 0 A to
:4 91 so c> .91 no
^4 4> 0 b co 1.)
CO co CD CD NJ
ND CO OD CD CO 44
En 69
-' 0)03 EA
P " to " 50 4°.
co "a) 4°. -co oa "N.)
co noothco -4
-0. zr" .5-0 P• 0) a
co -.4 co no "
-no No
"4 0 "4 0 CO NJ
CD (.4 CD 0 ND NJ
EA 0 EA 0 69
-4 69 En 69
co En EA
-CD En EA to to En En 69 69 En ro to -..., to *A to 69 En 69 to to 10 ) " to ." P ot's
■A OD CD QD •r NJ CA ND cn cn -• to b 10 .o.. co al c::,
cr, 61 En N> EA EA 63 A A NJ -4 A CO 63
' 4, A) 2N3 OD W "I CO 0 0 0) C C C (D C OD (31 -4 NJ V 0 V 01 N3 C C co En 4 co F 0 c.) 401 -44 CA D tO A 4 CD 7 0 0 - A ul co o) co
ro co co 4.
0 4'
to 4 J ID ZO CD J 04 0D C0 ZZEn CO Z4 D D -iJ CD CDJ D Cn D 0 cc o v o ts- 4 tCNJ D CCD -4 NJ CCD 0) E0 O0) 0 n CD () CD 63 C4 so c CA ,
4, 44 CO C3) A . . C -4 V C 0 63 C CO CO O -4 0 "4 O C D C C"4 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO C4 OC 6) D D C C En
EA V)
69 (4)
- CD
6co 9
n , 4
Scn 1'cc-.o a 4 tcc-o o 4 EcOo D R (ID
SD 663 En En 69 En Eh n e En ; 0 " -4 °
V
0) ECO on (co 64 N7 CA - NJ A CA na Eo CO > (9-4 (9 c is
CA a) ^4 C -4 4 - C C QD OD NJ CO C "4 CD NJ - 47 J C NJ Z - 0) -' $4 Sn - :' o Sm Ss' :PP3 P (90) a P p 63 C 7 P P P 0 `) 0) po 0 (O :., 0) c -4 C 0.4 0 010) 0)a) o N cIn co °Ni b °c° CEn C ND 0 0) N 0 0 0 - n 6, NJ 0 49 0)0)00 4 CO V 0 (11 60n 60 , 6 ( ('3 0) V N3 CO 4 (0 0 0 037 ((1 - V 4 D 6) O D C CAD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O - CA D - 0 0 0 0 NJ 0) (9
69 EA
Sp En En. 6969 to to to
-4 08 OD C> 69 N3 CA na co cn
a 4... CD 4. NJ V 0001
-N P 4' IN9 9 .:-4 c - P
. 4 b ^4 co n3"4 0 tr
no
e ER 3 C CD cn 8 8 J 22 g
CD -4 CD
69 En
0
0) En 691' 69 to (43 (0) in
w 0 0 En 0 n 0)
Co 0 0.03790O 0 Da 0
5 co .o SO oro
CD NJ NJ
■4 ID ZO . Co 04 -CD -CA -Co
0) 69 NJ CD Cn CD ^4 CD 0 (07.)
N3 CD 08000000 0063
ID)
(4) ..7 0)0) 69 69 En
OD CD NJ Cn ND EP 0)
4> CD 4, Col tn CD 4. NJ
2> co CD C.4 CO CD -4 5,
CD CO CO CA ZO 0(9(0
En 0 CD 0 V 0) 0 -4 0
0 0 0 -4 PO 04 CO 0(0-)
V) (4)
P to ..." (13(0) co co co
"4 CD 0 in N) CA DD (7) OD
V 4, CO Cn 4> CD CD 0 CO
S4
cot b V co ou ito o "co cn
to to co 0 CA 4> CO (4 0 K) (.4)
CO 0 c) 0 0 -4 0) CD 0 -4 -A
69 En
^4 .
(ID
69 . 72
-(ID
C - AP-m f2 2 4T (ID 0 0 60 P' (.3 4 0 0 - CD o n 6 n A . N4 -A C4 0 NAl A 6.3 C0 Cil A N(4CD V 0 ND -4 63 OD O (9 03 a) 1.01c94 A g 'g {i a)
00to 79"4 co 0 c0 b o o -4 D g 4
8 1 c9 69 EA En 41 CD 8 l R EEEEE5Et 69 0 0 69 cC-4 CO n 8 0t8 0 0 0 g i .
coocoothco V K) NJ
Z4 67
"4 A
A 50
o.)
En in 69 6) N7
CD CD CD CO 0)
En
Cn 60
-C7) En En 64 En NJ
0 En -4 C4) En En C4 -4 i2 En En 60 En .
NJ OD -4 6D CD
CD NJ CO CD OD CA NJ -4 C4 (.4) -4 67 ■A
05 CD NJ V -4 CO CD CD 0)
CO ZD ZD NJ 4 .."4 ZD .44 CD CO CO 4 NJ CD
CD 64 tn En CA CD 03 CD 4>
000 006964A 0 A A 44
CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CO CD Cn CD CD 0 CD CD
En
0 En
-.-4 0) 0) 0)4) 0 0 64 co l'''
V En NJ 43 E4 En C.4 ...I. T NJ CO -4 (4 cn
no NJ Cn -4 CO CD N) NJ 4, CO 4, CD 0
0 o 00) (.3 ." CA ND 8 01 0) A CO 4,
CD ZD CD 4, Zn -.0. 1= (0 CD (003 -4, 10 14
63 En En En En CD CD 7.3 03 op 0 co
tg EER tg 4 4 FD 0 0 0 0 0 D "4 Z N .1 8
En EA
En 0
-4
co g -, 0
O , w.., Cf, 'g n
g tg 1
01 ^4 03 CO CL)
^4 A CO 03 N)
^4
0 4) -.. (A
En .1
ID) la 5949 59° SA
CO 4A ..-4
OD
-4 0) 44 OD ND
CCD C n 0 O S 01
:o. Co c c
a) 1.3 (0 A
67 N3 44 0 8
En 04 En
ND A (ID-' 01
0
.0 P En iD ." P 69 0 (1 0 r 4 co 01 7.) b CO A N4 0 A 03-
I, 03 — m 03 CM D (o) n a , O A (0
p 4 :^4 S-4 CO "4
50 0) O -4 n 0n
-CD C4 ...114 D ID D 4 -4 CD ^4 14 01
0 CD to En cn CD ^4 CO -4 CO 1.3 ^4 CD CD
C C D C ■A 4> CD ■A n 0 V ^4 6 ^4 4,
CD CD 91 CO SO 1.,11 p
co bbrobcoom
En so to En En CD CD -4 CO C47 CD ^4
CD CD CD CD CD CD ^4 -4 CD CD ^4
V) 0 En
01 En EA 0
EA N) -4 (ID-' 01
:4 En . 69 En EA 0 EA IV ,, CD
69 En N) A NJ A
69 .
14 NJ CD NJ 4, CO
CD 0) -4 En N) CD ND 04 0 ID EA 0
64 N3 CO 499 0 6) ....• r to co co co 10
to co -). co 04 OD 64 C.0 CO N7 CD
CD 4> NJ CA 4, 4, CD CO 0 -4. C.3
-4. D7 CJ CO
Al C3 4D 0) NJ CO C4 CD OD CA CO a>
NJ a) , C .0 0) 0 :0. P s)-") o P P P P c c o cn p cl n 0
SD CD -4
vl CO CO c0 o D -4, 4 7
co . (0 ". co a) b b ao a) Nb C ZO -ND D CO
R 2 / 1 89
O co 69 EA C (1.) 0 04 C CO N3 0 o to 0D C Ntn A n C D CO ^4 (4C 4 E''2 g 4 2 tl ( 3 0 Cn CO C C0 CO 4 ao COD D C0 D 4 4 CCCD CC , D C^4 "0 0 0
En :10 4
1E ,4
.,
-
61
6 4 0)
6)
(ID' 60 6 ° ' ' r ‘1 NJ R NJ 4 N) 4 o) A C) CO 0 r 030 6 N3 aa En c NJ C 0^4 04 CO (9(11 (0 CD ND (4 43 Cn -1 Cn 0 " 01 NJ > 0 .o p p C :4 O D CSh -4 ^4 CD (' 0) CO C4.67 -
7 , , CC, NJ -o, 0D 4 14 14 D Z4 b -O 0 -J 8 2R 9 -1 0 CA C OD n n n (3D C 0) (.4 QD 0 CO n 064 4) ea CD (77 "4 (ID 8 l 079N3 00C14 000 00001 0.D 0N l
CD CD CD CD C..4 CO CD col a>
EA E9 VI
P EA
..-.4
(A : (31 (7) to to to N) En
V A En EA 9
69
6 64, 6 0 N 63 0) (3(9-4 NJ V 0 ID 0 0 N4 0 C A 4, no CD A , V (31 (0 0)0 0 J co ND CQ N6 CO V 0(4 ^GO :4 0 (4 0) 0 A 0 0) 03
l 14 0 00) (D 0 0)
..
0
SD A O (71 01 o o 14 0 In D lo co D
co 144 14 14.) ^4
CO 0 CDCACDON) 0.4463 0 V) EA CO NJ 4>
-4 64 en EA E9 CD CD C4 "4 -4 CD NJ 69 0 CA 0 A "4 CO "4 -•
4, c, CD N3 CO 4, CO CD CO ^4 CD CD CD CD V 0 CD CD CD CD CJ CO A NJ CD C4 CD CD CD CD -4 CID ^4 0 -4
69
64 EA
! o E
9)9) 50
SO O :O 71
C (9 co co N
cn NJ CY) NJ 0
J
69 04 69 En
A . "C.' 0 A‘. N-)
(C -• o 4-
-4
-i c)63 4
Fa
:4 CD -4 CO SD
..4 iso b A
-4 4, CO 0 CD
NJ
A N) A CO ND NJ
ID
3
a
N4
CD
CD
ND
CD
CD
0
^4
ha
CD
CD
"4
CO
co
co
na
CD
co o
CD
144
PO
0
ARRA Lease Revenue Cash Flow (2005-2017)
ARRA Funded Positions
Position* FTE
DSD Director 0.40
A.P. Project Manager 0.50
Administrative Services Coordinator 1.00
Base Reuse Division Manager 0.65
Finance & Administration Division Manager 0.60
Total FTE 3.15
* ARRA contributes $30,000 annually to the Assistant City Manager Position
.
1r ';,. -
t
-.f- • ',,1 .', ” -: ':, ', '
4.0'
„,
.. .
..
.
. .
g
49 6%
W
WW
N
WW
N N
W
g
g
.
g 484
614:6
g 88
...
—
q 88.
3
..
$ 4,777.62
$ 27,277.62
$ 8,810.49
$ 33,888.11
$ 80,072.73
8
6
.
8 8 2 2
d
69 49 W
W
LI 88.
r; ,3i -:
69 W W
$ 19.695.74
S 42,195.74
$ 8.780.81
8 8
.:
8 8
E 8
" t
„ G.
g
3
...
. ... .
.
5 46,152.75
$ 15.000.00
S 7,500.00
8 2
P: ,6
. .
$ 77260.68
S -
$ 123,413.43
k
$ 594.93
$ 8,729.19
8 g=. 8. 2
4
8,
. .44. .
S 43,534.19
”
2 ''
. ..
88 3
3 g "
.. .
4 8
8 8 4
4
. . .
.
$ 10,030.05
954.00
$ 217,529.30
2 4.-Ji2 2
G M Li
.i
888 8
... .
9
$ 344,962.42
S 15,000.00
$ 7,500.00
8 88
:4g
P: '3
. ...
$ 122,793.98
$ 1,485.00
$ 469,241.40
8 A
$ 24,231.61
$ 4,879.68
$ 129,631.08
$ 278.33
2828 88
'e"
gG'721?; 88
.... ..
8
g
.
$ 360,367.60
$ 15,000.00
$ 7,500.00
8 88
,
2 '2
8
. ...
$ 118,590.92
$ 478,958.52
62.2888 888 8889
...... .... ....
4 88
. . .
$ 46,558.82
$ 69,058.82
$ 6,242.67
$ 44,081.19
2
, g-
w .
t
g 8
N
884 22. 4.-.9- 8288
,,V:5..
■4124 42
,-.4..., .o 8 g ' E a,f—'?,4 L'A
4452 '3" g
q 2
mokko mu, mmmw 4469404.
—
5 334,081,35
$ 15,000.00
$ 7.500.00
$ 39,736.35
$ 62,236.35
$ 7,980.28
$ 55,799.41
$ 126,016.04
$ 460,097.39
a
8 8 22 84858
8 8 g1,-- - " '
.. ......
44
N
2 8.8
r4 §§
‘- .4.:
ftl —
. ..
$ 39,56446
$ 82,064.46
$ 6,325.93
$ 65.62481
$ 134,015,20
$ 2,076.00
$ 427,310.95
28
it
88 88 83
g2 "8' 4,3
.. ......
3 88
a u;,...,
.4
. ..
8 882 8
8 —84 8
.- c4
. ... .
879gg876
$2
z
cl
.6
. . .6,
1 g
8
-5ETT3 g 2
0 JE '4
8
8
E
8
. m
k 8 g
- ACHMENT'E
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
October 4, 2006
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
RE: Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Contract Agreement
with WRT /Solomon E.T.C. in the Amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area Planning
Activities for Alameda Point
Background
In July 2005, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency (ARRA) was awarded a Station Area
Planning Grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the amount of $221,000 for
further planning activities to support transit oriented development at Alameda Point. In order to qualify for
the grant, a minimum local matching grant of 11- percent is required. Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Agency (ACTIA) informed staff in January 2006 that it would provide $25,415, or 10.2 -
percent, for the match. The balance of the local match in the amount of $3,585 will be paid by City of
Alameda.
Discussion
In early 2004, ARRA initiated an 18 -month community planning effort to engage the Alameda community
in developing a detailed development program and transportation plan for Alameda Point. The ARRA
Board accepted the resulting Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) and Transportation
Plan in February 2006. The PDC land use plan recommends relocating the Main Street ferry terminal to a
new Seaplane Lagoon Town Center at the terminus of Atlantic Street. The new transit station will provide
ferry service to San Francisco, shuttle and bus service to the 12th Street BART station, and create car -share
and bicycle facilities. The station will be located adjacent to proposed neighborhood retail and community
services, restaurants, museums, and waterfront open spaces. The PDC document also lists a series of "next
steps" processes required for implementation, which include additional land use and transportation studies
in coordination with the public to make sure that the new development meets the requirements for
supporting the transit solutions proposed in the PDC.
MTC Grant: MTC has adopted a policy of supporting transit oriented development, which entails
providing a mix of housing and jobs near transit to make the transit effective. The MTC Station Area
Planning Grant will fund preparation, review, and adoption of transit oriented zoning requirements,
development criteria, and public improvement standards to implement the PDC and direct the design,
review, entitlement, and implementation of the full range of mixed uses envisioned. The recommended
scope of work will articulate station area access and circulation plans, transit ridership estimates, minimum
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
October 4, 2006
Page 2
building heights and residential densities, maximum and required shared parking standards, required transit
and bicycle facilities, minimum Alameda Point homeowner and business association dues to support transit
operations, and other key criteria to ensure the development is transit- supportive, pedestrian - friendly, and
results in the truly unique place envisioned in the General Plan.
Prior ARRA Authorization: In April 2006, the ARRA Board authorized the Executive Director to execute
a Grant Agreement with MTC in the amount of $221,000 for a Station Area Planning Grant for Alameda
Point, execute a Funding Agreement with ACTIA for $25,415 and provide $3,585 currently budgeted for
planning activities for the purpose of contracting for professional planning expertise to complete the
Station Area Planning activities. The ACTIA grant is intended to fund a portion of the local match required
by the MTC grant, using Measure B funds. The $25,415 amount granted is less than the required local
match amount of $29,000. Therefore, the $3,585 balance of the required local match will be paid by City
of Alameda.
Funding Source
Amount
Percentage
MTC
$221,000
88.40%
ACTIA
$25,415
10.17% *
City of Alameda
$3,585
1.43% *
Total
$250,000
100%
* Required Match
Consultant Selection: On May 8, 2006, the Alameda Point Land Use Team issued a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for a land use planning and community engagement consultant team to assist the City in the
fulfillment of the MTC Grant Agreement's scope of work. The City received two (2) proposals for
professional services in response to the RFP. On June 19, 2006 a multi - disciplinary selection team of staff
from the City, Water Transit Authority, AC Transit and Alameda Point Community Partners interviewed
the two consultant teams. The selection team unanimously agreed that the WRT /Solomon E.T.C. team was
most qualified and best prepared to provide the necessary services. WRT /Solomon E.T.C.:
1) Committed significantly more time from their firm's principals to the project.
2) Possessed better public outreach and participation skills.
3) Demonstrated a more dynamic understanding of the project and the tasks and strategies
necessary to develop and adopt a successful Station Area Master Plan.
4) Possessed more relevant experience in conducting land use studies and developing waterfront
master plans that are similar in size and scope to Alameda Point including Vallejo, Richmond,
and Sacramento.
Based upon their excellent qualifications, the Alameda Point Land Use Team is recommending that the
consultant team led by WRT /Solomon E.T.C. provide the professional planning services for the
development, review and adoption of the Station Area Master Plan at Alameda Point. The attached
contract, which includes a budget not to exceed $250,000 will provide ARRA with the following primary
services:
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
October 4, 2006
Page 3
Review existing plans and coordinate the direction of technical work. WRT /Solomon E.T.C. will review
and assess the existing background information available regarding the site constraints, opportunities, and
regulatory requirements in order to identify and address any critical gaps in background information /data
that will need to be addressed. WRT /Solomon E.T.C. will coordinate the work of the technical sub -
consultants to ensure that necessary information is available at the appropriate time to inform the
preparation of the material and the community engagement process.
Prepare all necessary studies, alternative land use plans for discussion, final plans, zoning and zoning
diagrams, and design guidelines. WRT /Solomon E.T.C. will prepare specific work products identified and
described in the approved MTC grant application. WRT /Solomon E.T.C. will generate progress reports
and informational presentations analyzing key issues, as well as alternative development concepts
emphasizing resolution of key issues, comparative analysis and assessment of alternative Station Area Plan
concepts, a final consensus -based Plan and related reports as needed for City Boards, Commissions,
Council, and ARRA.
Engage the Community. WRT /Solomon E.T.C. will create and implement a plan for engaging the
community that builds on the previous PDC planning process. The community engagement process will
focus on informing and seeking feedback from the community regarding issues of traffic flow and transit
usage related to the ferry tenninal and other transit uses and discussion of alternative development concepts
that meet the goals of increasing the potential transit utilization within the intended development program
for Alameda Point. WRT /Solomon E.T.C. will provide professional meeting facilitation services including
assistance in providing graphic displays, public noticing, managing and facilitating a series of public
meetings and ensuring full stakeholder participation. WRT /Solomon E.T.C. will utilize the existing
Alameda Point website to infoiiu the community of the process and outcomes.
Budget Consideration/Financial Impact
The total project cost of $250,000 will include an allocation of $221,000 from the MTC grant and matching
funds consisting of $25, 415 from the ACTIA grant with $3,585 in general funds currently budgeted by the
City of Alameda.
Recommendation
Authorize the Executive Director to execute the attached Consultant Agreement with WRT /Solomon
E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities for Alameda Point.
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Respectfuj y submitted,
October 4, 2006
Page 4
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Consultant Agreement
Ex. A. Scope of Work
Ex. B. Project Budget and Schedule
IJJAT/DV
/6-
•XF_c.vt i
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 4th day of October 2006
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joi
(hereinafter referred to as "ARRA "), and WRT /Solomon E.T.C., a California corporation, whose
address is 1328 Mission Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94103 (hereinafter referred to
as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. ARRA is a Joint Powers Authority established by the City of Alameda and the
Community Improvement Commission under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act and a
public entity lawfully created and existing under the State of California with the power to carry on its
business as it is now being conducted.
B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special
services which will be required by this Agreement;
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the teims and conditions described
herein; and
D. ARRA and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for services upon the terms
and conditions herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1 TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 4th day of October 2006, and shall
terminate on the 31st day of December 2007, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT:
Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in
the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the ARRA.
4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:
The Consultant acknowledges the importance to the ARRA of the ARRA's project
schedule and agrees to put forth reasonable efforts in performing the services with due diligence
under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule, as provided in Exhibit B.
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 1
5. STANDARD OF CARE:
Consultant agrees to perfoun all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with
the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all
services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the
ARRA nor have any contractual relationship with ARRA.
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
ARRA and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this
Agreement is that of employer - independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the
work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or
regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of
employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by
ARRA to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers'
compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from ARRA to Consultant, its employees
or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS
payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer- employee relationship from any
fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant.
7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and
employment authorization of all of his /her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all
applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold
ARRA hamiless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any
noncompliance of this provision by Consultant.
8. NON - DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with ARRA's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a
job applicant, a ARRA employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or
subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap,
disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant
agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this
Agreement.
9. HOLD HARMLESS:
Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless ARRA, its Board, officials,
employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability,
claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising
from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual,
regarding performance of services or work conducted or perfoinied pursuant to this Agreement. If
Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant
shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence
is not found on part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify
Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of
Indemnitees.
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 2
Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liability:
As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend and
indemnify Indemnitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent caused by the negligence or willful
misconduct of consultant or anyone for whom consultant is legally liable.
10. INSURANCE:
On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
furnish ARRA with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates
and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E.
Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the
following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or
coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide
thirty (30) days' advance written notice (or ten (10) days' notice in the event of cancellation for non-
payment of premium) to the ARRA of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is
agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement
all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is
acceptable to ARRA and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements
naming the ARRA as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
A. COVERAGE:
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum
limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the
amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required
minimum limits shown above.
Automotive:
Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following
minimum limits:
Bodily Injury:
Property Damage:
(3)
Combined Single Limit:
(4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the
professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of
$1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate.
$500,000 each occurrence
$100,000 each occurrence
or
$500,000 each occurrence
SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 3
Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which
he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant
shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to ARRA, on behalf of
any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant
or ARRA with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation
which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against ARRA by virtue of the payment of
any loss under such insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or
maintain the foregoing insurance, ARRA shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the
Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for
the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the
date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED:
ARRA, its Board, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as an
additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required
by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such
additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An
additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any
loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an
additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by
the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by ARRA are not represented as being sufficient
to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to
determine adequate coverage for Consultant.
11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the
services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form
if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental
decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California
Code of Regulations.
12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS:
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any
interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent
of ARRA. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee,
sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted
assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from ARRA under
this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior
written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to ARRA by
Consultant.
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 4
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding
capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate
member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which
shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this
Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation.
13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL:
Unless prior written consent from ARRA is obtained, only those people and
subcontractors whose names and resumes are identified in Exhibit A shall be used in the performance
of this Agreement.
In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be
required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry
general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance
carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to
each provision of this Agreement.
14. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City
Business License, that may be required in connection with the perfomnance of services hereunder.
15. REPORTS:
A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of
ARRA. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute
appropriate documents to assign to ARRA the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this
Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become
the property of ARRA, and all publication rights are reserved to ARRA.
B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by ARRA in execution or
implementation of:
(1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired;
(2) Completion of the original Project by others (provided that if the
Consultant for any reason does not complete all the services
contemplated by this Agreement, the Consultant cannot be responsible
for the accuracy, completeness or workability of the documents
prepared by the Consultant if used, changed or completed by the
ARRA or by another party. Accordingly, the ARRA agrees, to the
fullest extent permitted by law, to hold the Consultant harmless from
any claim, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and
defense costs) for injury or loss arising or allegedly arising from such
use, completion or any unauthorized changes made by any party to any
documents prepared by the Consultant);
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 5
(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or
(4) Other ARRA projects as appropriate.
C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as ARRA may require, furnish
reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on
recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which
shall be single sided.
E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by
Consultant without prior approval by ARRA.
16. RECORDS:
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts and other such information required by ARRA that relate to the performance of
services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to
permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall
provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of ARRA or its designees at all
proper times, and gives ARRA the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts
therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and
activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept
separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years
after receipt of final payment.
If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised
by ARRA's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the ARRA's supplemental examination
or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other
breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse ARRA for all
reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
17. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be
given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, addressed as hereinafter
provided.
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 6
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to ARRA shall be
addressed to ARRA at:
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda CA 94501
Attention: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from ARRA to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
WRT /Solomon E.T.C.
1328 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Attention: Stephen Hammond
18. TERMINATION:
In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the
time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance
of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by
Consultant from ARRA, of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the
steps necessary to cure such default, ARRA may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the
Consultant written notice thereof.
ARRA shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating
this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon
termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation
specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination.
19. COMPLIANCES:
Consultant shall comply with all applicable state or federal laws and all applicable
ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by ARRA.
20. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of
California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another
jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules,
and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those
authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the
County of Alameda, State of California.
21. ADVERTISEMENT:
Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed
any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services
performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from ARRA to do
otherwise.
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 7
22. WAIVER:
A waiver by ARRA of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained
herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term,
covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
23. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or
nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of
whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held
to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written
execution signed by both ARRA and Consultant.
24. INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be
deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were
included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly
inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party.
25. CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the
Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year
first above written.
CONSULTANT
WRT /Solomon E.T.C.
James S ckley
: Princ' . al
ALAMEDA REUSE &
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
y: Debra Kurita
Title: Executive Director
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By: Cathy Woodbury
Title: Planning and Building Director
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement
By: Debbie Potter
Title: Acting Alameda Point Project
Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Donna Mooney
Title: Deputy City Attorney
4)S-6.14
Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement 9
• EXHIBIT A
ALAMEDA POINT STATION AREA PLAN
SCOPE OF WORK
PHASE I: UNDERSTANDING THE VISION AND ISSUES
In this first phase of the planning process, relevant background information will be collected and reviewed, and the physical
characteristics of the project vicinity, the planning history and regulatory context, and the current attitudes toward future
growth and development in the Alameda Point Station Area understood. The primary objectives of this phase are to:
• Understand the aspirations and visions for the Alameda Point area held by the City, the community, the Master
Developer, and other key stakeholders;
• Understand the concepts set forth in the PDC and their status;
• Identify outstanding issues that remain to be resolved, and any design and regulatory considerations that need to be
refined or developed; and,
• Understand the market conditions in which redevelopment will take place.
Task 1.1 PROJECT INITIATION
1.1.1 Kick -off Meeting with City
The consultant team will meet with City staff to discuss operating procedures, schedules, work scope assumptions and other
administrative matters. Critical dates for completion of various milestones, a schedule of regular meetings will be established,
and key contacts and lines of communication will be identified. The meeting will also provide the first opportunity to exchange
perceptions of the key issues involved in the Station Area Plan and to receive City input regarding priorities and expectations.
As part of the kick -off meeting, WRT will tour the Alameda Point Station Area and the immediate surroundings with City staff
(as available) to better understand the area's physical characteristics and provide an opportunity to discuss various issues
and options collectively in the field.
1.1.2 Data Collection and Review
WRT will review and assess the existing background information available regarding the site constraints, opportunities, and
regulatory requirements in order to understand the history, context and content of previous planning efforts for Alameda
Point. Any critical background information /data that will be needed to complete the Station Area Plan will be identified,
although given the extensive work that has been done for the Preliminary Development Concept, very little additional
background research and study is assumed to be necessary.
WRT assumes that all necessary materials from the PDC process, including GIS mapping, aerial photography, site plans,
graphics, and plan analysis will be made available by the City in a useable, digital format. We will use this material to
prepare suitable base maps and as the basis for the planning process study.
1.1.3 Alameda Point Land Use Team Meetings
The scope assumes that the consultant team will meet periodically throughout the process with the Alameda Point Land Use
Team. The purpose of the meetings will be to provide technical and policy guidance to the consultants and provide a
sounding board for concepts developed by the consultants. The budget assumes six (6) coordination meetings with the Land
Use Team during the process.
Task 1.2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
A series of informal interviews will be held with key stakeholders to obtain more in -depth understanding of the goals, visions,
plans and concerns that these stakeholders have for Alameda Point. Up to 6 interview sessions will be conducted. Input from
these meetings will inform the formulation of project alternatives. WRT will work with the City to identify appropriate
stakeholders. Stakeholders are likely to include representatives from the City of Alameda, the WTA, AC Transit, the master
developer, Alameda Point Community Partners, and concerned community groups. In order to increase stakeholder
EXHIBIT A
discourse and understanding, and minimize the number of individual meetings, stakeholders will be met with in small groups
to the degree possible.
TASK 1.3 ASSESSMENT OF MARKET POTENTIAL
Strategic Economics will assess the market demand for ferry- oriented residential and commercial activity in Alameda Point
through case study analysis, demographic and employment trends, and evaluation of comparable projects in the waterfront
area.
The residential and commercial market analysis will be informed by case studies of three existing ferry terminals that have
experienced significant development. In this analysis, SE will interview real estate experts to determine the barriers and
opportunities for ferry- oriented development, and to identify any demographic or commercial trends that are particular to this
type of TOD.
The residential market analysis will analyze a variety of housing types. As part of this analysis Strategic Economics will, in
particular, consider the demographics of households with a potential interest in living near and using the ferry. This market
analysis will consider how the TOD demand estimates developed for the MTC TOD Policy apply specifically to ferry- oriented
development.
Deliverable #1: Market Analysis Report and Existing Conditions Memorandum
PHASE II: EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES
Phase II will explore the implications of alternate development scenarios — related to and use, economic development,
waterfront and streetscape improvements, and urban design concepts — comparing their relative merits and implementation
challenges in achieving the project goal of a transit - oriented neighborhood that supports ferry service. Based on this analysis,
and on City and stakeholder input, a preferred concept for Alameda Point will be selected.
TASK 2.1 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES
2.1.1 Land Use and Redevelopment Alternatives
Using the Preliminary Development Concept as its beginning point, WRTISolomon E.T.C. will prepare two refined land use
and development concept alternatives for the Station Area that reflect the input from the City, WTA, stakeholders, and the
marketing analysis. The concepts will illustrate a range of possibilities for implementing the vision and the implications of
choosing one concept —or an element of it —over another: One of the alternatives will maintain the overall intensity and
development program set forth in the PDC (i.e., consistent with Measure A), but look at refinements to enhance transit
service and community character. The other alternative will explore higher density scenarios (i.e., not constrained by
Measure A restrictions) that might provide greater support for transit. The alternatives will be designed to facilitate a public
discussion of the potential benefits of different:
• Mixes of land use within a Y2 mile of the transit center;
• Residential densities, housing types and locations;
• Employment types, densities, and locations;
• Public improvement standards (e.g., narrower street sections, smaller block sizes, bus pull -outs, ferry terminal /transit
interface, etc);
• Modifications to the vehicular circulation;
• Enhancements to the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems;
• Strategies for accommodating parking with increased development intensities.
The alternatives analysis will include illustrative plans and sections to show the general character and development capacity
(e.g., rough number of dwelling units and /or amount of retail or commercial space). Conceptual elevations and axonometric
EXHIBIT A
drawings will be used to illustrate the scale and character of the proposed new development and how uses would relate to
each other.
As part of the alternatives analysis, WRT will conduct a survey of zoning standards or public improvement standards that
have been adopted in other cities or counties specifically to facilitate transit - oriented development and transit use. The
results of this survey will be used to inform the alternatives formulation and to inform the community of the current state of the
art in transit - oriented development regulation.
Per the RFP, the scope assumes that the Water Transit Agency and AC Transit will provide technical support to the project
team on the formulation of alternatives and development standard.
TASK 2.2 ALTERNATIVES REPORT
The consultant team will prepare a comparative evaluation of the concept alternatives considering the qualitative and
quantitative advantages and disadvantages of each. The evaluation will identify each concept's relationship to the City's
goals and vision for Alameda Point, and with existing City policies. This evaluation will not provide a comprehensive
description of the impacts of each alternative but will provide the information necessary for the City and the community to
make informed choices between available options.
Task 2.2.1 Development Program and Community Character
WRTISolomon E.T.C. will provide general quantitative profiles of each alternative that identify the acreage for each land use,
the number of residential units, the amount of non - residential development, the area of public and semi - public open space,
and the potential number of residents and employees within a half -mile radius of the Ferry Terminal. In addition, a qualitative
assessment of the relative merits of each alternative with regards to its contribution to creating a safe, attractive and vital
mixed use neighborhood that supports increased use of public transit (bus and ferry) will be provided.
Task 2.2.2 Traffic, Circulation and Parking
Fehr & Peers will compare traffic generation associated with each of the alternatives. Fehr & Peers will employ smart growth
principles and evaluation methods, including the 4 -D method, which takes into account changes in land use Density,
Diversity, Design, and nearby Destinations, to accurately evaluate the effects of each alternative on traffic generation and
pedestrian/bicycle mobility. Fehr & Peers will also evaluate the implications of each alternative for transit use (particularly
ferry), pedestrian activity, and parking.
Deliverable #2a: Alternatives Report
TASK 2.3 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
Upon completion of the alternatives, the City of Alameda will hold the first Community Workshop. Community Workshop #1
will serve as a forum for the public to review the alternatives, learn more about transit - oriented development concepts, and
provide direction to the City team as to which alternatives and concepts are most appropriate given the unique conditions at
Alameda Point. The WRT team will take the lead in the presentation and facilitation of the workshop and preparing all
workshop materials. It is assumed that the City will be responsible for securing the site, publicizing the workshop, and all
logistics.
Deliverable #2b: Workshop #1 Meeting Summary
TASK 2.4 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Strategic Economics will compare the market demand and annual fiscal impacts of the two identified land use alternatives
and the PDC. This analysis will consider revenues and expenditures for a static year after build -out of the project. SE will
estimate annual revenues to the City General Fund, and will interview City Staff from departments that might experience a
significant impact from the addition of new residents or employees in order to determine additional expenditures.
In particular, Strategic Economics will assess whether the City could have some annual cost savings related to the infill
nature of the project, where existing Police beats or other facilities could serve new residents and employees.
EXHIBIT A
Through interviews with City Staff, SE will also determine whether any additional capital improvements will be needed, such
as Police satellite facilities, Fire stations, or trucks. These improvements will be in addition to the infrastructure
improvements identified by the Consultant Team in the planning process.
As part of the fiscal impact analysis, SE will identify ways in which the land use alternatives can be modified, or assessment
districts and other mechanisms can be applied to achieve a fiscally neutral land use plan.
Deliverable #3a: Alternatives Report and Market Demand and Financial Feasibility Analysis
TASK 2.5 PARKING STUDY
Fehr & Peers will estimate residential and employment/commercial parking demand and evaluate the proposed supply within
an approximately 400 -foot radius of the station. In consultation with the City of Alameda and transit stakeholders, Fehr &
Peers will prepare recommendations for parking with considerations for:
• Appropriate pricing for Station parking (if any)
• Appropriate limits for a neighborhood parking permit program
• Identification of the number of parking spaces expected to be available within the neighborhoods during a typical
weekday and potential benefits from a fee -based commuter parking permit program that would return revenues
• Recommendations for shared parking in the station area
• Recommended parking ratios for residential and commercial projects. As part of this discussion, we will review the
current City standards and present potential parking maximums, rather than minimums. This work will draw upon a
similar study currently underway for the MacArthur BART station.
Deliverable #3b: Parking Demand Analysis and Potential Local TOD Parking Policies and Requirements
TASK 2.6 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
Based on feedback from the first Community Workshop and findings of the fiscal and parking studies, the City /Consultant
team will conduct a second community workshop to review and discuss the findings of the Financial Feasibility and Parking
studies and refinements in the alternative land use /development scenarios. The purpose of the workshop will be to educate
the community about financially feasible options and opportunities to provide more sensitive /responsive parking requirements
at Alameda Point than would be permitted under current City regulations, and to receive additional feedback on the
development scenarios. Representatives from Strategic Economics and Fehr & Peers will take the lead in presenting the
findings of their studies.
Deliverable #3c: Workshop #2 Meeting Summary
TASK 2.7 STATION AREA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
WRT and Fehr & Peers will work together, and with appropriate agencies (e.g., Public Works, WTA, AC Transit, etc.), to
formulate appropriate new public improvement design standards for the Alameda Point area. Recommendations will address
design standards that are critical to ensuring a transit supportive and pedestrian friendly environment, including:
• Block sizes, • pedestrian crossings,
• street cross - sections, • bus stop facilities,
• on- street parking, • setbacks and build -to lines,
• bicycle access, • "queue jumpers ",
• sidewalk widths, • Etc.
Fehr & Peers will review future requirements for Bus Rapid Transit or light rail to ensure that the station design does not
preclude eventual implementation of high capacity transit. The Bus Rapid Transit proposed in the Alameda Transportation
Strategy calls for dedicated right -of -way along Ralph Appezzato Way between Webster Street and the Station. Street sizing
EXHIBIT A
should incorporate this plan, while maintaining a walkable environment through the use of small block sizes and frequent
crossing opportunities. Drawing on their work on the Las Vegas Bus Rapid Transit Plan, Fehr & Peers will provide standards
for queue -jump lanes as appropriate. They also will use the results of the parking task to determine the appropriate amount
of on- street parking to inform the Public Improvement Design Standards.
At the station itself, Fehr & Peers will identify curb space needs based on proposed future transit operations as well as taxi
and kiss - and -ride activities. Recommendations will be provided for how curb space should be allocated for bus, shuttle, taxi
and the disabled to increase transit ridership and improve public safety. Finally, Fehr & Peers will work with WTA to
determine the best interface between the surface station and the Ferry Terminal.
Deliverable #4a: Station Access Public Improvement Design Standards
TASK 2.8 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3
The City /Consultant team will conduct a third community workshop during the development of the Public Improvement
Design Standards to present concepts and receive community feedback. The workshop will include participation from: AC
Transit, Bicycle Friendly Alameda, and other groups and organizations that can bring a strong working knowledge of what
works well in Alameda and which recent improvements in Alameda have not been transit supportive or conducive to a
pedestrian friendly environment.
Deliverable #4b: Workshop #3 Meeting Summary
TASK 2.9 MID - PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT TO MTC
WRT will prepare a project status and progress report for MTC at the conclusion of Phase 11. The progress report will
address project status and review issues and challenges encountered during the station area planning process and lessons
learned to date.
Deliverable #5a: Project Progress Report
PHASE 111: PREPARING THE ALAMEDA POINT STATION AREA PLAN
This phase will refine and more fully develop and document the preferred development, land use and urban design concepts
identified in Phase II into the Alameda Point Station Area Plan.
TASK 3.1 DRAFT STATION ARE PLAN
Using the PDC as the starting point, the WRT team will prepare a Draft Station Area Plan. The intent is to refine and enhance
the concepts set forth in the PDC, thus as much as possible content from the PDC will be incorporated into the Draft Plan. It
is anticipated that the Draft Plan will include the following:
Statement of Vision and Project Goals. The Station Area Plan will open with a statement of the community's vision for
transit - oriented development on Alameda Point and set forth the principal project goals.
Planning Process and Findings. The Plan will provide an overview of planning and design analysis that that was undertaken
to develop the Plan (i.e., Tasks in Phases I and II) and the findings from that work. The process for involving the public and
engaging project stakeholders in the planning process will also be described.
Land Use Element. The Land Use element will include:
• a Land Use Diagram depicting the distribution and development intensity of the various uses;
• goals, policies, and objectives indicating the nature and intent of the land use plan;
• a description of types of housing and businesses envisioned for Alameda Point;
• specific goals for the amount, type, and locations for specific uses (e.g., market rate housing units, affordable housing,
jobs, and mix of uses within a half -mile radius of the station) in the Station Area; and
• possible scenarios to increase development potential through additional changes in local land use regulations.
EXHIBIT A
Urban Design Element. The Urban Design Element will include:
• a Regulating Plan that establishes the system of streets and blocks and designates areas for specific design standards
• a description of the overall development concept, and standards and guidelines necessary to support the creation of a
pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly, transit - oriented neighborhood
• design guidelines and recommended zoning requirements for the overall development including street and block
configurations, set backs and build -to lines, location of entrances and parking access, height, bulk and massing
controls, and facade alignments
• the design of the public realm (e.g., streetscape design standards, public and semi - public open space standards,
guidelines for public art, etc.)
Circulation and Parking Element. This element will address pedestrian, transit, automobile, and bicycle access to the station
and provide master plan level guidance on circulation and parking in the Station Area. The element will identify and describe
key circulation and parking design guidelines and improvement standards required to support and promote transit use,
walking, bicycling and disabled access, including:
• Vehicle circulation system, including street design standards, transit improvements, and traffic - calming improvements;
• a parking section that describes parking management policies for the area and a set of recommended parking ordinance
amendments;
• Pedestrian circulation plan and design guidelines that incorporate policies and standards that will promote walkability
and livability in the Station Area, including guidelines for sidewalks, crosswalks, internal pedestrian pathways, special
corner treatments (curb bulb- outs), etc; and
• Bicycle routes to /from the Station Area.
Implementation Element. This element will identify actions that the City needs to take to implement the Station Area Plan,
and describe the City's commitment to formally adopting and implementing the Station Area Plan. Implementation
recommendations will include actions such as:
• Identifying key public improvements that would catalyze private investment;
• Identifying all amendments to zoning and parking ordinances, General Plan policy, and Capital Improvement Program
that will be necessary to support redevelopment of the area consistent with the vision set forth in the Plan.
• Strategic Economics will identify a menu of potential options for financing and implementing major infrastructure
improvements. The financing options will evaluate the likelihood of applying particular funding strategies, and will look
at how development can be phased to take advantage of new revenue sources from development. In addition, SE will
consider the potential for land banking, and whether it makes sense for the City to preserve land adjacent to the Ferry
Terminal as parking, and to develop these areas later as the demand for development evolves.
Deliverable #6a: Five (5) hard copies and one electronic file of the Draft Station Area Plan
TASK 3.2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #4
The City /Consultant team will conduct a fourth community workshop following the preparation of the draft Station Area Plan
to present the Plan, answer questions and receive community feedback.
Deliverable #6b: Workshop #4 Meeting Summary
TASK 3.3 FINAL DRAFT STATION AREA PLAN
WRT will incorporate edits and revisions to the Draft Plan based on direction from City staff based on community and
stakeholder feedback to the plan during public review.
Deliverable #6c: Five (5) hard copies and one electronic file of the Final Station Area Plan
EXHIBIT A
TASK 3.4 FORMAL ADOPTION PROCESS
WRT will assist City staff in presenting the Final Draft Station Area Plan and zoning amendments at public hearings before
the Planning Commission and City Council (assumes one hearing for each body).
TASK 3.5 FINAL STATION AREA PLAN
WRT will make final revisions or modifications to the plan and prepare a camera -ready copy and coordinate printing of the
documents with staff. The City shall provide MTC with four color copies of the adopted Station Area Plan.
Deliverable 1/6d.: One (1) unbound, camera -ready original of the Final Alameda Point Station Area Plan, General Plan and
Zoning Code amendments, as adopted by City Council and one (1) digital copy in Microsoft Word, Pagemaker or Adobe PDF
version ready for printing.
V
a�
CU
E
c 0
cc
G▪ am. o
tti Y
"0 N
qi
E
U 05
Strategic Economics
Iso3 :Ielotgos 4sel
0 0 (00 O N
v
N 0 m O c0
m 0 n rn
co 0 0 DO CV
is /leuy
N
0
0)
n
0
N
h
N
0
rn
uew /-I- euio41 /qq'd
/UOSMe1 SIIaM
O
(0
N
O
(0
0
to
azjeg BUOQ
O
N
0
m
N
N
co
O
(A
Fehr & Peers
WRT /Solomon E.T.C.
splou /ad elalas
/eMBply Me4ueW
0
O
S
0
(0
O
0
m
rn
0
O
N
0
to
ull !eH
e
O
O (0
A
uilo IaeLIM
0
(0R
0
o N
O 0 (0 0)
0 co O O
A
(9
O
ue.ipuegoewea gsauee
0 0 (0
(0 v.-
O oa
°
m
0
s!I13 u4Or
pummel-1 uagdals
0
rn
O
O
0)
O
(0
CO O CO
.1- 03 Nco
O N O
N
CO V O
co
0
(A
N
.0
E
Mid - November
Early February 2007
cn
m
CC
SEP -29 -2006 11:02
Facsimile
WRT SOLOMON ETC. 4154369837 P.001
Date: September 29, 2006
From: Michael E. Olin
Ref. No. 5040 -01/99
Project: Alameda Point Station Area Plan
Pages: 2 (inc. cover)
Re: Initial Exhibit B
To /Fax: 510.747.6853
Douglas vu, ASIA
Planner UI
City of Alameda
Planning & Building Department
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501 -4477
Remarks:
415.575.4722 Fax 415.436.9837
Please find attached Exhibit B, which has initialed by James K. Stickley, Office Director of WRT
San Francisco, for the Alameda Point Station Area Plan contract. Please let us know if you
require anything further.
- Michael
o.APromaspecIfic FroposalslSO4Q O1 -'.d9 AIAMEOA POINT STATION AREA PIAMContractWx Cava Lpiror,doc
Wallace Roberts & Todd, Inc
1328 Mission Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415.575.4722 Kathleen A, Garcia, ASIA
www,wrtdesign.com CA License LA2371
fax 415.436.9837
SEP-29-2006 11:02 WRT SOLOMON ETC.
4154369837 P.002
TOTAL P.002
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
October 4, 2006
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ: Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long -Term Lease
Background
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Director, Doug Siden, appeared before the ARRA at
its September 6, 2006 meeting to speak about $250,000 in Proposition 12 grant funds that the
District has received and would like to spend on improvements at the 26 -acre triangle park in the
southeast corner of Alameda Point, sometimes referred to as Hornet Park. According to the
District, it must have site control, which is defined in the grant requirements as a minimum 20-
year lease, by December 31, 2006, and must complete the improvements by December 31, 2007.
In addition to the Proposition 12 funds, the District has pledged $250,000 in Measure AA funds
for the proposed improvements. The ARRA Board directed staff to research this issue and
provide a status report to the Board at its October 4, 2006 meeting.
Discussion
The 26 -acre triangle park area is located in the southeast comer of Alameda Point, as shown in
the attached map, and includes the former Navy R.V. park, auto hobby shop, recreational fields
and tennis courts. Pursuant to a five year license agreement with the Alameda Soccer Club,
which expires in December 2008, a 2.4 acre portion of the property is currently improved with
soccer fields. This property provides direct access to the shoreline and is within the Tidelands
Trust footprint.
On January 31, 1996, the ARRA approved the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The
Reuse Plan identified the "Inner Harbor Regional Park" as a new regional park that would be
leased to the EBRPD at no cost for development and management. A further amendment to the
Reuse Plan, adopted by the ARRA on May 28, 1997, clarifies that "there are two types of public
or quasi - public users whom the ARRA will accommodate through the Navy's Economic
Development Conveyance (EDC) process. One is the EBRPD who is requesting property for a
public purpose..."
The Reuse Plan and its subsequent amendment contemplated that the triangle park would be
conveyed to the ARRA via an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) and that the ARRA
would in turn enter into a lease with the EBRPD for a nominal rate for parks management and
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
October 4, 2006
Page 2
operations. The Reuse Plan anticipated that the City would serve as the trustee for the Tidelands
Trust lands. However, the EBRPD acts as trustee at various park locations within Trust Lands
and, should the City request, is willing to serve as trustee for the triangle park.
The Reuse Plan, City of Alameda General Plan and Preliminary Development Concept all show
the triangle park as a regional park. The District has, to date, not acted to request a lease for the
property because it lacked funds to plan, develop and operate the park. The District has been an
active participant in the City's community engagement process for Alameda Point over the last
five years. It also agreed to the temporary soccer fields on the property to allow some interim
recreational uses. Ultimate build -out of the regional park is dependent on overall development
going forward at Alameda Point to provide the necessary backbone infrastructure to the site and
to pay for construction of the park as a neighborhood amenity.
With the passage of Proposition 12, and the availability of construction funds, the EBRPD
became interested in a Phase 1 project at the triangle park. District staff initially met with ARRA
staff in June 2006, to discuss a $1 per year lease with a 20 -year term for purposes of a Phase 1
project consisting of green space, picnic areas, shoreline trail, and parking which are proposed
Phase 1 improvements as shown on the attached map. At that time, staff briefed the District on
progress with the Navy and the Master Developer and encouraged the District to undertake a
community planning process to program the entire site and to develop a financing plan for long-
term maintenance and operations before implementing any improvements. EBRPD staff
indicated that that approach made sense, but that availability of construction funds merited a
possible phased development of the park in advance of a formal planning process.
If the ARRA enters into a lease with the EBRPD for a Phase 1 development project at triangle
park, the lease would need to be approved by December 2006. To comply with Proposition 12
requirements, the lease would be in the amount of $1 per year and have a minimum 20 -year
term. The leased area can be restricted to that portion of the triangle park that would receive
Phase 1 improvements or could include the entire 26 -acre site. In addition, staff recommends
that, any lease that ARRA might consider, include maintenance and operating standards with
which the District would have to comply. The lease should also require that the District
complete a community planning effort and a financing plan for a program for the entire site
within the next two years.
If the ARRA declines to enter into a lease for Phase 1 improvements at the triangle park, the
District would have to re- program its Proposition 12 funds or risk losing the funds. Proposition
12 funds can be used on Bay Trail improvements at Alameda Point or elsewhere in the City.
Fiscal Impact
The EBRPD has requested a $1 per year, minimum 20 -year lease for up to 26 acres. This
property is located within the Tidelands Trust footprint and cannot be sold. As the Reuse Plan
states that the lease with the District would be for a nominal amount, none of the financial
analyses completed to date anticipated revenue from this property.
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation
October 4, 2006
Page 3
Provide staff with direction regarding EBRPD's request that the ARRA enter into a $1 per year,
minimum 20 -year lease for all, or a portion, of the 26 -acre triangle park so that the District can
access $250,000 in Proposition 12 funds to undertake Phase 1 improvements at the site. An
additional $250,000 of Measure AA funds will be committed for a total project budget of
$500,000.
By:
Attachment: Phase I Project Description Map
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
er
Acting Alameda Point Project Manager
'Z*ZhvRAT
Anne LIMA comment for this evening's Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit Mtmg (Oct. 4th
From: "Pamela S Telschow" <pstelschow @alamedanet.net>
To: <lakil @ci.alameda.ca.us >, <alima @ci.alameda.ca.us>
Date: 10/4/2006 5:51:30 PM
Subject: comment for this evening's Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Mting (Oct.
4th)
Please provide copies of my statement to the board members this evening.
I am making every effort to be able to attend the meeting this evening and
read the statement myself. If you do not hear me speak, I would really
appreciate if you could read my comments into the public record this evening
during the public comment period.
Thank you,
Pam Telschow (pronounced Tell- show (like "show and tell ")
resident of Alameda since 1992
phone # 1(510)865 -0206
1 have watched with interest and concern the redevelopment efforts for the
old Alameda Air Station /Alameda Point as well as other recent development
activities around town.
There is a lot of controversy in Alameda right now about development and how
it proceeds. Why do we keep ending up with new development that we all
agree looks alien compared to the rest of the town that we love? I would
like to hear from you - perhaps in an article or letter to the local paper:
an answer to the question: Why is one master developer the best way to
proceed with this project? "Just because that is how most development is
done these days" - is not an acceptable answer!
I urge the City Council to view the recent pull out of the Alameda Point
Community Partners development group as an opportunity for the City of
Alameda to take a fresh approach to this major development of out town.
Instead of making a deal with one master developer, I strongly urge you to
break the land into many, many different parcels of various sizes and sell
and /or lease them individually to many different developers and individuals.
The rest of mainland Alameda was not built by one master developer and
designed all at one time. A majority of the physical charm and character of
our island city can be traced to that fact. Why not follow the same
development method now? Why not sell one street to one developer, and the
next three blocks to another? Why not sell four lots here and four lots
there, to someone else. That person could use the same two house designs
for all eight of those lots and we would still be better off than if the
entire area were built by one company. Even though we were promised a
variety of architectural styles by the previous developer, we have all seen
construction of this type. The same basic materials are used and it all
ends up looking vaguely the same. Take a look at the development on Buena
Vista, on Atlantic or the old drive -in -movie lot now imagine acres and
acres of such development.
The city could come up with a master plan with zoning for
commercial /residential/civic area and the master grid street plan. Then,
allow buyers to purchase land zoned suitably for their desired development
use.
Anne LIMA comment for this evenin •'s Alameda Reuse and Redevelo • ment Authorit Min • Oct. 4th Pa • e
Would such an approach be more work for the City? Probably, but 1 think the
end result would more than justify the additional expense and effort.
Furthermore, by selling smaller lots, I believe the city would be able to
capture more of the value of the land to pay for the additional city
planning staff etc. that such an approach would require.
The environmental clean up costs could still be paid from the reveunes
received from land sales. If the $40 million is needed up front, perhaps
the city could issue bonds to finance the clean up and then repay the bonds
with the land sale proceeds. I think if a clear and coherent case was
transparently communicated to the community, you could get support for such
an approach. If not, then we all deserve what we get from simply selling
the entire area to one developer.
I look forward to reading more about this in the paper. I sincerely hope
you will address my question: Why is one master developer the best way to
proceed with this project?
Pam Telschow
resident of Alameda since 1992