AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the ... · 04.10.2006 · Regular Meeting of the...

AGENDARegular Meeting of the Governing Body of theAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority

********

Alameda City HallCouncil Chamber, Room 3902263 Santa Clara A venue

Alameda, CA 94501

Wednesday, October 4 , 2006Meeting will begin at 7 :00 p.

ROLL CALL

CONSENT CALENDAR

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and wil be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless arequest for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a member of the public.

A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6 , 2006.

B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.

C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract agreement withWRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250 000 to complete Station Area planningactivities for Alameda Point

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS

A. Status Rep011 on East Bay Regional Park DistIict Request for Long-Term Lease.

B. Alameda Point Project Update.

ORAL REPORTS

A. Oral report from Member Matarrese , Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which thegoverning body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.

COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY

ADJOURNMENT

This meeting wil be cablecast live on channel 15.

ARRA Agenda - October 4, 2006

NotesSign language interpreters wil be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749-5800 atleast 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 ARA offices upon request.

APPROVEDMINUTES 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.

Present: Beverly Johnson , Chair, City of AlamedaDoug deHaan , Boardmember, City of AlamedaFrank Matarrese , Boardmember, City of AlamedaMade Gilmore , Boardmember, City of Alameda

ROLL CALL

CONSENT CALENDAR

Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda

Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 2 , 2006.

Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.

Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore , seconded by MemberdeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS

Recommendations to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Three-YearConsultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. in the amount of $325,000.

Leslie Little , Development Services Director, presented an overview of the Trident ManagementAgreement and the port services they provide to Alameda Point , primarily to MARAD and theNavy to Service the ships. Trident has been providing port services for Alameda Point sinceSeptember, 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 itsshare of the Trident sublease revenue. In the fall of 2004 , Trident and the City Manager (JimFlint) mapped out an agreement for a new five-year contract , which was never memorialized intoa 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 Cityand Trident

Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of why we did not go out to bid. Ms. Little explainedthat , since TIident was the inaugural port service provider, we tried very hard to work somethingout with them that was less expensive than what would havc been charged histoIically. Staffalso 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, 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 andpassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions -

ORAL REPORTS

A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.

Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow (9/7) and wil have a report inOctober.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)

There was one speaker, Elected East Bay Regional Park representative , Doug Siden , Alamcdaresident. Mr. Siden discussed as background that the EBRPD has been participating with theCity 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 beencalled Triangle Park (between the Hornet and the City s mini park along the shoreline). It hasalways been shown in the studies that this propeJ1y was going to be a parkland. In support of theCity s process , the EBRPD has applied to the State of California for a grant from Prop. 12monies , 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 , landtenure has to be secured by the end of this year, and the project has to be completed and themoney expended by the end of next year. So there wil be another planning process , but themoney wil be lost in terms of the City of Alameda using it at the Triangle Park, if it cannot beexpended by the end of next year. The Park Agency wil re-apply and be able to use the grantmoney somewhere else , but wil need to move forward on an alternative grant use because of thesame requirement of completing the project by next year. EBRPD would like to get stared withthe first p011ion of improvements to the Triangle Parle Included in their plans is to begincreating a grassy area for picnics, parking, and tie-in with the City park upgrade, with aninterpretive center. They would also like to showcase green building, install solar cells forenergy and upgrade for an aquatic center.

Mr. Siden also discussed Measure AA, a $225m bond with the first 25% going to cities based onpopulation. 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 itwould not be a new tax but rather a continuation of an existing measure.

Member Matan'ese and Chair Johnson asked what portion of TIiangle Park improvements the$250 000 would buy us. Referring to a map, Mr. Siden descIibed the lower end toward EncinalHigh School and the City s mini park and said that the EBRPD wil maintain it.

Member Matarrese asked the ARRA Executive Director, Debra Kurita , to get staff to work on away to accomplish us getting this investment in town. He expressed concern that the deadlinefor getting the land dedicated and completing the project is fast approaching and requested thisitem be moved up on the priority list and brought back to the ARRA Board.

Debra Kurita responded that staff wil agendize and bring this item back to the Board at its nextmeeting on October 4 , 2006.

6. COMMUNICA TIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODYNone.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.

Respectfully submitted

rma Glidden

ARRA Secretary

Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment AuthorityInteroffice Memorandum

October 4 , 2006

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of theAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority

FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director

SUBJ: Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point

Background

At the December 2004 ARR Board Meeting, the ARR elected to review and approve all subleases atAlameda 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 sqfoot for the shed. Makani Power is an alternative energy company that wil use Building 19 and theassociated shed for office and some light manufacturing of their product. Building 19 is the fanner airportcontrol 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-FreightExpress will relocate their corporate headquarters to Hangar 11 and use the high bay space for distributionof coffee beans and other related items. Hangar 11 is in good condition since its renovation in 1999.

Recommendation

Approve the proposed subleases.

By:

Leslie LittleDevelopment Services Director

A/I

NanetteFinance & Administration Manager

DK/LAL/NB :dc

Attachments: I. Proposed Sublease Business Terms2. Site Map

Honorable Chair and Members of theAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority

October 4 , 2006Page 2

ATTACHMENT "PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS

TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENTMakani Power Bldg 19 & 888 & 1 year with four $20 220/mo.

Shed 993 1- year options (includes shed)

Trans-Freight Express Bldg 11 110 561 60 months $23 218/mo.

:J :p

:p AIf :p

.---

Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment AuthorityInteroffce Memorandum

October 4 , 2006

TO:

FROM:

SUBJ:


Debra Kurita, Executive Director

Alameda Point Update

Background

The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (AR) has been working to integrate theformer Naval Air Station Alameda (Alameda Point) into the City of Alameda since the Navyannounced the base would be closed in 1993.

The AR has achieved numerous key milestones over the years including:

Completing a Community Reuse PIan 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 Agreementwith the Navy for conveyance ofthe property in 2000;Selecting a Master Developer in August 2001;Managing a leasing program at Alameda Point that generates over $10 million in revenuea year;Pursuant to Federal law, providing a homeless accommodation that includes housing for200 formerly homeless families;Undertaking a "new beginning" initiative with the Navy to expedite conveyance of theproperty in March 2004;Completing a community-based planning effort for Alameda Point that resulted in aPreliminary Development Concept in February 2006; andCompleting a draft term sheet for property conveyance with the Navy in June 2006.

On September 21 , 2006 , Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) informed the AR thatafter working with the ARR for the past five years on developing Alameda Point as the newestAlameda neighborhood, it was withdrawing as the master developer. APCP cited the continueddownturn in the residential market as the key reason for not moving forward. APCP indicatedthat the negotiated land price of $108.5 million could no longer be supported given the weakhomebuilding industry. APCP also expressed concern about its ability to secure environmentalinsurance for the project given the uncertain nature of the environmental industry. Obtainingenvironmental insurance is a key requirement of any deal involving early transfer and privatizedenvironmental clean-up of a portion of the property.

Honorable Chair and Members of theAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment AuthoIity

October 4 2006Page 2

Discussion

Chronology of Negotiations with the Navy

Following the initial rounds of base closures in 1988 and 1991 , the Defense Department and theCongress were faced with the challenge of disposing of "small cities" using the statutory andregulatory tools then available. Moreover, economic incentives could not be introduced into theprocess to address the primar complaint of communities , i.e. the need to spur job generation toreplace the lost Federal jobs. In response, the Congress, with the active support of the ClintonAdministration and the Defense Department enacted legislation that created the LocalRedevelopment Agency concept to comprehensively guide the disposal process. At the sametime, t hey authorized the disposal 0 fb ases a sac omprehensive single unit for j ob generatingpurposes the so-called "Economic Development Conveyance (EDC).

The early EDC negotiations between the Defense Department and the L RA' , including thosebetween the AR and the Navy, were very slow and complicated due to the need to "valuejobs against the fair market value of the surplus property, (i.e. each job is worth $2 500 as in thecase of the first Air Force EDC). To speed up the process, in 1999 Congress amended the EDCauthority to mandate that all EDC's would be at no cost , the "no-cost EDC." Not all disposalswere by EDC , but all EDCs were now at no cost. The AR' s renewed EDC negotiations wereconducted under this new regimen. And because job generation was the motivation for the EDCprocess , it was incumbent on all LRA's seeking a no-cost EDC to demonstrate that the reuse planwould generate jobs to replace those 10st due to the closure. Housing was not thought to generatepennanent jobs (only temporary construction jobs) and residential uses were therefore deemedineligible for inclusion in an EDC, other than those necessary to support the job generatingactivities.

In June 2000, the Navy and AR executed a N a-Cost Economic Development ConveyanceMemorandum of Agreement (EDC MOA) in accordance with amendments to the Federal BaseClosure Act. Those amendments were designed to aid communities adjacent to closing militaryinstallations recover ITom the closure by allowing the 10cal redevelopment authOlity to acquirethe surplus federal property at "no-cost" in exchange for generating jobs at the closedinstallation. In order to qualify for such a "no-cost" conveyance, the LRA was required toprepare and support a reuse pIan that favored job-generating activities over other land uses suchas residential development. In order to recover ITom the closure ofNAS Alameda, and to qualifyfor the "no-cost" Economic Development Conveyance, the AR' s 1998 EDC application madecertain development assumptions that favored job-generating activities (such as commercialdevelopment) over residential uses. In the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, the no-costEDCs were again made pennissive, and in subsequent legislation, Congress required the DefenseDepmiment to seek fair market value for all closed military property closed after January 2005.



In 2002 , as the City began work on a General PIan amendment to incorporate the CommunityReuse Plan policies and land uses into the General Plan, the Navy expressed concern over what itperceived as a discrepancy between the ratio of commercial and residential developmentidentified in the 1998 EDC Application as compared to the 2002 General Plan Amendment. (i.more residential construction and less commercial construction). As a result of analyzing the2002 General P Ian Amendment, the Navy questioned whether A RR remained eligible for aNo-Cost" EDC conveyance.

The AR asserted its continued eligibility to receive the property at no cost. However, inJanuary, 2004, the Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy sent the AR a letter asking it tofonnally submit an amendment to its EDC application based on the newly amended GeneralPlan. The letter did not indicate a timeframe for reviewing and acting upon the amendedapplication. The letter further stated that without such an amendment, the Navy could notcontinue to work with the AR. In lieu of AR submitting an amendment to its EDCapplication, 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 AR thatthe negotiations would be streamlined, consistent with its current practice of conveying propertybased on fair market value, and focused on an early transfer.

The AR, working with its master developer, detennined that negotiating a land price with theNavy would provide a quicker resolution to property conveyance than protracted efforts toconvince the Navy that the AR was still eligible for a no-cost conveyance when the Navywould be the final decision maker regarding the AR' s eligibility for a program it no longerembraced. The AR' s goal was to expeditiously receive property that could be cleaned up andput into active reuse to provide the community with jobs, affordable housing, new recreationalopportunities, enhanced open space and access to the waterfront, and a vibrant newneighborhood. This goal could be jeopardized ifthe Navy did not act timely on an amended EDCapplication.

The Navy s desire to obtain economic value for the property was consistent with changes innational policy relating to developing closed military installations. While the Congress andDepartment of Defense supported a subsidy to communities surrounding closed militaryinstallations previously, by 2003 , it was clear that the Federal Governent would seek "fairmarket value" for all base closure property. In fact, by 2004 , the Defense Base Closure Act wasmodified toe liminate all" no-cost" economic d evelopment conveyance for 2 005 c losures. InMarch 2004, the AR and Navy announced a "new beginning" to develop a tenn sheet forproperty conveyance and prepare a conceptual land pIan that supported a negotiated land pricefor the property.

The AR, in a joint effort with APCP , prepared a land plan and project pro fonna that wasdeemed economically viable by APCP and included a land purchase price to the Navy of$108.million. $40.3 million of the land purchase price was an in-kind contribution for environmentalclean up of Phase 1 (approximately 300 acres in the northeast comer of Alameda Point). Theremaining $65.2 milion would be paid over time and would be tied to the Navy s clean up ofPhase 2 land. The Navy proposed to retain ownership to a third phase of the property foralternate disposal at fair market value to a third party. The land price, negotiated over a two-year

Honorable Chair and Members oftheAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority


period, was contained in a draft term sheet that was completed in June 2006. Neither the Navynor the AR formally approved the term sheet.

APCP

APCP has been the AR' s master developer since its selection through a competitive processin August 2001. APCP is a consortium of two homebuilders , Shea Homes and Centex Homesand one commercial developer, Shea Properties. In November 2003 , the AR and APCPentered into a Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA). The CAA required the AR undertake a community-based land planning process to refine the Community Reuse Plan and tonegotiate a tenn sheet for property conveyance with the Navy.

The CAA anticipated a project pro forma that would provide fiscal neutrality for the City, asports complex, various community buildings, affordable housing, preservation of historicstructures , and other community amenities. The CAA also provided a minimum economic returnto APCP. The CAA stipulated that if the agreed upon economic rcturn was not achieved basedon the negotiated term sheet, APCP would have an opportunity to re-evaluate its commitment tothe proj ect.

Over the last 24 months, APCP was actively involved in negotiating the term sheet with theAR and Navy and in preparing the Preliminary Development Concept that contained a landpIan and program that was the basis of the project pro forma. APCP agreed to the $108. 5 millionland price as described above. Unfortunately, in the six months between agreeing on the landprice and finalizing the draft term sheet, the residential market across the country began a rapiddecline that continues today. In June 2006, the AR notified APCP that it had completed itstwo obligations under the CAA and that APCP had 60 days to elect to proceed with the project.

While APCP provided the AR with a conditional election to proceed in August, 30 days laterit terminated its involvement in the project citing the inability to support a $108.5 million landpIice in the curent housing market. With the AR' s obligation to prepare a PDC and negotiatea term sheet concluded, it was estimated that it would take another 24 months to entitle theproperty and perfect the conveyance. That timeline and uncertainty regarding the ability tosecure environmental insurance and project entitlements, along with a requirement to spend $5-$7 million, was deemed too risky by APCP.

Recommended Initial Next Steps

AR staff has met with the Navy to discuss going forward with property conveyance now thatAPCP has withdrawn from the project. While APCP determined that the project was noteconomically feasible given the negotiated land price, a number of developers have expressedinterest in the project. The project, as outlined in the draft term sheet, may be economicallyviablc for another developer with a different approach to entitlement risk, with funding that isappropriate 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



and at the end of that time period a conclusion is reached (e. , a new developer is identified or itis determined that there i s nod eveloper interest) and i f t he process i s focused 0 n identifyingdeveloper interested in signing on to the previously negotiated $108. 5 million land purchasepnce.

The RFQ process would involve notifying the development community of the opportunity toevaluate the draft term sheet, PDC and other relevant documentation and determine interest insubmitting qualifications and financial information to support the developer s ability to assumethe 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 otheruseful information for determining interest in the project.

Developers submitting a Statement of Qualifications would be required to post a non- refundablefee of $20 000. The Statement of Qualifications would be evaluated by staff and an economicconsultant to select the most qualified developer to recommend to the AR Board for anexclusive due diligence period to determine interest in the project. The selected developer wouldbe required to deposit $100 000 with the AR, which would be non-refundable if the developerdoes not elect to go forward. Depending on the number of Statements of Qualifications receiveda number two and number three developer may be identified in the event the first developerdeclines to go forward. It is anticipated that this process wil take 90- 120 days.

In the event that a developer is not identified within a set time period, the Navy and AR willcooperatively explore alternate disposal strategies. The Navy s most likely strategy would besome sort of public sale of the property. There are several issues that would need to be resolvedif any form of public auction were to be viable as a conveyance strategy. One key issue is thatmuch of the base is encumbered with the State Tidelands Trust. Tidelands Trust lands belong tothe State of California and the City acts as trustee of those lands. These lands cannot be sold toanyone other than the State or the City of Alameda as the designated trustee. There is existingState legislation that permits the City to reconfigure the Tidelands Trust property in a mannerthat permits a rational reuse of the former Base property, but that legislation requires that title ofall of the property flow through the City.

Another issue is that the Navy would prefer to auction the property in "as is" condition prior tocompletion of the environmental remediation activities on the property. Alameda Point is afederal Superfund Site so both the federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EP A) and theCalifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) have regulatory authority over thisproperty if it is conveyed by the Navy before all necessary actions to protect the public healthand environment have been taken. Support of these environmental regulators for a publicauction of property that has not been remediated has yet to be determined. In addition, it wouldneed to be to determined if the Navy could convey land to the AR for purposes of theTidelands Trust exchange if that land has not been previously cleaned up. The Navy wouldexplore these, and other, issues during an RFQ process, but would not act on an alternatedisposal strategy until the conclusion of the RFQ process.



Fiscal Impact

The AR adopted a FY 2006-07 budget that included a contingency budget in the event thatthe master developer did not move forward with the project in this fiscal year. Therefore, theAR has the funds to pay for its obligations including staff costs , property management, debtservice on bonds , etc. during the current fiscal year (Attachment A). The $3.5m bond issued toassist in pre-development has a remaining balance of approximately $322 006 (Attachment B).The AR wil continue with its active inteIim leasing program that generates approximately$10 million a year and supports the AR' s obligations. The requirement to post a non-refundable fee in the event a developer selection process goes forward will allow that process topay for itself.

The AR wil review its FY 07-08 budget and detem1ine if any adjustments are required.

Recommendation

Authorize the Executive Director to initiate a Request for Qualifications process to select asubstitute master developer for Alameda Point as described above.

Respectfully submitted

David BrandtAssistant City Manager

By:

Attachments: A: AR cash flow ('05- ' 17) and staffing levelsB: AP Bond Proceeds Project Expenditure Report

AR

RA

Lea

se R

even

ue C

ash

Flo

w (

2005

- 201

7)

Item

Tot

al20

05/0

620

0610

720

07fO

B20

08/0

920

09/1

020

10/1

120

11/1

220

1211

320

13/1

420

14/1

520

1511

620

16/1

7

170,

590

222,

224

636.

734

173

384

825

036

879

604

383.

323

$10J

51 0

22

RE

VE

NU

ES

cU!

Lea

se R

even

ues

$126

129

301

$10

656,

674

$9,0

15,8

08$9

,286

282

564

871

MARAD Revenue

MARAD WBrehouse

Rev

enue

Tot

al L

ease

Rev

enue

$12

912

674

$11

285,

488

511

624

053

Tot

al R

even

ue$2

30,7

5404

8$1

762

726

4$1

6,50

7,71

251

5,89

427

5$1

605

439

1$1

6.59

6,66

6$1

7,33

865

0$1

8,25

635

7$1

9,30

0,49

9$2

0,75

933

0$2

2,39

280

4$2

4.10

8,32

5$2

5,91

777

4

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

ES

AP

Prop

erty

Man

agem

ent (

06/0

7 no

pori

cos

ts)

AP

Wat

erO

&M

fRep

air of

Wat

er S

yste

mU

rban

Run

off

F'ee

- AP/

FISC

,..

-+00

-'1)0

$218

, 545

$225

102

$231

855

$238

810

$436

000

$436

000

$436

, 000

$436

,000

$436

, 000

$436

000

$436

,000

$436

,000

Clu

b Im

prov

emen

ts$2

25,0

00B

uild

ing

1 A

lum

inum

W

indo

w R

epai

rs.

$144

000

(at

and

Mai

nlen

ance

Cos

Insu

ranc

ePo

rt S

ervi

ces

Boo

m P

urch

ase/

Rep

air

PiR

r M

ainU

Rep

air

men

l Fun

d49

406

6$1

0000

0na

nce

jght

ing

$18

000

Subt

otal

$69,

406,

686

$6,6

95, 0

3887

0,40

028

614

215

443

555

,287

847

$5.4

53,1

49$5

,889

. 105

131

344

257

141

ct E

xoen

rflf

llres

to

Mun

icip

al S

ervi

c:es

Bui

ldin

g &

Gro

unds

Mai

nten

ance

$267

347

$283

,628

$309

,928

$319

,226

$328

, 803

$338

,667

Mun

icip

al S

ervi

ce Fe

e (i

nfla

ted

at 2

%)

$2,1

0577

019

0,84

3Sp

orts

Com

plex

Lib

rary

Add

itona

l Pub

lic W

orks

$551

668

$569

, 857

$200

000

Bon

d D

eblS

elV

lce

Insu

ranc

e(0

6107

il1

Crc

;!sc

for

phor

wII

T-

fecs

)

Prof

. Ser

vice

sC

ityw

ide

Dev

elop

men

t Fee

Ope

ratio

n D

igni

ty Pa

ymen

tA

PIP

Ove

rage

$494

302

Subt

otal

$79,

436,

002

710

002

3B70

90$6

,526

,517

$6,6

35,2

-17

$6,6

7208

5$6

,712

118

$0,8

30,,3

2$6

,648

392

$6,7

73,5

3900

0,78

9$7

225,

959

$l ,3

53, 1

34A

RR

A B

ond

Tot

ed Obl

igat

ion

" $26

, 060

,554

Tot

al E

;ope

nd!t

ures

Net

Im

pact

(R

ev. l

ess

Exp

.$1

48, 8

4268

8$1

26, 1

29,3

01$1

2,40

504

0

$507

634

$12.

237,

490

$952

002

$11,

tHZ

, 658

$188

, 606

$11

789,

682

$183

092

$11

959,

932

$372

,025

$12

165,

266

$536

650

$12

431,

321

$651

,653

$12.

420,

895

054

567

$12

662

645

$1,2

17,0

82$1

300

9,48

128

663

7

Rev

el1u

e Gro

wth

al3%

in p

ayin

g City

wid

e D!)

velo

pmen

l Fe

e: fo

r 1

Mai

ncal

n AP

Pmje

:cf

Man

agem

pnl cost

s m

prop

owd le

vel 8S

dev

elop

N $

450,

000

No

knd"

lor

mun

;(:;p

al

ovpm

l. \5po

rt"

com

plex

,lib

rary

, PW)

t!m

fiR

WfR

;r!-

emer

"en(

:;P&

ATTACHMENT A

$13

357

303

367

699

$13,

610

275

555,

477

ARRA Funded Positions

PositionDSD DirectorA.P. Project ManagerAdministrative Services CoordinatorBase Reuse Division ManagerFinance & Administration Division ManagerTotal FTE

* ARRA contributes $30,000 annually to the Assistant City Manager Position

FTE0.40

AP

Proj

ect E

xpen

ditu

reD

ec 2

003

- S

ep 2

006

2006

4thO

uart

er

Lan

d U

se P

lann

inO

utsi

de C

onsu

ltant

sPa

ge &

Tur

nbul

l23

,128

777.

2316

1 I $

10' 0

300.

1 $

- 1$

EN

GE

O3,

703.00 $

17,4

32,70 $

879.68 $

954.00 $

594.93 $

RO

MA

88,2

47.50 $

118,

427.

42 $

176

093.69 $

129,

631.08 $

217,

529.30 $

729.

19 $

088.

51 1

$00

0.00

.1 $

888.

ED

AW

780.

Con

glet

on82

9.59 $

892.08 $

278.

Subt

olal

88,2

47.50 $

154

088.

227

976.

159,

0207

01 $

228

513.

35\ $

324.

12 I

$08

8.51

I $

000.

,0.01

$88

8.

Con

vean

ceO

utsi

de C

onsu

ltant

sFe

nlon

Com

mun

icat

ions

271.

Ferg

uson

Gro

up60

,033

,34 $

013.06 $

35,0

07.72 $

000.00 $

20,0

90.4

5N

orth

gate

Env

iron

men

tal/R

usse

ll R

esou

rces

845.

45 $

71,7

01.2

2 $

339.

5113

2.81

,444

, 26 $

580.21 $

193,76 $

18,1

31.53 $

36,7

55.94 $

27,9

39.

Out

side

Leg

al69

8.70 $

22,5

94,90 $

11,5

40.55 $

487.27 $

317.

LFR

72,0

4186 $

57,8

00.99 $

32,8

58.39 $

20,3

96.68 $

015.

996.

46 $

040.

KM

A44

8.04 $

1,47

9.28

EPS

24,0

59.95 $

993.72 $

51,7

77.65 $

957.28 $

0090

40

523.20 $

943.75 $

917.20 $

045.

1 $

319.

PSE

660.00 $

18,8

38.75 $

040.00 $

20,4

61.

Tra

vel

368.

86 $

124.97 $

331,00 $

94.

Subt

o/al

143

755.64 $

202,

972.25 $

179,

993.33 $

243,

860.15 $

Thi

rd P

art C

onsu

ltant

Sub

tota

l14

375

5.64 $

291,

219.75 S

334

081.35 S

471,

836.23 S

AR

RA

Int

erna

l Cos

tsD

irec

! St

aff

Plan

ning

15,0

00.00 $

000.00 $

15,0

00.00 $

000.00 $

15,0

00,00 $

000.00 $

15,0

00.00 $

15,0

00.00 $

000.00 $

000.00 $

Publ

ic W

orks

50

0.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

500.00 $

Leg

alPM

Off

ce39

564,

46 $

3973

6.35 $

46,5

56.82 $

40.6

85.03 $

48,0

37,03 $

4131

1,34 $

48,4

31.33 $

19,6

95.74 $

777,62 $

205

SUb/

U/d

l22

,500

,00 $

62,0

64.4

6 $

236.35 $

69,0

56.82 $

185.03 $

70,6

37.03 $

63,8

11,34 $

931.33 $

195.74 $

277.62 $

695.

61 I

$

Serv

ices

& S

uppl

ies

311.72 $

325.93 $

980.28 $

242.67 $

710.42 $

7,41

6,95 $

886.84 $

329,35 $

780.

610.

49 $

598.

Proj

ect M

anag

emen

t Adv

isor

y/B

arne

s &

Com

pany

880,00 $

65,6

24.

799.

44,0

81.19 $

695.

47 $

44,8

40.

Subt

otal

122

691.72 $

134,

015.20 $

126

016.04 $

119

380.68 $

118

590.92 $

122,

793.98 $

698.18 $

260.68 $

50,9

76.35 $

33,8

88.

294.

22 I

$

Con

tinge

ncy

076.

1,48

5.00 $

Tot

al C

osts

266

447.36 $

427

310.95 $

460,

097.39 S

591

216.

478,

958.52 $

469

241.

40 S

123

556.

49 1

S12

3.41

3.43

1 $

137,

733.

1 s

80,0

72.

1 $

885.

1 $

Inc:

lude

::Dec

:em

ber2

003

:1 Con

sulta

nts co

st a

re f

or mon

th b

lUed, n

ot w

hen fu

nds

wer

e draw

n for

pay

mer

t

9/28

/200

63:3

1PM

g:/c

omde

v/co

ntra

cVA

Pfex

pend

lturn

s


October 4 2006

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of theAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment AuthoIity

FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director

RE: Recommendation to AuthoIize the Executive Director to Execute a Contract Agreementwith WRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the Amount of $250 000 to complete Station Area PlanningActivities for Alameda Point

Background

In July 2005 , the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency (ARRA) was awarded a Station AreaPlanning Grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the amount of $221 000 forfurther planning activities to support transit oriented development at Alameda Point. In order to qualify forthe grant , a minimum local matching grant of II-percent is required. Alameda County TransportationImprovement 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 wil be paid by City ofAlameda.

Discussion

In early 2004 , ARRA initiated an 18-month community planning effort to engage the Alameda communityin developing a detailed development program and transp011ation plan for Alameda Point. The ARRABoard accepted the resulting Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (P DC) and TransportationPlan in February 2006. The PDC land use plan recommends relocating the Main Street ferry terminal to anew Seaplane Lagoon Town Center at the terminus of Atlantic Street. The new transit station wil providefeny service to San Francisco , shuttle and bus service to the Street BART station , and create car-share

and bicycle facilities. The station wil be located adjacent to proposed neighborhood retail and communityservices , restaurants , museums , and waterfront open spaces. The PDC document also lists a seIies of "nextsteps" processes required for implementation , which include additional land use and transp0l1ation studiesin coordination with the public to make sure that the new development meets the requirements forsupporting the transit solutions proposed in the PDC.

MTC Grant: MTC has adopted a policy of supporting transit oriented development, which entailsproviding a mix of housing and jobs near transit to make the transit effective. The MTC Station AreaPlanning Grant wil fund preparation , review , and adoption of transit oriented zoning requirementsdevelopment cIiteIia , and public improvement standards to implement the PDC and direct the designreview , entitlement , and implementation of the full range of mixed uses envisioned. The recommendedscope of work wil articulate station area access and circulation plans , transit Iidership estimates , minimum



building heights and residential densities , maximum and required shared parking standards , required transitand bicycle facilities , minimum Alameda Point homeowner and business association dues to supp0l1 transitoperations , and other key criteria to ensure the development is transit-supportive, pedestrian-fIiendly, andresults in the truly unique place envisioned in the General Plan.

Prior ARRA AuthoIization : In April 2006 , the ARRA Board authorized the Executive Director to executea Grant Agreement with MTC in the amount of $221 ,000 for a Station Area Planning Grant for AlamedaPoint , execute a Funding Agreement with ACTIA for $25,415 and provide $3 585 currently budgeted forplanning activities for the purpose of contracting for professional planning expertise to complete theStation Area Planning activities. The ACTIA grant is intended to fund a p01iion of the local match requiredby the MTC grant , using Measure B funds. The $25,415 amount granted is less than the required localmatch amount of $29 000. Therefore , the $3 585 balance of the required local match wil be paid by Cityof Alameda.

Funding Source Amount PercentageMTC $221 000 88.40%ACTIA $25,415 10. 17% *City of Alameda 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 thefulfilment of the MTC Grant Agreement s scope of work. The City received two (2) proposals forprofessional services in response to the RFP. On June 19 2006 a multi-disciplinary selection team of stafffrom the City, Water Transit Authority, AC Transit and Alameda Point Community Parners interviewedthe two consultant teams. The selection team unanimously agreed that the WRT/Solomon ET.e. team wasmost qualified and best prepared to provide the necessary services. WRT/Solomon E.T.e.:

1) Committed significantly more time from their firm s principals to the project.2) Possessed better public outreach and paricipation skils.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 , Richmondand Sacramento.

Based upon their excellent qualifications , the Alameda Point Land Use Team is recommending that theconsultant team led by WRT/Solomon E. e. provide the professional planning services for thedevelopment, review and adoption of the Station Area Master Plan at Alameda Point. The attachedcontract, which includes a budget not to exceed $250 000 wil provide ARRA with the following pIimaryserVIces:



Review existinf? plans and coordinate the direction of technical work WRT/Solomon E.T.C. wil reviewand assess the existing background infonnation available regarding the site constraints , opportunities , andregulatory requirements in order to identify and address any critical gaps in background information/datathat wil need to be addressed. WRT/Solomon ET.C. wil coordinate the work of the technical sub-consultants to ensure that necessary infonnation is available at the appropriate time to infonn thepreparation of the mateIial and the community engagement process.

Prepare all necessary studies, alternative land use plans for discussion, final plans, zoning and zoningdiaf?rams, and desif?n f?uidelines WRT/Solomon ET.e. wil prepare specific work products identified anddescIibed in the approved MTC grant application. WRT/Solomon ET.e. wil generate progress reportsand informational presentations analyzing key issues , as well as alternative development conceptsemphasizing resolution of key issues , comparative analysis and assessment of alternative Station Area Planconcepts , a final consensus-based Plan and related reports as needed for City Boards , CommissionsCouncil , and ARRA.

Engage the Community WRT/Solomon ET.C. wil create and implement a plan for engaging thecommunity that builds on the previous PDC planning process. The community engagement process wilfocus on informing and seeking feedback from the community regarding issues of traffic flow and transitusage related to the ferry tenninal and other transit uses and discussion of alternative development conceptsthat meet the goals of increasing the potential transit utilization within the intended development programfor Alameda Point. WRT/Solomon E.Te. wil provide professional meeting facilitation services includingassistance in providing graphic displays , public noticing, managing and facilitating a seIies of publicmeetings and ensming full stakeholder paricipation. WRT/Solomon E. C. wil utilizc the existingAlameda Point website to inform the community of the process and outcomes.

Budget Considerationlinancial Impact

The total project cost of $250 000 will include an allocation of $221 ,000 from the MTC grant and matchingfunds consisting of $25 415 from the ACTIA grant with $3 585 in general funds currently budgeted by theCity of Alameda.

Recommendation

Authorize the Executive Director to execute the attached Consultant Agreement with WRT/SolomonET.e. in the amount of $250 000 to complete Station Area planning activities for Alameda Point.


October 4 2006Page 4

submitted

By: Andrew ThomasPlanning Services Manager

Attachments: Consultant AgreementEx. A. Scope of WorkEx. B. Project Budget and Schedule

LL/AT/DV

CONSULTANT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 4th day of October 2006ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joi(hereinafter referred to as "ARR"), and WRT/Solomon E.T.c. , a CalifornIa corporation, whoseaddress is 1328 Mission Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco , California 94103 (hereinafter referred toas "Consultant"), is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS:

A. ARR is a Joint Powers Authority established by the City of Alameda and theCommunity Improvement Commission under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act and apublic entity lawfully created and existing under the State of California with the power to carr on itsbusiness as it is now being conducted.

B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the specialservices which wil be required by this Agreement;

C. Consultant possesses the skill, expeIience, ability, background, certification andknowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions describedherein; and

D. ARR and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for services upon the termsand conditions herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties asfol1ows:

TERMThe 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.

SERVICES TO BE PERFORMEDConsultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is

attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANTConsultant 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 thisreference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the ARR.

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCEThe Consultant acknowledges the importance to the ARR of the ARR' s project

schedule and agrees to put forth reasonable efforts in performing the services with due diligenceunder this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule, as provided in Exhibit B.

Alameda Station Area Plan Consultant Agreement

STANDARD OF CAREConsultant agrees to perfonn all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with

the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that allservices shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by theARR nor have any contractual relationship with ARR.

INDEPENDENT PARTIESARR and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this

Agreement is that of employer-independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting thework are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule orregulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right ofemployment wil be acquired by virte of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided byARRA to its employees, including but not limited to , unemployment insurance, workerscompensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from ARRA to Consultant, its employeesor agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes , FICA payments , PERSpayments , or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from anyfees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant.

IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (lRCA)Consultant assumes any and all responsibilty for verifying the identity and

employment authorization of all of his/her employees perfonning work hereunder, pursuant to allapplicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and holdARR harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from anynoncompliance of this provision by Consultant.

NON-DISCRIMINATIONConsistent with ARR' s policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable

employer/employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward ajob applicant, a ARRA employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee orsubcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap,

disability, marital status , pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation wil not be tolerated. Consultantagrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of thisAgreement.

HOLD HARMLESSConsultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless ARR, 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 ), arisingfrom or in any manner connected to Consultant' s negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actualregarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. IfClaims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultantshall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligenceis not found on part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnifyIndemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or wilful misconduct Indemnitees.


, /

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 wilfulmisconduct of consultant or anyone for whom consultant is legally liable.

10. INSURACEOn or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall

furnish ARR with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective datesand dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs lOA, B , C, D and E.Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant' s indemnification, shall also contain substantially thefollowing statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled orcoverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall providethirt (30) days ' advance written notice (or ten (10) days ' notice in the event of cancellation for non-payment of premium) to the ARR of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreementall appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that isacceptable to ARR and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsementsnaming the ARR as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.

(2)

COVERAGEConsultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:(1) Workers ' Compensation

Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.Liabiltv:Commercial general liability coverage in the following mlmmumlimits:Bodily Injur: $500 000 each occurrence

000 000 aggregate - all other$100 000 each occurrence$250 000 aggregate

If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in theamounts of $1 000 000 wil be considered equivalent to the required

minimum limits shown above.AutomotiveComprehensive automotive liability coverage in the followingminimum limits:Bodily Injury:Propert Damage:

Property Damage:

(3)

(4)Combined Single Limit:Professional Liabiltv

Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for theprofessional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of

000 000 per claim and in the aggregate.

$500 000 each occurrence$100 000 each occurrence

$500 000 each occurrence

SUBROGATION WAIVER:


Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for whichhe/she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultantshall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to ARR, on behalf ofany insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultantor ARRA with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogationwhich any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against ARR by virte of the payment ofany loss under such insurance.

FAILURE TO SECUREIf Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or

maintain the foregoing insurance, ARR shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in theConsultant' s name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant forthe costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from thedate written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.

ADDITIONAL INSUREDARR , its Board, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as an

additional insured under all insurance coverages , except any professionalliability insurance, requiredby this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which suchadditional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. Anadditional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any10ss , or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by anadditional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any 10ss or expense covered bythe insurance provided by this policy.

SUFFICIENCY OF INSURACEThe insurance limits required by ARR 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.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTConsultant 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 formif the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmentaldecisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the CaliforniaCode of Regulations.

11.

12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERSConsultant 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 consentof ARR. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assigneesublessee , hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attemptedassignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from ARR underthis Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without priorwritten consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to ARRA byConsultant.


, /

The sale , assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstandingcapital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicatemember or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, whichshall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of thisAgreement. Control means fift percent (50%) or more of the voting power of the corporation.

13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVALUnless prior written consent from ARR is obtained, only those people and

subcontractors whose names and resumes are identified in Exhibit A shall be uscd in the performanceof this Agreement.

In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall berequired to furnish proof of workers ' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carrygeneral, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurancecarried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject toeach provision of this Agreement.

14. PERMITS AND LICENSESConsultant, 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 CityBusiness License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder.

REPORTSA. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other documenthereinafter collectively referred to as "Report" , reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared byConsultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive propert ofARR. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall executeappropriate documents to assign to ARR the copyright to Reports created pursuant to thisAgreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall becomethe property of ARR, and all publication rights are reserved to ARR.

15.

implementation of:All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by ARR in execution or

(1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired;

(2) Completion of the original Project by others (provided that if theConsultant for any reason does not complete all the servicescontemplated by this Agreement, the Consultant cannot be responsiblefor the accuracy, completeness or workability of the documentsprepared by the Consultant if used, changed or completed by the

ARR or by another part. Accordingly, the ARR agrees, to thefullest extent permitted by law , to hold the Consultant harmless fromany claim, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys ' fees anddefense costs) for injury or loss arising or allegedly arising from suchuse, completion or any unauthorized changes made by any part to anydocuments prepared by the Consultant);


(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or

(4) Other ARR projects as appropriate.

C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such fonn as ARR may require, furnishreports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.

D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed onrecycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, whichshall be single sided.

E. No Report, infonnation or other data given to or prepared or assembled byConsultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization byConsultant without prior approval by ARR.

RECORDSConsultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales , costs

expenses , receipts and other such infonnation required by ARR that relate to the perfonnance ofservices under this Agreement.

Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in suffcient detail topennit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shallprovide free access to such books and records to the representatives of ARR or its designees at allproper times, and gives ARR the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcriptstherefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings andactivities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be keptseparate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) yearsafter receipt of final payment.

If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raisedby ARR' s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the ARRA's supplemental examinationor audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or otherbreach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse ARR for allreasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.

16.

NOTICESAll 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 secondbusiness day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered orcertified, addressed as hereinafterprovided.

17.


All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to ARR shall beaddressed to ARR at:

City of Alameda2263 Santa Clara AvenueAlameda CA 94501Attention: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director

All notices , demands, requests, or approvals from ARR to Consultant shall beaddressed to Consultant at:

WRT/Solomon E.T.C.1328 Mission StreetSan Francisco , CA 94103Attention: Stephen Hammond

TERMINATIONIn 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 performanceof this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt byConsultant from ARR, of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and thesteps necessary to cure such default, ARR may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to theConsultant written notice thereof.

ARR shall have the option, at its sale discretion and without cause, of terminatingthis Agreement by giving seven (7) days ' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upontermination of this Agreement, each part shall pay to the other part that portion of compensationspecified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination.

18.

COMPLIANCESConsultant shall comply with all applicable state or federal laws and all applicable

ordinances , rules and regulations enacted or issued by ARR.

19.

CONFLICT OF LAW:This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of

California excepting any choice of law mles which may direct the application of laws of anotherjurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders , mlesand regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of thoseauthorities. )

20.

Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of theCounty of Alameda, State of California.

ADVERTISEMENTConsultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed

any signs , advertising, show bils, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the servicesperformed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from ARR to dootherwise.

21.


WAIVER:A waiver by ARR 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 termcovenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.

22.

INTEGRATED CONTRACTThis Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or

nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of

whatsoevcr kind or nature arc mcrgcd hcrein. No vcrbal agreement or implied covenant shall be heldto vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by writtenexecution signed by both ARR and Consultant.

23.

INSERTED PROVISIONSEach 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 wereincluded herein. If through mistake or otherwise , any such provision is not inserted or is not correctlyinserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either part.

24.

CAPTIONSThe 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.

25.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and yearfirst above written.

CONSULTANTWRT/Solomon E.

ALAMEDA REUSE &REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Title: Executive Director

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

lktU f- By: Cathy Woodbury

Title: Planning and Building Director


By: Debbie PotterTitle: Acting Alameda Point Project

Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:Title:

Donna MooneyBeputy City Attorney

*71


EXHIBIT A

ALAMEDA POINT STATION ARA PLAN

SCOPE OF WORKPHASE I: UNDERSTANDING THE VISION AND ISSUES

In this first phase of the planning process , relevant background information will be collected and reviewed , and the physicalcharacteristics of the project vicinity, the planning history and regulatory context, and the current atttudes toward futuregrowth 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 berefined or developed; and

Understand the market conditions in which redevelopment will take place.

Task 1. PROJECT INITIATION

Kick-off Meeting with City

The consultant team will meet with City staff to discuss operating procedures , schedules, work scope assumptions and otheradministrative 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 wil 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. Data Collection and Review

WRT will review and assess the existing background information available regarding the site constraints , opportunities , andregulatory 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 additionalbackground 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 wil use this material toprepare suitable base maps and as the basis for the planning process study.

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 wil 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 wil be held with key stakeholders to obtain more in-depth understanding of the goals , visionsplans 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 WT A, AC Transit , the masterdeveloper, 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. 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 wil 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 TOO.

The residential market analysis will analyze a variety of housing types. As part of this analysis Strategic Economics wil , inparticular, consider the demographics of households with a potential interest in living near and using the ferry. This market

analysis will consider how the TOO demand estimates developed for the MTC TOD Policy apply specifically to ferry-oriented

development.

Deliverable #1: Market Analvsis Report and ExistinQ Conditons Memorandum

PHASE II: EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES

Phase II will explore the implications of alternate development scenarios-related to land use , economic developmentwaterfront 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 wil be selected.

TASK 2. CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES

Land Use and Redevelopment AlternativesUsing the Preliminary Development Concept as its beginning point, WRTISoiomon E.TC. will prepare two refined land useand development concept alternatives for the Station Area that reflect the input from the City, WT A, stakeholders , and themarketing analysis. The concepts wil illustrate a range of possibilities for implementing the vision and the implications ofchoosing one concept-or an element of it-over another. One of the alternatives wil maintain the overall intensity anddevelopment program set forth in the POC (I.e. , consistent with Measure A), but look at refinements to enhance transitservice and community character. The other alternative will explore higher density scenarios (I.e. , not constrained byMeasure 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. , narrower street sections , smaller block sizes , bus pull-outs , ferry terminal/transitinterface , 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. , rough number of dwelling units and/or amount of retail or commercial space). Conceptual elevations and axonometric

EXHIBIT A

drawings will be used to ilustrate 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 faciliate 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. 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'

goals and vision for Alameda Point , and with existing City policies. This evaluation wil 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. Development Program and Community Character

WRTISoiomon E.TC. wil provide general quantitative profies 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) wil be provided.

Task 2. Traffc, 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 4-0 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 mobilty. Fehr & Peers wil also evaluate the implications of each alternative for transit use (particularly

ferry), pedestrian activity, and parking.

Deliverable #2a: Alternatives Report

TASK 2. 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 , andprovide direction to the City team as to which alternatives and concepts are most appropriate given the unique conditions at

Alameda Point. The WRT team wil take the lead in the presentation and faciliation 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 Meetino 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 wil

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 wil also determine whether any additional capital improvements will be needed , such

as Police satellite facilities , Fire stations , or trucks. These improvements wil 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 assessmentdistricts and other mechanisms can be applied to achieve a fiscally neutral land use plan.

Deliverable #3a: Alternatives Report and Market Demand and Financial Feasibiltv Analvsis

TASK 2. 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 typicalweekday 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 wil review thecurrent City standards and present potential parking maximums , rather than minimums. This work wil draw upon asimilar study currently underway for the MacArhur BART station.

Deliverable #3b: Parkina Demand Analvsis and Potential Local TOD Parkina Policies and Reauirements


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 Feasibilty and Parking

studies and refinements in the alternative land use/development scenarios. The purpose of the workshop wil be to educatethe 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 wil take the lead in presenting thefindings of their studies.

Deliverable #3c: Workshop #2 Meetina Summarv

TASK 2. STATION AREA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS

WRT and Fehr & Peers will work together , and with appropriate agencies (e. , Public Works , WTA, AC Transit , etc. ), toformulate appropriate new public improvement design standards for the Alameda Point area. Recommendations wil addressdesign 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 wil 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 TransportationStrategy 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 wil 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 wil 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 todetermine the best interface between the surface station and the Ferry Terminal.

Deliverable #4a: Station Access Public ImlJovement Desiqn Standards


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 apedestrian friendly environment.

Deliverable #4b: Workshop #3 MeetinG Summary

TASK 2. MID- PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT TO MTC

WRT wil prepare a project status and progress report for MTC at the conclusion of Phase II. 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: Proiect ProGress Report

PHASE II: 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. 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 Proiect 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.

Planninq Process and Findinqs . The Plan wil provide an overview of planning and design analysis that that was undertakento develop the Plan (Le. , 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. , 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 Desiqn 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 creatiol) 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 fa9ade alignments

the design of the public realm (e. , streetscape design standards , public and semi-public open space standards

guidelines for public art , etc.

Circulation and Parkinq 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 wil identify actions that the City needs to take to implement the Station Area Planand 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 infrastructureimprovements. The financing options will evaluate the likelihood of applying particular funding strategies , and will lookat 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 FerryTerminal 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


The City/Consultant team wil 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 MeetinQ Summary

TASK 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. 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.

oeliverable #6d: One (1) unbound. camera-ready oriGinal of the Final Alameda Point Station Area Plan. General Plan and

ZoninG Code amendments. as adopted bv City Council and one (1) diGital copy in Microsoft Word. PaGemaker or Adobe PoF

version ready for IJntinG.

Ala

med

a Po

int S

tatio

n A

rea

Plan

Cos

t Bre

akdo

wn

- W

RT

I Solomon

Aug

-

Tas

ksSc

hedu

leII

WR

T/S

olom

on E

.

c ,

0 '"

'" c

;: .: .!".

$:

Bili

nR

ates

190

190

$110

$90

$75

$110

$65

Pro

ject

Initi

atio

n/K

ick-

off M

eetin

gM

id-September 2006

740

Dat

a C

olle

ctio

n an

d R

evie

w$7

,480

Sta

keho

lder

s In

terv

iew

s$2

,400

Market Analysis

$15

160

Con

cept

Alte

rnat

ives

Mid

- Oct

ober

$30

160

Alte

rnat

ives

Eva

luat

ion

$25

080

Community Workshop #1

Mid

-Nov

embe

r24

0F

isca

l Ana

lysi

s62

0Pa

rkin

g St

udy

$28,

700

Community Workshop #2

Ear

ly F

ebru

ary

2007

120

Pub

lic Im

prov

emen

t Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds$1

967

0C

omm

unity

Wor

ksho

p #3

Ear

ly A

pril

2007

240

MT

C P

rogr

ess

Rep

ort

Ear

ly M

ay 2

007

840

Dra

ft S

tatio

n A

rea

Plan

Ear

ly J

uly

2007

$44

180

Com

mun

ity W

orks

hop

#4M

id-J

uly

2007

$3,8

80F

inal

Dra

ft S

tatio

n A

rea

Pla

nla

te A

ugus

t 200

796

0F

orm

al A

dopt

ion

Pro

cess

late Septem ber 2007

900

Fin

al T

OO

Des

ign

Pla

nO

ct-0

702

0

Mee

tings

with

City

land

Use

Tea

m

$25

630

Tot

al H

ours

759

TO

TA

L N

OT

TO

EX

CE

ED

$250

020

EXHIBIT B

ot;P- UUb 11: U WRT SOLOMON ETG.

Facsimile

Date:

From:

Ref. No.

Project:

Pages:

Re:

To/Fax:

Remarks:

September 29, 2006

Michael E. Olin

5040-01/99

Alameda Point Station Area Plan

:2 (inc. cover)

Initial Exhibit B

510.747. 6853

Douglas Vu. ASLA

Planner III

City of Alameda

Planning & Building Department

2263 Santa Clara Avenue Room 190

Alameda, CA 94501-4477

4154369837 GG1

415.575.4722 Fax 415.436.9837

Please find attached Exhibit 8 , which has initialed by James K. Stickley, Office Director of WRTSan Francisco, for the Alameda Point Station Area Plan contract. Please let us know if yourequire anything further.

Michael

o.:\Promo\5p lfk PropCYX1Is.!O().O-Q1.99 ALAMECJA POII'IT STATION AREA PlNlontroct. C:ovor Lo or.doc

Willl"ce Roberts & Todd. Inc1328 Mission street. Fourth Floor

San Francisco , CA 94103

415.575.4722

www.wrtdesign.com

415.436.9837

n A. GarCia , AS LA

CA LiCM$c) LA?371

Alameda Point Station

Are

a Pl

anC

ost 8

rea

kdow

n -

WR

T I

Sol

omon

U.

Tas

8ilr

?rcj

Ec Ir

iilto

o'1J

:-o

'E

tir.g

DaJ

a core:.k ",:I ;:.,,

:Sta

'iet-

oors

Inlrn

':"'M

",, 'a

rkec

Coc

.cep

A

Jt-€

rr1.

'eA

t.em

a

"€

E,'a

loaj

O"

C4Y

Jri1

y 'N

acp

f II

Ar.

a'f'

P,,1

:ng

Suc

,.C

orr.

nurit

y 'N

ak,o

cp f2

Pub

&: !

m1X

""",

.n.

De,

s...n

dC

crm

Jrit,

. Wcr

0'3M

K

rogr

"'5

P.ep

ort

D!,

r tato Ar." Plan

. ,

C",LI"i Wakshcp;f

Fi1a

1 (J

raft

Staon Ar

F\n

Farn

.1 A

doO

f

Fi1a

J T

OO

Oa,

,1'2

l

Meefog "i:h

l2 Uo

e T

eem

I Hot

rT

OJA

L O

OJT

O E

XE

W.

:StJ

u.c.

100

190

S11Q

S9J

$75

21)

F.at

'"

MK

J-SE

jtab;

r 2o

c

MK

J-'o

ber

Mi:-

"..e

rrb.

r1j

;

Nr!

; Feb

arJ

2007

40)

2007

Eat

,. 10

") 2

07

E".

')Jt,

2007

MK

J-.\,

. 200

I.AJ,t 200

lat

Sqtrrer 2007

11)

t90

171

364

3(1

1&5

06,1

00 S

n6.

$ 4Q

,M$

27,.6

0S

1395

0

EXBIT B

.. B

iling

sha

H b

; sulitad arding j()

ompk

!ti

Dj

task

.

;tr

$210

S110

7401

$ 16

800

S 1

9,14

(

S'25

,63C

S250

.(J0


October 4 , 2006

TO: Honorable Chair and Members of theAlameda 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 atits September 6 , 2006 meeting to speak about $250 000 in Proposition 12 grant funds that theDistIict has received and would like to spend on improvements at the 26-acre triangle park in thesoutheast corner of Alameda Point , sometimes referred to as Hornet Park. According to theDistrict , 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 fundsfor the proposed improvements. The ARRA Board directed staff to research this issue andprovide a status report to the Board at its October 4 2006 meeting.

Discussion

The 26-acre triangle park area is located in the southeast corner of Alameda Point, as shown inthe attached map, and includes the former Navy R.Y. park , auto hobby shop, recreational fieldsand tennis courts. Pursuant to a five year license agreement with the Alameda Soccer Clubwhich expires in December 2008 , a 2.4 acre portion of the property is cunently improved withsoccer fields. This propel1y provides direct access to the shoreline and is within the TidelandsTrust footpIint.

On January 31 , 1996 , the ARRA approved the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. TheReuse Plan identified the "Inner Harbor Regional Park" as a new regional park that would beleased to the EBRPD at no cost for development and management. A further amendment to theReuse Plan , adopted by the ARRA on May 28 , 1997 , clarifies that "there are two types of publicor quasi-public users whom the ARRA wil accommodate through the Navy s Economic

Development Conveyance (EDC) process. One is the EBRPD who is requesting property for apublic purpose...

The Reuse PIan and its subsequent amendment contemplated that the triangle park would conveyed to the ARRA via an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) and that the ARRAwould in turn enter into a lease with the EBRPD for a nominal rate for parks management and



operations. The Reuse Plan anticipated that the City would serve as the trustee for the TidelandsTrust lands. However, the EBRPD acts as trustee at various park locations within Trust Landsand, should the City request , is wiling to serve as trustee for the triangle park.

The Reuse Plan , City of Alameda General Plan and Preliminary Development Concept all showthe triangle park as a regional park. The District has , to date , not acted to request a lease for theproperty because it lacked funds to plan , develop and operate the park. The DistIict has been anactive paricipant in the City s community engagement process for Alameda Point over the lastfive years. It also agreed to the temporary soccer fields on the prope11y to allow some interimrecreational uses. Ultimate build-out of the regional park is dependent on overall developmentgoing forward at Alameda Point to provide the necessary backbone infrastructure to the site andto pay for construction of the park as a neighborhood amenity.

With the passage of Proposition 12 , and the availability of construction funds , the EBRPDbecame interested in a Phase 1 project at the triangle park. District staff initially met with ARRAstaff in June 2006 , to discuss a $1 per year lease with a 20-year tenn for purposes of a Phase 1project consisting of green space , picnic areas , shoreline trail , and parking which are proposedPhase 1 improvements as shown on the attached map. At that time , staff briefed the District onprogress with the Navy and the Master Developer and encouraged the District to undertake acommunity planning process to program the entire site and to develop a financing plan for long-term maintenance and operations before implementing any improvements. EBRPD staffindicated that that approach made sense, but that availability of construction funds merited apossible 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 trianglepark, the lease would need to be approved by December 2006. To comply with Proposition 12requirements , the lease would be in the amount of $1 per year and have a minimum 20-yeartenn. The leased area can be restIicted to that portion of the triangle park that would receivePhase 1 improvements or could include the entire 26-acre site. In addition , staff recommendsthat, any lease that ARRA might consider, include maintenance and operating standards withwhich the District would have to comply. The lease should also require that the Distlictcomplete a community planning effort and a financing plan for a program for the entire sitewithin the next two years.

If the ARRA declines to enter into a lease for Phase 1 improvements at the triangle park, theDistrict would have to re-program its Proposition 12 funds or risk losing the funds. Proposition12 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. Thisproperty is located within the Tidelands Trust footplint and cannot be sold. As the Reuse Planstates that the lease with the District would be for a nominal amount , none of the financialanalyses completed to date anticipated revenue from this property.



Recommendation

Provide staff with direction regarding EBRPD' s request that the ARRA enter into a $1 per yearminimum 20-year lease for all , or a portion , of the 26-acre triangle park so that the District canaccess $250 000 in Proposition 12 funds to undertake Phase 1 improvements at the site. additional $250 000 of Measure AA funds wil be committed for a total project budget of$500 000.

submitted

LittleDevelopment Services Director

By:Acting Alameda Point Project Manager

Attachment: Phase I Project Description Map

AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the ... · 04.10.2006 · Regular Meeting of the...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the ... · 04.10.2006 · Regular Meeting of the...