2011-04-06 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(A limited number of speakers may address the governing body in regard to any
matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction or of which it may take
cognizance, that is not on the agenda; this section is limited to 15 minutes;
additional public comment will be addressed under Item 6.)
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one
motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a
member of the public.
3 -A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of
the Special Joint City Council /ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on
March 15, 2011.
3 -B. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts
- Ancient Mariner Regatta.
3 -C. Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services.
3 -D. Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the
Pier 2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.
3 -E. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3
Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using
Remaining ARRA Bond Funds.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4 -A. Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process
for Alameda Point.
ARRA Agenda- April 6, 2011 Page 2
5. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A. Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
Representative — Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which
the governing body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not
on the agenda; speakers not called under Item 2 may address the governing body
at this time.)
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
7 -A. Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment.
7 -B. Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for
Qualifications.
8. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
10. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at
747 -4800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
31
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 8:23 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore — 5.
Absent: None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Speakers: Philip Tribuzio. Mr. Tribuzio discussed self-supporting park (reservation picnic grounds)
and open space development at Alameda Point.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-021) Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting (Closed Session) and Regular Meeting of
February 2, 2011; and the Special Joint City Council and ARRA Meeting (Closed Session) of
February 15, 2011.
(*11-022) Approve an Environmental Testing Contract with Pacific EcoRisk to Support 2011
Dredging in an Amount not to Exceed $138,740 to be reimbursed by the Maritime Administration.
Item 3-C. (Building 22) was pulled for discussion. Staff indicated that the item should have
been under Regular Agenda Items, but was mistakenly put under consent.
Vice Chair Bonta moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member
deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5. [Items so enacted
or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(11-023) Reserve Building 22 for Active Recruitment of a Food and Beverage Tenant Compatible
with the Existing Neighboring Tenants.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a presentation on a proposed leasing
strategy for Building 22.
Speakers: Rich Krinks - Harbor Bay Realty & Mariner Sq. Athletic Club, William Williford -
President, Rockwall Wine Co., Carol Gottstein — Alameda citizen.
The Board discussed the different options for Bldg. 22, including sharing the space, and a
cooperative with the parties involved.
Chair Gilmore stated that giving direction to staff is premature and requested all parties involved,
including city staff, meet again to discuss options and return to the Board. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services confirmed that staff will attend a microbrewery convention,
explore all opportunities, talk to Mariner Square Athletic Club, the Bladium, and the other interested
parties — to work out a deal that is feasible with everyone and bring the item back to the ARRA.
32
Chair Gilmore discussed the broader part involving the Alameda Point leasing strategy and again
requested a real estate primer, inquiring why an economics expert needs to be on board before a
real estate primer can be presented. She suggested that a real estate brokerage firm could provide
a market study with the information she has been requesting. Chair Gilmore would like to know the
realistic chances for long -term leases at Alameda Point, find out what the competition is in order to
figure out the strategy.
Member Tam suggested contacting Joe Ernst with SRM Associates, a commercial real estate
development firm, to provide the commercial market information. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services — agreed to obtain the market reports, summarize them, and present them to
the Board at its next meeting.
Member Tam asked the Deputy City Manager — Development Services if staff will facilitate a
discussion among the three potential tenants of Building 22. Vice Chair Bonta concurs with Chair
Gilmore that the ARRA doesn't need to intercede at this point and commented that when parties are
working together, it could be a win -win for all parties. The facilities would serve the community well,
and the ARRA would like the lease revenue from both.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11 -024) Award Contract for the Alameda Point Resource Team to Perkins + Will in the Amount of
$200,000 for Land Use Planning Consulting Services.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services introduced staff comprising the team, including
the Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas, and the Public Works Director, Matt Naclerio.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services informed the Board that although the agenda
states it, staff is not going to ask the Board to approve the Perkins + Will contract at this time. The
team gave a presentation on the Alameda Point Planning Process to start answering questions that
the Board and community has. Staff will take an additional month to compile a consolidated,
comprehensive response to all questions heard over the last month and tonight.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services recommended moving forward with a City -led
process beginning in April with a visioning effort over the next six months to try to develop a
community consensus of what it wants in terms of a land use program and transportation plan.
Chair Gilmore thanked the team for a thorough and comprehensive presentation which she states
lays the foundation for where to go from here, and the public knows what to expect.
Member Tam inquired what the Navy's current position is on conveyance and their desire to look at
recovery of costs. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the Navy would
love for the City to move forward as quickly as possible and that they'd like to dispose of the
property on mutually agreeable terms. The Navy is aware of the ARRA's Going Forward process,
and has been sent the Community Planning Workbook. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services has also talked to BRAC management at the ADC Conference in San Antonio. Staff has
addressed issues with the Navy that don't require a land use plan. A land use plan needs to be in
place in order for the Navy to start their NEPA process, and the City its CEQA process. The NEPA
process needs to be done before the Navy can convey the land. The Navy is excited about the
LBNL opportunity as well.
Member Tam inquired how flexible the Navy is going to be with their LIFOC, citing the provision that
a tenant has to vacate in 30 days in order to clean up a site. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services explained that there have been discussions with the Navy about phasing
33
and implementation, and that the Navy has been encouraging. There are other communities like
McClellan AFB who used their LIFOC to start implementing infrastructure improvements. It is staff's
hope that the Navy subordinate the LIFOC to long -term financing entities.
The Planning Services Manager explained the general conveyance process: A project description
which includes alternatives comes first, those alternatives are evaluated and kept into play, so that
during the next step in the process, the 18 -24 month environmental period, the community and /or
Board/Council may want to change the project description to fit more closely with one of the
alternatives. A final decision will be made when the environmental process is complete and the
Board /Council has all the information.
Member Johnson commented that she has received positive and enthusiastic feedback on the
Going Forward process. The community felt like they had more of a role in the potential options for
developing the base. Member Johnson stated that the team which staff is proposing is excellent
and that she would like to keep the momentum going.
Member deHaan thanked staff for the presentation, stating that the gameplan puts ownership back
to the community. Member deHaan inquired whether the resource team will have opportunity to
come together as one large group. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services confirmed
that once the team members are under contract, there will be a coordinated effort to get everyone
all in the same room. Member deHaan looks forward to great progress in the next six months.
Vice Chair Bonta concurred that staff's presentation was very thorough and thoughtful. He stated
that it is critical that the community develop its own vision for what is wanted at Alameda Point and
prepare it for implementation. Vice Chair Bonta emphasized the importance placed on flexibility,
being nimble, and being able to respond to opportunities as they come up in the market, as it may
change. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the process is not being truncated to just six months. The
Deputy City Manager - Development Services concurred and explained that the six -month
timeframe was the reassessment of a two- phased process, the first phase is the 6 -month
reassessment phase, and the second phase is the entitlement phase.
Boardmembers discussed their concerns about a 55" sea level rise. The Planning Services
Manager assured the Board that the sea level rise is a city -wide issue and that it will be addressed
Chair Gilmore complimented staff on providing information that is useful, emphasizing the need to
make sure the city's resources are used wisely, as there are very real costs associated with
maintaining Alameda Point. Chair Gilmore looks forward to staff's update in April.
5. ORAL REPORTS
(11 -025) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of February 3, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that he did not attend the 2/3 RAB meeting. He and other Board
members attended a volunteer animal shelter recognition dinner. Member deHaan reported that
the RAB discussed the budget process for the Navy's fiscal year, which runs until October. The
Navy has $31 M it plans to spend, with an estimated $96.2M additional to clear the project. The
next RAB meeting is Thurs. 3/3.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
34
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11 -026) Update on Alameda Municipal Power's Response to Lawrence Berkeley National Lab's
Request for Qualifications.
Girish Balachandran, Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager, introduced the president
of the Public Utilities Board (PUB), Greg Hamm. Mr. Hamm stated that the PUB has discussed the
LBNL opportunity and is very excited for both the City and AMP, as there is potential to lower rates
and strengthen the whole AMP system in the long run. Mr. Hamm stated that there will be a huge
impact and will require stringent due diligence. The PUB looks forward to working with the Council
and other city agencies to move the LBNL opportunity forward.
The AMP General Manager concurred with Mr. Hamm, explaining that all divisions of AMP will be
impacted and that they are doing lots of background preparation in anticipation of being shortlisted.
The General Manager discussed the main points AMP included in its response to the RFQ. The
main concern was whether AMP has enough capacity to serve the anticipated load. The General
Manager explained that system was built to serve the Naval Base, which is 1/3 of the load, and that
AMP does have existing distribution capacity. The transmission system has been built to serve
approximately 145MW and current MW is approximately 70. The substation capacity is sufficient,
the distribution capacity is also sufficient for the first phase of load. LBNL has a 5 -10 year phase -in
of load.
Member Tam stressed that the City /AMP has to be very careful that existing customers do not
experience any impact in terms of rate increases to compensate and subsidize the rate subsidies at
LBNL, or the City doesn't experience rolling brown outs because LBNL has a huge spike in need.
Member Tam emphasized the importance of making sure this is communicated to the community
when it becomes a reality.
The AMP General Manager assured Member Tam and the Board that AMP recognizes the
ramifications, including regulatory, associated with the LBNL opportunity and is doing its due
diligence, has resources in place for risk management, and will be prepared. AMP will
communicate any issues and updates to the Board.
8. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
6,e/hee,_
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
UNAPPROVED
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOITY (ARRA),
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 15, 2011 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call — Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners Bonta,
deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore — 5.
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(11-118 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of
case: Alameda Gateway LTD. V. City of Alameda
(11-119 CC/11-027 ARRA/11-016 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing
Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: SCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al v. City of Alameda
et al, U.S. District Court, case number CV 10-5178
(11-120 CC/11-028 ARRA/11-017 CIC) Conference With Legal Counsel — EXISTING
Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: SCC Alameda Point, LLC. et al v. City of Alameda
et al, Alameda County Superior Court, case number RG10537988
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Gilmore
announced regarding Alameda Gateway, Council was briefed on the lawsuit and
provided direction to the Acting City Attorney; regarding case number CV 10-5178, the
attorneys provided a briefing on the federal lawsuit; regarding case number RG
10537988, the attorneys provided a briefing on the State litigation.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:11
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 15, 2011- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Gilmore — 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Board Member Tam announced that she would recuse herself from the
EBMUD JPA [paragraph no. 11-138 CC/11-11-030 ARRA], which was removed from
the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson announced that she would
abstain from voting on the March 8th minutes.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the
remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta seconded the motion, which was
carried by unanimous voice vote — 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*11-137 CC/11-029 ARRA/11-018 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
ARRA, and CIC Meeting Held on February 15, 2011; the Special Joint City Council,
CIC, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC) Meeting Held on March
1, 2011; the Special CIC and HABOC Meeting Held on March 2, 2011; and the Special
Joint City Council and CIC Meeting Held on March 8, 2011. Approved.
[Note: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson abstained from voting on
the March 8th minutes.]
(11-138 CC/11-030 ARRA) CC Resolution No. 14558/ARRA Resolution No. 53,
"Authorizing the Acting City Manager and the Acting Executive Director to Execute the
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to Inspect, Operate, and Maintain the Alameda
Point Water System in Preparation for Transfer of Potable Water Infrastructure with
East Bay Municipal Utility District." Adopted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2011
1
Councilmember /Board Member Tam left the dais at 7:06 p.m. and returned at 7:08 p.m.
* **
Councilmember /Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor /Councilmember Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers /Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson and
Mayor /Chair Gilmore - 4. Abstention: Councilmember /Board Member Tam —1.
AGENDA ITEMS
(11 -139 CC /11 -031 ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize the Acting Executive Director
and Acting City Manager to Bind Pollution Legal Liability Insurance Coverage for
Alameda Point with XL Environmental for a Cost of $720,112.
The Acting City Attorney /Legal Counsel gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor /Board Member Bonta inquired whether XL Environmental would not cover
anything that was previously covered.
Patrician Blau, Marsh Risk Services, responded unfortunately, in the last ten years,
insurance carriers have found that the loss has not been favorable so no market is
offering coverage.
Councilmember /Board Member deHaan inquired whether any claims have been filed, to
which the Risk Manager responded not at Alameda Point.
Councilmember /Board Member Johnson inquired whether the new policy would have
additional exclusions that were not in the previous policy.
The Risk Manager responded some additional exclusions would be overridden through
endorsements, such as an early transfer restriction; under an early transfer, XL
Environmental would not be responsible to clean up anything that is known, only what is
unknown.
Councilmember /Board Member Johnson inquired whether the Navy still considers the
transfer an early transfer.
The Acting City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded the Navy would still be on the hook
for clean up.
Councilmember /Board Member Johnson inquired whether the insurance would cover a
privatized clean up.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and 2
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2011
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded the policy would not
have a cost -cap and would not cover clean up of known substances.
Councilmember /Board Member Johnson questioned whether staff is being careful
regarding early transfer language; stated the Navy still refers to the entire transfer as an
early transfer.
The Acting City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded early transfer was excluded all
together; the [proposed] coverage is better now and there would only be an exclusion
for some situations of early transfer; a known condition that the transferee plans to
clean up would be excluded.
Councilmember /Board Member Johnson inquired whether there are any other additional
exclusions.
The Risk Manager responded the marsh crust; stated XL Environmental would pay for
any accidental penetration and subsequent pollution but would not pay for anything
intentional or willful.
Councilmember /Board Member deHaan inquired whether staff delineated what to
include in the policy and Chubb just missed it; further inquired whether staff provided
Chubb with an opportunity to update the policy.
The Risk Manager responded many opportunities were provided; stated Chubb would
not come to the table with respect to asbestos and lead paint which would be the more
likely scenarios for future property damage and bodily injury.
Councilmember /Board Member Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember /Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which was carried by
unanimous voice vote —.5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:34
p.m.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
3
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2011
4
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Lisa Goldman
Acting Executive Director
Date: April 6, 2011
Re: Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA
Sea Scouts - Ancient Mariner Regatta
BACKGROUND
For the past several years, Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts - Ancient
Mariner Regatta (Sea Scouts) have utilized space at Enterprise Park for their annual
regatta held during Memorial Day weekend.
DISCUSSION
The Sea Scouts regularly make a request for the use of Enterprise Park and an
associated fee waiver. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board has
approved the request for several years. The Sea Scouts plan to use the park for six
days for set-up, May 21 — 26, four days for the event, May 27 — 30, and five days for
tear-down, May 31 — June 4. They are seeking approval of a fee waiver for this event.
The Sea Scouts will be required to provide insurance and comply with all regulations for
use of Enterprise Park at Alameda Point.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The license fee for this type of event is $1,000 per day for set-up and tear-down, and
$2,000 per day for event days. The total fee that is being requested for a waiver is
$19,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the waiver of the license fees for the Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea
Scouts - Ancient Mariner Regatta.
Agenda Item #3-B
ARRA
4-6-2011
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Respe ully submitted,
Jennif
Deputy Exe utive Director
By:
Nanette Banks Mocanu
Finance & Administration Manager
April 6, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Lisa Goldman
Acting Executive Director
Date: April 6, 2011
Re: Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental
Services
BACKGROUND
In June 2001 the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) established a
procedure for the disposition of personal property left by the United States Navy at
Alameda Point. The procedure delegated to the Executive Director the authority to
declare as surplus any item of personal property which is valued at less than $10,000
and which is not required for use by the ARRA in the administration of its powers and
duties pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement.
DISCUSSION
When the Navy transferred title of certain personal property to the ARRA, included were
a 15-ton Grove crane and a 40-ton Grove crane, which were used in support of the
management of the port. These two cranes are coming close to the end of their service
life and require a significant amount of money for repairs and certifications. NRC
Environmental Services (NRC) is willing to purchase the cranes in support of their
environmental business, as well as in support of their port management duties. They
have made an offer of $45,000 for both cranes, $7,000 lower than the appraised value
for both cranes. The appraised value does not take into account the costs of insurance,
certification and repairs required to keep the cranes operational.
Sale of these two cranes will reduce the liability of owning cranes in their current
condition and may result in a reduction of insurance payments once the policy comes
up for renewal.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The sale of the two cranes to NRC will result in additional revenue of $45,000 for ARRA
lease revenue fund 858.
Agenda Item #3-C
ARRA
4-6-2011
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 2of2
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed sale of two Grove cranes to NRC Environmental Services.
Res •-ctfIly submitted,
Jenne
Deputy City Manager
B
Nanette Mocanu
Finance & Administration Manager
Approved as to funds and account,
Fred Marsh
Controller
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Lisa Goldman
Acting Executive Director
Date: April 6, 2011
Re: Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to
Replace the Pier 2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed
$260,000
BACKGROUND
In April 2006, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) approved a
20-year sublease with the Maritime Administration (MARAD). As part of the Technical
Requirements in support of the lease, the ARRA must maintain and operate functional
piers, including the fendering system. The purpose of installing fenders on the pier is to
protect the vessel and the pier from damage when the vessel berths alongside the pier.
The fenders absorb the berthing energy of the vessel and soften the berthing impact on
the pier. Fenders can be classified into timber fenders, rubber fenders and plastic
fenders, according to the type of materials used.
Historically, the Navy used timber fender systems to berth vessels and over the years,
the fender systems have largely remained the same. NRC recently incorporated the
use of rubber elements, mainly tires, to the system, to increase its energy absorption.
Due to the aging and subsequent degradation of the existing fendering system,
MARAD's ships have experienced cosmetic and slight hull damage. The 20-year plan
for operating the piers included replacement of a staged fender system for the MARAD
ships. As a result, the reconstruction of the Pier 2 fendering system is proposed as
phase one of this replacement process.
DISCUSSION
Timber fenders, like those currently at Alameda Point, are mainly produced from tropical
hardwoods, and such application is not environmentally friendly. There is also a high
damage rate for the timber fenders due to wear and tear by vessels, and this has
resulted in substantial maintenance requirements. Hence, further use of timber fenders
is not recommended. Staff wanted the replacement of the fendering system to be cost-
efficient and protect the pier integrity and the ships' cosmetic appearance and structure.
As the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services (NRC) researched a variety
of fendering systems and conducted visits to ports in the region to determine the system
that would work best in Alameda.
Agenda Item #3-D
ARRA
4-6-2011
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 2 of 2
The existing concrete dock configuration will support an upgraded and more modern
fendering structure, which includes a cell type of fendering system. The proposed
structure can be fabricated and installed using the available space and on the area of
the present pier, so there will be limited demolition of the existing wooden system in
order to accommodate the new system. Additionally, the new system will not impact the
strength or integrity of the existing piers.
The project will proceed in three phases:
1. Demolish existing fendering structure;
2. Locate rebar and core drilling; and
3. Install new fendering.
The new structure is pre-fabricated and ready to be bolted onto the pier. Three of the
four areas of Pier 2 will be upgraded to the new fendering system.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FY10-11 ARRA budget included $200,000 for the Pier 2 Fender System Project.
The remaining $60,000 will come from savings in the ARRA operating budget, Fund
858. There is no impact to the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to replace the Pier 2
Fendering System in an amount not to exceed $260,000.
Resec ully submitted,
Jenni
Deput Ci Manager
By:
•
Nan Mocanu
Finance & Administration Manager
Approved as to funds and account,
Fred Marsh
Controller
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Lisa Goldman
Acting Executive Director
Date: April 6, 2011
Re: Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric
for Pier 3 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Not-to-Exceed
Amount of $238,296
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) used an Economic
Development Administration (EDA) grant to perform an electrical system upgrade to
Pier 3 at Alameda Point. At that time the ARRA replaced an old, unreliable electric
distribution system that didn't comply with the standard provided throughout Alameda.
DISCUSSION
The electrical improvements completed in 1999 used mounted power receptacles. The
connections served their purpose, but were not ideal for saltwater conditions and have
rusted and caused problems for providing power to the MARAD ships. Many of the
fittings have broken off or have been repaired multiple times. It is also difficult to
accurately bill each ship for its individual power usage due to the mixing of power
connections.
The proposed electrical upgrade to Pier 3 at Alameda Point duplicates the technology
used in the Pier 2 electrical system upgrade funded by ARRA in 2007 and completed in
2010. The receptacles on Pier 2 are housed in a manner that provides protection from
the elements, and the fittings are manufactured to accommodate saltwater
environments.
The electrical upgrade project for Pier 3 was bid and advertised in the Alameda Journal
for two weeks. Four companies showed interest in the project, and three bids were
received:
Metropolitan $217,408
Redtop $240,131
Scott Electric $206,980
Agenda Item #3-E
ARRA
4-6-2011
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Staff recommends entering into a contract with the lowest bidder, Scott Electric, for
$206,980. The total project cost requested from the ARRA is for a not-to-exceed
amount of $238,296, which includes a 7% contingency, 4% construction management
fee, the cost of independent structural testing, and the cost for the electrical engineer to
design and develop a scope of work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The remaining bond funds from the original 1999 ARRA bonds in the amount of
$222,635 were appropriated for the project in the midyear budget adjustment on
February 15, 2011. The remainder of the project, $15,661, will be funded through cost
savings in the existing ARRA property management expenditures. This project is being
funded through ARRA's lease revenue Fund 858.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize PM Realty Group to enter into a contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3
electrical upgrades at Alameda Point for a not-to-exceed amount of $238,296.
Res
tf Ily submitted,
Jennif r 0
Deputy City Manager
Nanette Mocanu
Finance & Administration Manager
Approved as to funds and account,
Fred Marsh
Controller
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Lisa Goldman
Acting Executive Director
Date: April 6, 2011
Re: Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning
Process for Alameda Point
BACKGROUND
In September 2010, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) initiated
a planning and community engagement strategy to identify and describe a financially
feasible land use plan for Alameda Point. The goal of this planning effort is to establish
areas of agreement among the Alameda community about a shared vision for the
redevelopment of Alameda Point. It is important that the ARRA and community
articulate a common vision and provide some level of certainty about the ARRA's
expectations for Alameda Point as it works towards attracting private investment to the
project.
Staff prepared a Community Planning Workbook (Workbook) in order to initiate the
community engagement process. The Workbook was intended to:
1. Provide an opportunity for the community to re- evaluate community priorities for
Alameda Point after past attempts to develop a plan for Alameda Point did not result
in a successful entitlement;
2. Identify those elements, concepts, and proposals from past plans that should be
included in a future plan for Alameda Point;
3. Identify those issues for which there is not agreement and that will require further
community discussion; and
4. Shape the next steps in the community planning process for Alameda Point.
Fall 2010 Community Forums
The ARRA held three community forums in the fall of 2010. The forums occurred on
November 9, 2010 at the Grand Pavilion on Bay Farm Island, on November 18, 2010 at
the Mastick Senior Center in central Alameda and December 8, 2010 at the 0-Club at
Alameda Point in West Alameda.
Agenda Item #4 -A
ARRA
4 -6 -2011
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
On -line Forums
April 6, 2011
Page 2 of 11
To supplement the community forums and provide a convenient additional opportunity
for community participation, an online version of the Workbook was made available on
the City's website. The online Workbook was open for public use from November 25,
2010 until February 1, 2011.
Alameda Point Tenant Forum
On February 8, 2010, staff held a forum for the businesses that are currently located at
Alameda Point. The purpose of the forum was to solicit strategies and ideas for
attracting job - generating uses to Alameda Point. Representatives from approximately
30 businesses attended the forum. In addition, the City received approximately 11
responses to a questionnaire that staff sent to all businesses at Alameda Point.
Alameda Boards and Commissions
During the months of January and February 2011, the City's Boards and Commissions
also engaged in the community process. The Boards and Commissions with primary
responsibility for planning, transportation, economic development, parks and open
space, and historic preservation participated in the process by each holding a public
meeting to discuss the exercises within the Workbook that were most relevant to their
area of expertise. The Economic Development Commission, Historic Advisory Board,
Recreation and Parks Commission and Transportation Commission all devoted meeting
time to the planning effort.
Summary Report
The community feedback from the community workshops, written and online Workbook
submissions, tenant forum, and Board and Commission discussions provide a wealth of
information about the priorities, preferences, and opinions of those who participated.
Staff has prepared a Summary Report for the ARRA and the community to document
and organize the important results of this process. The primary purpose of the
Summary Report is to inform the next steps in the planning process, which are also
described below. The report is on file in the City Clerk's office.
DISCUSSION
This staff report highlights the key findings of the Summary Report and discusses staff's
proposed next steps for the next six months.
1. Key Findings of Summary Report
The Summary Report provides an overview of the issues where there is a great deal of
agreement within the community, as well as a summary of the issues that will require
additional study and resolution before the community can coalesce around a common
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 3 of 11
vision for Alameda Point. The major findings of the Summary Report are organized
according to the six topics addressed in the Workbook:
1. Land Use
The goals and objectives included in the City Council adopted 1996 NAS Community
Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan) and the 2003 Alameda Point General Plan Amendment
(Alameda Point GPA) remain valid. Although many years have passed since the City
Council adopted the Reuse Plan and Alameda Point GPA, the community aspirations
for Alameda Point articulated in these two documents generally continue to reflect and
represent the community's vision for the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The community generally agrees that the redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point
should include a variety of mixed -use, transit - oriented districts that provide jobs,
affordable housing, and passive and active public open spaces and facilities. There is
also significant agreement about the types of land uses that should be allowed in each
of the various sub -areas within Alameda Point.
Themes from 1996 Reuse Plan
Job Creation and Economic Development
All land use decisions anti policy direction determined in the Com,rnmity Reuse
Plan must move beyond the idea of replacPnt of jobs lost at the base and focus on
creating economic growth and development for the benefit of the whole community.
Small Town Feeling
Alameda has always been a quiet, friendly, and predominan_ly residential
community. An ideal urban/suburban community created in an era when commutes
were by rail or ferry. Development in each area is focused on neighborhood centers
that cluster development in order to create the scale and accessibility that is familiar
and desirable in Alameda.
De- emphasis of the Automobile
The Community Reuse Plan is intended to support transit improvements; ferry
service, transit- oriented design and an enjoyable pedestrian environment
Transit Orientation
The historic land use patterns of the City of Alameda were established in clusters
around the trolley car and transit stops that served the residential community- for the
majority of their work- related, commercial, and recreational naveL By emphasizing
existing land patterns, providing better opportunities to perform day to day activities
within walking distance of home, and creating transit links that can easibi convey
employees to their workplace, redevelopment at NAS Alameda can help re-establish
the transit - oriented character that is Alameda's heritage.
Mixed -Use Development
A mixed -use approach will allow for the development of transit - friendly
neighborhoods, with a strong pedestrian character, that will foster the development of
the desired small town feeling.
Neighborhood Centers
One of the major tools used to forge a sense of community, effective mixed -
use, transit - oriented design and de- emphasize the automobile is to encourage
development clustered around neighborhood centers.
Sustainable Development R Design
Sustainability is a series of principles from transit- oriented design to preservation
of open space that render concern for the human and natural environment fixtures in
urban fabric.
Although there is general
agreement on the type of
development to be developed
at Alameda Point, there is
disagreement about the
amount of development that
should be allowed.
Specifically, there is
disagreement within the
community about how many
housing units are necessary to
create a financially sustainable,
mixed -use, and transit - oriented
development that can be
served adequately by the
citywide transportation system.
Given these differences of
opinion, staff is recommending
that the next steps in the
process focus on a range of
development alternatives for
Alameda Point. These
scenarios can then be tested
for financial feasibility,
transportation effects,
sustainability and a range of
other community priorities.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
This next step is described in more detail later in this report.
2. Building Types
April 6, 2011
Page 4 of 11
The goals of the Reuse Plan and Alameda Point GPA, which state that new
development at Alameda Point should architecturally, aesthetically, and functionally
reflect Alameda's existing unique neighborhoods and districts, is still a widely accepted
and supported concept. "Homogenous," suburban -style new development is generally
considered undesirable.
Consistent with General Plan policies for mixed -use, transit - oriented development at
Alameda Point, the Alameda community supports mixed -use buildings, provided they
are well designed and appropriately placed within the fabric of the community.
Although many respondents agreed that a diversity of housing types should be provided
(e.g., single family homes, duplexes, in -law units, town houses and small apartment
buildings) in order to create a transit - oriented, architecturally diverse "Alameda - style"
mixed -use development, a few participants disagreed and argued that only single - family
homes should be allowed. Differences of opinions exist on the issue of building height
and "signature buildings" (Le., a large or tall building designed to make an architectural
statement or create a unique architectural presence).
Over the next six months, the analysis of the different development alternatives should
be designed to assist the community in visualizing and understanding what the different
scenarios will look like in terms of building types, sizes and character.
3. Parks and Open Space
The parks and open space network originally established in the Reuse Plan, adopted in
the General Plan, and then further refined in the 2006 Preliminary Development
Concept (PDC) open space framework plan is widely agreed upon.
The community also remains in support of the principles that the open space network
should provide:
a. Linkages between uses and spaces, and the rest of the city;
b. A diversity of park types and uses; and
c. Excellent access to the waterfront.
If trade -offs and compromises are necessary to achieve financial feasibility, there
appears to be a general consensus that passive recreational facilities (e.g., trails, paths,
promenades) and habitat conservation areas are a higher priority than active
recreational facilities, new marinas and new ferry terminals.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 5 of 11
Over the next six months, the analysis of the different development alternatives should
be designed to assist the community in evaluating the scope and types of recreational
facilities that can feasibly be provided and maintained under different development
scenarios.
4. Historic Character, Preservation, and Adaptive Reuse
Participants agree on the importance of retaining and preserving as much of the former
Naval Air Station Alameda's Historic District (Historic District) as is financially feasible.
However, there are significant differences of opinion about the importance of preserving
all of the 90+ buildings, structures and features in the Historic District. Participants
generally identified the Administrative Core, Residential Area, and the Hangars Area
West sub - districts as the most important to maintain.
Over the next six months, the different development scenarios to be evaluated with the
community will help determine how much of the Historic District can be maintained and
how much of a financial subsidy the project can afford to provide for the purpose of
maintaining, rehabilitating, and providing infrastructure to serve the historic buildings.
5. Transportation and Mobility
The primary transportation concern is traffic congestion, resulting from new
development at Alameda Point. The community generally agrees that addressing peak
hour congestion at the Webster and Posey Tubes is the highest priority, followed closely
by addressing peak hour congestion at the other crossings. Congestion along the major
corridors, while also a priority for the community, was less important than addressing
the Tubes and bridges.
The community identified the need to provide bus or shuttle services from Alameda
Point to BART as the most important strategy, with express buses to San Francisco as
a lesser, but still important strategy. While increasing ferry service to San Francisco
was also identified as a priority, it was rated below the need for bus services to BART
and San Francisco, and the participants had mixed opinions on the traffic benefits
associated with relocating the ferry terminal to the Seaplane Lagoon. Pedestrian and
bicycle improvements should be an integral design element of the Alameda Point
development to encourage alternative transportation options for travel within Alameda
Point.
Providing transportation services and facilities that are financially sustainable and not
dependent on outside federal, state or regional funding for construction or maintenance
was also a priority for the community. Although many agreed on the strategies that
should be employed to reduce the impact of development of Alameda Point on the
citywide transportation system and to encourage trips from Alameda Point to remain
within Alameda Point, others questioned the effectiveness of these transportation
strategies.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 6 of 11
Over the next six months, the staff and consultant team will continue to develop a
transportation strategy for Alameda Point. In addition, the development scenarios will
be evaluated to determine how each scenario performs from a citywide transportation
perspective.
6. Community Benefits
In response to the questions posed in the Workbook and the community forums, the
community benefits were ranked as follows: passive open space, active open space,
affordable housing and historic preservation. A branch library, new ferry terminal, new
marina, and new sports complex were less of a priority.
Over the next six months, the analysis of the different development scenarios should be
designed to assist the community in evaluating the scope and types of community
benefits that can feasibly be developed and maintained under different development
scenarios.
II. Next Steps in the Community Planning Process
Based upon the community comments received during the last four months in the
community process, staff recommends that the next six months of the planning process
focus on:
1. Preparing Development Alternatives: Identifying development alternatives for the
reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point that represent the range of opinions
within the community, as generally described below.
2. Assessing Financial Feasibility of Alternatives: Assessing the financial feasibility
of the alternatives and their ability to attract private investment so that the
community's priorities for Alameda Point are defined within the context of
financially feasibility.
3. Defining Community Priorities: Defining the community's expectations and
requirements for community benefits desired for redevelopment and reuse of
Alameda Point.
4. Evaluating Development Alternatives: Evaluating the alternatives for compliance
with community priorities.
1. Preparing Development Alternatives
Over the next several months and concurrent with the financial feasibility assessment
process described below, staff and the community will be preparing development
alternatives for Alameda Point. The range of alternatives should reflect the range of
opinions expressed by the community at the forums. Each alternative will include a land
use program for each of the sub areas described in the Workbook. Based upon the
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 7 of 11
community input during the first phase of the community engagement process and past
plans, the alternatives are likely to include the following range of land use concepts
representing the diversity of views in the community:
1. The "Leave It As Is" Development Alternative. This alternative emphasizes adaptive
reuse of existing structures at Alameda Point. No new housing would be
constructed, but existing buildings might be rehabilitated for residential use or
employment use. Non - residential development would be limited to adaptive reuse of
existing buildings. The number of housing units could range from 300 to 1,000.
2. The Reuse Plan Development Alternative. This development scenario would
evaluate and test the feasibility of the Reuse Plan development program. The
development program would include approximately 1,000 to 2,000 units and 5.5
million square feet of non - residential use.
3. The General Plan /PDC Development Alternative. This alternative would test the
feasibility of the General Plan /PDC development program with approximately 2,000
single - family and duplex residential units. Employment uses would range from 2
million to 4 million square feet. This scenario would depict and evaluate a Measure
A compliant development program with only single - family and duplex housing units.
4. The General Plan /PDC /Density Bonus Development Alternative. This alternative
would test the feasibility the General Plan /PDC in combination with State and local
Density Bonus regulations. Under these regulations, multi - family and mixed -use
building types could be included, and historic buildings could be adaptively reused
for multi - family housing. The total number of units would be approximately 2,000 to
3,000 units. Employment uses would range from 2 million to 4 million square feet.
5. The "Regional Strategy" Development Alternative. This alternative would explore
the concept of a higher density alternative of between 4,000 and 5,000 units and 5 to
6 million square feet of non - residential use. This scenario would be designed to
make a considerable contribution towards the ongoing effort by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) to develop a regional Sustainable Communities Strategy, which currently
envisions 8,100 new units for the City of Alameda over the next 25 years.
2. Assessing Financial Feasibility of Alternatives
Before the community's priorities are defined, staff recommends conducting an
assessment of financial feasibility for each development alternative so that the
prioritization process occurs within the context of financial feasibility. The financial
feasibility analysis will evaluate the requirements and costs for required public facilities
and infrastructure, as well as desired community amenities. These costs are likely to
include public streets, public open spaces, storm drain, sewer, water, electrical utilities,
and other optional community benefits, such as a sports complex, branch library, and /or
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 8 of 11
new marina. This information will be presented at ARRA meetings and discussed with
the community at two financial workshops.
The goals of the two proposed financial feasibility workshops will be to: (1) educate the
community about the significant costs associated with redeveloping Alameda Point and
the fundamental relationship between the amount of development (Le., revenue),
infrastructure requirements and community benefits (i.e., costs) and the attraction of
private investment (i.e., profit and rate of return); and (2) achieve community agreement
on the meaning and measurements for "Financial Feasibility" and "Fiscal Neutrality."
The community seems to be in agreement that the plan for Alameda Point must be
financially and fiscally sustainable. However, it is crucial that the community truly
understands what these terms mean and understands the fundamental economic
issues facing the redevelopment of Alameda Point before making difficult choices about
prioritizing community benefits (Le., costs) and /or increasing the amount of development
(Le., revenues). Because of the importance of these topics, staff is planning two
workshops to address financial issues.
Throughout the planning process, staff will also be holding developer interviews to
identify potential feasibility issues with the different alternatives. It is important to
emphasize that the current effort is a planning process to create and adopt a financially
feasible community supported plan for Alameda Point. The effort is not a process that
requires or presupposes that the ARRA should be the future master developer of the
site. The assumption is that a developer or a number of developers will be necessary to
implement any plan that the ARRA creates and that the plan must be capable of
attracting private investment. Without developer interest and private investment, the
plan cannot be implemented. For these reasons, throughout the planning process the
community and the staff must be reaching out to the development community to verify
that the plan being created is a plan that can be implemented. Over the next six
months, staff will be continually checking in with the development community to ensure
that the plan alternatives that are being developed by the ARRA are alternatives that
can attract developer interest and investment dollars.
3. Defining Community Priorities
Once the financial feasibility assessment has
occurred and the community has a better
understanding of the financial issues facing
Alameda Point, staff recommends defining clear
community priorities for the redevelopment of
Alameda Point. Clarifying the community's
priorities for Alameda Point will be important in the
event that certain community benefits need to be
removed from the plan to maintain financial
feasibility. It will also be important to clarify
priorities with the community so that the later
evaluation of the alternatives is based on a clear
and common understanding
of
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 9 of 11
community priorities. Lastly, for the City to actively and productively engage with a
future development partner, the City must be able to clearly articulate the community's
priorities.
Staff is proposing to conduct two additional community workshops once the financial
feasibility assessment is completed to define community priorities and to develop
criteria for evaluating the pros and cons of proposed development alternatives. The
following describes in greater detail the format and content of two proposed additional
workshops:
Transportation Sustainability Workshop: The goal of this workshop will be to achieve
community support for specific standards to be used to evaluate the different
transportation plans associated with the development alternatives. Everyone seems to
agree that the plan for Alameda Point must preserve the integrity and effectiveness of
the citywide transportation system. While the community also seems to agree that
each alternative should be evaluated on its impact on the Peak Hour congestion at the
Tubes, others also want information about each alternative's effect on citywide transit
use. Before the community can collectively evaluate the transportation effects of
different development alternatives, the community will need a common set of
measurements to do so. These will be explored and discussed at the transportation
sustainability workshop.
Environmental Sustainability Workshop: There is almost universal agreement that the
plan should be "environmentally sustainable," but this term seems to mean different
things to different people. This workshop will explore the range of strategies, objectives,
and requirements that could be incorporated into the development alternatives. Green
infrastructure, energy use and generation, waste reduction, greenhouse gas emission
reductions, and other strategies will be introduced for community consideration for
inclusion in the plan for Alameda Point. Before the community can begin to make
decisions about whether a development alternative is "green enough," the community
will need a common set of standards upon which to evaluate each alternative. This will
be discussed at the environmental sustainability workshop.
3. Evaluating Development Alternatives
Once the ARRA, community and staff have prepared draft development alternatives,
assessed the initial financial feasibility, and defined the community priorities, the staff
and consultant team will test and evaluate each scenario against the community
priorities and criteria developed at the workshops. As the evaluation is taking place,
staff will be providing information to the community about how each development
scenario performs in terms of the community priorities. Examples of categories of
community priorities include:
1. Financial Feasibility: Is the alternative financially feasible and will it attract private
investment?
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 10 of 11
2. Fiscal Neutrality: Is the alternative fiscally neutral to the City's General Fund?
3. Citywide Transportation System: How will the alternative affect the citywide
transportation system?
4. Environmental Sustainability: Is the alternative environmentally sustainable?
5. Job Generation: How many jobs are generated?
6. Affordable Housing: How many affordable housing units are produced?
7. Historic Preservation: What is the effect of the alternative on the Historic
District?
8. Design Character: Does the alternative reflect community design character
objectives?
City staff will conduct the evaluation of each alternative with assistance from the
consultant team that has expertise in real estate economics, traffic and transportation,
sustainable design and infrastructure, civil engineering, urban design, and historic
preservation.
III. Upcoming ARRA Decision Points
Throughout the next six months, staff will be checking in monthly with the ARRA to
report on progress made and plans for the following month. At the end of this six -
month phase of the community planning process, staff will present the ARRA with a
report that summarizes the conclusions of the evaluation process, recommends a
financially feasible preferred development scenario, and identifies other development
alternatives that should be maintained for the next steps of the entitlement and
environmental review process.
At that time, the ARRA will be in position to make important decisions about how to
proceed with the next steps of the planning process, which include the entitlement and
environmental review phase. During the next six months, staff will be working closely
with its civil engineering and real estate economics consultants to provide detailed
information on the ARRA's options for entitlement of Alameda Point. The options for
ARRA consideration are likely to include:
a. Continuing with an ARRA planning effort;
b. Continuing with the ARRA planning effort, while issuing a Request for
Qualifications or Proposals (RFQ /P) from a single development partner for
the entire 918 -acre property;
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Page 11 of 11
c. Continuing with the ARRA planning effort, while issuing an RFQ /P from
multiple specialty development partners for smaller portions of the
property with potential for different types of land use (i.e., residential,
retail, and commercial);
d. Halting the ARRA planning effort and issuing an RFQ /P process for a
development partner(s); and
e. Continuing or halting the ARRA planning effort while the City discusses
coordinating with the Navy on a joint auction of the property.
At that time, staff will also know whether the City's grant request for $750,000 from MTC
to help fund the entitlement process for Alameda Point was successful.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This report is for information purposes only.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The Summary Report describes a community process designed to implement General
Plan goals, objectives and policies as articulated in Chapter 9 of the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Feasibility and planning studies are statutorily exempt from the provision of the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15262 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and comment on Summary Report for the community planning process for
Alameda Point.
J
Deput ity Manager
Exhibit:
1. Community Feedback Summary Report — On File in the City Clerk's Office
ummary o
Alameda Point Planning
Process and Next Steps
Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
April 6, 2011
Community Participation
Ei Three community workshops - 60 to 100
people participated
E5 One commercial tenant forum - 30 tenant
representatives attended
N. Boards and Commissions - 6 boards and
commissions commented
0. 100 to 200 people completed each section
of the workbook
Re: Agenda Item #4 -A
ARRA
04 -06 -11
Purpose of Workshops
Identify areas of agreement
Identify areas requiring further resolution
Shape next steps in community planning
process
Provide indication of community
preferences and priorities — not a survey
or poll
Land Use Programs
Agreement:
Jobs
Mixed-Use
Services
Housing
Needs Resolution:
Number of units', ;f�
�n t ^':.� faVaf4ms
Agreement:
Uses by sub -area
Needs Resolution:
■ How much housing
each sub -area?
■` How much adaptive'
reuse in each sub -
,; area?
Agreement:
District Diversity
Mixed -Use
Variety of Building Types
■ High Quality Design
Needs Resolution:
■ Budding Heights
vs a z
Historic Preservation
Agreement:
E Preservation is
important
Relative importance
of historic sub
districts
E If feasible, save i
Needs Resolution:
E How much is
financially feasible?
Agreement.
Framework
Principles
Needs Resolution:
How many active
facilities can we
afford?
Feasibility' of "sport
complex`'
10.:144N.:0
Agreement:
Congestion is greatest
concern
New crossing not feasible
Need to increase capac
through transit and TDM
Needs Resolution:
Will transportation plan be
effective?
hat will it cost?
Ferry terminal location
Summary of Next Steps
Develop range of alternatives based on
community input
Evaluate financial feasibility of alternatives
Define community priorities and criteria
within context of financial feasibility
Evaluate the alternatives according to
community priorities and criteria
Range ofi Alternatives
"Leave it as is"
Reuse Plan
General Plan /PDC
General Plan /Density Bonus
Regional Strategy
Financial Feasibility Assessment
Significant costs related to infrastructure
replacement, sea -level rise, public facilities, and
community desired benefits
Revenues generated from amount of proposed
development in each scenario
Do revenues exceed costs sufficiently to achieve
market rate of return required by private
investors?
— If no, then alternative is infeasible
Can revenues be increased?
— Can costs be reduced?
Other Community Workshops
Transportation Planning
— What are the community's transportation priorities?
— What are appropriate transportation criteria for
evaluating alternatives?
Environmental Sustainability
— What does environmental sustainability mean to he
community?
— What are the community's environmental priorities?
What are appropriate environmental criteria for
evaluating alternatives?
Evaluation Criteria
Financial feasibilit�r
Fiscal neutrality
Citywide transportation system
Environmental sustainability
Job Generation
Affordable housing construction
Historic preservation
Design character
Results
Evaluate alternatives according to criteria
Identify a preferred concept and range of
alternatives based on evaluation
Provide range of alternatives that allow for
flexibility throughout entitlement process
Identify public improvement requirements,
community benefit priorities, and preferred
transportation plan
Describe options for entitlement, conveyance
and disposition process
Russell Resources, Inc.
environmental management
Alameda Point RAB Meeting on March 3, 2011
Highlights and Analysis
RAB members present: Dale Smith (Community Co- Chair), Joan Konrad, James Leach, Kurt
Peterson, Jean Sweeney, Jim Sweeney, and Michael John Torrey. The RAB voted to approve the
applications for RAB membership of three individuals: Richard Bangert, Carol Gottstein, M.D.,
and Daniel Hoy.
Remediation and other field work in progress:
o A Navy/EPA/University of Florida field research study is in progress at Plume 4 -1,
immediately north of Building 360 near Alameda Point's east entrance. The research
focuses on better characterizing the solvent contamination in groundwater prior to
remedy selection and design. This research should improve not only the Navy's cleanup
of OU -2B groundwater, but similar contamination elsewhere.
o A pilot test of groundwater treatment at the IR Site 1 landfill, which began in October, is
still underway.
o Groundwater monitoring is ongoing to assess the effectiveness of remediation at IR Site 6
(Building 41, Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility), IR Site 16 (Shipping
Container Storage Area, in the southeast corner of Alameda Point), and IR Site 28 (Todd
Shipyards).
o Radiological status surveys of selected buildings to rule out potential radiological
residues are ongoing.
o The air sparge /vapor extraction system to treat groundwater contaminated with benzene
and naphthalene at Alameda Point OU -5 and FISCA IR Site 2 is operating.
o Dredging of the northeast corner of Seaplane Lagoon began in early January. Dredging of
Seaplane Lagoon's northeast corner is about two - thirds completed and work on the
northwest comer is about to begin. The Lagoon's dredging was scheduled to continue
until March 15, 2011, when it was to have been terminated due to least -tern habitat
considerations. However, the Navy has experienced dredging delays due to weather,
encountering hard sediments, encountering petroleum contamination in the sediments,
and other factors. The Navy is negotiating an extension with California Department of
Fish and Game for its dredging deadline that will allow it to dredge until the least -tem
colony reappears for the season. Even with this extension, it is unclear the dredging can
be completed without remobilizing after the least terns have departed in the fall.
San Francisco Estuary Institute's Regional Monitoring Program
Ms. Karen Taberski of the Water Board presented to the RAB an outline of SFEI's Regional
Monitoring Program for water, sediment, and fish tissue. The RMP is a collaborative effort
between SF'EI, the Water Board, and the regional discharger community. It provides water
quality regulators with information they need to manage the Estuary effectively. Among other
points she made during this interesting and informative talk, is that sediment in Oakland Harbor
is of relatively poor quality. Although these deteriorated sediment conditions may also exist
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.
Agenda Item #5 -A
ARRA
4 -6 -2011
Page 2 of 2
April 6, 2011
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, March 3, 2011
Highlights and Analysis
within Oakland Inner Harbor on the north side of Alameda Point, that would not be the case on
Alameda Point's south side. There, with open exposure to San Francisco Bay, sediment
conditions would be comparable to the cleaner sediment quality of the Bay in general.
OU -2A Draft Final Feasibility Study
The Navy presented a review of the remedial alternatives that are being evaluated in the FS for
OU -2A in the southeast area of Alameda Point. OU -2A consists of IR Site 9 (Paint Stripping
Facility), IR Site 13 (Former Oil Refinery), IR Site 19 (Hazardous Waste Storage), IR Site 22
(Former Service Station near the corner of Main Street and Pacific Avenue), and IR Site 23
(Missile Rework Operations/Former Plane Defueling). Cleanup options for soil at localized areas
of IR Sites 9 and 22 are evaluated, with excavation and off -site disposal the likely option to be
selected.
Relatively low levels of VOCs (solvents) in groundwater at IR Sites 9 and 19 and somewhat
higher levels of benzene (petroleum - related) at IR Site 13 are evaluated. In -situ treatment likely
will be selected for IR Site 13's benzene, but the two VOC groundwater plumes present a more
difficult decision. In -situ treatment of these plumes would achieve remedial goals in about 10
years, rather than in about 20 years with monitored natural attenuation (doing nothing except
periodic sampling to verify that levels are continuing to decrease through natural processes).
However, the in -situ treatment is more expensive. The remedial decision pivots on whether the
extra cost of in -situ treatment is justified by the benefit of quicker cleanup. Often the extra
expense is justified when human health or the environment is threatened. However, these threats
are not present here, making the decision more difficult. In the case of these VOC plumes, the
clean -up goals are not set by health risk, but by legal requirement (to clean potential drinking -
water supplies to potable water standards, regardless of whether anyone currently is using the
water supply). It is important to note that although some residences at Alameda's West End
purportedly have unauthorized water wells for irrigation, the groundwater flow direction at these
VOC plumes is westward, away from the wells. Thus, the more - costly in -situ treatment of these
VOC plumes reaches regulatory goals sooner, but conveys little or no benefit to public health or
the environment.
Once the FS is finalized, the Navy will issue the Proposed Plan explaining its preferred remedies.
After considering public comment on the Proposed Plan, the BCT will select the remedies in the
Navy's Record of Decision.
RRl, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Alameda Point
Commercial Market
Assessment
Alameda Reuse and
• Redevelopment Authority
• April 6, 2011
Provide an overview of the commercial
market in the Bay Area, the East Bay, and
Alameda, with a focus on non-retail
markets
gl Discuss implications for Alameda Point
Agenda Item #7-A
. ARRA
04-06-11
• Interviewed local commercial brokers and
developers
• Reviewed quarterly commercial market
reports
• Reviewed Beacon Economic's Quarterly
Forecast for East Bay EDA, January 2011
Summary of Findings
Job growth drives office development
Unemployment rates are high, which
adversely affects market
Ea East Bay faces high commercial vacancies
EA As second -tier market, Alameda's vacancy
rates are even higher than East Bay
• East Bay and Alameda lease rates have
decreased over the last several years
iissminsmit
a drib %: ff
2
Summary of Findings (cont.)
Recession has bottomed out
Recovery will likely be a slow, ste
climb, unless there is another bub
(e.g., green tech)
Uncertain future demand for large
tenant, speculative office develo
especially in Alameda
ob Growth Drives Office
Unemployment Rate ( %, SA)
East Bay Labor Markets
Jan-05 to Dec-10
12-
10-
8-
6-
4- 1
Jan-05
Dec-05 Nov-06 Oct-07
Unemployment Rate
Sep-08 Aug-09 Jull-10
Total Nonfarm
Source: CA Employment Development Department
^ -^^ -^ • -
3
Anticipated Slow Recover
Labor Market Forecast
East Bay, 01 -95 - Q4 -15
12.0-
-10.0-
• 8.0-
-1,100:g
0
- 1.050
- 1,00.7
6.0
-950
4.0- (•
2.0-
-900 o
01-95 03-98 0102 0305 01109 03112 01110
D
Unemp&oyment Rate Nonfarm Err .'oyment
Fc r,,,c2 T is by Beacon Economics
East Bay Commercial Vac
East Bay Commercial Vacancies
01 -05 to 04 -10
011-05 441-06 Q3'-08 Q2110
Office Retail
Source: Portfolio and Property Research
4
ameda V
40.00% - ----
30.00%
20.00% •
10.00%
0.00%
nc Rates
4Q 2008 4Q 2009 4Q 2010
Marina Village Harbor Bay
e6))i110 a[7.1"FIJ
East Bay Commercial Lease Rates
$2.45 ,
$2.25
$2.05
$1.85
$1.65
$1.45
2008
2009 2010
Marina Village Harbor Bay I- 80/880 Corridor
5
400,000 -
200,000
0
- 200,000
- 400,000
- 600,000 -
2008
2009 2010
Marina Village Harbor Bay 1- 80/880 Corridor!
Alameda Point Advantages
Land available for new development
Central location in East Bay
® Beautiful waterfront setting
® Part of larger mixed -use developme
conce•t
6
Alameda Point Disadva
'Remote" location — people do not like t
cross the estuary
• Long -range development horizon
• Uncertainty about obtaining financing
given ownership of land
Perception of land use and environment
restrictions
plications for Alameda Poin
Currently not viewed as a "preferred" or
"optimal" location for speculative developmen
® Capital markets are not there for large -scale
speculative commercial development — too
much risk
u Economic development strategy would need to
offset perceived disadvantages and focus on:
— Institutional users (e.g., LBNL, VA)
— Build -to -suit commercial opportunities
— Other untraditional users
- Targeted "niche" attraction strategy
7
Implications for Alameda Poin
Example: "North Loop Road" Model
• 10 to 25 acres at a time more
economically viable for developers
• Build -to -suit
• Coherent, targeted marketing and
development strategy
Iications for Alameda Poin
tive Reuse
® Many existing buildings are of low quality and
declining condition
® Reuse may be possible for larger buildings and
hangars
® Need for improvements, such as high dock
loading, for industrial use
Preference for improvements to be done in
advance to show property in good condition
s
Implications for Al
Catalyst will Spur Co- location Developmen
• LBNL
O Veterans Administration
• "Activi be • ets activi "
9
Item 7 -B is an oral report
Agenda Item #7 -B
ARRA
4 -6 -2011
LBNL competitively seeking site for
Campus
— 484,000;s:f:`— Phase 1
— 2 million s. f . <- Campus buiitiout.:
1,000 jobs from Phase 1 and significan
commercial spin -off opportunities
UC currently owns 90 acres at Richmond Fie
Station ( FS)
LBNL received 21 responses: from numerous
er'vate *rose + 11
Only public site
other than RFS
Stateme
Central location in the heart of Ba
Waterfront setting is unparalleled
Opportunities to shape a world -cla
workplace environment
Safe and inviting community
Statement of Key Reasons.(cont)x
Exsting retail sery
a mile
Minimal entitlement a`
risk
Reliable, clean, and affordable electrici
Distance from LBNL
Geotechnical conditions
`ARRA control over land
Neighborhood characteristi
eveloper Selection Process
Development team required, uired i
short- isle
. ..............
:.::..........
ARRA issued RFQ for Developers on.
February 3rd
Seven responses
Three high - quality short-listed develop,
Will invite LBNL to participate in final
selection i races
o is announced April 2011
:...........
Detailed negotiations June 2011
Selection of preferred site - June 2011
Preliminary development agreement
September 2011
Approvals - November 2012
Design and construction - Octo
Occupancy ecember 2015
cY�
`( 4
ARR1
\kuncda IZciNeand
..lc., I opt lid nt: \nall, mi.
in collaboration with
Contents
Introduction
Executive Summary
1. Land Use
2. Building Types and
Neighborhood Character
3. Parks and Open Space
4. Historic Character, Preservation
and Adaptive Reuse
5. Transportation and Mobility
6. Community Benefits and New Ideas
1-4
5-12
13-16
17-20
21-24
25-30
31-36
Appendices Bound Under Separate Cover
Appendix A. Workbook and Online Survey Results
Appendix B. A Resident's Concept for the Northwest Territories
This Summary Report was prepared by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA), in collaboration with the City Design Collective.
Introduction
This report summarizes the major conclusions from a series of community planning opportunities that began in
November 2010 and ended in February 2011. The workshops provided opportunities for the community to discuss
a range of topics that need to be considered in the preparation of a plan for the redevelopment and reuse of Alameda
Point, 918 acres of the former Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda). The opportunities included four community
workshops, an online workbook, a series of discussions with the City of Alameda Boards and Commissions, and a
forum with the commercial tenants at Alameda Point. All of the workshops and discussions were organized around a
Community Planning Workbook (Workbook) that was designed to focus community discussion on six major topics that
need to be addressed in a plan for Alameda Point.
The primary purpose of the community planning process and this Summary Report is to assist the community and its
elected and appointed bodies in designing a process to create a vision and plan for Alameda Point. The major findings
and conclusions described in this Summary Report are intended to assist the community in exploring difficult trade -offs
that will need to be resolved before a plan and range of alternatives can be prepared. These findings and conclusions
are not intended to be used to draft a plan.
Lastly, it should be understood that this Summary Report was written by the City staff that organized and staffed the
workshops, and reflects staff's observations and findings from a series of discussions and materials including:
1. The discussions that occurred at the individual tables at the workshops.
2. The discussions that occurred at a variety of Board and Commission workshops.
3. Written material submitted by the community, including completed workbooks and online workbooks.
Staff encourages and appreciates all community feedback on this Summary Report because it will be essential to
designing the next steps of a successful planning process.
The Summary Report includes:
Executive Summary. An Executive Summary of the major findings from the community workshops and discussions,
including a summary of areas of both agreement and disagreement. The material is organized according to the
sequence of the sections in the Workbook:
a. Land Use: What is the right mix of recreational, cultural, educational, housing, service, and employment uses at Alameda
Point'?
b. Building Type and Neighborhood Character: What should new buildings and neighborhoods in Alameda Point look like?
Where should new buildings be located?
c. Parks and Open Space: How should parks and open space be designed to improve the lives of all Alameda residents?
d. Historic Character, Preservation and Adaptive Reuse: How should the City honor and preserve the history of the former Naval Air
Station?
e. Transportation and Mobility: How should people travel to and from Alameda Point?
f. Community Benefits and New Ideas: Which community benefits are the most important? What are the Community's additional
ideas for Alameda Point?
Detailed Summaries by Topic. A detailed summary and discussion of the findings from each of the six major sections
of the Workbook. The material is presented in the same sequence as the Workbook and the Executive Summary.
Appendices. A complete summary of feedback from the workshops and online Workbook, minutes from the Boards
and Commission meetings, and copies of all other feedback provided by the community:
a. Appendix A. Workbook and Online Summary Results: this section includes most, but not all, of the written comments from
community participants that completed the Workbook in person or online.
b. Appendix B. A Resident's Concept for the Northwest Territories.
eda Poin
munity Fo
Repor
Executive Summary
1. Land Use
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives included in the City Council adopted 1996 NAS Community Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan) and the
2003 Alameda Point General Plan Amendment (Alameda Point GPA) remain valid. Although many years have passed
since the City Council adopted the Reuse Plan and Alameda Point GPA, the community aspirations for Alameda Point
articulated in these two documents generally continue to reflect and represent the community's vision for the reuse and
redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Uses
The community generaily agrees that the redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point should include a variety of mixed-
use, transit-oriented districts that provide jobs, affordable housing, and passive and active public open spaces and
facilities.
Amount of Development
Although there is general agreement on the types of development to be developed at Alameda Point, there is
disagreement about the amount of development that should be allowed. Specifically, there is disagreement within the
community about how many housing units are necessary to create a financially sustainable, mixed-use, and transit-
oriented dave|opmantthatcanbeoen/edodequata|ybythecitywidatnonsportsdionayetam.
Land Uses by Distric
There is significant agreement about the types of land uses that should be allowed in each of the various sub-areas
within Alameda Point.
2. Buliding Types and Neighborhood Character
Diversity and "Alameda Style"
The goals of the Reuse PIan and Alameda Point GPA, which state that new development at Aameda Point shouki
architecturally, aestheticafly, and functionally reflect Alameda's existing unique neighborhoods and districts, is stUt a
widely accepted and supported concept. "Homogenous," suburban-style new development is generally considered
undesirable.
Mixed-Use Buildings
Consistent with General Plan policies for mixed-use, transit-oriented development at Alameda Point, the Alameda
community supports mixed-use buildings, provided they are well designed and appropriately placed within the fabric of
the community. One participant wrote: "While | am a ranter against more apartments, this isa great model for Alameda.
More of this please," in reference to images of mixed-use buildings in the Workbook.
Multi-Family Housing
Although many respondents agreed that a diversity of housing types should be provided (e.g., single family homes,
duplexes, in-law units, town houses and small apartment buildings) in order to create a transit-oriented, architecturally
diverse "Alameda-style" mixed-use development, a few participants disagreed and argued that only single-family homes
should be allowed.
Building Heights and "Signature Buildings"
Differences of opinions exist on the issue of building height and "signature buildings" (i.e., a large or tall building
designed to make an architectural statement or create a unique architectural presence).
ES: 2 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Executive Summary
5. Transportation and Mobility
Traffic Congestion is Top Concern
The primary transportation concern is traffic congestion, resulting from new development at Alameda Point. The
community generally agrees that addressing peak hour congestion at the Webster and Posey Tubes is the highest
priority, followed closely by addressing peak hour congestion at the other crossings. Congestion along the major
corridors, while also a priority for the community, was Tess important than addressing the Tubes and bridges.
Connections to BART and San Francisco a Preferred Strategy
Proposed solutions from the community emphasized providing a transit system to BART and San Francisco with faster
travel times than an automobile to address congestion. The community identified the need to provide bus or shuttle
services from Alameda Point to BART as the most important strategy, with express buses to San Francisco as a lesser,
but still important strategy.
Ferry Service Strategies Less of a Priority
While increasing ferry service to San Francisco was also identified as a priority, it was rated below the need for bus
services to BART and San Francisco, and the participants had mixed opinions on the traffic benefits associated with
relocating the ferry terminal to the Seaplane Lagoon.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Integral to Development
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements should be an integral design element of the Alameda Point development to
encourage alternative transportation options for travel within Alameda Point.
Financially Self- Sustaining Strategies
Providing transportation services and facilities that are financially sustainable and not dependent on outside federal,
state or regional funding for construction or maintenance was also a priority for the community.
Effective Transportation Strategies
Although many agreed on the strategies that should be employed to reduce the impact of development at Alameda
Point on the Citywide transportation system and to encourage trips from Alameda Point to remain within Alameda Point,
others questioned the effectiveness of these transportation strategies.
6. Community Benefits and New Ideas
Community Benefits
In response to the questions posed in the Workbook and the community forums, the community benefits may be ranked
as follows:
1. Passive and active open space;
2. Affordable housing and historic preservation;
3. Branch Library; and
4. A new Ferry Terminal, a new Marina, and a new Sports Complex.
New Ideas
As part of the community engagement process and Workbook, participants were given the opportunity to provide any
additional thoughts or "new ideas" for Alameda Point. Many new ideas, not explored elsewhere in this Summary Report,
were provided and can be generally grouped according to the following topics: energy and water; farm and food; Northwest
Territories and VA facility; public facilities; economic development; transportation; and planning and development process.
ES: 4 Alameda Point Communi
Forums - Su
Report
Land Use
Prior Plans - Strengths and Weaknesses
The following provides a summary of the community input provided on the strengths and weaknesses of the prior
plans for Alameda Point organized by theme. The previous plans described in the Workbook and discussed in the
community forums included the Reuse Plan, the Alameda Point GPA, the PDC, and the 2010 SunCal Measure B plan
(Measure B Plan).
A Mix of Uses
Employment and Economic Development
The community agrees that job generation and economic development must remain primary objectives for the Alameda
Point plan. Many believe that job generation should be the primary and most important land use objective. There
is strong support for job creation at Alameda Point, specifically "green" industries, dean energy production, craft, art,
and production -type industries, and visitor- serving businesses. Although every plan prepared since the Reuse Plan
proposed a mix of land uses. including job generating uses, the community generally expressed the feeling that the
original Reuse Plan's strong emphasis on job generation and job replacement must be re- emphasized in the new plan
for Alameda Point.
Of all the prior plans, the Reuse Plan called for the largest amount of non - residential development with 5.5 million
square feet of commercial, employment- generating uses at Alameda Point. The Alameda Point GPA called for only
2.3 million square feet of employment uses. The Measure B Plan and the PDC called for less than the Reuse Plan, but
more than the Alameda Point GPA.
Many community members also emphasized that traffic generated from job - generating uses would be a "reverse
commute" traffic flow in Alameda (entering Alameda in the morning and leaving in the evening), which is the direction
that Alameda has additional traffic capacity. Therefore, traffic generated by job creation would have less of an impact
on the rest of Alameda relative to traffic generated by new housing at Alameda Point.
The community also felt that the economic development strategy for Alameda Point must embrace and support both
new buildings for new businesses and an aggressive adaptive reuse strategy for the historic buildings. Concepts for a
more aggressive leasing strategy for certain historic buildings were also supported.
Housing and Mixed -Use Development
The objective for transit - friendly, mixed -use, pedestrian- oriented neighborhoods contained in the Reuse Plan and
Alameda Point GPA is still strongly supported within the Alameda community. The participants generally agreed that the
redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point should include a variety of mixed -use, transit - oriented districts that provide
jobs, affordable housing, and passive and active public open spaces and facilities. Almost all agreed that districts and
neighborhoods should be designed to be walkable with mixed -use "neighborhood centers" providing essential services
and small shops. Support for additional market rate housing is mixed.
Land Use
Factors to Consider when Deciding Amount of Development
Confronting Trade-offs
There is general agreement that the amount of development allowed at Alameda Point will affect: the amount of
traffic generated by the project, and the amount of revenue generated by the project to fund public facilities and
services, maintain and preserve historic buildings, and make the necessary improvements to the existing deteriorating
infrastructure. Most participants understand that developing a plan for Alameda Point will require balancing these
factors and making difflcult trade-offs.
Sustainable Development
The Alameda community seems to agree that the Alameda Point plan must be an environmentally sustainable plan.
Most seem to understand that the plan must address:
• Sea level rise.
• Greenhouse gas emission reductions through construction requirements, trip reduction strategies, and mixed-use land use
patterns to reduce automobile trips.
• Energy generation and use, including potential solar farms, wind turbines, and other forms of on-site energy generation are all
strongly supported, provided that there is not an impact on eridangered species.
• "Green Infrastructure," to the extent practicab!e and feasibe.
• Adaptive reuse of existing buildings to the extent feasible to reduce new construction and demolition waste.
• Water usa strategies.
Land Use
Plan Area B
At the western edge of the developed portions of the forme NAS
Alameda, PIan Area 6 includes the series of smaller airplane
hangars and Iarge warehouse buildings adjacent to the former
runways, the endangered Ieast tern cotony, and the best views of
San Francisco. Most of the eight major buildings in this district
are currently Ieased, and the four major hangars (Buildings 20, 21,
22, and 23) are important contributors to the Historic District. New
construction in this area is severely limited by the 1999 Biological
Opinion (BO) to minimize impacts to the Least Tern Colony.
Preferred Uses
Most participants agreed that adaptive reuse of the existing
buildings with existing and new uses and }imited new construction
consistent with the 80 is appropriate in this area. Uses that are
most appropriate in this area include Iight industrial, beverage
manutacturing and distribution, tasting rooms, renewable energy
haci|itieo, cultural and antertainment, parks and n*cresdion, retail and
services, and office/workplace uses.
Least Preferred Uses
The foliowing uses did not receive significant support for PIan Area B:
/ }
single-family residential, multi-family residential, live/work, lodging,
L~'~/
mixed-use (residential over commercial), civic uses, and schools.
Plan Area C
PIan Area C includes the area referred to as the "shops" area
of the Historic District. The area includes avariety of former
Navy warehouses and industrial facilities as weH as a row of five
120,000-square-foot hangars. The area inciudes theAlameda Point
Collaborative (APC) administrative facilities, the Naval Air Museum,
a firehouse, the Bladium Sports Club and short-term warehousing
and film production leases. PIan Area C is also home to the
1-million-square-foot, vacant Building 5.
Preferred Uses
Participants seemed to agree that Plan Area C should include
a variety of employment including light ^, office
pn�mm,��m.w""=�= ,��a""�"�"i,�" renewable energy
~="
.-~~.~..�~.~~~~~.~~~.~~_.~~~.~��
facilities, and Iive/work. Mixed-use (residential over retail), multi-
family residentia uses, cultural and entertainment, civic uses, lodging, and parks and recreation are also potentially
appropriate in this area. Generaffy, any buildings that are financially feasible to adapt and reuse shoud be used if
poosib|e, but new construction is also generally supported in this area.
Least Preferred Uses
� /
Single-family residential uses and urban agriculture and community gardens did not elicit much support in this area.
Land Use
Plan Area F
Located in the southern area of the former Base, Plan Area F fronts
onto the Seaplane Lagoon and the MARAD Fleet to the west, the
San Francisco Bay and "Enterprise Park" to the south, and the Main
Street neighborhoods and Encinal High School to the east. The
area is not within the Historic District.
Preferred Uses
Plan Area E lands should be dedicated to waterfront open space
and recreation, maritime - related uses, visitor - serving retail and
services, cultural uses and entertainment, and lodging. Some
felt that office and workplace uses, and even some multi - family
housing, could be accommodated in the areas that are not
restricted to State Lands limitations State Lands may not be used
for residential purposes.
Least Preferred Uses
Generally, participants felt that the following uses would not be
appropriate in Plan Area F: single - family residential, live /work, civic
and schools, Tight industrial, renewable energy sources, and urban
agriculture and community gardens.
Plan Area G
Commonly referred to as the Northwest Territories, this
area is restricted to uses consistent with State Lands.
Plan Area G currently hosts the monthly Antiques by
the Bay, and Mythbuster productions and provides
unparalleled views of San Francisco and the Bay.
The area is not within the Historic District, but new
construction is limited by the wildlife buffer restrictions to
protect the endangered Least Tern.
Preferred Uses
Area G should provide lands for parks and recreation, renewable energy facilities, urban agriculture and community
gardens, and maritime uses. There is also strong support for continued use of the land for large -scale public events
such as the Antiques by the Bay, and for temporary commercial use, such as the Mythbuster's television show. A plan
by Alameda resident Richard Bangert for Plan Area G is attached as Appendix C.
Least Preferred Uses
Among workshop participants, the following uses received little to no support: single - family housing, multi - family
housing, live /work, lodging, mixed -use, retail, civic and schools, cultural and entertainment, office workplace, and light
industrial.
Building Types and Neighborhood Character
The following provides a summary of participant views about different building types that should be allowed at
I Alameda Point and the character of future neighborhoods at Alameda Point.
Diversity and "Alameda Style" Districts
The goals of the Reuse Plan and Alameda Point GPA, which state that new development at Alameda Point should
architecturally, aesthetically, and functionally reflect Alameda's existing unique neighborhoods and districts, is still a
widely accepted concept. "Homogenous" suburban style new development is generally considered undesirable. There
is agreement that existing buildings should be adaptively reused, if possible, to reinforce and enhance the unique
character of Alameda Point. An overriding theme that runs through many of the comments is that new buildings to
house a variety of new uses should be provided at Alameda Point, but design excellence is essential to success.
Diverse Districts and Neighborhoods
There is general agreement that the character of the development (and amount of new construction) will differ from sub-
district to sub - district depending on the historic resources in each sub - district, and the proximity of the sub - district to the
wildlife sanctuary, the Main Street neighborhoods, and the waterfront. Reuse of existing buildings whenever feasible is
generally accepted as a positive strategy to reinforce and enhance the unique character of Alameda Point. Participants
also consistently stated that all sub - districts and neighborhoods should be designed to be "walkable" and not "auto -
dominated."
Building Types
Office and industrial flex Buildings
Office and industrial flex buildings were identified as
appropriate for Alameda Point. They should generally
be designed to "fit in" and blend with the surrounding
architecture. Some cautioned against development
of a large number of office buildings for speculative
development, citing the large current vacancy rates at
Marina Village and other places.
Hotel Lodging, and restaurant Buildings
Community members would like to see hotels and
restaurants on the waterfront and near the transit center
provided that the buildings are well designed.
Stand -Alone Retail Buildings
Participants generally agree that retail services and
particularly neighborhood - serving retail services are
needed at Alameda Point and that they should be located
in transit - accessible locations. Stand -alone buildings
with "seas of parking around them" raised some concerns
within the community.
OFFICE BUILDING
STAND -ALONE RETAIL BUILDING
BT & NC: 14
eda Paint
unity Foru
Sur
Report
Open Space Principles
Regional Park Facilities
Seaplane Lagoon Waterfront Park and Promenade
Parks and Open Space
Open Space Principles
The parks and open space Framework Plan originally established in the Reuse Plan, adopted into the Alameda Point
GPA and then further refined in the PDC open space framework plan should be retained in any plan for Alameda Point
because it provides:
(1) linkages btween uses and spaces;
(2) a diversity of park types and uses; and
(3) exceilent access to the waterfront.
1996 Community Plan Open Space
2006 Preliminary Development Concept (PDC)
3. P & OS; 18 Alameda Point Community Forums Summary Report
Parks and Open Space
Seaplane Lagoon Waterfront Park and Promenade
The open space network includes the Seaptane Lagoon waterfront park, which encompasses approximately 11/4 miles of
waterfront. Within this future park, the community generally agreed that:
• Trails, paths, promenades, and nature
areas are the most important facilities
and spaces.
• Providing a mix of uses nearby (e.g.,
cafs, restaurants, hotels) and spaces
for activities and events is important.
Providing access to the water for smafl
watercraft such as kayaks is generaily
agreed to be an important amenity to
provide at the Seaplane Lagoon. At Ieast
one participant envisions open water
swimming in the Seaplane Lagoon.
• Providing a new ferry terminal,
a new marina, public art, history
and educationa facilities, and
entertainment venues were generafly
the third and finat priority. Many agree
that the USS Hornet Museum and the
\ /
NAS Museum can both contribute to
creation of an interesting destination
at the Seaplane Lagoon that attracts
visitors from the region.
Trails, Paths and Nature Areas
places to walk, joe, and bike
Promenade
dace to stroll and relax
Mixed Use
relail, restaurants, cafes, and reereational uses
Active Waterfront
space for people, activities and events
Water Access
launch areas for non-motorized boals
New Feny Terminal
3. P & OS: 20 Alameda Point Community Forums Summary Report
Historic Character, Preservation, and Adaptive Reuse
Prior Plans - Strengths and Weaknesses
The following provides a summary of the community input on the sub - districts of an NAS Alameda Historic District
and on the strengths and weaknesses of the prior historic preservation plans at Alameda Point. The previous plans
described in the Workbook and discussed in the community feedback included the historic preservation plans contained
in the PDC and Measure B Plan. Participants also ranked the relative importance of the five individual sub - districts and
proposed ideas for adaptive reuse of the buildings in each sub - district.
Neither the PDC's proposal to save a sampling of buildings from each sub - district, nor the Measure B Plan proposal to
retain a coherent, but smaller district, received any significant support from workshop or online workbook participants.
In both cases, participants found particular buildings removed that they felt should be preserved or conversely buildings
that were being preserved that they felt could or should not be preserved.
Some participants wanted all historically significant buildings preserved. Some even felt that the second Workbook
exercise requesting that participants rank the importance of the different sub -areas was "unfair." One participant stated,
History should not be ranked." One simply wrote: "keep em (sic) all."
Others argued to preserve only those buildings that are economically feasible to save. Speaking about the PDC,
one wrote: "There is no possible way you can save those buildings." Another wrote: the `BOQ" should be kept if
economically advantageous. Not sure all hangers (sic) need to be kept; depends on economics." Another wrote:
"There is no aesthetic or economic logic to retaining 95% of the old buildings at the Point. They were designed for a
very limited and utilitarian purpose. They have served that purpose."
sistente
Area
South 'F
ConvibuUv Structures to be flowed
�.. Cont.ibutinq Structures to be RCmowd
2006 Preliminary Development Concept Historic District
2010 Measure B Historic District
4.HCP & AR: 22 Ala
eda Point Corr
:y: Forur
Repor"
Historic Character, Preservation, and Adaptive Reuse
Shops Area
The Shops Area includes a wide variety of manufacturing
and warehouse buildings, in a variety of sizes (some
very small and one as large as 1 million square feet).
Most participants noted that the Shops Area sub-
district was not as important to preserve as the other
sub - districts. This is consistent with the findings from
the Navy's extensive historic resource reports, which
deemed this sub - district the least historically coherent
of the NAS Alameda Historic District sub - districts.
Although the importance of the sub - district was not
uniformly appreciated, many respondents felt that the
buildings in the Shops Area currently provide and could
continue to provide important facilities for light industry
and manufacturing within Alameda Point. A number of
the buildings are already used for these purposes, and
if upgraded, could house productive, job - generating
new manufacturing, production, and light industrial
businesses. Building 5, the 1- million- square -foot building,
is subject to the Navy's ongoing remediation effort and
is considered a reuse challenge. Some respondents
suggested an indoor Antiques Fair, while others noted
that it could be a home for multiple green businesses.
Others felt the building should be removed.
Hangars South Area
Although not as highly valued as the Administrative
Core, Hangars Area West, and Residential Area sub -
districts, this area is home to Bladium Sports Club and
the Alameda Naval Air Museum. Some see a combination
of entertainment, cultural, recreational and light industrial
and production businesses and uses in this area.
m an
11'1;111111
Fra :3i� 11111
if 1:T " !q11P1M111
vrk``
Building 5
tfr, it
adii
pij1
Hangar 40 Building
4. HCP & AR: 24 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Transportation and Mobility
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
This section summarizes participant views on: a) a range of transportation issues to be addressed; and b) a range of
potential strategies to improve and maintain the integrity of the citywide transportation system.
Traffic Congestion
Traffic congestion resulting from new development at Alameda Point is a primary concern of the community. Addressing
peak hour congestion at the Webster and Posey Tubes is the highest priority, followed closely by addressing peak hour
congestion at the other crossings. While congestion along the major corridors was also a priority for the community, it
was less important than addressing the Tubes and bridges. All participants agree that the transportation question must
be addressed satisfactorily. As one person wrote: "This is the most important problem to solve."
Improved Transit Service
Participants generally agreed that for transit to be a viable option to reducing commute congestion, the travel times for
transit service to BART and San Francisco need to be faster than automobiles traveling the same routes. The need for
bus or shuttle services from Alameda Point to BART was rated as most important. Express buses to San Francisco were
also considered important, but not as important as bus service to BART. Ferry service, while considered an important
transit option, was rated lower than the other transit options. In addition, participants had mixed opinions on the direct
traffic benefits associated with relocating the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) terminal from Main Street to the
Seaplane Lagoon. Many raised concerns about the costs and regional implications of severing the Alameda Oakland
connection. The community also was very receptive to providing queue jump lanes to improve transit travel time, and
many recognized that coordination with Oakland was important to ensure success.
Reliance on the Automobile
Many respondents agree that people will use alternatives to the automobile, if the alternatives are convenient and
reliable. In addition to transit, many agree that pedestrian and bicycle improvements must be an integral element of the
transportation strategy for Alameda Point. They emphasize bicycle and pedestrian facilities need to connect to transit
stops and retail and convenience services, as well as other existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the City.
Others also agree that carshare, carpool and other transportation demand management strategies, such as discounted
transit passes, are an important component of the transportation strategy and can reduce reliance on single occupancy
vehicles.
Jobs /Housing Imbalance
Most agree that providing a mix of jobs at Alameda Point is a critical component of the transportation strategy and
that the jobs mix should enable existing Alameda residents to work there. In addition, some state that in addition
to jobs, it will be important to add retail and convenience services in close proximity to residential and office uses to
reduce automobile trips. Although a "jobs /housing" balance is generally accepted as a worthy goal, many question
how effective such a strategy would be at reducing commute trips. Some question the premise that future residents
will narrow their job search to employment opportunities at Alameda Point. Others question whether the types of jobs
provided at Alameda Point would enable an Alameda Point employee to afford purchasing an Alameda Point home.
Others state that since Alameda is a city with more homes than jobs, development at Alameda Point should emphasize
more jobs and less housing if a jobs /housing balance is a strategy to reduce Citywide traffic congestion.
Connectivity
All respondents agree that a well- connected and well- designed pedestrian and bicycle network is essential. However,
continuing the City's grid system of streets was not widely supported, although some encouraged an integration of
all modes within the grid system. As one respondent wrote: Alameda Point "needs to have own sense of place but
seamless connection to surrounding neighborhoods."
eda Point Cor
unity`Forums
Repor
Transportation and Mobility
BRT to BART Stations - 12th Street or Fruitvale
Many respondents indicated a strong support for
including bus rapid transit (BRT) service to 12th Street
BART in the transportation plan for Alameda Point.
Similar to the express bus service, the service would
need to be reliable, convenient and effective.
Respondents were split on the effectiveness of
providing BRT to Fruitvale BART. Some questioned
the benefits and costs of building and operating a
BRT facility with dedicated lanes from Alameda Point
to Fruitvale BART. Some argued that Alameda Point
residents would not travel "backwards" to Fruitvale to
access BART for jobs in San Francisco and Berkeley.
Others argued that it would support transit use Citywide,
thereby reducing Citywide traffic congestion and that it
would be effective for commuters traveling south.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements should be
an integral design element of the Alameda Point
development to encourage alternative transportation
options for travel within Alameda Point. These facilities
should connect to Alameda Point transit services, on-
site retail and convenience services, and to the other
pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the City.
Improving Traffic Flow Through Tubes
Many respondents agreed that this would be
beneficial but questioned the costs associated with
the improvements and the ability for Alameda to make
necessary improvements in Oakland. Based on the
comments, it appears that many respondents are
unaware of current work on the Broadway /Jackson
Interchange improvements. The next phase of
transportation planning for Alameda Point will include
information on this proposal and the status of current
discussions with Oakland.
BRT to BART 12th Street and Fruitvale BART Stations
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
T &M.28
eda Poin
Cor
unity Forums
Sumr
Repor'
Transportation and Mobil
ty
Financial Sustainability
Although there was no specific question regarding financial sustainability, many comments expressed concerns about
how the transportation plan would be funded, both initially and long -term. Respondents acknowledged that transit
funding is declining and that the transportation plan needs to address this trend and not rely on outside agency funding.
Therefore, providing transportation services and facilities that are financially sustainable and not dependent on outside
federal, state or regional funding for construction or maintenance is a priority for many participants.
Confidence in the Solutions
Although many agreed on the strategies that should be employed to reduce the impact of development of Alameda
Point on the Citywide transportation system and to encourage trips from Alameda Point to remain within Alameda
Point, others questioned the effectiveness of these transportation strategies. However, many of the people who had
doubts about the effectiveness of transportation strategies, agreed that providing convenient and reliable alternative
transportation modes, that resulted in faster travel times than cars, would be important to achieving success. Some
community members questioned whether residents and employees of Alameda Point will consistently use alternative
transportation as the primary means of commuting on and off the island and remain concerned that development at
Alameda Point will result in significant and unacceptable congestion at all the City's estuary crossings. For this segment
of the community, reducing the total number and type of residential units proposed at Alameda Point was cited as the
most effective strategy to address congestion concerns.
Other Suggested Strategies
Intra -City Shuttles
There is noteworthy support for additional bus and shuttle services throughout the City. Although the Workbook did not
address the idea of on- island shuttle service, a number of participants identified such a concept as an important transit
service that could potentially reduce automobile use and integrate Alameda Point into the City as a whole. The "Emery-
go- round" free shuttle in Emeryville was identified as the example. Almost all agree that if transit is going to be a viable
solution to the problem, the service needs to be convenient and reliable.
New Crossings
Although many expressed a desire for solutions that focused an additional crossing, such as a new bridge or tube,
many participants recognized that constructing a new bridge or tube would be expensive and possibly infeasible,
even if it were limited to transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Some respondents also acknowledged that access points
for additional tubes or bridge landings on the Oakland side of the Estuary are not available. A couple of participants
suggested the concept of extending BART from 12th Street to the Oakland Estuary to provide a joint station for Alameda
and Jack London Square under the Estuary as a new transit crossing that could reduce traffic congestion in the City.
eda.Point Cor
nity Foru
Repot
Community Benefits and New Ideas
Affordable Fkusing
Branch arary
Fasaive Open Space
(tab, etc.)
Active Open Space New Ferry Terminal
(ball fields, et.)
ft-c Pnbn
New Ma rin a
Sports. Cornplex
Yes
N-
Chart above shows results to the question, If necessary, would you increase the number of housing units in Alameda Point to
pay for the following benefits?"
osammisonevalsolgoosivellogistessesaggionitalgolloolessingoorligmloswoonnotoologommennoloolinitemosolligns„„
116-peir & NI: 33 Alameda Point Cornrnunity Forums - Sumrnary Report t
Community Benefits and New Ideas
Staffs review of worktable discussions and the table and chart on the previous pages revealed the following
observations:
Passive and active Open Space
Passive open space received the most "Most
Important" #1 rankings; it also received the most 1st,
2nd, and 3rd "place rankings. Very few people felt it
was "Less " or "Least Important." Active open space
is also a desired community benefit at Alameda Point.
It received almost as many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rankings
as passive open space, and very few people felt it was
"Less " or "Least Important ".
Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation
These two benefits each received a significant number
of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd "Most Important" rankings, but not
as many as passive or active open space. Affordable
housing received more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place rankings
than historic preservation, but historic preservation
received more 1st "Most Important" rankings than
affordable housing. Unlike active and passive open
space, both affordable housing and historic preservation
also received a large number of "Less Important" and
"Least Important" 7th and 8th place rankings.
New Ferry Terminal, Branch Library, New Marina and
Sports Complex
These four community benefits seemed to be less of
a priority than the other four benefits in the exercise.
As the planning process progresses and development
scenarios are prepared, it will be necessary to explore
the financial feasibility of providing and /or phasing these
community benefits.
Passive Open Space
Active Open Space
Affordable Housing
Historic Preservation
6. CB & NI: 34 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
ALAMEDA POINT 2010
COMMUNTTY FORUMS
APPENDIX A.
WORKBOOK AND ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
City
l:)esign
Collective
Contents
1. Land Use
2. Building Types & Neighborhood Character
3. Parks & Open Space
4. Historic Character, Preservation & Adaptive Reuse
5. Transportation & Mobility
6. Community Benefits and New Ideas
5-20
21-34
35-44
45-56
57-84
85-93
Prior Plans
1996 COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN
Question la - Going forward, list which components of the Reuse Plan SHOULD BE included in
the community's vision.
1. "the total number of housing units, parks and open space acres"
2. Jobs and Commercial
3. "Commercial Square Ft, Jobs (estimated), Park and open space Acres"
4. Jobs to fulfill a 1:1 ratio for CURRENT residents before any housing is added for people seeking employment in Alameda.
Jobs should pay enough to allow workers to actually live on the island - not retail for example. Add light industrial land uses,
preferably environmentally oriented
5. Housing, park and open space
6. Comprehensive use of all public trust lands for solar and wind power generation, water desalinization and where feasible
community farming. Historic buildings should be revitalized a -la SF Presidio.
7. Regional park, wetlands uses; open space access
8. "Good amount of overall housing units, good amount of park and open space area"
9. "S /F Duplex, park and open space"
10. housing, commercial square feet, parks and open spaces
11. 1,600 units of housing or less if single family housing or duplexes. This is the best plan because it reuses the existing
buildings.
12. The reuse plan was predicated on another tube or bridge if they built 1650 homes. Build no more than 900 homes. Don't forget
18" rising sea level in the next 50 years and 55" in the next hundred years.
13. jobs per employed residents
14. "park and open space, commercial"
15. Mixed use, job /housing balance, view corridors to the water, integration with existing Alameda. Would look more like old
Alameda than Bay Farm. Continue the grid system.
16. Parks and Open Space, Housing units.
17. "commercial square feet 5.5 million, park and open space acres 164 -169 or more"
18. "Modest housing, multifamily only if it can be used as an incentive to remove existing multi - family housing so that all
neighborhoods in Alameda can benefit from the base reuse. More PARKS !! Alameda has the least amount of park space in
Alameda county and is very short on playing (soccer) fields"
19. Reuse of the existing buildings and emphasis on jobs. Businesses can better regulate working times to lessen rush hour traffic.
Measure A compliant
20. Aside from numbers for housing and commercial, what information is presented here to respond to? There is absolutely no
land -use information presented because there is no key for what the colors in the picture represent.
21. All.
22. Park and Open Space
23. "Commercial development, Parks and open space"
24. Housing units: Limit by capacity of tubes and bridges, not more than 1650 at AP and the rest of Alameda, and emphasize reuse
to the greatest extent possible. Commercial OK, 5 -1 jobs ratio OK. Parks & open space
25. more open space multifamily. Select certain buildings for redapt reuse
26. Reuse of building makes the most sense- no piping on al gutted not green
27. More details on what is where.
28. Needs more density, multi family, and more balanced, mixture of uses.
29. Job creation is still the most important, especially with the continuing depression in the housing market. Focus on industrial/
light industrial with minimal retail.
30. Neighborhood centers distributed so most of the residents are within 1/4 mile walking distance of them.
31. Adaptive reuse of buildings. pick CRW in buildings
32. 1650 housing units was suggested If we get another tube or bridge. What about 900 housing units?
33. All components of the Reuse Plan should be included in the community's vision going forward, but multi - family housing and
transit - oriented development should also be included.
34. 1. Commercial sq. footage; 2. park and open space; and 3. housing
35. All
36. All
37. Transit hub idea (stars)
38. Commercial space, jpbs single family homes, parks and open space
Appendix A: 6
Alameda Pain
Comi
uni
y Forums
Sum
Report)
Prior Plans
2003 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Question 2a - Going forward, list which components of the General Plan SHOULD BE included in
the community's vision.
1. multi - family housing
2. Multi- family housing
3. "Total Housing Units; Multi - Family; Employed Residents; Jobs per Employed Residents"
4. Commercial, parks and open space Good paying job creation. Add light industrial land uses, preferably environmentally
oriented
5. More Housing
6. Comprehensive use of all public trust lands for solar and wind power generation, water desalinization and where feasible
community farming. Historic buildings should be revitalized a -la SF Presidio.
7. park and open space access
8. This looks like the best plan overall due to the number of housing units including multi - family units, the smaller commercial
space, and the job ratio
9. "S /F Duplex; park and open space"
10. same as la
11. "Traffic from commercial businesses is easier to control than traffic from residences. Please de- emphasize residences. No
more than 900 houses."
12. Jobs per employed residents
13. All except parks and open space and housing units
14. none
15. This is a poor option. Too few parks, too many apartments without benefiting the entire community. Again, MOVING people
from decayed, deteriorated, or dilapidated housing into new multifamily, even if that means more units is fine, but just building
more is foolish.
16. Measure A compliant and respect for the historic buildings.
17. see Question 1 a. No info to respond to.
18. All.
19. Parks and Open Space
20. "Commercial square footage; Parks and open space"
21. Parks and open space.
22. More multi family more open space
23. Same as la
24. Job creation is still the most important, especially with the continuing depression in the housing market. Focus on industrial/
light industrial with minimal retail. Focus on live /work spaces to reuse existing buildings.
25. Meet the Challenges and Issues put forth in the City of Alameda General Plan, Chapter 9.1.
26. Number of residential units and balance of
27. Again, all of the components of the 2003 GP should have some place in the "Going Forward" vision, but the numbers need
some adjustment.
28. "Focus on Seaplane Lagoon. Single family housing on periphery"
29. multi family housing
30. All
31. All
32. Better jobs housing balance.
33. Commercial, jobs
34. park and recreation, housing, commercial
Appendix A: 8
eda Point Community
Report
Prior Plans
2006 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Question 3a - Going forward, list which components of the Preliminary Development Concept
SHOULD BE included in the community's vision.
1. 'total commercial square footage at 3.4 million; estimated jobs; estimated jobs per employed residents; total number of
employed residents"
2. Jobs and commercial
3. NONE
4. Commercial, parks and open space. Good paying job creation. Add light industrial land uses, preferably environmentally
oriented
5. Comprehensive use of all public trust lands for solar and wind power generation, water desalinization and where feasible
community farming. Historic buildings should be revitalized a -la SF Presidio.
6. Open space, park access
7. Like the General Plan, the PDC has a good number of housing units including multi - family and a decent amount of open space/
parks
8. "S /F Duplex; park and open space"
9. same as la
10. No more than 900 houses. No talk about de- emphasing the historic district.
11. Jobs per employed residents
12. Retain - waterfront promenade and open space, pedestrian friendly, boating - launch small craft, separate bike paths, diversity
of building types, housing above retail, use of the latest knowledge in sustainability.
13. none
14. Again, use new multi - family housing allotments as an incentive to remove the mistakes of the past. Just drive down Santa
Clara Ave. near City Hall if you need a look.
15. The key is unreadable, but this plan apparently shows a focus of retail /office in more of a "core" this is a step in the right
direction
16. "This is the perfect plan with the right mix of housing and jobs. 1. Emphasized single family housing. 2. Emphasized open
space and parks. 3. Emphasized need to reduce the Historic District."
17. AII.
18. Parks and Open Space
19. "Commercial development, Parks and open space"
20. Parks and open space'
21. More homes. More mu!tu- family.
22. More multi - family jobs and Commercial area.
23. same as above (2a)
24. Job creation is still the most important, especially with the continuing depression in the housing market. Focus on industrial/
light industrial with minimal retail. Focus on live /work spaces to reuse existing buildings.
25. More multi - family
26. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Some Part-Time. More permanent full -time jobs.
27. More housing, include some taller buildings for views and interest- create a skyline!! Capitalize on the location and create
some high value real estate. Increase density so other amenities can be more affordable. Attract young single people who will
stay and have families. Please get closer to measure B. More housing, and a lot more jobs. Include sustainable infrastructure!
28. All of them, in some fashion.
29. Focusing high intensity development at the northeast corner of seaplane lagoon.
30. multi - family housing
31. All
32. All
33. Density around ferry and bus.
34. add additinal commercial space and jobs,
35. park and open spaces
Appendix A: 10
ameda Pon
munity Forums - Summary Report
Prior Plans
2 010 MEASURE B PLAN
Question 4a - Going forward, list which components of the Measure B Plan SHOULD BE included
in the community's vision.
1. nothing
2. NONE
3. Commercial, parks and open space. High paying job creation. Add light industrial land uses, preferably environmentally
oriented.
4. Mix of housing types, links to open space
5. Comprehensive use of all public trust lands for solar and wind power generation, water desalinization and where feasible
community farming. Historic buildings should be revitalized a -la SF Presidio.
6. Park and open space access
7. None
8. "S /F Duplex; park and open space"
9. same as la
10. Good to save the historic buildings but only the ones north of Midway are saved.
11. No more than 900 houses.
12. Jobs
13. none
14. 85 % -15% why say more ?
15. "Pretty picture but it represents mass distruction and years and years of work to raise the level of all of that land. Fill upon fill
land that is subject to liquifaction will still be vulnerable to earthquakes. How about making all the roads perpedicular to the
wind like they are doing at TI so that the streets don't become wind tunnels.."
16. Mixed use, high intensity development concentrated in a location that can be served by multiple modes of transit. Focus of
commercial development on the dirtiest of the land. including multiple housing types, and focusing the SFH's on clean land.
17. Maintain Measure A.
18. None.
19. Parks and Open Space
20. "Commercial development; Parks and open space"
21. Parks and open space.
22. emphasis on job creating. Enough housing for alameda point employers and others, but 4,845 units may be expensive
23. More open space . Urban form, spa, conf, conference center.
24. Lots of multi - family and jobs.
25. Strong mix of uses, multi - family housing, unrealistic job creation.
26. Don't like anything about this plan. The citizens said no already. End of story with this plan, period!
27. Sufficient housing units to provide a housing /job balance.
28. M/F units are ok
29. Jobs! Higher density housing!
30. "Employed residents; Commercial Square feet; jobs; jobs per employed residents; housing units; park and open space"
31. "Housing Units; Employed Residents; Commercial Square Feet; Jobs; Jobs per employed residents; Park and open space"
32. All of them, in some fashion.
33. Mixed use development on the water. Focus on transportation corridors. Furthering of development to create a cohesive,
compatible plan.
34. employed residents (although the logic of the number is not clear to me)
35. All
36. All
37. Housing type diversity; fine - grained mixed use; transit supportive density.
38. add commercial space, singe family homes and open space
39. none
Appendix A. 12
Alameda Pain
Community Forums - Summary Report
2010 Community Vision - Land Use Plan Areas
PLAN AREA A
Question 1 - Select the land uses you think should be included in Plan Area A.
Single Fa M i ly
33.6 % 127)
Residential
Multi-Family Res id enti el —111111111111111.= 26.6 % 131)
I
Live Work
—1111111111111111111111111111
55.0 % (44)
Lodging (hotel. bei 111.111111.111.111111 45.01% (36)
I
& breakfast. etc ,
Mixed Use (residential
-z,4 .,-_
or office over retail; p ILVJ 1
Retail and Services --111111111.111.1111111-4.0.0 ':' 36)
1
7-=
Civic Uses and Scricios
1111111111111111112§11116211
Cultural end Entertaiment
(museums. rnusic - _
Office / Workplace
Light ndustri
Maritime Uses (boat repair.
boat storage. etc.)
Renewable Energy Facilitir-s
(e g solar fen-ns;
23.2; (19)
27.5 C.Z2:1
Urban Agriculture and (22)
Community Gardens
Parks and Recreatic
(44)
51.3 i41)
72.5 % (58)
76.3 °;;, (51)
20 •
40
Ingle Farrity
Residential
RIM Multi-Family Residential
MEI Lire.:;:lic
Lodgirg (tict. bed
& breakfast. etc.)
Mixed Use (residential
'1 or office cs. ,er retail)
O a Retail and Sertices
Ci.ic Uses Schools
- Cultural and Entertaiment
(mcsetans.
• Office /Workplace
▪ Ligh.t Inetztrial
Maritime Uses (boat repair,
boat storage. etc.)
Renewable Er4ercy Facilities
- (e.g solar farrns)
Urban Agriculture and
Ccrrenuniti Gardens
Parks and Recreation
80
Appendix A: 14 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
2010 Community Vision - Land Use Plan Areas
PLAN AREA C
Question 3 - Select the land uses you think should be included in Plan Area C.
Single Fam*,-....
Ridenti
Resident. —
17.9 % (14)
1111111111111111111—
Live 1}',�o.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 46.2 % (36)
Lodging (hotel. 11111111111111M11126.9'-i;.4-t2V''
& breakfast. etc _
Mixed Use (resident al
or office over retail.
Retail and Services
Civic Uses and Schools —1111111111111111111111111111111 2E2 -% (22)
_
Cultural and Entertaiment
(museums, nsic
Office/ Workpiace
'h (24)
3.6% (34)
%
51.3,-. (40)
55.1 % (43)
Light Industrial 51 3% (40)
Maritime Uses (boat repair.
boat storage, etc.).
Renewable Energy Facilities
(e.g solar farrns„'
Urban Agriculture an
Community Gardens
Parks and Recreatic —
10
20
49(35)
41.0Z (32)
40
Single Family
Residential
tega Multi-Family Residential
ME Live Work
(hotel. be
& breakfast, etc.)
taxed Use (residential
or office over retail)
.Q2 Retail and Services
Civic Uses and Schools
Cultural and Entertairrent
i;nuse.,:rns, music)
aiatti Office P...'orkplace
wat Light Indmtrial
Maritime Uses (boat repair,
boat sZrage, etc.)
Renewable Erery Facilities
(e.g. solar farms)
Urban Agriculture and
Community Gardens
Mr, Parks and Rreatior,
Appendix A: 16 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
2010 Community Vision - Land Use Plan Areas
PLAN AREA E
Question 5 - Select the land uses you think should be included in Plan Area E.
Single Family 10.3 %1,13)
Residential
Multi-Family Resident L. 282 % (22)
Live Work
Lodging (hotel, bET
8. breakfast. etc
Mixed Use (residential
or office over retaill,
21.8% (17)
1111111111111111T— ___ ._ 518 7 [42)
48 7 % (38)
Retail and Services —
Civic Uses and Schools— 11111.111 17.9 %(14)
Cultural and Entertaimer'
(museums. music; '
Office
Light Indust-is], —MEI 11,.89)
Maritime Uses (boat repair.
boat storage. etc.)
Renewable Energy Facilities _
11111111111. 41:6
(e.g solar fanns)
Urban Agriculture and ,
(5)
Community Gardens
Parks and Recreaticr., -
413kEVAWM3
59.0 %, (46)
57.7 % (45)
61.5 % (42)
65.4 (51)
20
40
Single Family
Residential
att MIJlti-Farnily Residential
aus Lree Work
Lodging (W&, bed
8, breakfast, etc.)
Mixed Use (residential
or office ever retf)
ISM Retail and Senricr
:riic Uses id Schocls
CLitural and Entertairrent
(musesIns. music)
DM Office /Workplace
inn Light Ind stria!
Maritime Uses (boat repair,
boat storage. etc.)
Renewable Energy Facilities
(e.g. solar farms)
11.rban,f:Artiirlt
icGaurrdeear.d
sn
Parks and Recreation
Appendix A: 18..";;;:: Alameda Point Community Forums - Sumniary Report
2010 Community Vision - Land Use Plan Areas
PLAN AREA E
Question 5 - Select the land uses you think should be included in Plan Area E.
Single Family
Residential
Multi-Family Residential 4.2
Live Work— 21 (2)
Lodging (hotel:, bed
& breakfast etc..)
Mixed Use (residential
or office over retail)
Retail and Services
Civic Uses and Schools
Cultural and Entertaiment
101 z (7)
(museums. music)
Office f Workplace 5.8 % (4)
Light Industrial — 2 9 " (2)
Maritime Uses (boat repair.
boat stonage etc.)
Renewable Energy Facilities
(e.g .. solar farms)
Urban Agriculture and
Community Gardens
/8 8 "T., (13)
Parks and Recreation
2,9 0 % (20)
435 Iv; am
58.51i (39)
:xpoir,„,‘, 44 4,-.40, pleue.
- .401xy-
-OW . 4., ..404"1,fs'All*MdWiftlwri4,43 44,."440110‘,-;044,,,,,.*".414,45,2,00-*Arft
*.izktwA.Y,p4rW*„f+:..eg.,V,IAUM;iZfdZ&N•NtfeMv4y,XA%*Six-44**e*t*grhvr.V.ttfjisf-'jk*mN,t.Mw=
40
Single Family
Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Live Work
Lodging (hotel, bed
& breakfast. etc.)
fixed Use (residential
or office over retail)
Retail art Serrices
Civic Uses and &hods
Cultural and Entertairnent
(museums. rrusic)
ce WoTkplace
Light Indestial
itime Uses (bast repair,
t storace. etc.)
Energy Facilities
farms)
Urban Agriculture and
Community Gardms
4: Parks and Recreetion
S.E "","; (68)
80
Appendix A: 20 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Building Types
OFFICE BUILDING
Question la - In which Mixed Use Neighborhoods does this Building Type belong?
Response
Count
Towncenter / Transit Oriented
District (TOD)
Neighborhood Center
Workplace Neighborhood
waterfront Neighborhood
Residential Neighborhood , J
68.8% 33
43.8% 21
72.9% 36
29.2% 14
8.3%
nsworod question
uestlon 6'
Question 1b - Is this Building Type Right for Alameda Point?
YES (r
NO (wrong? for Alameda Point);
answered
71.4%
28.6%
quos;
35
14
kippod`quostion 60'
Question lc -Any additional comments about this Building Type?
1. Too much empty office space already
2. There is plenty of existing office space in Alameda that is vacant, Reuse old buildings at the Point.
3. no new buildings!
4. "Problem with single, town, condo, rental homes is space availability at a given price. Alameda by its new short sightedness
has limited it ability to add more traffic due to large developments of this type at the west end of the island. The city will need to
add more crossings at the estuary."
5. Alameda Point should preserve its historic character and avoid large -scale retailers, especially chain stores.
6. We need to keep the business and commercial low rise. 3 and 4 stories are out of place for what we want to see.
7. Think of University Avenue shopping not large out of place buildings in the retail areas
8. If these are examples of reuse then they are great. If this is generally what would appear on the street then I would say they are
too big. Think of University Avenue in Palo Alto.
9. Reuse OK. Otherwise look like "density" - not like the rest of Alameda.
10. No new like this.
11. Neighborhood center only "local serving" office, i.e. insurance, real estate and back keeping. Must be right scale and assign.
12. Waterfront and Residential should not be considered exclusively.
13. The scale of the buildings should be appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Housing should be part of the use mix.
14. No buildings taller than existing park and webster streets.
15. Possible re -use City -Hall west
16. Let's stay away from generic, sterile looking buildings like the one in the lower right corner.
17. No free standing office.
18. Only in pre- existing buildings or limited new of similar character.
19. Use existing buildings for offices.
20. JUST NOTA LOT OF THEM LIKE HARBOR bAY
Appendix A:
22
Poin
Summary Repor
Building Types
SIGNATURE BUILDING
Question 3a - In which Mixed Use Neighborhoods does this Building Type belong?
Response
Count
Towncenter / Transit Oriented
District (TOD)
Neighborhood Center
Workplace Neighborhood
a rfront lNeighborhood
Residential Neighborhood
64.9%
24
27.0%
24.3%
78.4%
10.8%
nswored question
10
Question 3b - Is this Building Type Right for Alameda Point?
YES (right for Alamada Point)
NO (wrong for Named
Point)
54.3%
45.7%
question;
skipped;ques
25
21
46
Question 3c - Any additional comments about this Building Type?
1. no new buildings!
2. High rise apartment, condo and homes do have a large place on the point. For the views owners, leasers and renters will pay if internal and external
building amminities are built into each building.
3. For that large a building, there will inevitably be traffic problems
4. Depends. Hopefully any building such as this would try to preserve the historical aesthetics of Alameda Point.
5. "The pictures of the buildings imply they will be big. too big for alameda"
6. We don't need towering apartment buildings or huge waterfront buildings.
7. A residential tower is not appropriate for Alameda Point.
8. Would be great. But very difficult. I think the signature of Alameda Point is what is there already. Like it or not
9. A residential tower is not appropriate forAlameda Point.This is beyond a density bonus.
10. Way too big buildings.
11. Defanit no.
12. Area A
13. This type building should only be built if its found to be beneficial to the community
14. Existing only
15. Use our existing signature and buildings
16. It should be possible to have more then one signature building. They can be of different scale and character.
17. Ferry Building is ok
18. "A thirty story residential tower is inappropriate due to being near an earthquake area. Pilings would have to go to bedrock and they they could twist in an
earthquake and topple a building. Read the engineering section of Sun Cal's specific plan. It gives you chills."
19. but with a height limit of 6 stories
20. no high rise
21. too big
22. Since we're not trying to replicate Dubai, let's stay away from buildings like the one in the lower right comer that doesn't "respect" and fit in with its
surroundings.
23. Only if pre- existing (eg, Control Tower) or new VA Building.
24. Waterfrount should be public. Buildings should be small along the waterfront.
25. Ferry terminal and transit station is an obvious possibility.
26. Not to tall
27. ugH!!
Appendix
A: 24
Alameda
unity forums - Summary Repor
Building Types
STAND -ALONE RESTAURANT
Question 5a - In which Mixed Use Neighborhoods does this Building Type belong?
Respons
Percent
Response
Count
Towncenter 1: Transit Orientek
District {TOD
72.3% 34
Neighborhood Gen
orkplace Neighborhood
erlront Neighborhood
Residential Neighborhood
61.7% 29
44.7% 21
93.6% 44
17.0%
nswered question
skipped question 6
8
47
2
Question 5b - Is this Building Type Right for Alameda Point?
YES {right for Ali
NO (wrong for A
da Point}.u:, - 89.8 % 44
eda Point) 1:
questioi
skipped que
49
Question 5c - Any additional comments about this Building Type?
1. no new buildings)
2. This would be a great building to have in Alameda Point. It would take advantage of the gorgeous views, add jobs, and provide
appealing activities for residents of the Point and Alameda in general. If the restaurants are good enough, Alameda Point could
be a Bay Area destination.
3. Restaurants would be nice near the marina.
4. near waterfront.
5. Just not the Rusty Pelican for god's sake
6. Restaurants are good.
7. Alameda has enough isolated restaurants that require driving to them, that do nothing to activate the waterfront, or surrounding
land uses. Restaurants should be incorporated into the fabric of the neighborhoods.
8. OK
9. Restaurant and hotel
10. Area A or E
11. especially out by the Hornet.
12. It appears to me that you have restricted the element of appropriate location too narrowly. Shouldn't other elements be
considered such as character of the particular neighborhood, its use, the proximity of open space and its use, etc?
13. Scale and local ownership concerns
14. no fast food chains
15. Yes.
16. Small restaurant.
17. There might be a few places for this, but not in core areas.
18. Again make use of the building already there.
Appendix A: 26
Building Types
MIXED USE BUILDING
Question 7a - In which Mixed Use Neighborhoods does this Building Type belong?
ncenter / Transit Oriented
District (TOO)
Neighborhood Center
workplace Neighborhood
waterfront Neighborhood
Residential Neighborhood
Response Response:
Percent Count
88.9% 40
66.7% 30
55.6% 25
57.8% 26
44.4% 20
nsw tired question+ 46
stion j b
skipped que
4
Question 7b - Is this Building Type Right for Alameda Point?
Alameda Point)
NO (wrong? for Alameda Poin
80.9% 38
Question 7c - Any additional comments about this Building Type?
1. Reuse existing buildings where possible
2. no new buildings!
3. Residents above the store would be fine if there were no more that two residents per building and if it is part of the right lot size.
4. While 1 am a ranter against more apartments, this is great model already in Alameda. More of this please.
5. Too many large buildings. Think smaller scale like University Avenue in Palo Alto.
6. Larger mixed use buildings should be included in the urban core.
7. Not recommended for Alameda Point.
8. Not appropriate for Alameda.
9. No Residence.
10. Only on corners; must be in scale
11. No.
12. Use only existing buildings. Do not build extra buildings.
13. Find something else, please. These are ugly.
Building Types
LIVE -WORK BUILDING
Question 9a - In which Mixed Use Neighborhoods does this Building Type belong?
Response f Response:
Porten
Towncenter ! Transit Oriented
District (TOD)
Neighborhood Center
orkplace Neighborhood
Waterfront Neighborhood
Residential Neighborhood
60.0% 27
51.1% 23
77.8% 36
37.8% 17
33.3% 15
nswered question
usstion
46'
skipped q
64
Question 9b - Is this Building Type Right for Alameda Point?
YES (right for Alameda Point)
NO (wrong for Alameda
84.8% 39
Question 9c - Any additional comments about this Building Type?
1. no new buildings!
2. Reuse of the enlisted or officers quarters could be live work.
3. see previous comments....
4. OK if reuse.
5. Only using present buildings.
6. Yes, we need more of these - include musical studios -speed protectors.
7. Mixed use means the density bonus. No thanks.
8. Only in hangers if consistent with Proposition A.
9. But just okay
Appendix A:
ameda Point Community Forums
Reporl
Building Types
SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Question 11a - in which Mixed Use Neighborhoods does this Building Type belong?
Response
Count
Towncenter ! Transit Oriented H
District (TOD)
Neighborhood center
Workplace Neighborhood
Waterfront Neighborhood
Residential Neighborhood
2.3% 1
22.7% 10
13.6% 6
25.0% 11
.".
96.6% 42
nswered question
skipped question
Question 11 b - Is this Building Type Right for Alameda Point?
Question 11c - Any additional comments about this Building Type?
1. no new buildings!
2. The point runs out of room with a view at a price needed for what the city demands for the points all expenses paid demand.
3. traffic concerns
4. Seems like a lot of single- family houses such as this one would discourage public transportation. Alameda Point should be a
place for all residents of the island, not just the ones who live at the Point.
5. Single family housing is welcome. Less traffic.
6. Very desirable for residential neighborhoods.
7. Lots of different styles of single family homes is appropriate.
8. not on the waterfront. buildings, no matter what height, block to the views of anyone behind them. activate the waterfront areas
by bringing people to the area in the form or multi - family housing. Vibrant waterfronts will be a place that people actually visit.
9. Limited to area D
10. Why are all multi -stay buildings shown?
11. But, we're not going to encourage parking on sidewalk, right ?!! (upper right photo) And small should still be beautiful so let's
eliminate housing shown in lower right photo.
12. Only in pre - existing officer housing (ie, "Great Whites ")
13. Mixed with larger homes.
14. Yes, if not repetitive models, just different doors and colors.
Appendix A:
Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Appendix A:
Alameda Point Comm unity; Forums - 'Summary Report
Framework Principles
LINKAGES, DIVERSITY OF PARK TYPES & USES, ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT
Question 1 - Are there any additional Parks and Open Space Principles that support your vision for
Alameda Point?
1. In addition to bike paths, there should be unpaved cinder paths around the Point so that runners, joggers, and walkers can get
their exercise "off pavement ".
2. Wetlands Restoration
3. Power positive! No new electrical burden should be created. All new power demands should be supported by solar or wind
power generation capacity.
4. "I recommend an urban farm to be incorporated into the Parks and Open Space Principles. The urban farm will contribute
to the goal of redeveloping the area in a sustainable manner, and will provide the opportunity for the surrounding community
to obtain healthy organic food, engage in environmental education, and raise awareness about where our food source
comes from. Neighboring communities have similar initiatives (i.e. Alemany Farm in San Francisco, City Slicker Farm in
West Oakland), which can be used as a benchmark for Alameda's urban farm, or even be partnered with to learn from their
successes and shortcomings."
5. As much open space as possible should be protected, with an emphasis on open space /parks in the waterfront area. Parks
should be diversified. There should be a central community park space with a gazebo, benches, shade from trees, and walking
trails.
6. Parks are good but we can't afford large active parks. The upkeep is too much.
7. Historical reuse
8. Open space habitats for nesting and wintering land and water birds. Can include picnic areas.
9. Looks like parks /green swards are about 3 blocks from any residential. Good, green /pocket parks and larger are important to
evbery neighborhood. What about bike paths throughout?
10. Playing fields, sports fields, soccer fields, football fields, baseball fields, lacrosse fields.
11. The bike paths should accomodate golf carts and should be low maintenance. All public access along the waterfront is good
and should be optimized.
12. Habitat, native vegetation, groundwater recharge
13. All above are good
14. Quiet recreation - building, taking enjoyingnature and wildlife. Not playgrounds and ball fields.
15. Matt Melario identify transportation Issues- Proposed then ranks.
16. Include East Bay Regional Park District. This will help funding and long term commitment to management. Protect wildlife and
nature plants.
17. Increase housing density in order to provide more open space.
18. BMX Bike Park - Waterfronts belongs to the people. Build relationship between EBRPD and VA for protection of bird sanctuary.
Protect existing trail fields -add more. Bay trail all the way around water front.
19. "Alameda Point needs to have plazas and other spaces where people can meet, congregate or rest; bike and pedestrian ways
that are designed to be safe and pleasant to use, not just green places. Thought should be given to creating recreational
facilities that are not only self- sustaining but bring in income for the City; facilities that are used both by Alamedans and as a
regional venue including hotels, restaurants, and shopping facilities ."
20. All of those look possible for the point. Many small parks and sports fields give the sense of openness which is consistent with
Alameda.
21. Use nortwest territory for park. Too much contamination for anything else.
22. I would like to see launching sites for small boats.
23. biking trails
24. bike paths and dog beach
25. Recovery rehabilitation of the base to include more green and natural space.
26. Keep open space on the point a top priority. In addition this priority should b combined with adoptively revising the existing
structures. Housing is a bottom priority. City should hire its own master developer to take charge of this project.
27. Yes, the cost of operating and maintaining park and open space lands must be fully disclosed. Can we really afford all of this in
the future?
28. Destination /place making. Look for partnerships. Revenue generation / regional attraction. Walkable as part of community
fabric. Education. Not contribute to traffic. Fiscal responsible. Parks as integral to design not the remnants. Multi- levels of
benefits - economic, social, psychological, physical (infrastructure benefits).
29. water front use access not just passive use, guest docks ect
30. 1 would like to see a jogging track facility. There are very few places in Alameda to run on a track. This would support public
health
31. Bike lanes that are not tied to roads that cars go on -- separated.
Regional Park Facilities
HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACILITIES IN THE REGIONAL PARKS?
Question 1 e - How important is it to include Trails & Pathways in the regional parks?
- not important, 5 - very important)
5.9% (4) 1.5% (1) 7.4% (5) 10.3% (7)
Rating Response
Average Count
75.0%
4.47 68
(51)
answered question 68
skipped question 34
Question 1f - How important is it to include Water Activities in the regional parks?
- not important, 5 - very important)
5.9% (4) 4.4% (3)
23.5% 27.9%
(16)
(19)
38.2%
(26)
Rating Response
Average Count
3.88
68
answered question 68
skipped question 34
Question 1g - How important is it to include Passive Enjoyment in the regional parks?
- not important, 5 - very important)
7.2% (5) 1.4% (1)
20.3% 24.6%
(14)
(17)
46.4%
(32)
Rating Response
Average Count
4.01
69
answered question 69
skipped question 33
Question 1 h - How important is it to include Nature Areas in the regional parks?
- not important, 5 - very important)
10.1% (7) 1.4% (1) 10.1% (7)
18.8% 59.4%
(13)
(41)
Rating Response
Average Count
4.16 69
answered question 69
skipped question 33
Appendix A: 38 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Seaplane Lagoon Waterfront Park & Promenade
ELEMENTS
Question la - How important is it to include an Entertainment Venue?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
31.0% 17.2%
(18) (10)
29.3%
(17)
Rating Response
Average Count
8.6% (5) 13.8% (8) 2.57 58
answered question 58
skipped question 44
Question lb - How important is it to include Mixed Use?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
15.0% (9) 10.0% (6)
Rating Response
Average Count
16.7% 43.3%
15.0% (9) 3.62 60
(26)
answered question 60
skipped question 42
Question 1c - How important is it to include an Active Waterfront?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
9.8% (6)
34
_ 4 F,Ivaetr gge R ecsopuonnts e
,
2 3 54%
27.9% 23.0V. .
4.9% (3)
(17) ' (14)
(21)
3.67
61
answered question 61
skipped question 41
Question 1d - How important is it to include Trails, Paths and Nature Areas?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
Rating Response
Average Count
57.8%
14.1% (9) 7.8% (5) 9.4% (6) 10.9% (7) 3.91 64
(37)
answered question 64
skipped question 38
10
Appendix A: 40 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Seaplane Lagoon Waterfront Park & Promenade
ELEMENTS
Question 1 i - How important is it to include History / Education?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
19.0%
3 4
Rating Responst)
5
Average Count
12.1% (7) (18 13.8% (8) 3.12 58
answered question 58
(11)
31.0) 24.1%
(14)
skipped question 44
Question 1j - How important is it to include Public Art?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
26.2% 16.4% 21.3% 16.4% 19.7%
(16)
(10)
(13)
(10)
(12)
Rating Response
Average Count
2.87
61
answered question 61
skipped question 41
Appendix A: 42 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Seaplane Lagoon Waterfront Park & Promenade
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS
Question 3a - Is there an additional element that you think should be included in the Seaplane
Lagoon Waterfront Park & Promenade?
1. desalinization plant
2. A nature and/or ecology center (see Stough Canyon Nature Center in Burbank, CA).
3. Active Waterfront
4. Involve EBRP
5. Transportation
6. school
Question 3b - How important is it to include the additional elements stated in Question 2a?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
I,tating Response
Average Count
0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 14.3% (1) 42.9% (3) 42.9% (3) 4.29 7
answered question 7
skipped question 102
NOTE: the figures shown above represent the average importance for ALL additional
elements listed in Question 3a combined.
Question 4a - Is there an additional element that you think should be included in the Seaplane
Lagoon Waterfront Park & Promenade?
1. desalinization plant
2. Promenade, Mixed Use, and Water Access
3. Marinas (We have enough)
4. Impact on Neighborhoods
5. less is more
Question 4b - How important is it to include the additional elements stated in Question 2a?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
Rating Response
Average Count
25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 3.50 4
answered question 4
skipped question 105
NOTE: the figures shown above represent the average importance for ALL additional
elements listed in Question 4a combined.
Appendix A: 44 Alameda Point Community Forums - summary Report
Reference
2006 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT HISTORIC DISTRICT
Question 1 a - What are the STRENGTHS of the 2006 Preliminary Development Concept Historic
District Plan?
1. Retention of hangars
2. There are none
3. Retains most of the important structures
4. Keeping the hangars.
5. I am in favor of keeping the historical buildings.
6. retain the hangars
7. fewer useless buildings kept
8. Keeps most of Administrative Core.
9. Seaplane hangars
10. Historic building preservation is good!
11. Looks ok.
12. "It's good. 1. preserving as much historical buildings as possible that are on land most likely not to be in a flood zone. 2. It's
good to reuse house facilities and possible basic food /grocery cleaners to sustain residents. 3. " "Housing "" for tourists that
could learn from historic area could be using a reuse building and it would need parking space (Le. hostile facility). 4. School
group tours could use some slow " " ? "" learn the history."
13. "Area west Hangers are rental we should support as historically and financially already positive. Offices housing will probably
be sold to individuals who will remodel the inside with project control to retain the outside architecural integrity,"
14. Keeping the seaplace and land plane hangers (south and west)
15. Hangars (Explore how Richmond restored Kaiser shipyard building . )
16. Keep air terminal museu. Keep Hangars west.
17. The large area that will be retained that so many large buildings are being retained.
18. Maintains historic corridor. BEQ reuse and BOQ. Save 5 Big Whites. Incubator in BEQ.
19. Removal of Big Whites. Keeping large Hangars
20. keep em all
21. Good compromises allows for many options
22. Keep west area south hangars.
23. Clearly defining those buildings to be removed.
24. Good ideas
25. Keep and reuse old structures.
26. It did not happen.
27. Keeps Big Whites
28. Unique and historic buildings should be preserved.
29. limited change in current layout
30. Don't like this one at all
31. That all of the hangars are retained.
32. Maintains Axis of original design and some of the contributing historic structures.
33. There is no possilbe way you can save those buildings.
34. Fewer buildings to restore and retain. Keep the ones in use or veryhigh potential for reuse.
35. NONE
36. Retention of the hangars.
Reference
2010 MEASURE B HISTORIC DISTRICT
Question 2a - What are the STRENGTHS of the 2010 Measure B Historic District Plan?
1. Keeps Big Whites
2. Keeps BOQ and most of the Big Whites
3. Retaining the Big Whites.
4. I would be in favor of keeping the historic buildings.
5. They are keeping more of the historic buildings
6. Retaining the Big Whites
7. Removes CPO housing. Retains big whites.
8. Keeps meaningful buildings that reflect the historic nature of the area. Buildings that add to the visual uniqueness of the plan.
Allows for an actual plan, that can create a development that will attract business and residents.
9. Keeps some Big Whites.
10. Saves "Big Whites" and some contributing historical buildings.
11. Relocate Museum. Should not be historic if unuseable.
12. Nothing. More adaptive re -use.
13. Good that it kept the Big White, BOQ, BEQ, Admin Core.
14. What happened to the Olympic Rool and cor it be resurrected? Keep "chapel" Building 94 BOQ.
15. Keeps BOQ and keep Big Whites.
16. Not losing much that retains the big white.
17. Good Compromise on space. BOQ back in plan. BOQ for VETS VA.
18. CPO removed
19. Where is the control tower to be relocated?
20. keep em all
21. Nothing
22. Keep Big Whites. Remove PO Housing. Keep Admin Building for reuse as office building
23. Better plan than 2006
24. Defining specific buildings for removal.
25. None
26. Retains Big Whites.
27. Keep all usable Historic structures and non historic if economically viable.
28. Keeps big whites.
29. Ugh!
30. Not much.
31. Keep historic buildings.
32. It retains the BOQ's and the big whites which can be re -used. It removes the shops area.
33. Good
34. There are no strengths.
35. Maintains Axis of original design and more of the of the contributing historic structures than the 2006 plan.
36. Smaller district than the PDC however I dont think they can pay to save all those buildings?
37. Bldgs. 8, 9, 91, 92 probably should go. (wood -frame not historically significant.
38. Preservation of Officer's Housing
39. Retention of the Big Whites
Appendix A: 48
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings
HANGARS AREA WEST
Question 1a - How important is preserving the Hangars Area West sub - district?
{1 - not important, 5 - very important)
14.3% (7) 2.0% (1) 8.2% (4)
22.4%
(11)
53.1%
(26)
3.98
49
Question 1 b - Any ideas for the adaptive reuse of buildings in the Hangars Area West sub - district?
1. Current uses plus brewery
2. Movie studios /sound stages. Event buildings like described in Parks section of this survey, Museum with space for traveling exhibits
like what currently goes to the Metreon in S.F. An IMAX theater.
3. I would keep St. George's Spirits
4. light manufacturing, Lowe's /Home Depot or Big Box Bldg.
5. 1 very important. They are very usable buildings and form an important buffer to the bird sanctuary.
6. These buildings are in demand and can be leased to create a money stream.
7. Avoid tenants that produce toxic byproducts. Groundwater and air pollution must be avoided.
8. Start by following the path of existing reuse.
9. A larbe building desired by progresive industry.
10. Keep. #1
11. Big company, manufacturing
12. But I think it s most important to keep the hangars closest to the flight control tower because they are functionally related.
13. Divide Building as necessary
14. Cant we keep whats there?
15. Movie Studios, Light Manufacturing, and Entertainment Venue.
16. Hangar 20 and 21
17. Ideas already in place. Consider vertical uses with big Hangars.
18. Continue to lease these buildings. Serve as buffer to wildlife.
19. Very important
20. "light industry; sustainable energy"
21. "light industry; sustainable energy"
22. It seems that a "spirits" district is developing which produces some jobs and revenues. Long term buildings can be converted to light
industrial with solar panels on roofs.
23. waterfront should be used for restaurants parks and other public access uses
24. Keep all
25. Business uses & long term leases - purchase options. Create incentives for commercial tenants. Combine bldg # 5 & 400/400a
into a unique shopping center with unusual businesses - Not bldg change.
26. Light industry.
27. Keep them, they are leased and doing well.
28. Light industry.
29. Re -use existing buildings.
30. more of the saame
31. Light industry, movie industry, warehouses, retail.
32. I think the leasing potential is clearly demonstrated, and would be greater with infastructure improvements. In addition to the
wines and spirits businesses, movie studios, entertainment venues (see the Ford Assembly Plant in Richmond), offices, and light
assembly plants could be uses.
33. "Industrial, Storage, Laboratory Large Retail. Sell or lease the buildings individually. Use proceeds for infastructure &
redevelopment costs."
34. We need the income from these buildings.
35. More artisanal uses like St. George, et al, that both make light industrial usage of the site and create a destination point for tourists.
Append
Alameda
Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings
RESIDENTIAL AREA
Question 3a - How important is preserving the Residential Area sub - district?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
23.4%
(11)
4.3% (2) 4.3% (2)
23.4%
(11)
44.7%
(21)
3.62
answered question
47
47
kipped question
Question 3b - Any ideas for the adaptive reuse of buildings in the Residential Area sub - district?
1. Housing
2. Use them as they are currently being used.
3. multi -use
4. "Try to save the Big Whites. The other homes are old and have no value"
5. B &B
6. Very important.
7. Every effort should be made to retain these historic structures.
8. Residential
9. Keep what makes sense. No more.
10. ripping it all down and replacing it with housing that people actually want to live in.
11. Museum in Admiral's house.
12. Continue infrastructure.
13. Keep this beautiful building: Officer's Housing
14. Best to keep Big Whites. Petty Officers Houses =less important
15. Dump there and replace them with amphibiosis buildings that stay on the ground when water is low and float when the water is
high (like in Amsterdam).
16. Keep the Admirals House and a few officer house 1 CPO. Move them to a spot on solid ground. Eliminate the rest feature Admiral's
house as Jim Morrison's House.
17. Remove the big whites, except the admiral's house because they are too outdated and contaminated to restore.
18. Fix them up and keep them
19. Big Whites Chief Petty Officers Housing.
20. No reason to tear these down
21. Keep Big Whites and Remove P.O. Housing.
22. Retain and upgrade as needed.
23. housing - but Alameda already more than shoulders its fair burden of apartment buildings and related traffic
24. Sell and use to pay of whole land form Navy.
25. Sell off these properties to home owners to help pay for purchasing the Point from the Navy.
26. Single family to continue.
27. Sell and encourage home ownership.
28. Sell them to creat revenue
29. Keep these buildings.
30. senior housing for single story.
31. They're being used right now and are bringing in revenue. Why destroy them?
32. The Big Whites should be saved in their entirety and reused for single family homes. The other housing- not sure what would be
best for these small homes, I don't think preservation as important here.
33. "Residential. Sell or lease the housing units individually. Use proceeds for infrastructure & redevelopment costs."
34. I am told the "Big Whites" are in a flood plain. It is a shame to lose the district. Can we afford to keep all of it? 1 believe we have a
regional( ?) mandate to house the homeless.
35. Housing!
Appendix A: 52 Alameda Point Community Forums - Su
nary Report
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings
HANGARS AREA SOUTH
Question 5a - How important is preserving the Hangars Area South sub - district?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
19.1% (9) 8.5% (4) 12.8% (6) 17.0% (8) 42.6%
(20)
Rating Respon
Average Coun
3.55
kipped question
47
47
48
Question 5b - Any ideas for the adaptive reuse of buildings in the Hangars Area South sub - district?
1. Brewery. Live -work
2. Building 5 should go. Use Building 39 for marine related industry, keep Baladium in 40 and ANAM in 77. Convert 41 into air
museum moving vintage planes from Oakland into this hanger. Promonade, paths, etc could be close to water edge and a marina
with boat house (maybe building 39). Alternative energy companies in areas where buildings 5, 11,400 and 12 currently stand
3. restaurant, brew -pub, warehousing, wine making and /or beer making for individuals, museum, storage
4. Very important to reuse these buildings.
5. Extend the length of the leases and reuse the buildings.
6. light industrial
7. retain those hangers that can economically be reused as mixed use reatil /office /residential.
8. Use businesses like Bladium and existing busineses as starting basis for mioxed use. Building 41 will be cleaned up for use as
other hangers. Building 77should be use as a museum, and in any event preserved for its historical value
9. lease good buildings. Clean up south of lagoon.
10. Park area to see blue Angels when they are in town, fourth of July fireworks. Picnic with SF view.
11. For the Alimfies, view of the bay bridge, shops area
12. "All the seaplane hangars should be kept. Along with the flight Control tower -a very imporant view to keep intact. Remove 400
and restore hangars 11 and 12. keep 39, 40, 41. Reuse as light industrial or any use.; - Important to keeo the area between the
seaplane hangars and the lagoon as open space, loot build up -the view is important. Add the Flight control tower to this sub area?
Keep the focus on Bay and Lagoon - dont allow development to turn its back on it like the post office."
13. Richmond Ford.
14. Terminal -keep it! Keep bldg 41!! Put o nice restaurant
15. Save 77 and 41
16. These hangers are too large a scale to be compatible with the proposed mixed use in the area.
17. Create an EBRPD around seaplane lagoon ala Part of Oakland middle Harbor Park b/c it is full of radium and is already as clean as
the Navy can get it. Develop the south training wall (1870s) to compliment.
18. Why tear them down? They have great history and can suport multi -uses.
19. Could demo these buildings. Park/Marina near seaplane lagoon. Upscale housing where hangars are or mixed useresidential/
shopping, not multi -story apts, condos, row - housing
20. waterfront should be used for restaurants, parks, high end hotel and other public access uses
21. "Maritime Use. Make #41 an air museum with flanes by Oakland Airport."
22. Retain Bladium.
23. Keep all seaplane hangers light industry.
24. "Maintain all hangers - great visual rhythem. Keep Naval Air Museum and give them adjoining building for storage."
25. "Retail shops; Ferry Dock"
26. Re -use existing buildings.
27. Similar to the other hangar area- all uses possible but must have long -term leases available so improvements can be made.
Infrastructure needs.
28. Public functions, museum, parkland utilizing water access, light industry, research. Sell or Lease the buildings in small groups or
individually. Use proceeds for infastructure & redevelopment costs.
29. 77 is historic. 41, though not leased, is potentially usable.
30. Office campus
Appendix A.
Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Question 1 a - How important is addressing traffic congestion at the tubes?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
3.3% (3) 3.3% (3) 8.8% (8)
11.0% 73.6%
4.48 91
(10) (67)
answered question 91
skipped question 30
Question lb - How important is addressing traffic congestion at other estuary crossings?
- not important, 5 - very important)
5.5% (5) 7.7% (7)
Rating Response
Average Count
18.7% 19.8% 48.4%
3.98 91
(17) (18) (44)
answered question 91
skipped question 30
Question 1 c - How important is addressing congestion at other major corridors within the City?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
21.3%
5.6% (5) 9.0% (8)
(19)
24.7% 39.3%
(22)
(35)
answered question 89
skipped question 32
Rating Response
Average Count
3.83
89
Appendix A: 58 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
IMPROVED TRANSIT SYSTEM
Question 2a - How important is it to emphasize bus transit to BART?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
Rating - Response
Average Count
11.1% 22.2% 54.4%
4.06 90
(10) (20) (49)
3.3% (3) 8.9% (8)
answered question 90
skipped question 31
Question 2b - How important is it to emphasize ferries?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
8.0% (7)
11.4%
(10)
20.5%
(18)
25.0% 35.2%
(22)
(31)
Rating Response
Average Count
3.68 88
answered question 88
skipped question 33
Question lc - How important is to emphasize express bus service to San Francisco?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
7.8% (7) 5.6% (5)
Rating Response
Average Count
13.3% 26.7% 46.7%
3.99
(12) (24) (42)
90
answered question 90
skipped question 31
Appendix A: 60 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
RELANCE ON AUTOMOBILES
Question 3a - How important is it to encourage walking?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
1 2
8.2% (7) 5.9% (5)
16.5%
(14)
21.2% 48.2%
(18) (41)
answered question 85
Rating Response
Average Count
3.95 85
skipped question 36
Question 3b - How important is it to encourage the use of bicycles?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
4.5% (4) 8.0% (7)
Rating Response
Average Count
17.0% 20.5% 50.0%
4.03 88
(15) (18) (44)
answered question 88
skipped question 33
Question 3c - How important is to reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
8.3% (7) 9.5% (8)
16.7%
(14)
19.0% 46.4%
(16)
(39)
Rating Response
Average Count
3.86 84
answered question 84
skipped question 37
!0
Question 3d - How important is to emphasize the implementation of transportation demand management?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
Rating Response
5
Average Count
21.8% 12.8% 46.2%
6.4% (5) 3.73 78
(17) (10) (36)
answered question 78
skipped question 43
Appendix A: 62 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
JOBS / HOUSING IMBALANCE
Question 4a - How important is it to provide a balance of jobs and housing so that new residents
are able to live and work in Alameda Point?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
12.9% 15.3%
5.9% (5)
(11) (13)
20.0%
(17)
45.9%
(39)
Rating Response
Average Count
3.80 85
answered question 85
skipped question 36
Question 4b - How important is it to provide a mix of jobs so that existing residents are able to work
in Alameda Point?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
8.6% (7) 2.5% (2)
24.7%
(20)
46.9%
(38)
Rating Response
Average Count
3.99 81
answered question 81
skipped question 40
Appendix A: 64 Alameda Point Co
murlity Forums - Summary Report
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
CONNECTIVITY
Question 5a - How important is it to extend the City's historic street grid system?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
15.1% 12.8% 20.9% 23.3% 27.9%
(13)
(18)
(20)
(24)
Rating Response
Average Count
3.36 86
answered questicin 86
skipped question 35
Question 5b - How important is it to emphasize a well connected bicycle infrastructure?
- not important, 5 - very important)
2.3% (2) 8.0% (7)
21.8%
(19)
20.7% 47.1%
(18)
(41)
answered question 87
skipped question 34
Rating Response
Average Count
4.02 87
Question 5c - How important is to emphasize a well connected pedestrian infrastructure?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
4.7% (4)
12.8% 19.8%
(11)
(17)
19.8% 43.0%
(17)
(37)
Rating Response
Average Count
3.84 86
answered question 86
skipped question 35
Appendix A: 66 Alameda Point Co
munity Forums - Summary Report
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Question 6a - Is there an additional Issue you think should be considered for the transportation strategy?
1. Funding
2. I will re- iterate: There is plenty of room for Alameda to be well connected to regional transit through improved local transit, ped,
and bike facilities. Alameda is dependent on single- occupancy auto because of the INCONVENIENCE associated with existing
services and facilities.
3. 1 know the City of Emmeryville has a service called the Emmerygoround. In lieu of substandard service of AC Transit
something along these lines should be considered
4. Ferry service should be improved to provide people with another way off and on the island. Already the bridges and tube are
congested.
5. Ferries, rail connection to BART
6. There is not any solution for 5,000 homes. People are going to use their cars. If you take them away then they will park in my
neighborhood.
7. Traffic, traffic, traffic
8. Buses to BART is the only transportation improvement I support. Live /work housing and more AC Transit sounds good in
planning textbooks but seldom works in practice.
9. Walking should be the basic element in designing for how people get about. The routes they use should be convenient, safe,
and provide a pleasurable experience, provide for casual contact with people, and destinations should be within reasonable
walking distances.
10. Don't build any more than 900 or 1400 homes.
11. Parking needs to be reduced. Low parking maximums
12. Long range, work to get a BART station under the Estuary that also allows free pedestrian & bicycle passage to Oakland. This
would do more to get people out of their cars than any of the other proposals. Expensive, but compared to the BART airport
connector, probably a bargain.
13. Seperate Roads 2- Bicycle
14. Bicycle thoroughfares from existing housing to new jobs at point.
15. Conagestion in Chinatown
16. Chinatown congestion
17. In emergencies
18. Congestion of entering 880 and China Town
19. Need another crossing or tube. No development until we get this!!
20. Congestion in China Town
21. Try to emphasize low traffic usage so keep housing units way down and emphasize adaptive usage
22. Move Coast Guard to Alameda Point.
23. conservation in China Town
24. Congestion in Chinatown
25. Move Coast Guard. Build Bridge in Alameda Point
26. Improve "on island" transit system
27. Internal transportation
28. The lack of funfing is the major issue. We need to get back the movies the federal government to from US.
29. Internal transit system
30. Need additional bridge or tube
31. Improve Transit within the isiAN6
32. (within island) Improve internal transit
33. Destination at the other end of BART must be accessible by bus!
34. Internal transit system
35. Improve inner city transit system
36. Assuring that a full range of services and activities is provided and that streets and pathways are safe and inviting to use at
Alameda Point to reduce the desire to leave the City.
37. Shuttle to BART
38. Keep Residences to 1000 range to minimize traffic
39. Transportation improvements at Alameda Point should consider the entire island.
40. A locally imposed tax for personal use vehicles.
41. Consider some one way streets north and south
Appendix A: 68 Alameda Point Comm unity Forums - Summary Report
Building Consensus on Transportation Issues
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Question 7a - Is there an additional Issue you think should be considered for the transportation strategy?
1. Dependence on AC Transit
2. Consider streetcars or local buses (running only in Alameda).
3. Build fewer homes then there will not be a traffic problem.
4. I am hoping there will be an honest environmental appraisal of any plan that exceeds 900 homes.
5. Public transportation has to be readily available, safe, convenient and pleasurable to use.
6. Don't build so many residences.
7. street widths need to be minimized, creating slower, safer roadways that encourage pedestrian activity and connect
neighborhoods. No Public Works inspired throughways!
8. Shuttle terms to shopping.
9. Shuttle Service
10. Housing vs. Reuse
11. Improved bus routes in SF.
12. China Town issues
13. Shuttle Service (run by Alameda)
14. China Town Congestion and Bridge.
15. Shuttles to Bart
16. Shuttle service to Bart
17. China Town
18. Safe walkways on Bridges /tubes
19. Most improve tube walkways (plural)
20. Neighborhood services
21. Transportation of children to new mega- structure.
22. Consideration should be given to the fact of changing attitudes over time toward reliance on the automobile as the primary
means of transportation. Less reliance is bound to happen as such use becomes unsatisfactory alternatives becomes
available.
23. City to give tax reductions to employing businesses that employ 75% local people.
24. Bay Farm Island impacts need to ba addressed.
25. Build new tub or bridge.
26. See my comment to Question 6a
27. Oakland - Alameda ferry in addition to ferry to San Francisco.
28. Speaking of infrastructure, everything under the roads is expensive too. I gather the US Government will replace a lot of roads
and infrastructure if they build the VA Clinic and columbarium. Please, let them.
29. There should be an emphasis on concentrated shared parking, so that reduced number of spaces are needed, including
residential parking. Emphasize parking that does not allow people to go directly from their house or business destination
directly to parking. Parking contributes to community engagement if one has to go onto a public sidewalk before accessing a
car. The downtown parking garage requires people to go onto the street to access the theater, not directly into the theater.
30. Please do not implement dedicated transit lanes /queue jumping for buses. So they get to sit at the front of the traffic jam in the
tube; so what? What does that accomplish?
31. Another crossing from the island to Oakland
Question 7b - How important is it the additional transportation issue listed in Question 7a?
(1 - not important, 5 - very important)
11.1% (3) 0.0% (0) 14.8% (4) 18.5% (5) 55.6%
(15)
Rating Response
Average Count
4.07
nswered question
skipped question
27
NOTE: the figures shown above represent the average importance for ALL additional
elements listed in Question 7a combined.
Appendix A. 70 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Assessing Potential Components of the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy
1. RELOCATE THE FERRY TERMINAL AND CREATE A Bus AND FERRY TRANSIT CENTER AT SEAPLANE LAGOON.
Question 1 - Any comments about Transportation Strategy Component 1?
1. i think the best place for a new terminal is Land Use Area F. this keeps the lagoon itself quiet, safe and calm for non - motorized boat traffic.
2. Why do we need to relocate the terminal? Is this financially viable without picking up Oakland passengers?
3. An excellent idea! We should centralize services related to regional transit (hopefully including express shuttles straight to BART), and provide
parking. This incentivizes leaving your car in alameda, and taking transit the rest of the way! reduce volumes in the tubes!
4. Most of the current ridership is Oaklanders - what about them? Alamedans are not using the ferry to capacity now and do not all go to San
Francisco Ferry Building area. How would this affect subsidy dollars for the ferry system?
5. Depending on cost. Funds must e spent where the City gets the most bang for the $$.
6. Very important
7. good idea
8. Bad idea. It would take too much time. It would take away ridership of the Alameda Oakland ferry and it would not be handy.
9. NOt feasible
10. Definitely no.
11. Staff knows that this is financially not feasible and is not going to happen. So why is this question being included in this survey?
12. It's location can be a focus of community activity.
13. Service has to make sense. The current ferry service serves Oakland and Alameda. Moving the terminal site may not be a win overall
14. It will kill the Oakland ferry. The ferries don't carry enough people to solve the traffic problem.
15. Must happen to have success
16. Not a good idea - transportation options dependent upon AC Transit, an agency that is extremely expensive and inconvenient, won't work.
17. Absolutely not. WiII not work. AP is a destination, not a hub.
18. Priority 2, Water taxi; start until demand
19. Priority 1, absolutely not
20. you increase demand by invering fees.
21. Have Oakland and Alameda ferries . SF relocates to ala, need Oakland connection moved.
22. Keep same terminal and add another terminal on bay side
23. will that area be detoxified (close to hornet ship). Additional ferry
24. Keep both ferry term. or just the original one.
25. Additional service
26. Moving the terminal may lessen economic viability of ferries due to need for eperate service.
27. Where would you relocate it?
28. Misplaced priority too expensive. ok for emergency catastrophe plans
29. level of ferry service is too limited. Currently less than once per hour. Current benefits from Oakland and tourist travel. If move terminal would
eliminate these additional riders.
30. Good idea.
31. Limited to those with money.
32. Leave ferry where it is. Seaplane lagoon is in out of the way for Oakland Estuary.
33. Do not relocate our ferry it is great as it is.
34. There needs to be a good bus system that supports the ferry, regardless of where the ferry terminal is located.
35. Logical. The transit center needs to be within 100 feet of the ferry landing and needs to be protected from wind and rain (roof and sides not
necessarily an enclosed building)
36. Buses must be kept to the side. The lagoon should be kept attractive. Ferries are compatible, but how many restaurant goers or other people
at the waterfront are going to want roaring buses going past?
37. Having transit modes good idea and consolidate parking and provide retail adjacent.
38. We lose the connection to Oakland.
39. Don't do this. It ignores connectivity to Oakland. We need more connection to Oakland.
40. Commutors would benefit from lower costs.
41. Impact on bird population on breakwater.
42. Prefer existing ferry location with housing near to it.
43. Why will there be parking lots along side the lagoon.
44. Not necessary.
45. Completely unnecessary.
46. Yes, or add a new one on the Bay side of the point.
47. Maybe an additional ferry terminal instead of relocation. Alameda to Oakland should be served by the existing ferry terminal, Alameda to SF by
the new one.
48. Redundant and way too expensive. Ferries will always use Jack London's docks. Our current Alameda Ferry Depot is right on the Estuary.
Seaplane Lagoon is out of the way. Add more parking at the Main Street Depot.
49. I hate this idea; Keep the ferry where it is, accessible to all Alameda residents.
Appendix A: 72 Alameda Point Community Forums Summary Report
Assessing Potential Components of the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy
3. IMPLEMENT A Bus RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) CONECTION TO 12TH STREET /DOWNTOWN OAKLAND BART STATION.
Question 3 - Any comments about Transportation Strategy Component 3?
1. i would use it.
2. Yes if AC Transit will fund
3. As shown, messes up the whole island transportation, not just Alameda Point. Consider a route that does not involve much of
the main island.
4. Yes.
5. Only if AC transit can do it. Don't have alameda start a bus company.
6. Dream on
7. Who pays
8. Unlikely to happen. Too expensive
9. This idea has merit. BART is an accepted commute option for many people.
10. As long as it is integrated within a city transportation plan.
11. We have this already. It is called the 51 bus. Sure, put a new name on it and put on it some new pretty clothes, it is still an AC
Bus. AC is Alameda's-bus provider. AC is in a wreck of an operation.
12. Great but not likely to happen.
13. Absolute must.
14. Again, you are depending upon AC Transit, an agency you have no control over.
15. Good for those people goiing to San Francisco!
16. Priority 4, An extension of bart.
17. Priority 5
18. and to lake merrit bart station
19. What about Lake Merrit station?
20. This should be done now.
21. Airport access very important to people in West Alameda. Bayfarm route is the quickest.
22. limited loop of Webster st. Alameda Point to Oakland and back. Handle 10 bikes per trip.
23. How about West Oakland Bart? (closer than both Fruitvale and 12th street. )
24. Same.
25. Buses and large buses clog traffic lanes getting to and from the curbs
26. Pie in the sky
27. Needs to be included.
28. The map does not look like a rapid connection with so many stops
29. Most likely to help but must go to all stations.
30. There should not be so many stops between Webster and 12th Street. City Center is much more attractive and convenient
than Fruitvale.
31. Bike racks on buses. Also, should have free shuttle during commute hours.
32. No place in Oakland to design such a system. Needs cooperative efforts.
33. Bart should want this.
34. It still has to go through the tube.
35. yes!
36. Yes, yes!
37. Good idea for workers coming into Alameda. Bad idea if a lot more people live in and commute from Alameda through
Chinatown.(Who I understand have a legal action against us adding to their congested streets.)
38. Should include an easy and secure way to carry a bike (not using the bike as a front bumper for the bus).
39. No! As previously stated, I think queue jumping, only to be stopped by the backup at the tube, is like rearranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic. Also, dedicated lanes on main arteries would create pure havoc during rush hour.
Assessing Potential Components of the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy
5. PROVIDE STRONG PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY WITHIN ALAMEDA POINT AND TO STRATEGIC DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE OF
ALAMEDA POINT.
Question 5 - Any comments about Transportation Strategy Component 5?
1. looks good on paper but i don't think this is realistic. the Point is too far from most other destinations. i think most people
would be unwilling to walk that far. small electric shuttles would be better.
2. Of course
3. :)
4. It already exists.
5. Shouldn't that be pedestrian /swim if outside Alameda?
6. This is a quality of life issue, not a transportation issue. It belongs in the land -use or parks /rec survey.
7. Providing opportunities for people to walk within their community will help people connect with their community, feeling a part of
it and be coming more responsible for it.
8. Please do this. Very easy to do this, also easy to screw it up.
9. Yes
10. roadway design is integral to this.
11. Great, but Alameda residents are too lazy to walk.
12. Yes.
13. Priority 3, Easy done
14. Priority 4
15. Walking is good.
16. Alameda Point should be walkable.
17. Same.
18. People aren't going to work.
19. People wont walk long distance
20. Yes
21. Yes, these should be well maintained and safe.
22. this must be done
23. The increase in pedestrians will be good - but not a significant number affected.
24. Wide sidewalks! Encourage walking and biking.
25. Yes, continue bay path.
26. Not a transportation issue.
27. Good idea if people are able to walk the distance.
28. YES!
29. Yes, important.
30. If the strategic destination is no further than Webster St., a good walker can do that on a nice day. Most people can and will
not.
31. Yes.
32. All for it.
Appendix A: 76 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summa
Assessing Potential Components of the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy
7. PROVIDE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS QUEUE JUMP LANES OR BYPASS LANES, THAT WILL IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW
THROUGH BOTH ENDS OF THE POSEYIWEBSTER TUBES FOR TRANSIT ONLY.
Question 7 - Any comments about Transportation Strategy Component 7?
1. good idea. could it be done for carpools too?
2. Not if current neighborhoods are impacted
3. Aren't improvements like these a better fit on corridors with multiple stops? Traffic flow in tubes is affected primarily by 1 -880
congestion, and occasional accidents.
4. Once you have everyone through the tube and into Oakland, the gains will be all lost unless vast improvements are made to
Chinatown and freeway access.
5. The Tube will be congested no matter what is done. Anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts.
6. YES!!!!
7. work with AC transit.
8. Busses are the only answer for Alameda Point but are you going to get people on the busses? Can they get to work on one
bus?
9. Right up there with real stupid and unworkeable
10. We have lots of empty busses going to and from Alameda. Whose to say people will ride these busses?
11. Improving the traffic flow for transit buses when there is no evidence they will significantly reduce traffic is a recipe for disaster.
The likely result will be an overall worsening of our traffic headaches. Instead, wait until citizens are flocking to the buses and
demand that buses be given access preference to the tubes and bridges.
12. Good idea.
13. Never happen. Forget it. People will recall the council. Move on.
14. I don't know how this would work.
15. Absolute must, will bring benefits to the full island.
16. No. Keep the residential out.
17. No!!
18. Priorityl, No seperate lanes!
19. Priority 6
20. Unrealistic
21. good idea.
22. High Priority
23. Usually takes too much lane use from regular traffic.
24. Have to consider this well #6/ Don't understand level of improvement.
25. Same.
26. Dream on.
27. Who pays for infrastructure?
28. No
29. Yes, a good idea.
30. Only if you can create a third lane in the tube or if the dedicated lane receives substantial use. Could create massive backups
in the non - dedicated lanes
31. This would make buses more attractive.
32. How would this work? Build new lanes out of what?
33. No.
34. where would those go?
35. No comments because I don't understand what would be done. There's only so much room in the tubes. How can you change
that?
36. Excellent idea.
37. Once you get to the tubes you have two lanes. Who is paying for this? Stand in line for the $$$$ to fix the enormous
infrastructure backlog that exists now.
38. Good idea. Don't make the improvements ugly.
39. No! As previously stated, 1 think queue jumping, only to be stopped by the backup at the tube, is like rearranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic. Also, dedicated lanes on main arteries would create pure havoc during rush hour.
Assessing Potential Components of the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy
9. IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO REDUCE VEHICULAR USE FOR RESIDENTS AND WORKERS OF ALAMEDA POINT INCLUDING CAR/VAN
POOL, DISCOUNTED TRANSIT PASSES, PARKING FEES, MULTIPLE TRANSIT OPTIONS, ETC.
Question 9 - Any comments about Transportation Strategy Component 9?
1. good idea.
2. Vanpool for workers coming into Alameda Point from BART and other Bay Area traffic hubs would be helpful.
3. Vans are a good idea for individual businesses.
4. This stuff doesn't work
5. vans are good
6. This needs to be reworded: Implement PROVEN measures to reduce vehicular use...Then you need to list specific tactics for
which you have hard data that they work. It is time for staff and Council to stop proposing things that they hope will work and
start proposing things that have a demonstrable, proven history of working.
7. Good idea.
8. Have Google do it !!
9. yes
10. Helping people create new travel habits, as they move into their new homes and offices, will pay long -term dividends.
11. Not feasible - too expensive.
12. Overblown wishful thinking. Would mazke no substantial difference.
13. Priority 1, Industry shuttle too
14. Priority 2
15. "1. Carpool lane in tube 2. Discount ferry passes."
16. parking fees (No)
17. a noble goal but really depends on usage.
18. Encourage private enterprise not boondoggle public agencies consider bike taxis (collegetowns)
19. Public Bikes
20. Maximize use of existing source
21. Charge for parking!
22. Same.
23. This assumes large numbers. Reduce number of residences.
24. Yes
25. Agree
26. Concentrate on public transit rather than individual incentives.
27. This should also be #2 or #3
28. Carshare.
29. Yes.
30. Does not work.
31. Good idea if there are a lot of working families and young people who can take advantage and if other residents of Alameda
can be included.
32. YES!
33. It depends what it will cost and how subsidized. If you attract Federal facilities, those employees receive a transit incentive
already.
34. It is out of our hands as a city. Regional transportation is raising rates and cutting routes. I am not happy about that, but
Alameda cannot do much to change it. I cannot see how discounted transit passes wil be approved, and if in place will create
more problems for mass transit.
35. No to parking fees and reduced parking spaces; yes to the rest of it.
eda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Assessing Potential Components of the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy
RANKING TRANSPORTATION COMPONENTS
Question 11a - Rank the transportation components according to their overall importance.
(1 - most important, 11 - least important)
10 1
Respans'
Count
i. Relocate Per Terminal 11.5% (9) 3.8% (3) 6.4% (5) 9.0% (7) 6.4% (5) 3.8% (3) 7.7% (6) 7.7! (6) 15.4% {12) 14.1/, (11) 14.1% (11) 78
2. Express Buses to SF ` 13.8% (11) 20.0% (16) 15.0% (12) 13.8% (11) 8.8% (7) 5.0% (4) 7.5% (6) 7.5% (6) 5.0% (4) 3.8/, (3) 0.0% (0) 80
3.BRTto12thSt BART! 11.4% (9) 26.6% (21) 16.5% (13) 12.7% (10) 8.9% (7) 6.3 %(5) 5.1 %(4) 5.1% (4) 5.1% (4) 1.3 %(1) 1.3 %(1) 79
4. BRT to Fruitvale BART 5.3°/' (4) 9.3% (7) 16.0% (12) 5.3% (4) 9.3% (7) 9.3% (7) 12.0% (9) 6.7% (5) 16.0% (12) 8.0% (6) 2.7% (2) 75
5. Pedestrian Connectivity 14.5% (11) 7.9% (6) 9.2 °.4 (7) 3.9% (3) 11.8% (9) 11.8% (9) 10.5% (8) 10.5% (8) 2.6% (2) 14.5% (11) 2.6% (2) 76
6. Traffic Flaw through Tubes ! 20.5% (16) 12.8% (10) 11.5% (9) 9.0% (7) 12.8% (10) 11.5°' (9) 9.0% (7) 2.6% (2) 1.3% (1) 6.4% (5) 2.6% (2) 78
Improvements at Tubes 11.5% (9) 11.5% (9) 14.1% (11) 6.4% (5) 10.3% (8) 15.4% {12) 6.4% (5) 7.7% (6) 7.7/ (6) 6.4°4 (5) 2.6% (2) 78
8. Bicycle F s 16.3% (13) 12.5% (10) 10.0% (8) 11.3% (9) 10.0% (8) 11.3% (9) 3.8% (3) 8.8% (7) 8.8°/, (7) 7.5% (6) 0.0% (0) 80
e
7. Transit
9. Measures to Reduce Vehicles 9.2% (7) 14.5% (11) 9.2% (7) 14.5% (11) 7.9% (6)
10. Cluster Housing near Transit 22.7% (17) 8.0% (6) 6.7% (5) 2.7% (2) 6.7% (5) 1.3% (1) 1.3% (1) 10.7% (8) 10.7% (8) 24.0% (16) 5.3 % (4)
7.9% (6) 11.8% (9) 9.2% (7) 7.9% (6) 7.9% (6) 0.0% (0)
1.Other [ 40.0% (6) 6.7% (1) 13.3% (2)
0.0°1 (0)
76
75
0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 6.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (3) 13.3% (2) 15
If "Other" was specified, 0st the additional component(s) in the box below:
skipped question
15
Question 11 b - If "Other" was specified, list the additional comments below.
1. Bus to Lake Merritt BART
2. Plan development to restrict the number of cars necessary to access /egress Alameda Point. This is only accomplished with
light industry, alternate energy generation and jobs forA)amedans.
3. streetcars and /or buses that run within Alameda, maybe going over to Oakland just to link with BART
4. Rail to Fruitva)e
5. Don't build any more than 900 houses and then we won't have this problem.
6. Public transportation improvements throughout Alameda.
7. Rated this way because there is very little that can be done to get people out of their cars. Accept this and move on to more
productive activities.
8. Don't build so many residences.
9. Set low parking maximums
10. "All are important. East enders are already fairly close to Fruitva)e BART, but would be happier biking or walking if we could get
the Oakland side of the route cleaned up."
11. I can't imagine not using them all.
12. All these suggested traffic solutions have been suggested before and they are not going to handle overly dense development at
Alameda Point.
13. No clusters, please
14. Ferry between Oakland and Alameda.
15. centralized garage for office, retail, and housing, which requires people to go to the sidewalk, rather than walking from the
house to the garage without going outside.
Appendix A: 82 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summa
Assessing Potential Components of the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMPONENTS
Question 12 Continued:
41. Golf carts
42. Reality
43. Housing/work balance that reflects the types of workers at Alameda Point.
44. Don't build so many residences
45. Shuttle trams to shopping, 4
46. To "emphasize it encourage" will be of little help. We must solve!
47. Smaller bus routes within Alameda Point and one to 12th street or Lake Merrit. Medium high priority
48. Keep ferry where it is (Priority 4)
49. Not enough emphasis on commercial, office and light industry. That is easier to control with staggered work hours.
50. Casual Carpooling
51. Look at blockages that prevent Alameda traffic from exiting.
52. Reinstate school buses for school & Sports. Get kids to events w /out cars.
53. Mixed used housing.
54. Alameda needs a discrete in -city transportation system which is fun to ride. Current in -city transportation is provided by getting
a space on a bus intended to take people off the island.
55. Money to pay for any improvements
56. Encourage businesses that would employ they types of people who live in Alameda.
57. Don't build so many residences
58. "Utilize ferry to hornet from bay points,; 2 Bart to lake and Laney,; 3 Use estuary ferry to free shuttle atji squad, 4"
59. Reduce parking minimums, set parking maximums to employ market rate parking theories. See work of Donald Shoup and
Redwood City
Appendix A: 84 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
Community Benefits
RANKING BENEFITS
Question 1 - Rank the eight community benefits.
(1 - most important, 8 - least important)
Branch Library 8.2% (13) 10.1% (16) 16.5% (26)
15.2% (24) 15.2% (24)
Response
Count
13.9% (22) 8.9% (14) 12.0% (19) 158
Affordable Housing 22.2% (34) 11.1% (17) 11.8% (18) 92% (14) 78% (12) 11.8% (18) 5 9% (9) 20.3% (31) 153
Active Open Space (1)all fields,
etc)
7.9% (13) 23.2% (38) 25.0% (41)
14.0% (23) 15.9% (26) 6.1% (10) 4.3% (7) 3.7% (6) 164
Passive Open Space (trails, etc.) 33.1% (55) 29.5% (49) 102% (17) 9.6% (16) 6.0% (10) 2.4% (4) 4.8% (8) 42% (7) 166
New Ferry Terminal 9.7% (15) 9.7% (15) 7.7% (12) 12.3% (19) 12.9% (70) 9716(15) 11.0% (17) 27.1% (42) 155
Historic Preservation 22.5% (36) 10.00/. (16) 6916(11) 16.3% (26) 9.4% (15) 8.8% (14) 8.1% (13) 18.1% (29) 160
New Marina 7.7% (12) 7.1% (11) 8.4% (13) 11.6% (18) 11S% (17) 15.5% (24) 19.4% (30) 19.4% (30) 155
Sports Complex 6.9% (11) 6.9% (11) 5.7% (9) 12.6% (20) 13.2% (21) 18.9% (30) 22.6% (36) 13.236 (21) 159
answered question 168
skipped question 55
Appendix A: 86 A a eda Point Community Forums - Sum
New Ideas
COMMENTS
Question 1 - Additional thoughts or new ideas?
1. Wetlands Restoration
2. "Emphasize generation of alternative energy as a primary light industrial use. Verticle agriculture to provide food for the
community to buy. Use some buildings for education facilities to teach Alameda youth skills that would pay enough to allow
them to live in Alameda and raise their families here. Encourage VA to reconsider its clinic location and hospital position."
3. "Alameda doesn't need more housing, retail or commercial space. We've already got too much that isn't fully utilized. Our
transportation infrastructure can't and shouldn't handle more. Let's devote the base redevelopment to the generation of
power through solar and wind, use open space for community gardening and build a sustainably powered desalinization
facility. The revenue generated by the power generation can be used to enhance the facilities and services we already enjoy.
Let's generate income without generating traffic. Let's generate public benefit without the need for large scale infrastructure
development and indebtedness."
4. I would like to see a multi -use development that preserves the Point's historic character and emphasizes the beauty of the
waterfront. I envision an active place with lots of parks, restaurants, shops, and cultural activities. Please give retail space only
to small businesses, not giant, generic chains! We need public transit, not just for the Point, but for the whole island.
5. "What's the rush? 1 think we should take our time - there is no rush. This property will only become more valuable as the
economy improves. Right now the economy is a mess and rushing into the arms of another developer is a big mistake. I think
it should be put on hold for at least 2 years, maybe more."
6. Turn the whole air base into a wetland. Short of that then make it a senior residential community and use golf carts to go
around in like Catalina Island.
7. "You have ignored global warming. 18 "" in the next 50 years and 55 "" in the next 100 years. Have you considered making
most of AP wetlands ?"
8. I urge the city to develop a detailed master plan for Alameda Point. This should include obtaining as much community input as
possible. Developing a general, high -level plan and then letting Alameda Point grow organically should be avoided.
9. Go slow.
10. The land use section does not have a choice for commercial clean businesses or light clean industry.
11. "Traffic Congestion a hugh concern. More open space preferred. Bottom line: Keep Measure A for the island city."
12. Why didn't the workbook include Light Industrial use as a choice?
13. Ideal storage area and a helicopter base.
14. Sports complex should include a VIP aquatics facility. Primary issue: balance jobs /housing for island meansmore jobs for
existing residents. Not more residents. Our 80k residents relative to few jobs is so badly skewed that the City of Alameda is
"unknown word" insolvent. If Alameda Point becomes a tech corridor, then the transportation issue becomes east and west
ends to jobs in the theft. I understand jobs /housing balance at the point. But to ad that, we need more jobs and business filling
existing an new business parks is west end and clement.
15. First and foremost -look to reuse what we can first! Then due to contamination we must gradually determine whaty can be
developed.
16. Eventually a "out hotel" at Alameda Point, perhaps in old building (rehab) to bring people from Oakland /SF ferry to support
servicer, go to parks etc. Could be affordable "hotel" option.
17. Free frequent. Shuttle route within ALameda Point and to Webster St. Frequent limited shuttle route from Webster St. to
Oakland 12th. Do not need a ferry terminal to replace existing one. Do not need one transit hub. Build Alameda Point with three
or fur hub points to draw people to several popular gathering locations ie ABCD (see map on CPW26).
18. No SunCal. City should be master developer
19. Increase housing and community to pay for high priority infrastructure. Priority for transportation. Establish mixed -use
environment to create a walkable environment. build complete streets that connect to existing grid. Make multi -modal
connections to and from island. Incremental bus improvements and transit improvements. 1. queue jump lanes. 2. BART 3.
Ferry Terminal relocate. Cant afford to build a new table or bridge -could be a long term goal.
20. "East side of the blue outlined map facing the bay: This area has good San Francisco views. Also, on the east side with the
crossroads: can this area be used for trails /open space ?"
21. Community benefits typically require financial subsidies from the bonds.
22. Community benefits typically require financial subsidies from BONDS.
New Ideas
COMMENTS
Question 1 Continued:
35. Northwest Territories: Maintain existing paved area where antique fair is held -this is higher elevation -is adjected to UA property
where roadway would be. Extended VA access road an the way to western shore and stoping at parking lot for park, kayak,
launch, trail access. Explore energy facilityon park of NW territories. Explore high end RV park near Western Shoreline. There
are no such facilities in the inner Bay Areas - revenue source for parks, tourist dollars. THis RV park would be geared toward
high end RV owners.
36. We should use business to help pay for these items- housing costs more than tax income received. A public Marina for
Temporary "day" trips would be ok, but no permanent marinas -they block public access to waterfront. Improve the ferry
terminal we have out there.
37. How would whatever we develop fit in with the development on other section ofALameda Point? (e.g. VA). Could we step back
and consider something totally different? (e.g. national center for new energy reserve). Athletic center for both professional
(new football and baseall facilities.). Plus training facilities for amatuers.
38. Car ferry here with parking. How about an airport and for a hell -part (for medical transport). 1. Ya kno what I'd love? Some
public art at the point. Community woseies, murals, etc. 2. Thank you for holding this forum. 3. More business and restairant
(retail and fewer residences and ho housing density). 4. Overall, how about a big mixed use extravaganza at the point -line/
work, artist studio.
39. Sea plane Iasoo musioms
40. A core museum celebrating early aviation, Jimmy Dolittle /townhero, Alameda's huge part in the war effort. Areas for cottage
industries, Tight manufacturing. Building 3 would make a beautiful museum. NEQ would be a great live /work center. No mention
of museum which is a major community benefit.
41. Provide sports facilities that are a regional draw and well as for local use where tournaments attract people to come the
Alameda. Such facilities should provide income to the City as well as giving it a desirable identify.
42. Wetlands: Land buffer to protect the ferns (lete)
43. Keep ferry in current spot. Keep as many buildings as feasible. Find tenants for light industry uses. Keep O'Club. Senior
housing recreation . Keep theatre. Nothing taller than three stories.
44. Reflect character, composition, of existing city, promote pedestrian use, mixed use, and mixed density.
45. Alternative Services
46. Give NW Territories to EBRP and share road infrastructure w/ VA to get to Park.
47. This was a great stab in the dark on having a community forum. It was very restrictive and splitting everyone up was strange.
The audience was not reflective of the Alameda population so outreach for the meeting wasn't enough. I feel there needs to be
more meetings without restrictions, the only way you're going to make everyone happy. Hire a real community forum expert to
run a community meeting. The city of alameda will get better results that way. Hire the right person for the right job. Just collect
peoples votes -dont try to come to definitive answers right now. Need more research.
48. Zero net power of total build. Balance of higher education, residential, and open space.
49. Envision this area to be a vibrant spot of Alameda, no only commercial or open spaces. We need a great mic residential with
retail, walkable streets with coherence, and landscaping to be a model to the bay area self - sustainable, local vegetation, and
native plants.
50. Envision this area to be a vibrant spot of Alameda, no only commercial or open spaces. We need a great mic residential with
retail, walkable streets with coherence, and landscaping to be a model to the bay area self - sustainable, local vegetation, and
native plants.
51. Walking bridge to Jack London Square would encourage people to come to Alameda and cut car use.
52. Save Olympic pool since neither west end nor Branch Library have parking
53. Looking at the picture makes it look like trees are not important except in areas A &D. Trees should be everywhere on the point.
There is too much concrete out there. Rip up a lot of it and start building sea walls. Just because something exists does not
mean it has to be filled.
Appendix A: 90 Alameda Point Community Forums - Summary Report
New Ideas
COMMENTS
Question 1 Continued:
69. Eliminate Master Developer concept. Negotiate purchase of land from the Navy and ask for government financing for 30 years.
Enter into long term leases and reality options. Build a shopping complex in buildings #'s 5, 400 and 400 a.
70. "After the existing housing B used we do not need more.; Most of these choices are false as sea level rise will have much
of the land under water within 50 years.; Increasing housing to pay for the benifit of open space and parks is a false choice.
Much more of the land should be restored as wet lands.; Recreation (Bladium, sailing, kayaking, hiking, kiking, skating) and
urban agriculture are our best options with sustanable energy."
71. Move Coast Gurad to Coast Guard Island to Alameda Point. This will make buildings an estuary crossing bridge (bike /ped or
auto) much easier. And it will improve homeland security response times.
72. "Use hangers for: Library tool library, pinball machine collection, industrial arts (like crrucible), bike park (like scate park), b &BI
hotel /spa, more distilleries /wineries, roller scating rink.; Use Waterfront access for: kite board /windsurf access, prominade /trail
along centire coast."
73. City needs to be the developer. We need to keep the income from rents in the City.
74. Focus on reuse, not budding housing. Jobs first. Use existing assets to generate revenue. Housing construction is not
necessarty at this time with so many units on the market at this time.
75. Connectivity within development to Alameda plus greater Bay Area. Formalize Bay Trail alignment(s). Multi benefit of parks as
a drive to design. Transportation options. Connection to Bart.
76. "HISTORICAL DISTRICT: Maintain historic structures; Demo non - historic district buildings; Don't build new structures within
district.; DEVELOPABLE AREA: Consider adaptive reuse where feasible; New construction acceptable."
77. Must improve access to Alameda with CALTRANS and Oakland. Build multiple transportation hub locations to increase
opportunities for more concentration points (i.e, local store, bus stop, park).
78. "School district should take over theater for school functions and other events.; " "Alameda Eye "" huge ferris wheel like the
2000 one built in London."
79. Should not let developer get their hands on it.
80. Generate revenue not traffic. Increase quality of existing Alameda. Not make it bigger!
81. Use train tracks that go to Webster Street and did go down Clement to connect all of Alameda with small train - such as in San
Jose and Sacramento. Train should also go to Fruitvale Bart and be added to Alameda Point.
82. Toxic plums beneath the soil are unacceptable. The Navy needs to clean these up, and be compelled to do so by the EPA.
This needs to be thourghly explored. It's an ethical and moral issue, regardless of the existing laws that alow this pollution.
83. "Apply green building and energy technologies throughout the development.; Develop a model community for
multigenerational housing. Draw from existing models and bring state and nationwide attention to it.; Provide space for
community gardens and /or a community farm.; Build a cultural center for creative activities, f.i. neighborhood dance hall
accesible to all ages, small cafe theatre, artist studios... restaurants around a plaza...; Plan for Plazas for pedestrian
gathering, use Mediterranian city planning as an inspiration.; Keep the major portion of waterfront for public use."
84. Alameda Point is prime real estate with million - dollar views. It should be made into high -end retail /restaurants, open spaces
(parks, trails) and some commercial space, NOT low- income housing! Whatever is done should raise property values, not
lower them, along with the quality of life that Alameda affords.
85. We need to keep the least terns safe. We need to consider which buildings are worth keeping and can be leased out to bring
in revenue. We need open space for walking. We don't need another ferry terminal. We don't need a VA hospital with its
additional traffic when there are other spaces available in the east bay which are easier to access. This is a special area in
an imposing location and should not be squandered on short -term, unimaginative ideas. It's a jewel and should be treated as
such.
86. The USS Hornet Museum should play a more prominent role in the historic preservation category. It is a priceless asset for
the community and the larger Bay Area. It is a unique learning opportunity for school children and people of all ages to learn
more about World War II and the important role that the Hornet (and naval aviation) played in the prosecution of the War in the
Pacific.
ALAMEDA POINT 2010
CONIMLAITY FORUMS
APPENDIX B. A RESIDENT'S CONCEPT
FOR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Planning for the Northwest Territories
Background
The 1996 Community Reuse Plan called for parks and open space and recreation as
the main uses for this area. Alameda Point Park (then called Point Alameda Park) was to be
an 11 -acre region - serving park at the tip.
One of the suggested recreational uses near the park was golf. The idea for a small, city -
owned golf course soon turned into a grand plan for the entire Northwest Territories. A
convention hotel on the proposed 220 -acre golf course site was to be a major revenue gen-
erator; and the proceeds were to be earmarked to fund the 60 -acrea Sports Complex on the
eastern edge of the Northwest Territories.
Despite high hopes for this project, it was eventually abandoned as economically unfeasible.
The expected free, clean dredge spoils to contour the land never materialized. The final
blow came when the Request For Proposals for a hotel operator produced no responses.
The property received little attention, other than for cleanup activities, from around 2004
through SunCal's three -year tenure that ended in 2010. SunCal mentioned the possibility
for a solar farm, but the concept was never presented to Alameda's Public Utilities Board,
nor were any feasibility studies ever carried out to determine price per kilowatt hour or
production potential.
Blue area is 30 -acre Site 1 which
will have four -foot engineered
soil cap installed by 2013, and is
the area this document proposes
for Alameda Point Park.
(ii.hird
Looking north on western shore-
line of Alameda Point.
Looking west across Northwest
Territories with Bay Bridge in
background.
`4 tECF i4e f (t'CYI Stl ries
Observation
w/Benches
Bay Trail
an Francisco Bay
To San Cisco
+To Sh
in Rein j P
meda Point P & Bay Trail
30 Acres
Pavilions
3 Windbreak . was
caches
nic Tables
-Trail Intimation
Observation Area
vit./Benches
Park Trail
Kayak Launch and Pull Out
futon Enterprise Park at
south side of Alameda Point
e Pain+
Conceptual Plan for Alameda Point Park at Northwest Tip of Alameda Point
Submitted by Richard Bangert
Issues for Consideration in Planning
1) There are 18 acres that are officially recognized as wetlands. There are also several
acres along the estuary recognized as tidal marsh.
2) The paved taxiway where the antique fair is held is the high elevation for this area.
Benefits to maintaining this area as paved surface include:
a) Antique Fair brings in $500,000 lease revenue to the city each year;
b) Other income - producing opportunities for the city or park district may exist;
c) Adjacent to property where VA facilities will be located;
d) Access road to VA will be on this taxiway area, but will only extend part of the
way to western shore;
Richard Bangers lor..aw4s[ Terri rigs
For further information:
"Shoreline Spaces - Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay,"
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/planning/PADG.pdf
Wetlands Page
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
http://www.yourwetlands.org/
Public Trust Doctrine and Policies
California State Lands Commission
http://www.sic,ca.gov/Policy Statements/Public Trust Home Page.html
flickr
Alameda Point - Northwest Territories
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54212193N05/sets/72157625290653653/
Photo set
Richard Bangert Northwest 1erritorie5