1999-03-03 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
Wednesday, March 3, 1999
Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.
City Hall will open at 5:15 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 1999.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to execute a 10 -year lease
on Building 66 with Nelson's Marine and extend Nelson's existing lease on Building 167
to coincide with term of the Building 66 lease.
3 -B. Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to execute a 10 -year lease, with
an option to purchase, on Building 22 with HCT Investments, Inc.
3 -C. Receive report from the City of Alameda Golf Commission and recommendations from the Golf
Commission, BRAG, and Recreation and Parks Commission regarding the golf course design.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from BRAG.
4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items).
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction, or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the
agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
ARRA Agenda -March 3, 1999 Page 2
7. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be simultaneously broadcast on cable channel 22.
The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 7, 1999.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 864-
3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 3, 1999
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, District 3
Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Roberta Brooks, alternate for Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland
CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6, 1999.
2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special ARRA meeting of January 14, 1999.
2 -C. Receive report by the ARRA staff recommending the authorization to expend existing
City General Fund appropriation for Alameda Point activities.
2 -D. Receive report and recommendation by ARRA staff for approval of a six -month proposed
1999 budget for ARRA market rate housing lease revenue.
Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes as presented for January 6, 1999, and for
the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Receive report and approval of the recommendations from the Base Reuse Advisory
Group (BRAG) and ARRA staff regarding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Management
Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Janice Delfino, Ohlone Audubon Society, 18673 Reamer Road, Castro Valley, requested
that Alternative C be considered. She noted that when the Navy turned over the property to U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, it would be up to the Service to encourage and increase the least tern
colony. She believed that the Service should protect the reason for establishing a refuge, and
then, as time goes by, provide for public access.
The public hearing was closed for Reuse Authority discussion.
Chair Appezzato noted that he visited with the Fish & Wildlife Service the week before, and
brought up some concerns. He mentioned that ARRA rejected the premise that the City of
Alameda should pay for predator control outside the wildlife refuge, and have asked the Service
to fund predator control outside the refuge. That was an early agreement with the Service when
the acreage was increased from 390 to 565 acres. Secretary Garamendi agreed in principle to
that, and ARRA asked to continue that principle. Chair Appezzato also had a face -to -face
discussion with Mr. Barry of the Fish & Wildlife Service, and they would do their best to fund
whatever is possible to make this a viable refuge.
Chair Appezzato also said that the beautiful land of the refuge should not be marred with the
chain link fence or barbed wire. The alternatives were not discussed, because the decision should
be worked out between the City of Alameda and the Wildlife Service.
He also indicated that the U.S. Navy was able to use the entry and exit from the carrier piers
without harm to the least tern.
Planner Elizabeth Johnson noted that all of the alternatives in the Management Plan were
consistent with the other restrictions that were discussed with Fish & Wildlife, and everything
had been worked out, with the exception of the predator fee.
Member Kerr noted that the proposed fence would not only be unattractive, but would also be
opaque, stretching from the Bay to the Estuary, and out to the Northwest Territories. She added
that the narrow channel created an unnecessary danger for small craft, and emphasized that she
wished to promote safety as much as possible.
Chair Appezzato noted that Mr. Barry's name should be added to the copy of the letter, and that
2
the Washington office should get a copy as well. He added that a restricted lagoon would not be
a viable option.
Alternate Ornelas shared the concern about the fence, especially the barbed wire on top and the
image it would project. She also questioned the need for the slatting on the fence. In response to
her question regarding the need for barbed wire, Planner Johnson responded that it was standard
issue in all urban refuges, to control access from people. An alternative is being sought for the
barbed wire.
Chair Appezzato noted that the people in Washington objected to an eight foot high barbed wire
fence, and that would be closely examined. Planner Johnson noted that a higher fence with no
slats would be effective, so that possible trespassers would see there was nothing to get to.
Chair Appezzato emphasized that the City was committed to making the Wildlife Refiige work,
and that tremendous compromises were made in the process. He noted that he would sign the
letter, and include the comments made during the public hearing.
Alternate Friedman moved approval of the staff recommendation, with comments. The
motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes —
5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
3 -B. Receive report of alternative recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA staff
regarding the no -cost leases for Buildings 77 and 41 for the Alameda Naval Air and Western
Aerospace Museum.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Douglas DeHaan, Alameda Naval Air Museum, 1305 Dayton Avenue, spoke in favor of the
issue. He noted the Museum would be a major impact in how the transportation issues would be
handled, especially during off - hours. The initial mission of the Museum was to be an education
conveyance; the BRAG has made it an economic conveyance as well.
Mr. Ron Reuther, ANAWAM, P.O. Box 14264, spoke in support of the proposed museum at
Alameda Point. He believed that the potential of this Museum had a strong relationship to his
experience as a zoo director. He noted that the Base Reuse Plan said that the Museum would
have the ability to lease both buildings. In addition, if the Museum did not require all the space it
requested, or if it did not succeed, the ARRA would be able to immediately lease the facilities to
other job - generating uses.
Ms. Nita Rosen, Alameda Naval Air and Western Air Museum, 1045 Island Drive, spoke in
favor of the issue. She will be a coordinator for the gift store at the Museum. She believed that
the sentiments of the Mayor, "Honor our past and imagine future" was especially relevant in
3
regard to the mission of the Museum.
Chair Appezzato emphasized that the primary issue was financing of the Museum.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, BRAG, 633 Sand Hook, noted that the revenue projections made by
staff for the Hornet attendance, and that there was a 200 percent increase in attendance. In
addition, there were 30,000 admissions to the Oakland Western Air Museums in the last year.
These figures lend credence to the projections, although she agreed with staff that the grant
projections were overly optimistic. While the $500,000 from the State would be greatly
appreciated, no check has yet been written.
Regarding construction costs, Ms. Lichtenstein noted that a very strong due diligence in that
regard. Professional estimators, architects and contractors were consulted, and the City has been
consulted regarding the realism of the financial figures. The business plan took an excessive
amount of time, which has been frustrating, although the effort is going in the right direction
now.
Ms. Lichtenstein noted that the Board assured the BRAG that they were on track, and she
recommended that they give them the few months to prove their performance. She noted that the
ARRA staff was doing its job — to lease Alameda Point — and over 1 million square feet have
been leased to date, bringing 1,000 to the Point. She noted that the potential of the Museum
would be well worth the wait; they are asking an additional five months. She noted that the
Museum was not meant to be a moneymaker, but if the ARRA could wait until July 1, 1999 to
make the lease permit.
Chair Appezzato noted that was a reasonable request. In response to the Chair's question
regarding what would happen between now and July 1, Ms. Lichtenstein responded that they
expected them to get the funding and have a strong business plan in hand.
Mr. Benjamin Hance, Western Aerospace Museum, noted that the launch of the Museum boiled
down to "show me the money." The Museum intended to use their own money to improve the
City's buildings, which he considered a fair trade. The City was not expected to support the
Museum. The use of Buildings 77 and 41 is seen as a unique opportunity, and they would like
the chance to enhance the opportunity.
Chair Appezzato noted that the ARRA supported the effort, but added that the Authority was also
charged with making the Base work. The major question before the ARRA has been where the
line should be drawn regarding viability. He added that the General Fund should not be used in
this project.
Mr. Jonathan Goldman, WAM /ANAWAM, 35 Embarcadero Cove, Oakland, noted that the
Museum was not asking for money from the General Fund, nor for capital contribution from the
City. They are asking for the opportunity to make their vision whole, which included the Hornet,
4
Building 77, and the indoor exhibit space that Hangar 41 would provide.
Chair Appezzato suggested that the staff should be directed to look for tenants for the space, to
provide additional incentive to the Museum Board , and the City would have a tenant for the
space. Mr. Goldman replied that the City and the Museum Board shared the same vision.
Mr. Franz Steiner, ANAWAM, 501 14th Street, Oakland, presented a visual presentation of the
vision for Building 77 and Hangar 41. In response to Member Daysog's question, Mr. Steiner
responded that the cost to occupy Hangar 41 and turn it into a museum was $450,000.
Considerable funds have been raised, but monies will be easier to obtain once the project is
further along.
Ms. Marilyn York, ANAWAM, noted that she would like to see Hangar 41 preserved as a
monument to the thousands of people who worked in Alameda, and made it a gateway to the
Pacific. She emphasized that their selfless dedication should be recognized, and their sacrifices
during World War II should be honored. She added that the once in a lifetime history that took
place on the home front in Alameda must be preserved.
Ms. Barbara Baack, Alameda Naval Air Museum, emphasized that it was important not to let the
aircraft deteriorate and suffer corrosion. These buildings are important for future generations to
understand the military history of Alameda. Young people, seniors, and tour groups can benefit
from the combined museum effort, and she asked the Authority's support in delaying their
decision until July 1, 1999.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Chair Appezzato noted that he could support not terminating negotiations at this point. He
emphasized that the funds need to be raised, and did not want the City to be viewed as a
charitable organization.
Member Daysog supported Chair Appezzato in extending the decision until July 1, and also that
the ARRA should not turn away any prospective leaseholders during that time period.
Alternate Ornelas supported the suggestion to delay the decision regarding the lease until July 1.
She expressed concern about allowing staff to market the property in a parallel effort, because it
may hinder the Museum Board's efforts to secure funding. It would be important to have a finite
deadline, however, to provide a catalyst to complete the business plan..
Member Kerr noted that Hangar 41 is not the only hangar on the Base that needs to be leased.
She noted that the $500,000 got through both houses in Sacramento, and reached the Governor's
desk. At that point, he decided to shift the money elsewhere, but it did gain the support of
Senator Perata. She considered it likely that with a new governor, the $500,000 could be
approved. She agreed that the deadline should be extended until the final deadline of July 1.
5
In response to Member Johnson's question regarding marketing efforts for the property, ARRA
Facilities Manager Ed Levine responded that they have intentionally not marketed the property.
It was offered on an exclusive basis to the Museum, but there have been inquiries on Hangar 41.
Mr. Levine noted that he has been hesitant to market it until the fate of the Museum has been
determined.
Chair Appezzato noted that it would be irresponsible to wait until July 2 to find an alternate
tenant.
Mr. Levine noted that staff's position is to assess the viability of the business plan, based largely
on whether the Museum Board has the money in hand to finance the project. If the plan was seen
to be viable, ARRA would recommend finalizing the details of the lease, and executing the lease.
In addition, any other potential renter would have to yield to the Museum.
Alternate Friedman moved approval to adopt the BRAG recommendation, and to extend
the deadline until July 1, 1999. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed
unanimously by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
3 -C. Receive BRAG report and recommendations regarding tourism as a means of economic
development at Alameda Point.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hugh McKay, McKay Associates/Muirhead Group, noted that tourism has not come forward
as a development issue in the past. He believed that tourism could create opportunities not only
for Alameda Point, but for the balance of the City as well. He added that the tourism efforts
could be fast - tracked, with the help of private enterprise to assist the museums and the parks. He
believed that a destination resort hotel with a five -star restaurant and 36 hole golf complex could
be implemented.
Mr. Ron Reuther, ANAWAM, P.O. Box 14264, spoke strongly in favor of the matter of tourism
for Alameda, and believed that the city site was unparalleled in the world. He added that the
more tourism destinations there were in the area, the more people would come to visit them.
Mr. Vince Mackel, 1020 Dayton, noted that the committee was in need of a master plan, which
would increase the attendance at both museums. He observed that the Reuse Plan was not a
master plan, and was more of a statement. He suggested that an outside professional group be
used to create a comprehensive tourism master plan to benefit the museums, and the community
at large. In addition, a master plan would be able to provide tangible evidence of the vision,
imagination and interpretations to financiers and other crucial parties.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
6
Member Daysog noted that the phrase "highest and best use" was a red flag for the Alameda
Point area. On one hand, a hotel could be a substantial revenue generator, but on the other hand,
it cuts into a separate vision of a recreation center. He noted that he did not buy off on point
number one at face value, and while it was true, there should be additional phrasing to suggest a
complementary or pre- existing community visions as established in the community reuse plan.
Member Daysog asked whether the proponents for the other golf course were involved in this
review process. Ms. Joan Konrad, BRAG, responded that they did not contact the Golf Course
Commission. They made an assumption that they wanted a revenue source from a golf course on
the Northwest Territory, and that they should have one that provided the most revenue. She
emphasized that a top quality development would attract more tourism to Alameda, and that the
details could be outlined at a later date. The Golf Course Commission would be involved in the
next phase.
Member Daysog noted that the Muirhead Golf Course would be bigger, and would be a greater
revenue source.
Ms. Konrad did not believe there was a contradiction with the Reuse Plan. Ms. Johnson noted
that a revenue generation criterion could lock the ARRA into a corner.
Member Daysog suggested adding the phrase to Item number 1, "consistent with the community
reuse plan."
Member Johnson agreed with Chair Appezzato's suggestion of putting in the phrase "highest and
best use," and recognizing revenue generation.
Ms. Lichtenstein suggested that it would clarify the issue to say, "the objectives of the
development of the Northwest Territory and Northern Shores should include the following." She
suggested omitting the development of a golf course complex, because the golf course is not
being alluded to. They are alluding to the concept that tourism in that area should be an
important component of the economic viability.
Chair Appezzato noted that the Base Reuse Plan is undergoing EIS/EIR review, and cannot be
changed dramatically without affecting that process.
Member Johnson noted that the language should be changed to, "... of a quality consistent with
the goal of tourism."
Member Kerr questioned whether this was a good time to pass an item like this, given the fragile
state of the EIR.
Member Daysog responded that by declaring a reaffirmation of the goals and principles, the
ARRA would be saying they are not changing the Reuse Plan. Chair Appezzato noted that it was
7
extremely critical to stay with the current Reuse Plan.
Member Daysog moved acceptance of the BRAG recommendations and report, with the
modifications. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson and passed by the following
voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: Q. Abstentions -O.
3 -D. Receive BRAG report and recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA staff regarding
the future role and responsibilities of the BRAG.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers on this item.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Mr. Lee Perez, BRAG Chair, noted that the BRAG and ARRA recommendations were the same,
except for one item. The only difference was in regard to who they could advise and work with.
The relationship should change in a few months, and the difference in that sense is minor.
Chair Appezzato agreed, providing it continues to evolve, and that the BRAG makes changes as
it sees it better supports the mission of the BRAG and the Reuse Authority.
In response to Member Daysog's question regarding City Council's designation of the Reuse
Authority after the ARRA sunsets, City Counsel Highsmith responded that the Joint Powers
Agreement could allow a vote at the end of April to terminate the ARRA. Alternatively, the .
body could choose to reconstitute the form of its membership. In order to take conveyance of the
property, the City needs a Local Reuse Authority to continue in some form through the point in
time where the conveyance of all the property has been accepted.
In addition, Counsel Highsmith advised that the letterhead would still say "ARRA" on it.
Member Johnson advised that this was a significant issue, especially whether the BRAG had the
ability to comment on matters within its jurisdiction to other boards or commissions.
Chair Appezzato noted that as long as the issue is within the subject matter jurisdiction of
ARRA, and the communication is consistent with previous positions taken by the ARRA, then
BRAG may communicate that position to other commissions.
Mr. Perez advised that the BRAG has had no interest in going beyond the BRAG's scope of
issues regarding the Base conversion. The BRAG would like the freedom from time to time to
maintain ongoing communication with others boards and commissions. He noted that once the
ARRA is reconstituted, this issue will be easier to change.
8
Counsel Highsmith advised that a BRAG member could communicate as a private citizen. Any
member of the BRAG could do so if the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the ARRA
to which they are advisory, and was consistent with an existing ARRA position.
Chair Appezzato noted that even City Council members are not able to appear before the
Planning Board, for instance, and speak on behalf of the Council.
Council Highsmith advised that the BRAG is in an advisory position to the ARRA, but not to the
Planning Board.
Mr. Perez emphasized that the BRAG was fluid, and that if changes were necessary, they would
make them.
Member Daysog noted that the phrase "as the committee shall select" was very good, but
wondered why a five year sunset period was selected. In addition, he believed that it should be
stated that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee is not a redevelopment project area
committee as defined by California Redevelopment law, as amended.
Member Daysog moved acceptance of the BRAG recommendations and report, with the
modifications. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following
voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Bill Smith, 732 Central #16, noted that the tourism industry lacked an advocate, and
suggested that an additional consultant or tourist agency be used to facilitate communication
between all parties in the tourism effort.
The general meeting was closed by Chair Appezzato at 7:55 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Respectfully submitted,
Cory Sims
9
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 24, 1999
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ: Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to execute a ten (10)
year lease on Building 66 with Nelson's Marine and extend Nelson's Marine's
existing lease on Building 167 to coincide with the lease term for Building 66
Background:
Nelson's Marine wishes to enter into a ten -year lease on Building 66 and adjoining property.
Nelson's Marine also wishes to extend its existing five -year lease on Building 167 (signed in March
1997) so that the term of this sublease coincides with the Building 66 sublease term. The ARRA will
retain the right to terminate either or both of these leases after year five in order to redevelop the
property. Since the term of these leases exceed seven (7) years, the ARRA Governing Body must
authorize the Executive Director to execute the leases.
Discussion:
Building 66 has a leasable area of approximately 28,500 square feet and is located at the
northeast corner of the Seaplane Lagoon. Nelson's Marine wishes to provide marine services in a
portion of Building 66 and sublease the remainder of the building to other marine- related businesses.
The gross rental revenue from Building 66 during the first five years of the lease term will be
$438,000. After year five, the rental rate will adjust to 90% of the then fair market value and increase
at the Consumer Price Index (CPI) through year ten. The gross revenue from this sublease over the
ten -year term will be in excess of $1.0 million. Nelson's Marine projects that 35 people will be
employed in Building 66 in addition to the 46 currently employed in Building 167. As indicated
above, the subleases on Building 66 and/or 167 may be terminated at the sole and absolute discretion
of the ARRA following year five of the sublease term, should the ARRA wish to redevelop the
property underlying these buildings.
Fiscal Impact:
It is projected that the cost of the building shell improvements needed to bring Building 66
into code compliance is $120,000. Nelson's will front the cost of these improvements and be paid
back by ARRA, at no interest, through rent rebates during the first seven years of the lease term.
This reimbursement will reduce ARRA's gross rental revenue to about $350,000 during the first five
years of the lease term.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 24, 1999
Page 2
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to
execute a ten (10) year lease on Building 66 with Nelson's Marine and extend Nelson's Marine's
existing lease on Building 167 to coincide with the lease term for Building 66
By:
Ed Levine
Facilities Manager
C: \W PDOCS\ARRASTAF.RPT\NELSON.66
-1100
1000 1 000 1 000
•
700 1 600 1 500 1 400
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR
■ 200 1 100 I 0
0
N
0
N
0
N
N
0
N
u.
." -"�iiu•:1 fence 76
00 /
1(134 i ('=
oy
Pool
101w1 170,
F1 Yci
c""
2,.
a000001 o
0
ooa00olo00000
4900 1(TM 0 ROAD
00...1 000000
0
N
W. ROM AVE.
w TOWER AVE
1 1400Al2
TAXIWAY "H°
L
0
0
SEAPLANE LAGOON
Per 1
)n an
Directory 1
Sign
IC AWE.
15
14
3 99
\l
U []
LJJ.
0
168
.W MA.8ANV AVE
U
\�
Pier 2
- -J
67 0
----1r— nc.RnnIVOCK AM—
E-)
rr�.ggX:A -ACc
'21
0
X292
Pier 3
cJo
)
�.,
!1
ALAMEI)A POINT INNER HARBOR
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 24, 1999
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ: Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to execute a ten (10)
year lease, with an option to purchase, on Building 22 with HCT Investments, Inc.
Background:
HCT Investments, Inc. is an Alameda based real estate development company with
substantial holdings throughout the western United States and Canada, including a multi - building
office complex in the Harbor Bay Business Park. HCT wishes to enter into a ten -year lease on
Building 22. They intend to spend approximately $2.0 million in upgrading the building prior to
subleasing it to Audio Visual Technical Services (AVTS). ARRA's lease with HCT will give them
an option to purchase the property at fair market value following year four of the sublease Wan. This
option will be subject to conveyance of the property to the ARRA by the Navy and removal of the
property from the Tidelands Trust. Since the term of this sublease exceeds seven (7) years and
includes a purchase option the ARRA Governing Body must authorize the Executive Director to
execute the sublease.
Discussion:
Building 22 was formerly an aircraft hangar and has a leasable area of approximately 65,500
square feet. The building will be improved by HCT to serve as the corporate offices and operating
facility for AVTS, a San Francisco based company specializing in leasing and servicing audio- visual
equipment and providing video production services to corporate clients. The gross rental revenue
to the ARRA over the ten -year lease term will be $2,260,000. AVTS projects that approximately 90
people will be employed in the building. As indicated above, the lease with HCT will include an
option to purchase provision. This provision may be exercised by HCT no earlier than the start of
year five of the lease term and is subject to the property being conveyed to ARRA by the City and
being removed from the Tidelands Trust. The sales price of the building will be determined through
appraisal, based on fair market value.
As a real estate developer, HCT requires a purchase option to justify its substantial front -end
costs to upgrade the building. Although $700,000 will be reimbursed by the ARRA to cover shell
improvements, HCT will need to spend an additional $1.3 million to improve the building to the
level required by AVTS. Because of limited lease revenues and EDA grant funds, the ARRA does
not have the resources to bring this building into code compliance without front -end financing by
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 24, 1999
Page 2
the tenant. Unfortunately, most tenants do not have the funds available to finance such high
improvement costs. For this reason, the ARRA has experienced difficulty in leasing buildings such
as this.
One obvious solution is to lease to a developer, such as HCT, which has the capacity to
obtain financing and manage the building improvement process. However, this approach invariably
requires that the lease include a purchase option. Staff believes that the opportunity to lease the
building; generate substantial rental income; and create 90 new high -tech jobs at Alameda Point
justifies offering this option. This approach is consistent with the EPS Financing Plan which calls
for upgrading and retaining Building 22 for long -term adaptive reuse.
Fiscal Impact:
As indicated above, HCT will spend a total of $2.0 million to upgrade the building, including
approximately $700,000 for shell improvements needed to bring the building into code compliance.
The cost of the shell improvements will be reimbursed to the tenant through rent rebates over a
seven -year period, amortized at 8% per year. These reimbursements will reduce ARRA's gross rental
revenue to $1,320,000 over the lease term.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to
execute a ten (10) year lease, with an option to purchase, on Building 22 with HCT Investments, Inc.
Ed Levine
Facilities Manager
C: \W PDOC S\ARRA STAF. RPT\HCT
0
0
0
---- 1100
1000 I 900 I 900 700 I 000 I 500 I 400 1
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR
t
76
KO 0 34 j(
1200 I 100 I 0
twww-5111rt
NC* f AWAY 140/5/1
M s
44/WAY
I I I
1 I ,
1---7111CA1
W
TOflR AVE
39
f
L
067 ylkil—rj
119 _ 00
Ai LP(:1 H A LA
251 ,
0
0
0
0
SEAPLANE LAGOON
Pier 1
Tenant
Directory 1
Sign
15
)1
14
•
0 0 ti
nc,n it 0
d'
LJ
mac
Pier 2
167,
11
292
Pier 3
0 B Lfl
—,-veronerr-Im ,110E4Le
ED CD
LJ
_ rfaajpi.A-AVC-
1
21
ri
■77
ALAMEDA POINT INNER HARBOR
/
IT
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 23, 1999
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ:
Background:
Report and Recommendation from the Deputy City Manager on Findings of the Golf
Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Economic Development
Commission and the Base Reuse Advisory Group on the alternative proposal for a golf
course development at Alameda Point
At ARRA's meeting of November 4, 1998, the ARRA Board referred golf course feasibility at
Alameda Point to be studied further by the Golf Commission and the golf course General Manager
to determine the best means of financing and developing. Further, the ARRA Board Chair referred
Hugh McKay to the Recreation Commission, Golf Course Commission, and Economic Development
Commission (EDC) to present his proposal.
A joint meeting of the Golf Commission, the Recreation Commission, the Economic Development
Commission and the BRAG was held on December 16, 1998 to discuss the following two options:
1) The 214 -acre, 18 -hole tournament level course with internal site for a future 200 -room hotel
as analyzed in the feasibility study presented to the board in July 1998; and
2) An alternative proposal presented by Hugh McKay and Associates that required additional
acreage to provide an additional 18 holes, a golf academy and an resort hotel.
Subsequently, each body met to make a formal recommendation on the question. The actions of
each body are provided in the reports found in Attachment 1. In summary, the commissions and
the BRAG have made the following recommendations:
Golf Commission
The Golf Commission recommends that the city proceed with a financing plan analyzing in
more depth the desirability of various financing mechanisms to undertake the development of 214
acres as presented in the May 1999 feasibility study, and rejects the concept of the McKay group.
They also recommend that the financing study address the potential financing of the Sports
Complex.
1
Recreation Commission
The Recreation Commission voted on January 14, 1999 to support the feasibility study
concept and opposed the McKay proposal because it would use the area designated in the
Community Reuse Plan for the Sports Complex, with no feasible alternative site for the relocation
of the Sports Complex.
Economic Development Commission
The EDC met on February 18, 1999 to discuss the golf course issue. The EDC recommends
that the ARRA board issue a Request for Proposals for a golf course development proposal so that
competitive proposals could be evaluated on a similar basis. The purpose of selecting a development
proposal would be to maximize the economic benefit to the city while minimizing costs to the city,
including potential costs from displaced existing and planned uses.
Base Reuse Advisory Group
The BRAG directed their Economic Development/Land Use/Reuse Task Force to
recommend the type of golf course development that will best serve Alameda. The task force made
their recommendation to the BRAG at their meeting of February 17, 1999. The BRAG voted
unofficially (with no quorum) to accept the recommendation and endorse it to the ARRA board. The
recommendation was to plan for a resort hotel/convention center and two 18 -hole golf courses.
Discussion:
Staff finds that the consideration of any development proposal singly at this time is premature. As
shown in the attached chronology (Attachment 2), a feasibility study of a site designated in the
recently (1996) adopted Community Reuse Plan has been prepared. An amendment to the Reuse
Plan was made in 1997 to accommodate the Sports Complex adjacent to the golf course. The
feasibility study was prepared with the assistance of a qualified wildlife biologist in order to make
certain the concept was compatible with the purposes of the adjacent Wildlife Refuge. The McKay
group proposal was unsolicited, and does not have the benefit of input from staff or a feasibility
study.
There would be two logical courses of action to pursue at this time: either issue an RFP so that other
developers could respond, which would test the marketability of the feasibility study's concept; or
conduct a market study independently. The Golf Commission's recommendation is for a financing
study, which would determine one of the parameters that could be a requisite of the RFP.
Fiscal Impact
The expense of preparing and distributing the RFP would be covered by existing staff costs. The
2
cost of hiring an outside consultant to prepare a marketing or financing study has not been identified,
nor has a source of funding for this item.
The McKay proposal does not give an analysis of financing or costs to the city for the development
of the golf course /resort hotel complex. It does not estimate the costs of relocating the Sports
Complex, or revenue lost from the site it proposed to relocate the Sports Complex.
Recommendation
ARRA staff recommends that the ARRA proceed with an RFP for a golf course development on 214
acres as analyzed in the Feasibility Study.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth G. Johnson
Base Reuse Planner
EJ /tbm
cc: Sherry McCarthy
Dana Banke
Bruce Knopf
Hugh McKay, McKay and Associates
3
February 24, 1999
TO:
FROM:
City of Alameda , California
Honorable Mayor Ralph Appezzato and
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Alameda Golf Commission
Ed Trevethan, Chairman
Tony Corica, Vice Chairman
Fred Leitz, Golf Commissioner
Connie Wendling, Golf Commissioner
Rick Stone, Golf Commissioner
Dana Banke, General Manager, Chuck Corica Golf Complex
RE: Alameda Point Golf Course Development Project
Background
At the November 4, 1998 Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting, Mayor
Ralph Appezzato requested that Hugh McKay and Associates redirect their Golf Course Proposal
to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), Golf Commission, Economic Development Commission
and Recreation Commission. The Hugh McKay and Associates proposal would require more acreage
for two 18 hole golf courses, approximately 280 acres, the relocation of the previously approved
sports complex and a change in the Base Reuse Plan that had already been approved by BRAG and
ARRA. Due to the monumental changes that would need to be made to accommodate the Hugh
McKay and Associates proposal, compelling evidence in support of this proposal would need to be
brought forward. Therefore, on December 16, 1998 Hugh McKay and Associates presented their
proposal at a joint meeting with BRAG, Golf Commission, Economic Development Commission and
Recreation Commission. Following the presentation Deputy City Manager David A. Berger directed
the Commissions to discuss the McKay proposal at their next scheduled meeting and to forward their
recommendations to ARRA via the Golf Commission.
Discussion /Analysis
At the January 14, 1999 regular meeting of the Recreation Commission, the Commission voted
unanimously to support the plan for a 214.5 acre Golf Complex and opposed the McKay plan for
two golf courses (approximately 280 acres). Gail Wetzork, Chair of the Recreation Commission
stated that "The sports complex was developed over a three -year period with a significant amount
of community input by numerous sport group representatives and the BRAG Recreation Task Force.
The conceptual plan was approved by BRAG and ARRA. The 57 -acre complex is an integral part
of the Community Reuse Plan and will be an important asset to the community and for the marketing
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
#1 Clubhouse Memorial Road
Alameda, California 94502 -6502
510 864.3422 • Fax 510 522.0848 • TDD 510 522.7538
-Page 2-
of Alameda Point. "(see Attachment A)
The City Council at its February 2, 1999 meeting approved construction of a skateboard park to be
completed this June that falls outside of the 214.5 acre golf site, but within the boundaries of the two
course proposal. The existing gymnasium, which also falls outside of the 214.5 acre golf site, but
within the McKay proposed location, was the site of a local fundraising event in January for
approximately 400 people, which demonstrates the value of this facility. Also, while not a state -of-
the -art structure, it certainly is functional and provides our youth an indoor building that should be
utilized for years to come.
The BRAG meeting held February 17, 1999, which convened just before our regular Golf
Commission meeting, resulted in a vote without a quorum present. Some Brag members
recommended the two course proposal. The City of Alameda has not yet reached the proposal
phase of developing the Northwest Territory of Alameda Point. The City of Alameda sent out a
Request for Proposal (RFP) for a feasibility study. The RFP requested a feasibility study be done on
the area calling for 214.5 acres as determined by the Community Reuse Plan adopted in 1996. The
feasibility study conducted in 1998 by the Kyle Phillips Group is not a proposal to develop, it is a
feasibility study as requested by the Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). The
selection of the Kyle Phillips & Associates Group to perform the golf feasibility study in early 1998
was made after reviewing a total of seven proposals, interviewing five finalists, and deciding upon the
Phillips Group, in large part due to the inclusion of Colin Hegarty in their team as their financial
expert. That study, concluded in June 1998 confirmed that not only can we create an exceptional golf
course, but could bring in significant money for the City. The McKay proposal was not considered
for the RFP because they did not address the requirements of the study. That raises the question of
why this proposal is being presented and voted on against a feasibility study? No RFP outlining the
parameters of the McKay proposal has ever been sent out to bid by the City of Alameda. The McKay
and Associates proposal was deemed not to be worthy of an interview for the golf feasibility study
due to a lack of presentation of options, a lack of knowledge about the restrictions of the site and
inclusion of material specific to the Lew F. Galbraith Golf Course that Mr. McKay previously
managed. The McKay team has not worked through the process as outlined at the December 16,
1998 joint meeting. They have never presented any new information to the Golf Commission,
attended any of the three Golf Commission meetings since December 16, 1998 and, as has been their
pattern, have circumvented processes and groups to gain an audience to elicit uninformed decisions,
with BRAG member Ken Hansen vehemently leading their cause.
Fiscal Impact
The Golf Course Feasibility Study indicates that a golf course, hotel and conference center located
in the Northwest Territory could generate a considerable amount of money for the City. The study
projects $17 million in costs to develop the golf course and clubhouse. ARRA has directed the Golf
Commission and Golf General Manager to explore financing options for the golf course development.
Recommendation
As directed by the Mayor at the November 4, 1998 ARRA meeting, the Golf Commission has
considered input from other groups and unanimously recommends by a 5 -0 vote to enlist the services
-Page 3-
of Mr. Colin Hegarty of Golf Research Group of Martinez, California to outline the financial options
available to develop a premium daily fee golf course with a hotel on the 214.5 acre site, including the
possible financing and development of the adjacent sports complex in keeping with the master plan
developed over the years by many concerned Alarnedans. Proposals for development will be accepted
at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Ed Trevethan
Ed Trevethan
Golf Commission Chairman
Tony Corica
Tony Corica
Golf Commission Vice Chairman
Fred Leitz
Fred Leitz
Golf Commissioner
Connie lendling
Connie Wendling
Golf Commissioner
Rick Stone
Rick Stone
Golf Commissioner
a B. e
General Manager
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
GC:nmc
Attachment
xc: Director Recreation and Park
Chair, Recreation Commission
Attachment A
City of Alameda .
Inter-department Nlemorandurn
January 20, 1999
TO: Ed Trevethan, Chair
Golf Commission
FROM: Gail Wetzork, Chair
Recreation Commission
RE: Pr000sed Alameda Point Golf Course
At the Recreation Commission meeting of January 14, 1999, two proposals for a golf
complex in the northwest territory of Alameda Point were agendized for a
recommendation to be sent to the Golf Commission.
Discussion took place regarding the feasibility study conducted by Kyle Phillips and
Associates (June 1998). This plan calls for a 214.5 acre site with an 18-hole golf links
style course, including a clubhouse and a hotel with conference rooms.
The second proposal discussed was prepared by Hugh McKay Associates (December
1998). This plan is for a 280 acre golf complex with 36 holes, clubhouse and hotel.
The Hugh McKay plan of 280 acres would eliminate the sports complex in its present
location. There are no sites that could accommodate 57 acres of recreational use.
The consensus was that the sports complex should not be fragmented but kept as one
continuous complex in its present location with the existing gymnasium. Also, being
adjacent to the golf complex and hotel would be a benefit to both sites. This
convenient location would be very conducive to staging large sporting events and
tournaments resulting in the potential for economic benefits.
The sports complex was developed over a three-year period with a significant amount
of community input by numerous sport group representatives and the BRAG Recreation
Task Force. The conceptual plan was approved by BRAG and ARRA. The 57 acre
complex is an integral part of the Community Reuse Plan and will be an important asset
to the community and for the marketing of Alameda Point.
The Recreation Commission by unanimous vote supports the plan for a 214.5 acre golf
complex and opposes the plan for 280 acres.
GW:np Gail Wetzork
cc: Sherry McCarthy, Director
City of Alameda
Memorandum
To:
From:
Re:
February 19, 1999
Chair and Members
of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Frank Matarrese
Chair, Economic Development Commission
Development of a Golf Course at Alameda Point
Background
At ARRA's meeting of November 4, 1998, the ARRA Board referred golf course
feasibility to be studied further by the Golf Commission and the golf course
General Manager to determine the best means of financing and developing. Further,
the ARRA Board Chair referred Hugh McKay to the Recreation Commission, Golf Course
Commission, and Economic Development Commission (EDC) to present his proposal.
Discussion and Analysis
On December 16, 1998, members of the EDC participated in a joint meeting of the
Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), the Golf Commission, and the Recreation and Parks
Commission to hear a presentation of the Hugh McKay Proposal. The EDC discussed
the golf course issue at its February 18, 1999 meeting. After much discussion, the
EDC concluded that the City, as a matter of policy, should develop lands and uses
at Alameda Point in a way which maximizes economic benefit to the City, given
established community objectives. In this case, the EDC believes that the best way
to gauge the extent of such benefit is for ARRA and /or the City to be able to
evaluate competitive proposals on a similar basis. To that end, the EDC suggests
that ARRA /City use a request for proposal process to solicit multiple offers and
that they be uniformly evaluated based on their economic benefit and cost and their
ability to achieve stated development objectives, such as those stated in the Reuse
Plan.
Budget Considerations /Fiscal Impact
The EDC is willing to participate in a process of evaluating fiscal and economic
impact of proposals which respond to defined community objectives.
Recommendation
The EDC requests that ARRA issue an RFP for development of a golf course complex
at Alameda Point to maximize economic benefits to the City and minimize cost
including covering any costs associated with displaced existing and planned uses.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank Matarrese
Chair
Economic Development Commission
FM:BK:ry
cc: Economic Development Commission
G: \APIP \GOLFCOUR \EDCREC.219
f:Alameda Point Improvement Project /Golf Course
BRAG
LAND USE February 17, 1999
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
GOLF COURSE COMPLEX
The Economic Development/Land Use /Reuse Task Force has been directed by the BRAG to
recommend the type of golf course development that will best serve Alameda. This is the Land
Use recommendations. They are based on an analysis of the related overall Goals and
Objectives of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, the Land Use Elements for the
Northwest Territories and Civic Core sub - areas, Objectives of the Golf Course Development
approved by ARRA February 7, 1999, assumptions the Task Force has made, and the
advantages and disadvantages of the two proposals for golf course development presently
under consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Plan for a resort hotel /convention center and two 18 hole golf courses. Such a development
adheres to the Goals and Objectives of the Community Reuse Plan, will enhance the quality of
urban design of the Civic Core, integrate uses, reduce the impacts on the Wild Life Refuge, and
begin construction of new development in accordance with the long term vision for Alameda
Point.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (As defined in the Community Reuse Plan - See attached
Appendix.)
I. Land Use - Achieve a balanced mix of land uses, creating a vibrant and diverse new
neighborhood in Alameda. Provide a balance among public benefit, private sector, and the
environmental uses. Seek creative solutions to provide energetic land uses while reducing
the impact of the automobile and energy consumption.
H. Urban Design and Neighborhood Character - Create the same "small town" character in
the former NAS site as highly valued by the existing community. Create a series of
neighborhoods, each with a central focus of mixed -use development, including local -
serving commercial and recreational uses and a mixture of housing densities.
III. Achieve human - scale, transit - oriented development - Emphasize walkable streets,
restricting most traffic circulation to specific major access routes. Enhance the viability and
use of transit and other alternative modes of transportation in all development, through
deliberate design of neighborhoods, commercial, industrial and recreation /open space
areas.
IV. Optimize use of transit and other alternative modes of transportation to reduce
vehicular traffic and dependence on the automobile.
ALLOWABLE USES IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (As defined in the
Community Reuse Plan - See attached Appendix.)
1. Northern edge of the existing airfield - Mixed-use as an international commerce and
trade zone including light industrial, R&D, warehousing, trade showrooms and other similar
uses.
IL Easternmost portion adjacent to the NAS pool and gymnasium - 17 acre Recreation
and Park Department Sports Complex.
111. Remainder of area - recreation and open space (". .acting as a transition zone between
more intensive human uses and wildlife habitat preserved to the south. . ."). including Bay
Trail and Shoreline Park, Point Alameda Regional Park at northwest end, and Scottish style
"links" golf course. "A public facility with multiple uses could be developed to jointly serve
as a golf clubhouse, environmental education center, parks and recreation multi-use
center."
ALLOWABLE USES IN THE CIVIC CORE (As defined in the Community Reuse Plan
- See attached Appendix.)
1. Civic Core - Main focal point of activity for the new neighborhoods created on the former
NAS site.
11. Civic Core ". . .The emphasis is to provide public serving and civic uses while providing
ample opportunity for job creation" - R&D/industrial "flex" uses, light industry, office, civic,
residential, educational, recreational, commercial, places of worship and nonprofit
organizations.
111. Civic Core - A central north-south open space promenade or mall would create an
extension of the existing Navy parade ground from the Oakland Alameda Estuary to the
Seaplane Lagoon, opening into a public plaza at the marina.
IV. Northern Civic Core - Mixed-use office and institutional center allowing for a wide range of
employment, education, and commercial uses. Existing gym, pool and Officer's Club to be
developed by Recreation and Park Department for recreational uses
OBJECTIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT as approved by the ARRA
I. Components of land use such as, but not limited to, a conference center, hotel, etc., should
lead to the highest and best use for the City of Alameda consistent with the NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan.
II. Tourism should be an essential key to the development of the area.
III. The development should be of a quality consistent with the goal of tdurism.
IV. The development should be planned with consideration given to the planning of the Civic
Core.
V. The development should be planned with the currently existing facilities at Alameda Point
(e.g. the 0' Club) in mind.
ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY THE TASK FORCE
I. The golf course complex must be smoothly integrated into the adjacent land uses as
envisioned in the Community Reuse Plan.
11. Private funding is available for the resort hotel/conference center and 36 hole golf course.
III. The golf course is being developed as a profit making enterprise.
IV. The development will act as a magnet for other businesses and tourism.
V. The potential opening of a golf course will be delayed because the Port of Oakland did not
acquire funds to dredge the Estuary in 1998.
KYLE PHILLIPS GOLF COURSE DESIGN PROPOSAL
The elements of the Feasibility Study written by Kyle Phillips Golf Course Design include an 18
hole golf course, golf practice tee, clubhouse/banquet facility, possible future 200 room hotel
site, golf maintenance facility, park/shoreline bay trail, car parking and entry road to golf course
and parks.
ADVANTAGES
1. A golf course and park/trails are a good use of the land adjacent to the Wildlife Refuse.
2. The gnIf course site is within the prescribed boundaries of the Community Reuse Plan and
no changes would have to be made to the Plan.
3. The development process could go ahead immediately.
DISADVANTAGES
1. Though the golf course complex is a true recreational asset, the design is too isolated from
other uses, such as other commercial development, and from convenient public
transportation at Alameda Point. One of the primary goals of the Reuse Plan is to, "Achieve
a balance mix of land uses, creating a vibrant and diverse new neighborhood in Alameda".
2. The placement of the clubhouse relies too much on the automobile for access and would
require a length of road designed for heavy traffic.
3. Because of its isolation and limited type uses, it's impact as a magnet to desirable
commercial and industrial development would be limited.
4. Placement of the golf course clubhouse and banquet facilities in the middle of the project is
unlikely to be consistent with the requirements of the USF&WS Wildlife Refuge because of
heightened activity in the area, especially at night.
5. The site placement of a possible 200 room hotel in the same area would also be
unacceptable to the USF&WS for the heightened activity and the probable height required
for hotel buildings..
HUGH G. MCKAY ASSOCIATES AND DESMOND MUIRHEAD,
INC. PROPOSAL
A proposal prepared by Hugh G. McKay Associates and Desmond Muirhead, Inc. includes two
18 hole golf courses, practice tee, golf clubhouse, resort hotel/conference center,
park/shoreline trails, parking, golf museum and golf academy.
ADVANTAGES
I. The Civic Core is the focal point of activity for Alameda Point. The hotel/conference center
' would be an integral part of it, generating vitality for the area and acting as a magnet for
other desirable commercial development.
II. The complex would start the long term new development as envisioned in the Reuse Plan.
III. The resort/conference center would give Alameda a much needed facility.
IV. The complex would have good access to public transportation and be within walking
distance of other Civic Core uses.
V. The heightened activity of clubhouse and hotel/conference center would be removed from
the USF&W Refuge.
VI. A It would not require a length of a high use road.
VII. A quality resort hotel/conference center could be built immediately with private funds.
VIII.Construction of the golf course would be privately funded.
IX. The resort hotel/conference center would provide additional revenue for the City.
X. Two 18 hole golf courses would provide additional revenue for the City.
DISADVANTAGES
I. Placement of the hotel/conference center would require the relocation of the Alameda
Recreation and Park Department Sports Complex necessitating a change in the
amendment to the Community Reuse Plan which sets aside 17 acres on the easternmost
portion of the Northwest Territories. However, if there is no prospect for funding of the ,
Sports Complex and the 17 acres is likely to be unused for years, perhaps it would be of
benefit to the City to relocate it to the southeast and allow the 17 acres to be used by a
revenue producing development. Perhaps the gym building could remain in place. It would
be an asset contributing to the fabric of the Civic Core.
II. Amendment of the Community Reuse Plan would delay the Record of Decision (ROD) due
some time this Spring. However, as there is a delay in Oakland's ability to dredge the
Estuary and the Request for Proposals is some time away, perhaps the project would
proceed after the ROD is signed.
4
APPENDIX
EXCERPTS FROM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY
REUSE PLAN (Page numbers shown in parenthesis are from the Community Reuse Plan.)
Goal A - Land Use: (page 1 -8, 9) "Achieve a balanced mix of land uses, creating a vibrant and diverse new
neighborhood in Alameda."
Objectives
• "Emphasize mixed -use development as the overall reuse vision."
• "Ensure that the Community Reuse Plan is economically viable."
• "Fully integrate the existing NAS Alameda into the City of Alameda creating a new neighborhood; full
integration includes land use compatibility within and surrounding the installation, matches with the urban
fabric of Alameda, and realization of a seamless transition between the existing NAS site and the entire island
of Alameda."
• "Provide a balance among public benefit, private sector, and the environmental uses and concems; include
provisions for open space, recreational resources, environmental protection, and viable economic
development."
• "Seek creative solutions to provide energetic land uses while reducing the impact of the automobile and
energy consumption."
Goal B - Employment and Economic Development: (page 1 -9) "Achieve job creation and economic
development to provide the employment and economic benefits historically associated with NAS
Alameda."
Objectives
• "Prioritize ARRA and /or City revenue generation in major land use decision, consistent with the intent to
balance economic development needs with public benefit conveyance and public/community service uses."
Goal D1- Urban Design and Neighborhood Character: (page 1 -10) "Achieve complete integration of the
former NAS site with the rest of the island of Alameda; this is to be a seamless integration of the many
neighborhoods, open space, and the best qualities of the existing City."
Objectives
• "Create the same "Small town" Character in the former NAS site as highly valued by the existing community."
• "Create a series of neighborhoods, each with a central focus of mixed -use development, including local
serving commercial and recreational uses and a mixture of housing densities."
• "Encourage development of distinctive and individualized neighborhood character."
Goal D2 - Achieve human - scale. transit- oriented development (pagel -10, 11)
Objectives
• "Emphasize walkable streets, restricting most traffic circulation to specific major access routes."
• Achieve the same human - scale, tree -lined character of neighborhood streets found throughout the existing
City."
5
• "Enhance the viability and use of transit and other alternative modes of transportation in all development,
through deliberate design of neighborhoods, commercial, industrial, and recreation /open space areas."
Goal 12 - Optimize use of transit and other alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicular traffic
and dependence on the automobile. (page 1 -15)
Objectives
• "Promote continued and expanded ferry service as an alternative to the automobile.
• "Establish a viable pedestrian and bicycle circulation system within the installation and linking the former NAS
site with the rest of the City."
EXCERPTS FROM THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS
APPROVED MAY 28, 1997 FOR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (Added
wording underlined)
Northwest Territories (page 2 -25) ... "A portion of the northern edge of the existing airfield is
designated mixed -use for future development as an international commerce and trade zone including light
industrial, R&D development and warehousing, trade showrooms, and other similar uses. This area may
include a site for Alameda Science & Technology Center, an institution dedicated to marrying scientific
research and commerce.
"The easternmost portion of the Northwest Territories adjacent to the NAS pool and gymnasium is
intended to be developed as part of the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department Sports Complex
at Alameda Point. This 17 acre portion will be incorporated into the City of Alameda PBC Public Benefit
Conveyance application.
"The remainder of the Northwest Territories will be devoted to recreation and open space uses.
ReriemOrL ic!'mti ' i !'de a Bay Trail and Shoreline Park, with Point Alameda Regional Park at the far
"The open space areas could include developed recreation uses such as ball fields, soccer fields, or a
Scottish style "links" or "rough" golf course. A public facility with multiple uses could be developed to
jointly serve as a golf clubhouse, environmental education center, parks and recreation multi -use center,
or a retreat and conference center. This area provides recreational opportunities and acts as a
transitional zone between more intensive human uses and wildlife habitat preserved to the south. In
addition, the site provides the opportunity for use as an upland dredge soils disposal site that can be
configured with open spaces, recreation and golf course uses on top of fill.
"Allowable Uses - The Northwest Territories is intended as a mixed -use area with a major emphasis on
International trade and commerce and light industrial uses. Recreational uses such as meeting and
conference facilities, club houses, educational center and recreational buildings such as pools, recreation
halls, gym and incidental storage and maintenance facilities are allowed within the district in addition to
secondary warehousing, light industry, office and supporting commercial uses. Housing may be permitted
under certain conditions. Supporting uses should be developed focused in or around a neighborhood
center. Community - oriented institutions such as places of worship and nonprofit organizations are also
considered allowable and desirable uses..."
Northwest Territories Policies: (page 2 -26) 2 -57 The Northwest Territories will be included in the
ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance request to allow the flexibility for a range of potential
economic development uses on the site both in the near term and potential long term.
6
EXCERPTS FROM THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS
APPROVED MAY -28, 1997 FOR THE CIVIC CORE (Added wording underlined)
Civic Core (page 2 -13) "...This area, representing the existing core of the base, will continue to constitute
the main focal point of activity for the new neighborhoods created on the former NAS site.
"... The emphasis in the area is to provide public serving and civic uses while providing ample
opportunity for job creation. Potential civic uses include a new university geared towards international
affairs and commerce, public recreation facilities, a museum, a library, a teen activity center, a civic
auditorium, civic office space, a place of worship, and meeting spaces.
(page 2 -14) "The northern portion of the Civic Core is intended for reuse as a mixed -use office and
institutional center allowing for a wide range of employment, education, and commercial uses. Existing
recreational buildings and facilities along the northern edge of the Civic Core, including the existing gym,
pool and Officers' Club are intended to be redeveloped for parks and recreational uses by the City of
Alameda Recreation and Park Department.
.. A central north -south open space promenade or mall would create an extension of the existing Navy
parade ground from the Oakland Alameda Estuary to the Seaplane Lagoon, opening into a public plaza at
the marina.
"Allowable Uses (page 2 -15) The Civic Core is a mixed -use area with a major emphasis on research &
development/industrial "flex" uses. Light industry, office, civic, residential, educational, recreational,
commercial, and other supporting uses are allowed within the district. Community - oriented institutions
such as places of worship and nonprofit organizations are also considered allowable and desirable uses.
"Civic Core Recreation Area (page 6 -5) The existing Navy recreation area framing the northern edge of
the parade ground will be conveyed to the Alameda Recreation and Park Department for reuse. The
makes these facilities ideally situated for public recreational. uses."
PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR GOLF COURSE FEASIBILITY STUDY
GIVEN TO KYLE PHILLIPS
I. An 18 hole, world class links style golf course with clubhouse, parking, practice facility and
maintenance building.
II. Consider clean Merritt sand.
III. Consider a public park site adjacent to the waterfront accessible by vehicle.
IV. Consider a 300 room hotel side in connection with the golf course development.
V. A 100 foot Buffer along the north and west waterfront for a pedestrian /bike trail.
VI. Consider site drainage.
VII. Consider neighboring wildlife refuge.
7
B.R.A.G. Land Use Subcommittee
.,
-g• L., Q., , o L... ,n o 0 o
-tzt ,..2 t..ros
,...
0 ..... ,-■ 0
...
'IC
— ,
-fi, ;.. .0 .
g •Z
t'0 ' .4 : ii 4 k,
0 E-4 .ta.)-a :.1.: lo ^ia 4o -ot
Z
,;.;0 0 •—■
g L 4) E 8 -zi -° '.:E • Q Q. 4z...,..,-, ,;
1-0) z. P.,
...,:,- e ,
,... '''..
rf .1:1 Y z .o .s,
. 0 z -ia. -0 c.0 a, ..2. i."
...)
o 0 k ... ,-, t.-.. -5, 0
.`'‘) Fa
ty
—.' ".'
'..`'' 2
,.. . .0
0
6
0. .)
.2 ., ..,
.9.,° ,,b
o
)
-- ‘.....„ .....
--
'''':
Y, . ... ,-.Z ...
0
0 0
0, •-•• 0 -0
....
;... .t„
h c,
0 ■.1. '4' ... h 'f,:,
k a! E
0 '''Z L•
1 §
0
-1•-■ .S. 0
0 ..E " to 0 1 III 0) ,-Z
0 0) 0 0 0 •Z '.— (X
h
E...-, '''... L 00 0 g t)'--. 0 ,..) z q) z
a. S -z 4 . 1 i 0 , D3 -t a , , Ilz `.1.5 Zi -,5) ..,
(...) , ...i.:3
0.)
4‘) .
r 0!' 6n 006r .
'1) 0.)
I E
Z.) -0 .0.)
4—a
• 0 1:$ E 0 ..E •R'
Q L.;
z t".zt
E !2 -*@
1:1 g - 0
c,0 *
_
0 • Fs. 0 E
O 3
E
u,„ 9
-e .0 0" E 0 a • — L, 7,
tts o
fi
0,0
0 (L., Zi
1:3 g
2..z;
.g
-a 00 — 0
,0 L.
2 2
0 E •o
§' cA 8
.E 8
-a z
= 0 -0
I
•r4.
0) 0
o .5 2, -
.a o
o
_
Z,0 -Ng
o E
E g E
— 8
t•Ti — 0 0 .ca o
E 2 ci)
2 .76 4.4
.2 E
January 1996
October 1996
May 1997
July 1997
ATTACHMENT 2
CHRONOLOGY:
The development of the golf course concept at Alameda Point
Community Reuse Plan adopted by the
ARRA board. States uses such golf course,
parks, recreation will be possible for
Northwest Territories. Navy begins work on
EIS/EIR
Negotiations with US Fish and Wildlife
finalized regarding the boundary and extent
of wildlife refuge: 525 acres.
Sports Complex Master Plan accepted by the
ARRA board, as endorsed by the BRAG and
the City of Alameda Sports Complex
Taskforce
Community Reuse Plan amended to provide
17.5 acres of land for Sports Complex in
Northwest Territories, added to the original
37.5 acres, for a total Sports Complex area of
55.3 acres.
September 1997 BCDC removes Port Priority designation
from Northwest Territories
1
December 1997
May 1998
ARRA issues RFP for Golf Course
Feasibility study in order to determine
whether site is developable and whether we
can use dredge spoils for the golf course.
Oversight committee of ARRA staff, Leslie
Zander, biological consultant; Dana Banke,
golf course general manager, and Tony
Corica, golf course commissioner.
Hugh McKay and Associates present proposal
for a larger, resort- destination golf course to
the BRAG
June 1998 ARRA Golf Course Feasibility study
presented to BRAG
July 1998
September 1998
October 8, 1998
October 21, 1998
2
Golf Course Feasibility Study presented to
ARRA board
Hugh McKay and Associates present proposal
to the ARRA
Recreation and Parks Commission is briefed
by staff on McKay proposal and voted to
opposed the proposal because it would
eliminate the Sports Complex
Discussion of the McKay proposal is held at
BRAG meeting; BRAG assigns task force to
study land use issue
November 4, 1998
November 18, 1998
3
ARRA board refers golf course feasibility to
be studied further by Golf Commission and
the golf course General Manager to determine
best means of financing and developing.
ARRA board chair refers Hugh McKay to the
Recreation Commission, Golf Course
Commission, and Economic Development
Commission to present his proposal.
Planning Department begins General Plan
Amendment work to bring Reuse Plan
designations into City's general plan.
CORRESPONDENCE/
MISCELLFNEOUS
4 February 1999
ear Mr. k lint,
FEB 16 1999
I was extremely pleased to read your letter of 28 January announcing Alameda's decision
to host portions of the upcoming phase of the Corps' Urban Warrior Advanced Warfighting
Experiment. As you know, the exercise is vital to the ongoing development of the concepts,
capabilities, and technologies necessary to ensure America's dominance on the complex
battlefields of the future. As our recent experience attests, the military will confront, more and
more often, the unique challenges of the urban environment. Realistic training and
experimentation -- the kind that can only be accomplished in an actual urban setting -- are crucial
to our preparation for tomorrow's inevitable contingencies. The lessons learned in Alameda will
have broad application and will significantly contribute to the shaping of a more capable Corps.
Your personal support is especially appreciated and I commend your vision for the future.
I would also like to extend my deep appreciation to the great people of Alameda; their generous
support of Urban Warrior is most welcome and a clear reflection of their selfless commitment to
America's defense efforts. I am confident that the experience will prove positive for both the
City and its Corps of Marines.
General, U.S. arine rps
Commandant of the M. e Corps
Mr. James M. Flint
Office of the City Manager
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, California 94501
ACQUISITION AND
TECHNOLOGY
FEB 1 9 1999
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20301 -3000 FEB 12 1999
Federal Identifier:
Alameda NAS/NADEP
CL9426 -98 -05
Mr. Dave Berger
Assistant City Manager
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Point/NAS Alameda
950 West Mall Square, Room 175
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear Mr. Berger:
I am pleased to inform you that I have approved the request for $185,000 of Department
of Defense Community Planning Assistance Funds for planning the reuse of Alameda
NAS/NADEP. If the provisions of the enclosed grant agreement are acceptable, please sign both
originals. Return one for our records, and retain one for your file.
Enclosed are copies of the Standard Form (SF 424B) Non - Construction Assurances and
the required Certification forms for Lobbying, and Debarment and Suspension. The SF 424B
and Certifications need to be completed and returned to us in order to comply with item 1D of
the grant agreement.
Also enclosed are copies of Standard Form (SF) 270, "Request for Advance or
Reimbursement" and SF 269A, "Financial Status Report." The SF 270 is used to request grant
funds. The first SF 270 may be submitted with the signed grant agreement. Subsequent SF 270's
will be approved for disbursement contingent upon acceptance of the quarterly performance
reports. Therefore, please submit these SF 270's with the performance reports. The SF 269A is
used to report final outlays and obligations for the entire grant period. The form must be
submitted to close out the grant.
This grant has been assigned the Federal Identifier Number CL9426- 98 -05. Please use
this number on all grant - related correspondence. We look forward to working with you.
Enclosures:
Grant Agreement
Standard Foams 269A, 270 (4) & 424B
Certification Forms and Assurances (3)
Sincerely,
Paul J. emp ey
Direct
Office of Economic Adjustment
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ENGINEERING FELD ACTIVITY, WEST
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
900 COMMODORE DRIVE
SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 9406 8-5006
Mr. Charles Houghton
Chief, Division of Refuge Planning (ARW /RPL)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
911 N.E. 11`h Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232 -4181
Dear Mr. Houghton:
IN REPLY REFER TO:
5090.1B
7032DP /EP -1665
16 February 1999
We have reviewed the "Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Alameda National Wildlife Refuge" and
the "Draft Environmental Assessment for Establishment and Management of Alameda National Wildlife
Refuge" (EA) and have the following comments.
The Navy is committed to rapid reuse and redevelopment of the former Naval Air Station, Alameda,
property, also known as Alameda Point, both for economic redevelopment and for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) ongoing mission of wildlife management. The property proposed for the future
Alameda National Wildlife Refuge was determined to be excess to the needs of the Navy and is being
maintained in caretaker status by this Command. We are currently working with the San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge (SFBNWR) to develop a use permit through which the SFBNWR can approve
interim uses such as public tours. The Navy is also engaged in discussions with the SFBNWR to transfer
management control of the proposed refuge property as quickly as possible to allow the SFBNWR to
implement its federal mission. We believe that with cooperation of the SFBNWR and your office that
Alameda National Wildlife Refuge could be in operation on October 1, 1999 or sooner.
However, the EA should clarify that under the "No Action" alternative, if the SFBNWR did not establish a
refuge, the Navy would declare the property surplus to the needs of the federal government, and dispose of
the property from federal ownership in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.
Also, the EA should further analyze the potential adverse safety and socioeconomic impacts of reducing the
size of the existing ship channel from the current 1000 -foot width to a 500 -foot width. On page 29 the EA
identifies that public access to water areas of the refuge would be restricted in various ways under the
different alternatives. Under Alternative C, the existing ship channel would be reduced to 500 feet in
width. This restriction could adversely affect the ability of large ships to use the Alameda piers as a
berthing area. The EA should evaluate whether reducing the ship channel from 1000 feet to 500 feet or
otherwise constricting the channel would adversely impact the existing and proposed waterfront activities
at Alameda. This analysis should consider increased safety risks of the narrower channel as well as
potential adverse socioeconomic consequences that may result if the pier space at Alameda can no longer
be used as a result of the narrower ship channel. We recommend you consult with the City of Alameda, the
Coast Guard, and the Maritime Administration regarding this analysis.
We have also identified several corrections to the section on contaminants and included it as an enclosure
to this letter. We look forward to receiving the Final EA and to expediting the transfer of management of
the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge from the Navy to the Service. For additional information
please contact Mr. Doug Pomeroy of our staff at telephone number 650 -244 -3008.
Sincerel ,
. kr/L-
MICHAEL MIGUEL
Base Conversion Manager
Navy Comments on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service EA and CCP
EA Section 3.3 Contaminants, starting page 32
First paragraph of section, third sentence. Should be changed from "... the Installation Restoration
Program has identified approximately six contaminated sites..." to read "...the Installation Restoration
Program has identified five contaminated sites..."
Second paragraph of section. Replace the entire paragraph with the following: "The sites within the
proposed Refuge boundary include a 110 -acre landfill northeast of the West Wetland, the West Wetland,
and a portion of the storm sewer system. Two additional sites outside the proposed Refuge boundary
include a 12 -acre landfill at the northwest corner of the former NAS Alameda and the Seaplane Lagoon.
Contaminants present include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, various
petroleum products, and chlorinated solvents."
Note for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service preparer: The Navy has not identified the nearshore areas
adjacent to the landfills, or the Runway wetland, as Installation Restoration Program sites.
Third paragraph of section. Revise the first sentence to read as follows: "Decisions on the selected cleanup
methods for the landfills and nearshore areas are due in June 2000 and March 2001, respectively (U.S.
Navy 1999)." That is cite this letter for the dates.
CCP Section 3.8 Contaminants, starting page 28
Second paragraph of section with the following:
"The sites within the proposed Refuge boundary include a 110 -acre landfill northeast of the West Wetland,
the West Wetland, and a portion of the storm sewer system. Two additional sites outside the proposed
Refuge boundary include a 12 -acre landfill at the northwest corner of the former NAS Alameda and the
Seaplane Lagoon. Contaminants present include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated
biphenyls, various petroleum products, and chlorinated solvents. Some of these areas have been grouped
into operable units (OU) which are management units that allow grouping of sites with similar histories and
problems."
Note to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service preparer: The Navy has separated the landfills into two different
operable units.
Section 3.8.1
Pg 28. Change "Operable Unit 3 Landfills" to "Operable Unit 3 Landfill"
Pg 28. Change 8th sentence of first paragraph, Section 3.8.1 from "... bioremediating the dechlorinated
solvents ". to "...bioremediating the petroleum."
Pg 28. Change 10`h sentence of first paragraph, Section 3.8.1 from "... is due in April 2000." to "...is due in
June 2000."
Pg 28. Make the second paragraph of Section 3.8.1 into a separate section 3.8.2 addressing the "Operable
Unit 2 Landfill."
Pg 29 see corrected locations of operable units
Pg 30. Change existing section 3.8.2 to be Section 3.8.3.
Pg 30. Change end of last sentence of first paragraph of existing section 3.8.2 from "... is due in June
2000." to read "... is due in March 2001."
Pg 30. Change end of 4`h sentence in existing section 3.8.2 from "...chlorinated pesticides,..." to
"chlorinated solvents..."
Pg 30. Change beginning of the 6th sentence from "Because of the unassessed potential..." to read
"Because of the currently ongoing assessment..."
Pg 31. change the first full sentence at the top of page starting "The University..." to read "The University
of California at Berkeley is conducting a treatability study of the sediments, and the Navy is preparing an
ERA."
Pg 31. IRP site 18 is not a portion of OU 4. Your organization of the document should be revised to make
this clear, possibly by adding another subsection number.
Pg 31. Change the 3`d and 4th sentences the first full paragraph to read "Contaminants formerly present in
the system included metals (such as lead, chromium, and copper), PAHs, PCBs, phenols, aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, and petroleum products. A major portion of the system was
cleaned as a time critical removal action."
29
!Bldg. Sq. IT]
. Building #
cfl
■0
••■•
"
k0
131 34,.54
0
0
0"
•■•■
00
Ch
en
Piers 1, 2, 31
Ch
.-.
.70-
r....:
.....
0
0
<7.)
.
....
40,000
0
trt
V1
44")
0
CD
r,
0
N
4/1s
N.
,--.
e`f
0.1
Olen
4,110
00
010
0101
•••■■
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
00
VD
.....
*
.....
VD
++ 14
167 & piers
42
"0
tg
' c-ti
.13
,Z
0
in
soccer field
....
N
tg
CA
530
15
CPO units
44
Term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
1long term
long term
long term
long term
11 year
11 year
long term
!long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
Signed Leases & Licenses
Manex Entertainment
Manex Entertainment
Marathon Pallet (Polyethylene)
Maritime Administration
Maritime Administration
' Marine Sanitation
Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfg.)
Nelson's Marine (Boat Storage/Repair)
Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Crepe Mfg.)
Piedmont Baseball Fdn.
Piedmont Soccer Fdn.
Richard Miller Photography
Simmba Systems (Records Storage)
Tower Aviation
Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.)
United Indian Nations (Homeless Coll.)
Woodmasters (Cabinetry)
Bldg. Sq. Ft.
15,550 I 3 2
en 'et trl 1/40
en en en m
0 0
co'l 0
1-., In,
N 0
...... --,
N.•
00 Ch 0
•-•
N
en
1,-
1--- co
! 4,880[
MI
0 0
0 0
1--(:
.,
N CD
,....,
0
0
v0
'40
0
0
«
1`..
N
‘0
IMIMIIIIIIIIMI
0 0
kr) tel
00 0.1
17,001 '
0
0
0
,_,
0
0
00
0
0
0
N
0
0
.4.
20,000
0
0
'Cr
0
0
,--,
.....,
t--
N
N
.4.
tr)
--.
rn",
■-■
0
0
00
00
'et
.04
CD
,0
rn
0 VI
00 00
•••4 ,,..7
t-,
to
Pier 3
near Bldg. 530
258
43
tarmac & 405
292
Bldg 2 FISC
at FISC
0
CV
.
24, 25
76 &134
60
N.
C\
in
WI
(,)
ci)
1..4
gLI
Cl
bi.
-0
en
..-.
1/40
,--,
106
ket
.1-
._,
...
Term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
00
0
0
!6 months
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
short term
long term
long term
long term
0
0
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
6 months
NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED
OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
!CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTED FUTURE EMPLOYMENT I
'Signed Leases & Licenses
ACET (Environmental Tech. Incubator)
'AC Hornet Foundation
]Alameda Point Storage (Mini Storage)
.'Alameda Unified School District
(Altair Marine (Ship Repair)
Antiques by the Bay (Collectibles Faire)
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
Bobac (Warehouse)
Bureau of Electricity (Storage Yard)
CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator)
CALSTART (Test Track)
Cellular One (Cell Site)
City Garage Carstar (Vehicle Painting)
!City of Alameda (Dog Run Park)
'City of Alameda (Ferry Terminal Parking)
!City of Alameda (Gym & Pool)
City of Alameda (O'Club)
City of Alameda (Public Works)
City of Alameda (Soccer Field)
City of Alameda (Tennis Courts)
CyberTran International (Test Track)
Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays)
Door Christian Fellowship Church
Dunavant of California (Storage) j
Emerg. Svcs. Network (Homeless Coll.)
Forem Metal Manufacturing
Forty Plus (Career Counseling)
Home Auto Re air
Housing Units (31)
IWA Engineers (Steel Fabrication)
Love Center Ministries
...4
....
.-■
.--■
.,-. ...
,...
....
N
cl
N
N
N
N
N
N
C4
N
en
c'el
tra
N
02/2 4/1999 1E :55
510 -740 -4504
ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER
Alameda Reuse and ttedevelotnent Authori
Alameda Point Redevelopment Center
950 W, Mall Square. Suite 100
Alameda, CA 94501
Ooverning Body
Ralph Appeszato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandrb R Swanson
Vice-Chair
Dlattict Director for
9th Congressional District
Wilms Chan
Supervisor, District 3
Alameda County Board
of Supervisors
Henry Chang, Jr.
Oakland Counellmernber
saving for
Jam Brawn
- -or, City of Oakland
Sbdla Young
Mayor
City of San Leandro
Tony Daysog
Couacllmcmber
City of Alameda
Albert H. Dcwlet
Councilmembcr
City of Alameda
Barbara Karr
Councilmamber
City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson
Councilmernber
City of Alameda
Jim Filet
Executive Director
February 11, 1999
Charles Houghten, Chief
Planning Branch, ARW/RE
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232 -4181
Dear Mr. Hougbten:
PAGE 01/03
(510) 749-5910
Fax; (510)769.0694
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority appreciates the opportunity to
submit the following comments on the Draft Complebensive Conservation Plan for
the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge and the accompanying Draft
Environmental Assessment(EA) for the Establishment and Management of the
Alameda National Wildlife Refuge of December, 1998. The ARRA requests that
these issues of concern be addressed in the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and EA for the Refuge. These comments incorporate the recommendations of the
Base Reuse Advisory Group.
Overall, the plan is sufficient to address the operation of the refuge. There remain
a few outstanding issues which require the active participation of USFWS to engage
in a dialogue with the ARRA/City, bringing alternatives to the table. We have
organized them in the same format as our letter of September 12, 1997.
Issue 1: Public Access
We would prefer the alternative analyzed in the EA as Alternative "D" (over the
Service's preferred alternative "C ") because it provides more public access and
avoids the narrow definition of the boat access channel. It also proposes a smaller
expansion of the least tern colony, which would avoid further conflicts with
development plans near the refuge. In our letter of September 12, 1997, we asked
that a commitment to protecting boating access be provided in the plan. On page
9 of the Draft EA, it states: "The U. S. Department of Transportation's Maritime
Administration would require accesses to the open bay via the 500 -foot access
corridor through the Refuge. If wider access is ever needed, a special use permit
would be considered."
A major concern is that the proposed 500 -foot wide access corridor to the piers and
Seaplane Lagoon is not sufficient for the rife operation of a commercial port for the
Maritime Administration (MARAD) ready reserve fleet. The port management and
02/24/1999 16:55 510 -740 -4504
Charles Houghten
February 11, 1999
Page 2
ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 02/09
MARAD have both requested that the channel be left at 1000 feet wide. Nor is there acconunodation
made for the required turning radius for these ships, approximately 1500 feet, using US Anny Corps
of Engineers standards, The port is a major economic contributor to the successful reuse of the base
(current revenue to ARRA is S1.3 million per year, which would be lost if accommodations are not
made for these ships.) The operation entails moving large ships (up to 880 feet long) in and out of
port, along with barging of equipment and fuel. •
There are also daily ferries and support for the Hornet ship museum, as well as a number of small
craft and tugboats that accompany port operations. A narrow channel that would be used by
recreational boaters as well as the port would be unsafe.
Refuge staff have stated that an accommodation could be made to allow greater access for port ships
while regulating pleasure craft. The Refuge plan must recognize that the port, the marina, and the
refuge will co- exist, that the port use will not be more intensive than the prior Navy operations, and
that the refuge will continue to accommodate port operations with a shipping channel and turning
basin of the required dimensions.
This issue needs further discussion and recognition in the Refuge plan, with a revised proposal that
accommodates the Port while achieving the objectives of restricting small boat traffic in the Refuge.
The Refuge plan discusses the possibility of additional restrictions on the Long Breakwater, which
is within the City of Alameda, outside of the refuge. Pedestrian access to the breakwater is currently
restricted by the City of Alameda. Any additional restrictions requested by Fish and Wildlife would
require more discussion.
Issue 2: Predator Control
The Plan does a good job of describing Predator Management actions by the USFWS; however, there
is no mention that the plan will require additional predator management funding for the area outside
the refuge. The A.RRA and the City have requested that the appropriation request for the
establishment of the refuge include this cost., approximately 560,000 a year.
Issue 3: Funding and Operations
The plan does not have an implementation schedule. It would be useful to know when the various
components of the 15 -year phasing will take place in order for the City to incorporate the refuge into
our reuse planning. Will the visitor center be constructed in the first five years? When would
fencing and trail upgrades take place which would allow greater public access to the shoreline and
the refuge? Will there be restroom facilities for the public other than at the visitors center?
There is no funding identified for the perimeter trail. There is no commitment from the East Bay
02/24/1999 16:55 510 -740 -4504
Charles Houghten
February 11, 1999
Page 3
ALAMIEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 03/03
Regional Parks District to build or maintain the trail. Generally, the EBRPD will take over the
maintenance of a trail that has been constructed as a mitigation for development or through grant
monies. Because the establishment of the trail is so important to public access for this significant
segment of Bay shoreline, the Service's appropriation request should include funds for the
construction of the trail.
We also are concerned with the statement in the plan that Congress may fail to appropriate adequate
funds for the "in -lieu" payments to the county to offset lost tax revenues. These payments are vital
in order for compensation to be made to the county and city for the lost revenue the refuge
represents, as well as to offset the impart for providing public services and infrastructure for public
access to a facility that does not generate local taxes.
Issue 4: Aesthetics
There needs to be more dialogue between the Refuge planners and the ARRA/City about the design
of the fence surrounding the refuge before the plan is finalized. The current proposal, an eight -foot
high chain -link fence with slats and barbed wire on top, is not compatible with the vision for the rest
of the base, nor with the City of Alameda's zoning ordinance. We would prefer no fences. The
proposed Refuge fence would detract from or obscure the natural beauty of the 565 acres of the base
under their management. The proponents of the Refuge need to develop alternatives for the fence
that better meet the criteria of the Community Reuse Plan by maximizing views of the water,
vegetation and wildlife, so it can truly be the attraction and amenity described in their planning
documents.
This letter conveys the major concerns with the plan and its environmental effects. A separate letter
will convey a more detailed evaluation of the Environmental Assessment.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. The ARRA will continue to work with the
Service to make the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge a success and an asset for the community.
Sincerely,
Chairman
cc: John Barry, Deputy Secretary of the Interior
Sandre' Swanson, Vice Chair, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Marge Kolar, Director, S. F. Bay Wildlife Refuge Complex
Colette Meunier, City of Alameda Planning Director