1994-07-13 ARRA Minutes"
M~1.iTES
OF THE
ALA.vIEDA REl~SE Ai~D REDEVELOPMENT ACTHORITY
·wednesday, July 13, 1994
5:00 p.m.
The meeting convened at 5 : 15 p.m . with Chair Mayor E . William Withrow, Jr. presiding .
I. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmember Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda :
Mayor Ellen Corbett. City of San Leandro ; Mr. Mark Friedman .
Aide to Supervisor Don Pera ta , District 3 ; Councilmember Karin
Lucas, City of Alameda: Vice-Mayor Richard Roth , City of
Alameda; Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director. 9th
Congressional District : Chair Mayor E . William Withrow, Jr..
City of Alameda; Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones, City of
Oakland . Absent : Councilman "Lil" Arnerich (District
Director Sandre Swanson arrived at 5 :25 p .m .; Councilmember
Dezie Woods-Jones arrived at 5:20 p.m . replacing her alternate
City of Oakland Project Director Barry Cromartie).
A . Approval of Minutes of May 19, 1994
Councilmember Karin Lucas moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of
May 19, 1994. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Richard Roth and
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
II. AGENDA ITEMS:
A . Designation of Each Authority Member of His/Her Proxy
Councilmember Karin Lucas requested that the nomination of her proxy be
delayed until the next meeting.
Mr. Mark Friedman reported that he would be the proxy for Supervisor Don
Pera ta.
Mayor Ellen Corbett reported that her proxy would be Kent Myers, Vice-Mayor
of San Leandro.
I
I
I
n
0
Chair Wi[hrow rep o rted (hJ( hi s prox y wo uld be :Vlr Lee P e rez. Chainm.n t)f the
Ba s e Reu s e Ad v iso ry Group (BR.-\G )
Ba rry Cromanie rep o rted (har C ouncilmember Dezi e Wt )t)J s -fone s ha t.I t.:ht l~L':~
him a s her prox y (s he had nor arri ved yer (0 (he meering J.
V ic e-May or Roth rep o rted that he al so wo uld like the nomination o f hi s p ro.\y rt'
be delay ed until the next meeting and asked for discus s ion regarding the p ro.\:
issue. He requested that there be some guidelines given regarding proxie s. as in
the case of the City of Oakland . there was already a proxy representing a pro xy.
(\.fay or Elihu Harris appointed as the Reuse Authority Member who in turn
designated Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones as his represem:iti ve . who in turn
designated Barry Cromanie as her prox y .)
Chair Withrow stated that the prox y selection needed to be recorded for futur e
meetings .
Mark Friedman suggested that. as in the case of Oakland. where the Aurh ori[\·
Member has designated their proxy. an alternate may be designated to anend for
the proxy , but have no voting pri v ileges (an ex-officio member).
Chair Withrow agreed wirh Mr. Friedman· s suggestion that there could be a
member. a proxy , and an alternate for the proxy with no voting privileges.
Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones stated that it was certainly the intent o f the
City of Oakland that either the Mayor or Councilmember Woods-Jones \vould
make every effort to attend the Reuse Authority meetings. She stated that at rhe
lase Authority meeting , proxy selection and guidelines were discussed . and asked
whether these guidelines had been established . She added that the Ci[y of
Oakland would be supportive of the Member and the Member 's proxy be in g
v oting members , and any alternate to the proxy could participate at the meering
to gather information but not vote .
Chair Withrow asked the Assistant City Attorney, Heather McLaughlin, whether
the issue of a consistent policy for the assignment of proxies could be voted on
at the present time .
Ms . McLaughlin stated that the issue should be placed on the next agenda . She
reported that the Joint Powers Agreement states that each Member can appoint
one alternate, but that it could be interpreted that an alternate could appoim an
alternate .
2
B . Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolwion
Establishing the Powers and Authority of the Executive Direcwr, rhe SecrerarY.
the Finance Director and rhe General Counsel
Councilmember Karin Lucas moved approval of the resolution. The motion wa s
seconded by Vice-Mayor Richard Roth. and carried by a unanimous voice vote .
C. RepQrt from the Er.ecurive Director Recommending Adoprion of the Pro curemem
Policy for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Vice-Mayor Richard Roth asked the Assistant City Attorney whether the
Procurement Policy was basically the same as the City of Alameda 's .
Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin reported that it is the same as the
City's but improved, taking into account the federal rules . She added that she
had made some minor clerical changes to the agreement (for clarity) and
requested that these changes also be approved.
Councilmember Karin Lucas stated that several of the Councilmembers were
approached by local merchants when this item was on the City Council agenda
regarding local preference and asked why, on page 70 of the Procurement Policy,
there was a section stating that "local and state geographical preferences shall be
avoided".
Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin stated that this 1s a federal
requirement.
Councilmember Lucas requested that this policy be clarified that when state or
local funds are being used that local preference be given .
Mr. Mark Friedman agreed, and asked that a clause be added to the Procurement
Policy stating that "where legally possible, we will give local preference". The
area of local preference was defined as those jurisdictions being represented on
the Reuse Authority .
Vice-Mayor Roth stated that the federal government is considering taking action
regarding money spent on base closures being spent in the regional area , and if
this should happen, a local preference would then be permiss1ble .
Councilmember Woods-Jones stated that there were no specific goals for
Affirmative Action within the Procurement Policy . She stated that Oakland has
a more specific policy delineating goals set for 303 local hire, 253 for minority
!. .1
hire , etc. She then asked whether the Members of the Authority could get l
reports regarding success of the affirmative action plans . .. I
3
n
0
D .
Chair Withrow requested that the Executive Directer furnish regular reports
regarding affirmative action to the Members of the Authority . He felt that the
issue should be addressed on a case by case basis. The Reuse Office should
monitor the affirmative action goals through reports. and give direction at
appropriate times .
Mr. Mark Friedman stated that he would like to reserve the opporrunity for the
Authority to amend the Procurement Policy if this "loose approach to Affirmative
Action" does not accomplish what it should .
Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson agreed with the comments and asked whether the
Authority needed a working committee or sub-committee on procurement to flush
out ideas so that the interaction is not always formal on these types of questions .
Vice-Mayor Richard Roth moved to approve the Procurement Policy with the
understanding that changes could be made in the future ; that a clause be added
stating that "where legally possible, we will give local preference"; and, that an
operating committee be formed in the future of less than a quorum of the
members, and to work on an ad hoc basis to review and advise the Reuse
Authority on procurement issues .
The motion was seconded by Mayor Ellen Corbett, and carried by unanimous
voice vote.
Repon from the Executive Director Regarding the Assignment of the Ciry of
Alameda's Grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin stated that at the special City
Council meeting prior to the Reuse Authority meeting, a resolution was adopted
assigning authority for implementation of the City's OEA grant to the Reuse
Authority.
For background purposes, Don Parker reported that on March 28, 1994, the
Office of Economic Adjustment, the federal DOD office responsible for planning
grants to undertake base conversion, approved a grant request from the City of
Alameda for $581, 000 for the period of November 1, 1993, to October 31, 1994 .
In the Bylaws of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, there is a
requirement that the Reuse Authority adopt a budget within sixty (60) days of
formation, and the Reuse Authority will eventually apply directly to OEA and
become its own fiscal agent with its own budget (after October 31, 1994). In the
interim, in order to initiate planning activities underway through the work of a
consultant, the City of Alameda assigns responsibility for grant implementation
to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. The City is not assigning
4
the funds or the grant itself. but the responsibilit y for the implementation of the
grant funds . This step is necessary before the Reuse Authority can take action
on the consultant selection.
Vice-Mayor Roth requested that the contract with the consultant be written so that
the City of Alameda does not get stuck holding a bill that it cannot pay if OEA
does not provide all the funding for the consultant .
Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin agreed that this would be included
in the contract.
Vice-Mayor Roth moved for approval of the assignment of the City of Alameda ·s
grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority .
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mark Friedman , and carried by a unanimous
voice vote.
E. Report from the Er.ecutive Regarding Adoption of Base Conversion Budget by the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Until the Authority Submits Its Own
Budget to GEA (Fall 1994)
Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin reported that under the Joint Powers I J
Authority Agreement, the Reuse Authority is required to adopt a budget within
60 days of its formation, and that the recommendation is for the Reuse Authority
to, in the interim, adopt the Base Conversion Office Budget until the Reuse
Authority submits its own budget in the fall.
Councilmember Woods-Jones moved that the Reuse Authority adopt the Base
Conversion budget until it submits its own budget to OEA in the fall of 1994 .
The motion was seconded by Karin Lucas , and carried by a unanimous voice
vote .
F. Report from Executive Director Recommending Approval of Selection of
Consultant and Authorization for Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a
Contract
Mr. Parker , Executive Director, introduced Mr. Paul Tuttle, Reuse Authority
Planner , who presented the staff report and recommendation on the consultant
selection process.
Paul Tuttle reported that the original budget approved for this project was
$950,000 for the consultant's work, $300,000 of which was allocated in this
current fiscal year ending October 31, 1994.
5
l_
I
n
D
u
The consultam selection process was carried out in two phases : 1) the issuing o f
the Request for Proposals (RFP): and. 2) the consultam selection process itself.
An RFP Staff Committee was formed to develop the RFP: and the RFP was
re v ie w ed by OEA and the East Ba y Con version and Reinvestment Commi ss ion
(EBCRC) Staff. A Pre -Proposal Conference was held on May 16 . 1994, in viting
consul tams to submit a proposal by the deadline of June 7, 1994 . The Base
C o nversion Office received seven excellem proposals on the deadline date .
The second phase was carried out in three major steps : · 1) the review of the
proposals that were submitted ; 2 ) interviews of a select group of proposals
(teams); and , 3) follow-up interviews with the top two teams . The proposal
re v iew was conducted by a re view committee made up of City Scaff , the Project
Director of the EBCRC , Bill Tuohy , and David MacKinnon of the Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA) as an observer and information resource . At the
committee meeting a short list was prepared . Proposals were read and rated , and
the three top teams were selected for interviewing from the original seven
proposals .
The interview process consisted of an interview panel made up of City Staff,
Doug deHaan, Chair of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Reuse
Subcommittee , Helen Sause , Chair of the BRAG Economic Development
Subcommittee, and Allen Dones , a Commissioner from the EBCRC. Through
the interview process, two top teams were selected for follow-up interviews. At
chis point , the Executive Director, Don Parker, and Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner ,
went to the offices of these two top teams and conducted follow-up interviews
lasting three to four hours each . Following these interviews EDA W was selected
and is recommended as the Consultant for the Reuse Plan and Interim Reuse
Strategy .
The planning process involves five major phases : 1) Reconnaissance Phase ; 2)
Trends and Analysis of Existing Conditions Phase ; 3) Interim Reuse Strateg y
Phase; 4) Development and Analysis of Alternatives Phase ; 5) Adoption of the
Final Community Reuse Plan Phase.
The Minority/Woman Owned Business Participation of the EDAW team is over
34 3 total with the minority owned business participation over 6 3. The
budget/proposal was not a major consideration in the selection; however, EDA W
was the lowest proposal at $953 ,667.
The schedule proposes a planning process lasting approximately 16 months to
meet the deadline of December 1995 . As currently envisioned, the schedule
involves four major public participation events happening at key stages in the
process .
6
In conclusion. Mr. Tuttle . reported that the choice was a difficult one because the
top three proposals and the team composition were all excellent. The executi ve
director recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
approve the selection of EDA W as the lead consultant for the reuse planning
process and that the Executive Director be authorized to negotiate and execute a
contract.
Councilmember Karin Lucas asked how EDA W was proposing to interact with
the Reuse Authority .
Reuse Authority Planner Paul Tuttle explained that as pan of the public
panicipation process , there are regularly scheduled meetings with the Reuse
Authority and the BRAG throughout the five phases . The current proposal
includes seven (7) meetings with the Reuse Authority. In addition, there have
been eight (8) meetings scheduled with the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG)
with three or four of these being large, public workshops where the whole
community will be asked to panicipate . There will also be three (3) presentations
to the EBCRC for information and feedback purposes.
Executive Director Don Parker added that these scheduled meetings are subject
to change based on the needs of the community and the Reuse Authority .
Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson stated that he was very impressed with the
involvement of staff and the different organizations involving the EBCRC and
hoped that, as a strategy, consultants could advise staff on how best to direct the
EBCRC 's activities so that it would be helpful .
Mr. Mark Friedman requested John Petrovsky, EDA W Consultant , to indicate
which members of the team are women and minority owned firms, and location
of the firms .
John Petrovsky reported that EDAW is headquartered in San Francisco , Bay
Area Economics-Berkeley; Fehr & Peers Transportation-Lafayette; Moffatt &
Nichol Engineers -Walnut Creek and San Francisco; Harris & Associates-Concord ;
YEI Engineers-Hayward; Lamphier & Associates-Oakland; Zander & Associates-
Novato; Baseline Environmental-Emeryville with approximately 303 of the
contract is located in Alameda County in terms of the dollar amounts.
Planner Paul Tuttle further explained that Bay Area Economics is a woman-
owned firm, YEI is a minority -owned firm, Baseline Environmental is a woman-
owned firm, Zander & Associates is a woman-owned firm and Lamphier &
Associates is a woman-owned firm . Several of the sub-consultants working with
Bay Area Economics are also minority-owned firms including the Northbridge
Group and Kitahata Associates.
7
I 1
D
Speakers:
Euf!enie P. Thomson -President of TTE, Engineering, Inc .
Ms. Thomson expressed her concern regarding local preference in the consultant
selection process.
After discussion by the Members regarding the local preference hiring practices
of cities within the region , Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson suggested that if an y of
the current team members do not work out. that local firms should register
directly with the Reuse Authority and that every effort be made to integrate some
of these local firms into the process.
Mr. Mark Friedman suggested that the Reuse Authority approve the contract
subject to the Executive Director , Mr. Parker, and negotiate with the consultant
to increase participation of City of Alameda and Alameda County as well as
minority firms in the team .
Councilmember Woods-Jones agreed with Mr. Friedman regarding the direction
of Mr. Parker to negotiate upward local participation and suggested a list of firms
in the community be compiled for Mr . Parker to utilize in his negotiations .
Vice-Mayor Richard Roth suggested that the East Bay Conversion and
Reinvestment Commission could be a resource for this type of effort to compile
a list of qualified local, minority and woman owned firms .
Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson agreed that he would take the idea back to the
Commission for possible implementation .
Vice-Mayor Richard Roth moved that the Reuse Authority accept EDA W , the
consultant recommended by staff and authorize the executive director to negotiate
and execute the contract , subject to further negotiations by Don Parker with
EDA W in an effort to increase the minority and local firms participation in the
consultant team .
The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson and carried
unanimously with Chair Withrow voting a very reserved "aye".
G. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Appointment of the Superintendent of the
Alameda Unified School District to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Awhoriry as a non-voting, ex-officio member
8
Spe;,ikers:
Ardella Daile v -Assistant to the Superintendent for Transition Planning .
Alameda Cnified School District
Ms . Dailey reponed that she was in attendance at the meeting representing Mr.
Chaconas who is currently on vacation. According to Ms . Dailey. Mr. Chaconas
is imerested in issues regarding decisions that the Reuse Authority will make that
will directly impact the Alameda Unified School District as well as other school
districts in the area .
After discussion by the Authority members. Chair Withrow suggested to Ms.
Dailey that rather than having Mr. Chaconas as an ex-officio member . that he be
included in the day to day activities of the Reuse Authority Office .
Councilmember Appezzato moved that Mr. Chaconas be included on the Reuse
Authority as a non-voting ex-officio member.
Vice-Mayor Richard Roth stated that he was against the proposed ex -officio
member starus . Mr. Chaconas discussed the matter with him , and added that he
'~I I -
felt that the Reuse Authority does not need to begin the practice of ha v ing ex-I
1
officio members. As a governing body, the Reuse Authority would have a _
d ifficult time drawing the line, i.e., on ex-officio membership . Today it is the
Superintendent of Alameda Schools, tomorrow it could be Assemblywoman Lee ,
East Bay Regional Parks , Oakland Unified School District, etc.
Vice-Mayor Richard Roth moved that the matter be tabled to allow the
Superintendent to work with staff and if the staff arrangement is not satisfactory,
that the issue be placed on a future Reuse Authority agenda.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lucas , and carried by a unanimous
voice vote.
III . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
A . Don Parker reponed that the next meeting of the Reuse Authority is scheduled
for Wednesday, August 3, 1994, and recommended that two items be brought
forward on the next agenda : 1) ACET Proposal; and 2) Science City Proposal
in a Work Session.
The Reuse Authority discussed the process of reviewing proposals, and asked that
Don Parker , Executive Director, provide a staff summary and analysis of the
proposals for their Work Session .
9
n
D IV.
B. :"ieil Patrick Sweeney asked rhar rhe new consulram . EDA W. make comacrs wirh
rhe rw o local newspapers. rhe Alameda Times Srar and rhe Al a meda Jourm.1:
sraring thar rhe y are rhe onl y newspapers which ha ve been priming inforrnari o n
o n rhe base conversion activiries in Alameda . Mr. Sweene y also requesred that
information be provided to erhnic newspapers for those who do not s peak Engli s h .
so that the y can panicipate in the base c o nversion process .
C . Richard Nevelyn stated thar the reuse of the gun test facility has been appro ved
for reuse by the Navy but is currently in some type of conflict with the BRAC
laws . Mr. Nevelyn requested that the gun test facility proposal should also be
brought forward as something that the community wants on the next agenda . He
also suggesred that EDA W respond to public input more than the consultants have
done which are working with the EBCRC .
D . Tom Okey of Conservation Science Institute reported that his organization is a
non-profit group which promotes environmental education and scientific
exploration and investigation . Mr. Okey stated that there is tremendous
opportuniry with the base closure for environmental education that could coincide
with many of the other reuse options which have been put forward. His
organization will be submitting a proposal through the planning process .
Communications From Go verning Body
Members of the Authority requested that the meeting time of the Reuse Authority
meetings be placed on the next agenda .
V. Adjournment
Cha ir Withrow adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m .
Respectfully submitted,
. , } i
: .) I r. f / t5vr_ , ,r~ ·V'L , _ _.e ?!/[{ '-i.' 'f-j ' -;J {, I
Elizabeth Brydon
Secrerary
10