1999-04-07 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, April 7, 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 March 3, 1999.
2 -B. Recommendation to Award Contract to Sevan Construction in the Amount of $842,640 for
Alameda Point - Building 23 Remodel No. P.W. 03- 98 -04.
2 -C. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for Utility Upgrades
of Building 7, Alameda Point, 851 N. Midway, No. P.W. 10 -98 -26
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Recommendation to execute an interim lease through the term of the Master Lease with the
Homeless Collaborative for a 4 -acre urban garden on Parcels 98 and 99.
3 -B. Report recommending the authorization of the Executive Director to execute a loan
agreement between the ARRA and the City of Alameda for the advance and transfer of
funds from the Alameda Point Lease revenues (ARRA fund) to the City of Alameda Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) lease revenues to partially cover FISC interim leasing
expenses for FY 1998 -99.
3 -C. Report From the Deputy City Manager discussing the future of the ARRA Governing Body
and recommending that the ARRA Governing Body direct staff to research the impact
termination of the ARRA JPA will have on funding opportunities at Alameda Point and
identify regional issues pending with the redevelopment of the base; direct General Counsel
to examine the legal ramifications to terminating the JPA or amending the JPA to
reconfigure the composition of the Governing Body; and agree to act on the ARRA
Governing Body structure no later than February 1, 2000.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from BRAG.
ARRA Agenda -March 3, 1999 Page 2
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
7. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be simultaneously broadcast on cable channel 22.
The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 5, 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.
Alameda Point Administration
Memorandum
TO: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
CC: Jim Flint, City Manager
FROM: Nanette Banks and Elizabeth Johnson
DATE: April 7, 1999
SUBJECT: Community Garden Report on April 7, 1999 ARRA Agenda
The following are the answers to the questions forwarded to me in the E -mail from the City
Manager:
1. How big was the original site?
The collaborative was originally promised a total of four acres for an organic garden
and composting center. The land to the east of the University Avenue housing
assignment in East Housing would have fulfilled about half of the commitment. No site
was ever formally identified.
2. Where was community garden originally sited? e.g. FISC or AP?
Although there was discussion of using the area adjacent to UA housing in East
Housing, additional sites were considered at Alameda Point. No sites at FISC Annex
were seriously considered.
3. If the community garden was originally at FISC why was it relocated?
See above.
4. Have we checked to see if ground water contamination has occurred at the proposed site along
Main Street? If so, what has been determined? If not, then why haven't we checked?
Groundwater has not been tested at either of these sites because there is no historical
use of the site that would have affected the groundwater here. The nearest Installation
Restoration site is Site 7, the former gas station. The groundwater is contaminated
there, but the testing of the site by the Navy indicates that the plume of contamination
has not moved out toward the proposed garden sites. Groundwater would not be used
to irrigate the proposed gardens because of the high salinity of the groundwater in the
area. In addition, the gardens will be planted in sealed, raised beds.
5. Why was the site extended so close to the "Big Whites ?" Does this devalue the future value of
the Big Whites?
The main reason the sites is located in the housing area is because there are very few
open areas on the base. Most sites are covered with asphalt or buildings and demolition
costs would be prohibitive to this project.
ol itinted on recycled paper
u -uo -yy u ; rN1 r1t)M RLRMLtR U1TY ATTUKNY TU NAVAL A1K (AKKA) YUU'l /UU4
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, April 7, 1999
Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.
City Hall will open at 5:15 p.m.
NOTICE
THE ABOVE MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED
AND A SPECIAL MEETING HAS BEEN
SCHEDULED AS FOLLOWS
AGENDA
Special 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, April 7, 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 dale regular meeting of March 3, 1999.
2-B. Recommendation to Award Contract to Sevan Construction in the Amount of
U4-UU-d uc6Jrm num RLRIVILUR UIII RIIMY IC) NAVA], AIK (AKKA) YUUVUU4
ARRA Agenda -April 7, 1999 Puge 2
$842,640 for Alameda Point - Building 23 Remodel No. P.W. 03-98-04.
2-C. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and -Call for Bids for
Utility Upgrades of Building 7, Alameda Point, 851 N. Midway, No. P.W. 10-
98-26
3. ACTION ITEMS
3-A. Recommendation to execute an interim lease through the term of the Master
Lease with the Homeless Collaborative for a 4-acre urban garden on Parcels
98 and 99.
3-B. Report recommending the authorization of the Executive Director to execute
a loan agreement between the ARRA and the City of Alameda for the advance
and transfer of funds from the Alameda Point Lease revenues (ARRA fund)
to the City of Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) lease revenues
to partially cover FISC interim leasing expenses for FY1998-99.
3-C. Report From the Deputy City Manager discussing the future of the ARRA
Governing Body and recommending that the ARRA Governing Body direct
staff to research the impact teiluination of the ARRA JPA will have on
funding opportunities at Alameda Point and identify regional issues pending
with the redevelopment of the base; direct General Counsel to examine the
legal ramifications to terminating the JPA or amending the JPA to reconfigure
the composition of the Governing Body; and agree to act on the ARRA
Governing Body structure no later than February 1, 2000.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from BRAG.
4-13. 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.)
u=1 —uu — uc,cr1V1 ritvtvi ALii1v11illx 1,111 A11U101 1U N VAL A11 UAnnA) YUU4 /UU4
ARRA Agenda -April 7, 1999
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3
This meeting will be simultaneously broadcast on cable channel 22.
The next regular AR.RA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 5, 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
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 3, 1999
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland
Kathleen Omelas, alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, District 3
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Member DeWitt arrived during the public hearing of Item 3 -C.
Absent: Roberta Brooks, alternate for Congresswoman Barbara Lee
CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 1999.
Member Johnson moved approval of the minutes as presented for February 3, 1999,
and for the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 6; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
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 1ease.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gary McAfee, Alameda Historical Complex, 2614 Bayview Drive, spoke in favor of
the item. He did object to the materials that Nelson's Marine stored next to the fence,
thereby disrupting the view.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Alternate Leonhardy moved approval of the staff recommendation as presented.
The motion was seconded by Alternate Friedman and passed by the following voice
vote: Ayes - 6; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
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.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gary McAfee, Alameda Historical Complex, 2614 Bayview Drive, spoke in
opposition to the sale of the hangars within a four year period, which were potentially
valuable for other uses. He believed the figure of 90 employees was inflated. He did not
object to the 10 year lease.
Mr. Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, believed that the public should be involved with
such a significant change.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Member Kerr commented that a reason for a lease with an option to buy is that no one
would be willing to invest significantly in such a building unless there was the option to
buy.
moved approval of the staff recommendation as presented. The motion was
seconded by and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 6; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3 -C. Receive report from the City of Alameda Golf Course Commission and
recommendations from the Golf Commission, BRAG, and Recreation and Parks
Commission regarding the golf course design.
2
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gary McAfee, Alameda Historical Complex, 2614 Bayview Drive, expressed concern
about what he considered inappropriate placement of hotels on the site. He believed that
the presence of the hotel was needed to offset the financial losses incurred by the golf
course. He was also concerned that turning prime real estate to a hotel would be
premature.
Mr. Chester R. Bartalini, 1224 Bay Street, expressed strong concern about the possible
chilling effect on volunteerism that the BRAG recommendation would have. He believed
there should have been legal advisement that a motion of reconsideration could have been
made at the beginning of the process.
Mr. Lee Perez, Chair, BRAG, 29 Sea Bridge, noted that the BRAG had learned quite a
bit, particularly the specific rules that governed who would vote. He added that they
proceeded on past practice. He emphasized that the action that the BRAG took was not
for or against a specific proposal, but tried to discuss what would best benefit Alameda
Point and the entire community. He added that the BRAG had nothing but the best
intentions.
Chair Appezzato affirmed that it was apparent that the BRAG had the best of intentions
towards the community.
Mr. Michael Cooper, 2145 Pacific, noted that he was not clear as to who authorized the
McKay proposal. He also did not know how many proposals were requested, and if it
was an open search for proposals, that he would like to submit a proposal to build a golf
course.
Chair Appezzato responded that Mr. Cooper could submit a proposal to build a golf
course, and that there have been no requests for proposals. He added that most of the
presentations by the McKay Group have been in open session of the ARRA. Their
proposal may not yet be accepted because there has not been a public RFP process.
Chair Appezzato added that the decision will be reached in the future whether or not to
build a golf course. In addition, there has not been a formal vote, no decision on how to
fund it, whether it would be private, public, or joint. After that process is completed, a
public RFP will be requested to submit proposals. He added that the City was still six
months away from owning the Base, and the EIR/EIS was not completed.
Ms. Joan Konrad, 42 Invincible Court, noted that the BRAG report was not accepted due
to a lack of majority. She noted that Alameda had a good opportunity to enhance the
community, and added that the golf course should be taken in the context of the whole
development. The two critical areas of the Northwest Territories and the Civic Core must
be integrated in the planning process. She did not believe that was being accomplished.
3
Ms. Konrad expressed concern that in reading the Community Reuse Plan that a mixed
use was desired, and that commercial and public benefit, as well as recreation and open
spaces was also desired in each district. It appeared to her that the Northwest Territory
was the only area that was being examined. She also believed that the Civic Core was
being developed for public use, and that was a problem in developing a good community.
Regarding the RFPs, Ms. Konrad noted that a 214 acre proposal was being examined.
She believed that more open RFPs should be considered to attract other commercial
development. She believed that the sports complex was of great benefit to Alameda,
however, that it has not been funded. She believed that a hotel complex would provide a
unifying use that would give vitality to the Civic Core. Ms. Konrad agreed with Chair
Appezzato that a decision should be reached regarding the nature of the financing.
Chair Appezzato advised that the Base Reuse Plan was currently in development in
Washington, and that the EIS/EIR process was imminent. When that is approved, and the
public comment is heard, the Record of Decision will be issued. At that time, the City
would gain title to the Base. Neither the BRAG nor the ARRA has taken any action other
than the Coast Guard housing. The only action taken regarding the golf course was to
request a feasibility study, which was funded by the Defense Department.
Chair Appezzato added that input needed to be received from the Golf Commission, the
Rec Commission, and the Planning Board. He emphasized that the entire process would
be a decidedly public one.
Mr. Ken Allen, 2917 Seaview Parkway, agreed with Chair Appezzato. He believed that
the City should begin to change their building height restriction ordinances in order to
prepare for future development of the golf course. He believed that the participants in this
process only wanted a level playing field.
Mr. Hugh McKay, McKay/Muirhead Group, 211 Sheffield, emphasized that he and his
group were seeking the highest and best use of this land for Alameda. He noted that he
had surrounded himself with excellent planners and master planners, particularly Desmond
Muirhead. He was confident that their plan would work in Alameda, and welcomed the
RFP process.
Member DeWitt noted that Mr. McKay's proposal required the relocation of the Park and
Recreation Sports Complex Area. He also asked whether the cost of $17 million included
the cost of relocating the gymnasium, swimming pool and sports complex. Mr. McKay
responded that the golf course would cost $15 million, and the bond would cost $2
million. He added that their design for the sports complex would contain the same
amenities as the existing complex. In addition, they would contribute to the building of
the relocated sports complex.
Mr. McKay added that he intended to support youth programs at the sports complex,
4
including teaching golf and associated supporting professions to young people.
Mr. Ken Hansen, 179 Oyster Pond, BRAG member, noted he was also associated with the
McKay Group. He noted that he was disappointed in the BRAG voting process at the
previous meeting, and hope that Judge Bartalini's suggestions would be taken to heart.
He advised that this was a land use issue, and if any organization designated the plan
prematurely, before the issue was brought forward for other uses, the issue would become
moot. It would become impractical, because there would not be enough land to
implement the plan. He emphasized that it would be important to preserve the existing
land until a decision could be made.
Mrs. Norma Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, former Golf Commissioner, added that she was also
president of Alameda Junior Golf Club Board of Directors. She spoke in support of a
single golf course with the sports complex next to it. If a hotel were to be built, she
believed that it would complement the golf course and vice versa. She attended the
BRAG meeting where the concept of two golf courses was presented, and she believed
that the fairways would be very narrow and close together. The liability was in question,
but she believed that it was more important that the golf courses be safe.
Mr. Gail Wetzork, Chair, Recreation and Park Commission, 3452 Capella Lane, noted
that Chair Appezzato said everything he wanted to say. He believed that the details were
premature and not necessary at this time.
Mr. Bill Smith, 732 Central #16, noted that this was a land use issue, rather than a design
issue.
Ms. Ann Sitchum, 732 Central #15, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance
when called.
Mr. Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, agreed with Ken Hansen's points on tourism, and
believed that the City of Alameda needed to address the issue more directly. He believed
that a tourist bureau or association of tourist bureaus could deal with the influx of those
who would need hotels, restaurants, child care, and other recreational amenities that
would accompany a world -class development.
Mr. Vince Mackel, 1620 Dayton, asked where the planning component of this proposal
was. He saw the master plan as more of a reuse plan. The McKay Group asked him to
put together a drawing, he believed the feasibility of their plan on the site was appropriate.
He felt a golf course and destination resort was a good use for the site. He pointed out
the challenge in making a use for the remaining land financially viable.
Mr. Doug DeHaan, BRAG, 1305 Dayton Avenue, noted that the BRAG did not endorse
any proposal, and emphasized that the current issue was a feasibility study for a golf
5
course and sports complex. All the BRAG asked was for the ARRA to examine the
economic impact.
Mr. Tony Corica, Golf Commission Vice Chair, 925 Delmar Avenue, believed that the
ARRA had a good grasp on the issue of the feasibility study, which he noted would be a
lengthy process.
Chair Appezzato noted that he and the ARRA received a letter from Miss Stephanie
Sorenson, daughter of Mr. Steve Sorenson, with a drawing of the ARRA. Miss Erin
Sorenson also drew a picture of the flag, and Chair Appezzato publicly thanked both girls.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
In response to Alternate Leonhardy's question whether an RFP or an RFQ would be most
appropriate in the beginning of the process, Chair Appezzato responded that an RFQ may
be better initially, in order to identify the serious proposals. There was precedent for an
RFQ, which was the procedure followed with Catellus.
Chair Appezzato advised it would be premature to issue an RFP before the other parts of
the plan were identified and put together.
Member Kerr advised that they would be committed to putting in a lot of grass (which
would also be income - producing) in the effort to lead predators away from the least terns.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he did not believe the Master Plan/Reuse Plan to be
clouded. The purpose of the Community Reuse Plan was to identify those elements and
principles that the community wants to see made concrete on NAS Alameda/Alameda
Point. He recommended that a financing study be conducted, as recommended by the Golf
Commission.
Chair Appezzato noted that the Catellus project, which was 160 acres, was 50 to 60 acres
smaller than the smallest golf course. The public hearings were held, the project was
presented before the Planning Board, and the Economic Development Commission, and
was a long process. He believed that a larger project such as this should not be addressed
headlong.
Member DeWitt noted that this decision posed what could be a recurring problem
regarding the development of the Base. The City's strategy is that it would be the master
developer of the Base, and would decide what is economically feasible. He believed the
citizen's preferred the method of the City decided on each project as they were presented.
Member DeWitt moved acceptance of the Golf Commission's report, excluding the
recommendations from the Golf Commission, BRAG, and Recreation and Parks
Commission regarding the golf course design. The motion was seconded by
6
Alternate Friedman and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 7; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from BRAG.
Mr. Lee Perez noted with sadness that BRAG member Dan Meyers suddenly passed away
recently. He was extremely active in BRAG, and he and his contributions will be greatly
missed. The BRAG has conveyed its condolences to his family and attended his funeral.
4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager.
Deputy City Manager David Berger advised that he distributed the latest report on the
progress of Urban Warrior. He and Facilities Manager Ed Levine worked closely with the
Marines, and were available for any question.
Mr. Berger also distributed a letter from Captain Hunter of the Navy, issued on February
12, 1999. The timetable of negotiations, which were to start in April, may be postponed
further. Further delays in the EDC negotiations were strenuously objected to by the City,
and they firmly requested an answer why they must be further delayed. The City reserved
its option to take its concerns, if necessary, to a higher level at the ARRA's direction.
Mr. Berger reported that the Tidelands Trust was moving forward. The Chief Appraiser of
the State Lands Commission, and the appraiser who conducted that appraisal, were
working with the City staff and consultants on the trade - in/trade -out issue. A meeting will
be held in March, 1999, to get closer to the values of trade -in and trade -out. Written and
oral reports will be issued on that status.
In response to Member Johnson's question regarding the publicizing of the Urban Warrior
exercises, Mr. Ed Levine responded that the event would be held between March 14 -
March 19, 1999, and exhibits would he held in cooperation with the U.S.S. Hornet on
March 20, 1999. He added that a press release would be issued, and noted he would
remain in touch with their public relations staff in order to keep the public informed.
Chair Appezzato noted that nearly 100% would be open to the public, with the exception
of the work inside the hospital.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Bill Smith, 732 Central Avenue #16, submitted a speaker slip, but was not in
attendance when called.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7
Member Daysog observed that the delays on the part of Washington, D.C. was quite
distressing, especially since the critical point of the Base conversion process was drawing
closer. He suggested sending Chair Appezzato to Washington, D.C. to meet with the
representatives there, and to reaffirm the importance to the area.
Chair Appezzato indicated he would be willing to make the trip, but did not believe they
were at that point yet. He also noted that they had made tremendous progress on the
EIS/EIR during his last trip to Washington.
Member Kerr noted that March 3 was the anniversary of the death of Officer Robert
Davies, Jr., who was the first police officer killed in the line of duty in Alameda. She
would like him included in the meeting's adjournment.
Member DeWitt expressed concern that the FISC property was coupled with the EDC for
the Naval Air Station. He believed that there would be a tremendous financial impact if
the FISC process were to be delayed. He questioned whether the issues should be
coupled.
Alternate Kathleen Ornelas inquired what the sunset to the ARRA would be, and Chair
Appezzato responded that the ARRA would eventually be discontinued. The time frame
was not yet determined, and there would be a recommendation that the body be dissolved.
At that time, the City Council would act as the Reuse Authority.
ADJOURNMENT
The general meeting was closed by Chair Appezzato at 8:07 p.m. in memory of Dan
Meyer and Officer Robert Davies, Jr. A moment of silence was held.
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Respectfully submitted,
Cory Sims
8
TO: Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA)
FROM: Larold K. Schulz (Member of the Base Reuse Advisory Group since its
inception - Chair, Human Impact and Resources Subcommittee)
DATE: March 1, 1999
SUBJECT: Proposed Golf Course for Alameda Point
(Note: Let me apologize for not being able to make this presentation in person at the meeting of the ARRA on
March 3. However, responsibilities at the Church make it impossible for me to attend the meeting.)
The concept of .a world class destination golfing resort at Alameda Point was one of the earliest "dreams"
shared by members of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG). We talked about the possibility of cloning the
Monterey Peninsula's Spanish Bay Golf complex and placing it in what we began to call the "northwest
territories" at Alameda Point. In those early days, before BCDC and Fish and Wildlife, we had dreams about
such a complex being the "siren song" which would attract developers to Alameda Point to design, finance and
build improvements which ultimately would include not only a golf complex but also a luxury hotel with all
ancillary facilities, million dollar homes, upscale commercial areas, mixed use office and research space, clean
manufacturing, a university complex, recreation facilities, parks, and housing at all economic levels, including
affordable. At the time we also talked about a world class conference center which might be situated at the
northwest point of land overlooking San Francisco,the Bay, and the Oakland and Berkeley Hills. In
conversations with consultants to the BRAG and with developers we received clear indications that such dreams
were feasible.
That of course was before the Department of the Interior and their Department of Fish and Wildlife came
into the picture, dragging with them all sorts of so called environmental groups who have little or no concern
about the negative economic impacts on the human population of Alameda and the region created by their
massive and poorly conceived wildlife refuge. The Fish and Wildlife proposal makes it very difficult to develop
Alameda Point in ways which enhance the quality of life in the region and provide the economic resources
necessary to underwrite the cost of infrastructure improvements and of future expenses for public services which
must be borne by the City of Alameda.
So when a world class golf course developer came forward and stated that a destination golf resort including
a luxury hotel was feasible it seemed like a no brainer. Not only that, we learned that there are developers out
there who would privately finance the whole thing, including necessary infrastructure improvements and perhaps
even new recreational facilities. In fact, it could be that such a developer would be willing and able to make all
the infrastructure improvements west of what is now the Main Gate, including the perimeter waterfront walking
path, and maintain these infrastructure improvements at no cost to the City. It was good news to learn that
even with the major constraints created by the wildlife refuge, something might be salvaged which would
provide the centerpiece (actually the magnet) for the future development of all other space available for
redevelopment at Alameda Point.
So imagine my surprise to learn that there were people in decision making positions in the City who oppose
such a development. Their reasons apparently include a desire to retain future operational control of what
happens at Alameda Point within City Government, an unwillingness to reconsider proposals for the recreation
complex made by the Recreation Commission of the City and the BRAG Recreation Committee even though
many things have changed 'including the magnitude of the Fish and Wildlife invasion, a distrust of developers
dating back to the development of the south shore which, it seems, time cannot exorcise from the minds of some
Alameda's, a strange sort of populism opposed to catering to wealthy folk even if it means an enhanced quality
of life for everyone, and the lack of vision among members of the Community involved in the process leading to
decisions on this matter.
Let me be very clear. My position in no way implies personal support for the proposal by the
McKay /Muirhead group. 1 have no personal commitment to Mr. McKay or any others who support this
particular proposal. What 1 do support is the concept put forward in the McKay /Muirhead proposal which, on
the basis of their interest and documentation, proves the feasibility of such a development at Alameda Point.
On the other hand I can not support the concept put forward in the Kyle Phillips Golf Course Design wlliich
proposes limited development built, owned, and operated by the City of Alameda. From my perspective it does
not begin to do what needs to be done to create the economic engine which will jump start the renewal and
redevelopment of Alameda Point.
1 believe we must have two eighteen hole championship courses. The idea of one being similar to Spanish
Bay and the other to Saint Andrews is fascinating and, I believe, is the kind of thinking that will provide the
incentive which will bring golfers here from around the world. (Incidentally, not only do I not play golf, I won't
even try the game since I would probably commit suicide the first time 1 missed a putt).
I also believe that we must have a luxury, destination resort hotel, located near what is now the Main Gate.
Such a hotel would provide incredible economic incentive for commercial development around the central core
area which could include upscale shops, restaurants and services. The proximity to the ferry means that people
have quick and easy access to San Francisco, Oakland, and the amenities and recreational opportunities' that are
available in the region. Such a hotel, sorely lacking in the East Bay, would also provide facilities for conferences
and social events, and will be easily accessed through the Oakland International Airport. The entire concept not
only would generate major ratable tax income but also provide employment for persons of all economic.
conditions.
As for the recreation complex I have never been able to support retaining the gym or the swimming pool.
Neither should be saved. The gym is ugly and ancient and, the swimming pool is not a swimming pool. Alameda
needs a large convention center /recreation complex and an Olympic type swimming pool. I believe that we
could attract a developer to this project who would assist in underwriting and creating a new recreation complex
on the southeast comer of Alameda Point which I believe is a far better area for all the people of Alameda.
Nobody in Alameda is a greater advocate of soccer than 1 am and I would hope that we could create a number
of soccer pitches, baseball /softball diamonds, and other open play space on the southeast side of the comer of
the redevelopment area, right next to Encinal High School, the beach, and what, I hope someday will be a world
class marina. Although some people have raised the "Not in My Backyard" (NIMBV) cry about this location, it
certainly is the best place to locate such a complex.
I can't imagine how the City would finance the Phillips' concept. We don't have enough money to build a
library and there are major concerns about finding money for maintaining the City's infrastructure in coming
years. It seems to me that there would be no chance of a bond issue being approved by voters and I know that
at this point I would work against its passage
There are some who oppose the McKay /Muirhead concept because they suggest that it would delay the
Record of Decision (ROD). Since the Navy has delayed this decision for so many years, I don't think a additional
time is critical. However, 1 also believe that the McKay /Muirhead concept, including the relocation of the
recreation complex to the southeast area of Alameda Point, changes nothing in the Reuse Plan developed by the
BRAG, approved by the ARRA, and forwarded to the Navy. If it does, it it extremely minor.
page :5
I believe the City should develop an RFP which includes the concepts put forward in the McKay /Muirhead
proposal, plus the relocation of the recreation complex and the construction of the perimeter waterfront
pathway around the golfing complex. Proposals must include a clear financial analysis of what the income to
the City will be after the complex is operational.
This is much longer than 1 had hoped, however, it expresses my concerns about the project. One more
comment. 1 am certain that a majority of the members of the BRAG concur with me on the concepts which 1
have put forth above.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Larold K. Schulz
1074 Jost Lane
Alameda, California 94502
Home telephone: 510/52 I -9058
Office telephone: 510/522 -6012
Fax number: 510/522 -6047
E -mail address: biglarold @worldnet.att.net
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
March 31, 1999
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ: Recommendation to Award Contract to Sevan Construction in the Amount of
$842,640 for Alameda Point - Building 23 Remodel, No. P.W. 03 -98 -04
Background:
On January 19, 1999 and January 6, 1999, the City Council and the Alameda Reuse &
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing board adopted plans and specifications for Alameda
Point - Building 23 Remodel, No. P.W. 03- 98 -04.
Building 23 is scheduled to be leased by the Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority to Zebra
Motors, an electric car manufacturing company. The term of the lease will be 5 years. Prior to the
execution of this lease, life safety and code upgrades must be constructed.
The improvements to Building 23 include upgrades to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), upgrades to the heating and ventilation system, and upgrades to utility services, installation
of a fire alarm system, abatement of hazardous materials, roof repairs, modification of the sprinkler
system and re- striping of the parking lot.
The bid includes two additive bid alternates. Bid Alternate 1 is to make weatherproofing repairs to
the exterior walls. Bid Alternate 2 is to provide additional interior ramping.
Discussion/Analysis:
Bids were opened February 25,1999, with twelve contractors submitting bids. Amounts are based
on base bid plus bid Alternate 1 and bid Alternate 2. The list of bidders from lowest to highest is
listed below.
Leeds Development Orinda $645,430
Sevan Construction San Mateo $702,200
M.A. Davies Fairfax $761,922
Angotti & Reilly, Inc. San Francisco $787,815
Team Ace Joint Venture Kansas $810,757
K.C. Brandon Construction Rocklin $817,266
Alten Construction San Rafael $842,682
Taber Construction Martinez $842,892
Sausal Corporation San Leandro $859,647
John Plane Construction Burlingame $860,341
Bay Construction Oakland $909,872
BRCO Constructors Loomis $1,248,000
The Engineer's estimate for Base Bid plus Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 is $896,908.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 31, 1999
Page 2
Due to the uncertainties inherent in building upgrades, a twenty (20)percent contingency is requested.
The apparent low bidder Leeds Development was found to be nonresponsive due irregularities in the
bid. Leeds Development by their letter dated March 17,1999 will not contest our findings.
Fiscal Impact:
A federal grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to ARRA will cover 75 %
of construction costs. The remaining 25 %, which must be paid from local sources, will be paid from
a state grant (California Trade and Commerce Agency) and from ARRA lease revenues.
.Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body, by motion, award the contract to Sevan
Construction in the amount of $842,640 (bid price plus 20% contingencies) for Alameda Point -
Building 23 Remodel, No. P.W. 03- 98 -04, subject EDA approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Leiv44,44Acte,
Ed Levine
Facilities Manager
CK:nab
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
March 31, 1999
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specification and Call for Bids for Utility
Upgrades of Building 7, Alameda Point, 851 N. Midway, No.P.W. 10 -98 -26
Background:
Building 7 at Alameda Point is leased to the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies
(ACET). A temporary occupancy permit was issued on April 30, 1998. Additional utility upgrades
are required to obtain a final certificate of occupancy. This project provides for these upgrades.
Discussion/Analysis:
The improvements to Building 7 include modifications of the incoming electrical service, associated
modification of the Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) ducting, revisions to the fire
sprinkler supply main and a new domestic water connection from a new East Bay Municipal Utilities
District (EBMUD) water meter. The Planning Board determined that the project is categorically
exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (of 1970) (CEQA) and approved a use permit on
April 14, 1997, Resolution No. 97 -26.
Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact:
A federal grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) will cover 75% of the costs.
The remaining 25 %, which must be paid by local sources, will come from lease revenues.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that theARRA Governing Body, by motion, authorize adoption of Plans and
Specifications and Call for Bids for Utility Upgrades Services of Building 7, Alameda Point, 851 N.
Midway, No. P.W. 10- 98 -26.
Respectfully submitted,
ISAiifrt-e A40A3
Ed Levine
Facilities Manager
CK:nab
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager re'
DATE: March 31, 1999
SUBJECT: Report from the Deputy Executive Director recommending authorization to
finalize negotiations and execute an interim lease through the term of the Master
Lease with University Avenue Housing for a 4 -acre urban garden on Parcels 98
and 99.
Background:
This action is similar to the action the ARRA Board took in the past for several other non -profit
organizations who have been assigned property at Alameda Point as part of ARRA's homeless
accommodation.
As required by the federal Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance
Act of 1994, the ARRA worked with Alameda County Housing and Community Development and
a group of homeless services providers, identified as the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base
Conversion collaborative (Homeless Collaborative) to determine a fair share of housing at NAS
Alameda to accommodate the homeless. This accommodation of the community garden was
reflected in the Community Reuse Plan which was unanimously approved by the ARRA board in
January 1996. The Community Reuse Plan was then approved by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD, again, as required by federal law). The homeless service
providers were expected to take possession of their housing units from the ARRA at the time of the
Record of Decision by signing a legally- binding agreement of the terms of their possession.
University Avenue Housing will be working with the Urban Sustainable Economic and Environmental
Development (SEED) program to develop the garden. Urban SEED is the organization responsible
for developing and operating the garden project. Under the proposed plan, Urban SEED will use two
parcels of land located within West Housing Parcels One and Two (see attachments A and B). The
garden will be a raised bed garden to reduce risk from contaminated soils.
For Parcel One, Urban SEED plans to operate a community vegetable and flower garden in
partnership with the residents occupying the surrounding units of housing. The parcel will provide
a place for people to produce organically grown produce for their families. It will also provide a
centrally located civic space for people to meet and interact wile they tend their gardens. Finally, the
parcel will help educate and engage the young people in the community.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 31, 1999
Page 2
For Parcel Two, Urban SEED will operate a small organic nursery and horticulture training program.
Capitalizing on the goal of the City of Alameda to landscape Alameda Point with at least eighty
percent indigenous plants, Parcel Two will start a nursery that specializes in California native plants.
The nursery will also offer medicinal and culinary herbs, edible landscape plants, and vegetable and
annual flower seedlings. The horticultural training program will in turn use the nursery to both train
and employ people for jobs in the landscaping business.
At present, Urban SEED has received an initial one -year grant to begin the planning and pre -
development of the 4 acres this year. In order for the program to use the funds effectively, the now
need to finalize the location of the four acres. With a detailed understanding of the parcel locations,
Urban SEED can then complete its business plan and begin soliciting lenders for additional
development and operating funds.
Discussion:
This action is similar to the action taken by the ARRA in the past for several other agencies receiving
property through the homeless accommodation. It had been the Homeless Collaborative's original
expectation that a Record of Decision by the Navy would be published by now. In an effort to meet
the deadlines for rehabilitation and development of their properties most agencies have successfully
sought funding. The urban garden project is another agency that has received funding and is now
interested in developing the parcels. Because the ROD is now due to be issued later this year, the
Collaborative is seeking an interim lease in order to release funds that it has been awarded to begin
developing the garden property to be assigned to it under the Community Reuse Plan.
As part of their leases, these agencies will pay the common services fees associated with an interim
lease and be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Alameda before developing
the garden.
In addition, staff is exploring the option of trading these parcels into the public trust to free up land
currently in the trust area.
Fiscal Impact:
This is a no -cost lease. University Avenue Housing will pay the Common Services charge of 0.027
cents per month per square foot of land area. There will be no fiscal impact to the ARRA.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to finalize
negotiations and execute an interim lease through the term of the Master Lease with University
Avenue Housing for a 4 -acre urban garden on Parcels 98 and 99.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Community and Economic Development
By:
6-a4k-eS4--
Nanette Banks
Admin. Management Analyst
DB /nb
Attachment A: Map of Parcel One
Attachment B: Map of Parcel Two
March 31, 1999
Page 3
r QI l'GI HIV
i
Proposed Boundary Line
Attachment A
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
March 31, 1999
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ: Report recommending the authorization of the Executive Director to execute a loan
agreement between the ARRA and the City of Alameda for the advance and transfer
of funds from the Alameda Point Lease revenues (ARRA fund) to the City of
Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) lease revenues to partially cover
FISC interim leasing expenses for FY 1998 -99.
Background:
On December 15, 1998, the City Council adopted an ordinance approving and authorizing
execution of a Prime Lease on the FISC property between the City and Navy, and subleases with two
tenants, Bobac, Inc. and Dunavant of California, for approximately 300,000 square feet of warehouse
space in Building 2. These leases are signed and bids for upgrades to Building 2 have been received.
Staff is also in serious negotiation on potential subleases for wharf space with two other prospective
tenants which would result in increased revenue.
Discussion:
The Prime Lease between the City and the Navy is a five -year, no -rent agreement in which
the City assumes responsibility for street and utility upgrades and maintenance. The subleases with
Bobac and Dunavant run for three -year terms and include provisions for reimbursement of front -end
expenditures by the tenants to bring the building into code compliance. The subleases also include
provisions for both extension and early termination. These provisions ensure that the City maintains
maximum flexibility to deliver the subleased property when needed by Catellus while maximizing
revenues prior to redevelopment.
Fiscal Impact:
Projected gross revenues and expenditures for FY 1998/1999 shown in Attachment A. Due
to unavoidable delays in executing the subleases and starting improvement work on Building 2,
occupancy by Bobac and Dunavant has been delayed until mid -April or early May 1999. Therefore,
the projected gross revenue for FY 1998/1999 is $163,000, increasing to $885,000 in FY 1999/2000
and $889,000 in FY 2000/2001. The City's gross lease revenue for the period FY 1998/1999 through
FY 2000/2001 will be $1,937,000. In FY 1998/1999, projected expenses for site improvement
costs, street and utility upgrades, reimbursements for building improvements, and broker
commissions are anticipated to be $175,000 more than projected revenues. The short-term deficit
is proposed to be covered by an advance from the ARRA Lease Revenue Fund, which would be
transferred to a newly- created city FISC Interim Lease Revenue Fund. (A separate action to
appropriate this advance amount will be on the April 20, 1999 City Council agenda, should ARRA
approve this item.) This advance would result in the deferral of minor capital improvements at
Alameda Point, which can be absorbed without significant impact in the current fiscal year. This
advance should be repaid to the ARRA Lease Revenue Fund as a first- priority item from FISC lease
revenues projected in FY 1999/2000. In June, staff will be submitting a separate FY 1999/2000
proposed budget for operations, maintenance and other necessary expenses related to interim leasing
activities on the FISC property, as well as to help defray costs for planning and implementation of
the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP).
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 30, 1999
Page 2
Assuming the approval of the transfer of funds from ARRA, the following outlines the 1998 -1999
FY budget for the FISC:
Building /Site Improvements and Maintenance $160, 000
In order for the tenants to take occupancy, there are several health and safety code upgrades and
public work improvements needed. Staff has coordinated work plans with the Community
Development Department, Public Works, Finance (Information Systems/Phones), and BOE. These
funds will be used for utility and street maintenance, street and building upgrades, and phone system
testing and repairs.
Planning and Engineering $106, 000
The NAS Alameda Large Parcel Lease between the ARRA and the Navy did not include the FISC
property. These funds pay for the planning and engineering costs associated with the development
of the FISC interim leasing program. Costs are for consultant work for the use permit process and
testing/repairing the water and sprinkler systems.
Broker Commission $70,000
Insurance $2,000
Total FY 1998/1999 Budget $338,000
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Report authorize
the Executive Director to execute a loan agreement between the ARRA and the City of Alameda for
the advance and transfer of funds from the Alameda Point Lease revenues (ARRA fund) to the City
of Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC fund) lease revenues to partially cover FISC interim
leasing expenses for FY1998 -99.
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Community and Economic Development
By:
liAghtl) /47tab
Ed Levine
ARRA Facilities Manager
Attachment A: FISC Lease Fund Balance Projection
Attachment A
Fund Balance Projection for FISC Lease Revenue FY 1998/99
Beginning Balance $0
Revenue Projection
(5/1/99-6/30/99) estimated start date $163,000
Total Resources $163,000
Proposed Expenditures
(4/1/99-6/30/99) $338,000
Ending Balance /Reserve 6/30/99 (estimate)1 ($175,000)
1
Deficit will be funded by transfer from the Alameda Point Lease Revenues - Minor Capital Improvement appropriation.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
March 31, 1999
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ: Report From the Deputy City Manager discussing the future of the ARRA Governing
Body
Background:
At the February 1999 ARRA meeting, several questions were raised regarding the future of the
ARRA Governing Body. As you know, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) has a five
year term beginning with the date of its execution, April 5, 1994. As the date allowing for the
expiration of the current composition of the ARRA Governing Body approaches, there are many
issues that need to be resolved prior to the termination of the agreement.
Discussion:
The ARRA Executive Director (City Manager) and staff have been examining the ramifications of
terminating the ARRA JPA or amending the JPA to reconfigure the composition of the ARRA
Governing Body. There are several questions that need to be answered before action is taken such
as:
► Would terminating the JPA or reconfiguring the Board have an impact on future
funding with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA) ?'
► How would termination of the JPA or reconfiguring the Board impact the Economic
Development Conveyance (EDC) process?
► Is it beneficial to have regional representation during the EDC negotiations to assist
with potential impasses?
► Are there regional issues that are yet to be resolved such as port and traffic issues that
are in our interest to have regional representation on our Governing Body?
There is no doubt that the regional representation on the ARRA Governing Body has made funding
applications more competitive than those representing a single jurisdiction. As you know, the ARRA
is its final year of operations funding from OEA, however, in the past, through the efforts of our
congressional office, ARRA has been successful in receiving grant amendments (more funding) and
flexibility in funding restrictions. Currently, the ARRA is in negotiations with OEA to receive
additional funding for the development of an implementation strategy for the Science City Feasibility
Study funded by OEA in 1995. Continued regional representation may help to ensure OEA's
commitment to this project. In addition, the regional representation has allowed funding applications
1 Over the past five years Alameda Point has received approximately $4.65 million from OEA and $7 million from EDA.
There is a request for approximately $2 million from EDA pending.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 31, 1999
Page 2
with EDA to use the regional impacts of base closure to define the problem and challenges with
redeveloping Alameda Point.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee's office has expressed its interest and support in the termination of the
JPA or reconfiguring the ARRA Governing Board after it is determined there will be no detrimental
effect on Alameda Point. The recommended next steps for that process are that staff will discuss the
regional aspect of our structure with program officers who currently fund operations and capital
projects at Alameda Point to determine the impact on future funding. The ARRA General Counsel
will examine the legal ramifications to terminating the JPA and examine alternatives for fulfilling the
Local Reuse Authority function such as reconfiguring the Board. Finally, when staff receives a firm
commitment for an EDC negotiation schedule, a date will be recommend for action on future of the
. the ARRA Governing Body.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body direct staff to research the impact termination
of the ARRA JPA or reconfiguring the ARRA Governing Body will have on funding opportunities
at Alameda Point and identify regional issues pending with the redevelopment of the base; direct
General Counsel to examine the legal ramifications to terminating the JPA or amending the JPA to
reconfigure the composition of the Governing Body; and agree to act on the ARRA Governing Body
structure no later than February 1, 2000.2
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Community and Economic Development
By:
(20C4A40'
Nanette Banks
Admin. Management Analyst
DB /nb
2. February 1, 2000 marks the close of ARRA's final year of OEA funding.
CORRESPONDENCE/ MISCELLANEOUS
N)
UN
N1
A
N.)
`....)
l`N)
IN)
IV
,--`
N.)
0
..-.•
\ 0
1...-•
00
......
■1
......
ON
.....
LA
•-■
41.
■-■
,..4
r......
ca
..—
.o
oo
■.)
ON
LA
A
)...4
IN)
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE:
TOTAL PENDING SUBLEASES /SUBLIF
Zebra Motors (Electric Vehicles)
U.S. Customs Service
Waters, Caldwell (Environ. Services)
San Leandro Womens' Shelter
Orbit Development (Property Mgmt.)
Miller & Sons (Contractor)
Manex Entertainment
Jim Bustos Plumbing
Harbor Bay Maritime (Storage)
General Svcs. Administration
Fribel Internal. (ConcreteMfgr.)
Dynamic Marine Boatworks
Doctors' Group for Elderly Housing
Container Works (Storage)
Container Storage
City of Alameda (Police Department
City of Alameda (Fire Department)
City of Alameda (Offices)
Calif. State Univ. (Research Station)
AREA 51 (Special Event Productions)
'Alternative Storage
Altamont Technologies (Equip. Mfg.)
Alameda Naval Air Museum
1 ACET.(Office Area Only)
.
r
j Pending Subleases & Sublicenses
SII
6Z
1 531, 532, 533
)..n
eA
t....)
....
NO
612
. . • r
.1
--
Z
,.: , , C )
—
—
■I
00
0 \
17
Lot
(-)
494
,..9'
u,
N.)
IV
A
tit
>
,
0
Z
itsj
u
77
NO
oa
oo
CI N
NO
h)
ON
LA
i»
m
0
0
ts..)
1■0
D 00
0 0
oso`SZ
270,0001
12,150
N)
...
0
0
1 4,000'
'). I";
0
co
Lfrt
R
1 144,150
0
A
0
1 49,000
%:
00
N)
ON
.
0
c
1 44,800
18,000
•—•
A
p
0
GO
„
p 'r24 1
><
X
Use Permit
Approved
tv tv
)..)
tv
N)
N.)
...."`
CN)
• 0
....
VO
.--..
00
o•-•
■.1
......
0\
.....
LA
...•
A
...,
to.)
I..*
t...)
.....
•-•
.....
0
NO
00
■....)
ON
.0.
4,
IN
i•-•
TOTAL COMPLETED SUBLICENSES:
Rosebud Touring Co. (Rehearsal Studio)
Rysher Entertainment (Film Co.)
Off Duty Productions (Film Co.)
Nadel Productions (Film Co.)
Microsoft
1Mass Illusions (Film Co.)
Industrial Light & Magic (Film Co.)
Industrial Light & Magic (Film Co.)
Great Benefit Productions (Film Co.)
Disney Studios
Clubhouse Pictures (Film Co.)
CALSTART/Bur. of Elect. (EV Expo) 1997 & 1998
CINCPAC (Fleet Week '97)
Chamber of Commerce/Bur. of Elect. (Trade Expo)
Boy Scouts of America
(ATL/Interscope Communications
ATL/Interscope Communications
ATL/Interscope Communications (Film Co.)
1AREA 51 (Rehearsal Studio)
1AREA 51 Productions (Auto Mfg. Survey)
1AREA 51 Productions (Custom Car Show)
1AREA 51 Productions (TV Show)
Alameda Recycling (Storage)
1Acad. of Model Aeronautics
Completed Sublicenses:
N.) ■—•
roadway
taxiway'
0,
taxiway'
8
Bldgs. 241251
CZ
ot,
i„
Bldg. 251
MI
-:-,
t...,
Pier 31
MI
0.
UP
t..)
13
g
.-0
ff,1'
•
Bldgs. 11112/400A1
"A
15)
CO
n9::....a:
'.-•
IV
Runway 251
Premises:
PROJECTED FUTURE EMPLOYMENT
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
'OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE I
NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED
30 IWA Engineers (Steel Fabrication) •
29 Housing Units (31)
23 Home Auto Repair Tong term
2F Forty Plus (Career Counseling)
25 • Forem Metal Manufacturing
1 25 Emerg. Svcs. Network (Homeless Coll.)
23' Dunavant of California (Storage)
2 3 ,:Door Christian Fellowship Church
22 Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays)
):City of Alameda (Tennis Courts)
19 City of Alameda (Soccer Field)
r 17 City of Alameda (O'Club)
13 City Garage Carstar (Vehicle Painting)
12 Cellular One (Cell Site)
11;CALSTART (Test Track)
10 CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator)
1-4—Alameda Unified School District
0o
long term
long term
long term
00
long term
00
I long term
short term
00
long term
00
I long term
I long term
long term
00
00
00
6 months
00
00
(long term
long term
00
00
long term
long term
00
!long term
N
.--.
W
.p.
O-
...
4N.
t
MI
Oo
N
r)
om
Q.�
.P
`O
W
v
0
76 & 134
24, 25
20
at FISC
aa.
N
n
292
tarmac & 405
W
258
near Bldg. 530
Pier 3
y
te
4t
�'
0
00
to
,-•
0
00 O
r+
N
a
h
CO
00
"co
O
w
"r
to
47,1771
0
0
A
in
0
20,0001
P.
0
O
170,0001
00
0
O
O
O
0
J
0
b
0
00
U
0
1N.1
1,400
O
$
CO
O
0
N
O
0
4,880
O
O
0
12,430
to
VI
0
Bldg. Sq. Ft.
.
00
.
•-J
-4.
-a%
A..
to
-P.
.0.
w
..
N
..
to
0
w
0
w
00
w
-
w
ON
w
v,
w
..
w
w
w
N
1 Woodmasters (Cabinetry)
[United Indian Nations (Homeless Coll.)
Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.)
Tower Aviation
Simmba Systems (Records Storage)
'Richard Miller Photography
Piedmont Soccer Fdn.
(Piedmont Baseball Fdn.
'Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Crepe Mfg.)
'Nelson's Marine (Boat Storage/Repair)
(Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfg.)
'Marine Sanitation
'Maritime Administration
'Maritime Administration
Marathon Pallet (Polyethylene)
IManex Entertainment
IManex Entertainment
Signed Leases & Licenses
00
long term
00
long tern
long term
long term
11 year
1 year
3
00
long term
long term
long term
3
00
long term
long term
D
00
long term
A
.1
.-
441 5,100
ta%
O t
0
t.+
VI
0
N
tt
0
b
ON
N
I softball field!
421 3,000)
"'
.P
O
0
0
O+
•--'
•-•
0
0
.-•
0000
00
-
•--
'.O
Piers 1, 2, 31
W
00
O
v
0
131 34,5401
N
ON
J
IN
Bldg. Sq. Ft.
Building #1
N
--.
J
to
J
0
March 31, 1999
City of Alaimcda e Cali brnila
Thomas F. Shea, Project Manager
Office of Economic Adjustment
Office of the Secretary of Defense
400 Army/Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
Re: CyberTran International
Dear Mr. Shea:
I would like to express my support for CyberTran's proposal to DOD's OEA for funding to
study the feasibility of using CyberTran to create a rail transit link between Alameda Point and
the Fruitvale BART station. The results of the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS),
have been economically devastating to the City of Alameda. Job losses have depressed the local
economy while management of the former NAS has proven to be expensive. While the City of
Alameda is actively developing the site for increased business use, a major inhibitor of such use
is the difficulty of access from and to the mainland due to the isolated location of the former
NAS.
A promising new business has located at Alameda Point, CyberTran International. This new
company is commercializing a new type of inexpensive ultra -light passenger rail system. The
technology was originally developed by the US DOE and is now being tested on the former
East -West Runway. The use of this system to connect Alameda Point to BART in Oakland has
a number of possible benefits to the City of Alameda:
Creating greater access to the former base would allow greater development of the site
mitigating the impact on transportation.
As a consumer of electricity, a CyberTran system would generate a new and large source
of revenue for the Alameda Bureau of Electricity which formerly supplied electricity to the
aircraft carriers based in Alameda.
Deputy City Manager — Alameda Point
Caretaker Agreement
950 West Mall Square, Room 175
Alameda, California 94501 -7552
510 749 -5920 • Fax: 510 749 -5935 • TDD 510 522 -7538
CI Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Thomas F. Shea
March 31, 1999
Page 2
As a Demonstration Project for this exciting new technology, the connector would lead to
business growth, adding jobs at Alameda Point in vehicle and component fabrication, and
generate sales tax revenues for the City.
Such a connector could provide a station near the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Museum, bringing
more visitors and increasing tourism and revenues in the City.
The proposed Feasibility Study would include critical elements of the planning process for such
a connector, including cost analysis, route alignment, and the economic benefits to the City of
Alameda. This study would be the first step in determining feasibility of such a connector and
will provide valuable information for city planners and other government officials and
representatives.
I urge DOD's OEA to fund this study of base reuse at Alameda Point. Thank you for your
attentiveness and consideration.
Sincerely,
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
cc: City Manager
General Manager, Bureau of Electricity
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY, WEST
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
900 COMMODORE DRIVE
SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 94066 -2402
11000
Ser 61CA/126
March 23, 1999
Mr. James Flint
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mr. Flint,
This letter has two purposes. First, it is intended familiarize the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) with local Navy policy for dealing with the potentia
effects of the Y2K computer "bug" on embedded systems at closed bases. The second
purpose is to request information regarding actions ARRA plans to take to avert Y2K
related problems on premises at Alameda Point that have been leased or licensed by
ARRA where potential exists for a failure that may compromise public safety or the
environment.
As you know, the Y2K problem arises from the fact that integrated electronic circuits
including microprocessors have become common in devices of all kinds including many
controls, timers and sensors used in utility systems and buildings. Many of these devices
may be vulnerable to failure as the date changes to the year 2000 (Y2K) due to program
coding using only two digits to represent dates. For example, a date represented by the
digits "00" may be misinterpreted to represent the year 1900 rather than 2000 causing
incorrect outputs which could precipitate shut down or failure of equipment controlled by
the microprocessor.
While the Navy expects Y2K problems to be very limited at Alameda Point, we still
believe it is necessary to determine and mitigate possible effects. To this end we have
developed a local policy for closed bases that focuses on Y2K failures that have the
potential for causing harm to the public or to the environment. The Navy's Caretaker Site
Office (CSO) will be reviewing utilities and other systems on the base which are not
under lease or license. This work will be performed in conjunction with the City of
Alameda acting as Caretaker under the Cooperative Agreement. Results of this review
will be reported to ARRA by 30 April. It is possible that this survey will identify items
subject to failure that do not pose a hazard requiring mitigation. Under Navy policy, any
such item will be taken out of service prior to 31 Dec. One purpose of the report is to
inform ARRA of any items falling into this category in order to provide ARRA an
opportunity to sustain operation if desired.
The second area of concern I have mentioned is any use of Y2K vulnerable equipment or
systems by ARRA on leased or licensed property, or by sublessees or sublicensees of
ARRA, which have the potential for compromising public safety or the environment. I
am requesting that the ARRA provide written assurances that no such equipment or
system exists. Or, if vulnerable equipment or systems do exist that have the potential to
cause harm, I am requesting that your written assurances list these items, describe the
possible effects of a failure and provide your plans and schedule for eliminating or
mitigating the problem prior to 1 August 1999. I would appreciate receiving this letter on
or before 30 April.
I appreciate that dealing with the Y2K bug will require work on the part of ARRA and
that your resources are limited. I believe, however, that our policy of limiting action to
cases that pose clear hazards is responsible and will keep effort to an absolute minimum.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding these
requests. Additionally, we will be making Y2K compliance a topic at our regular
facilities and utilities meetings with your staff.
Carter Dowdy
LT, CEC, U.S. Navy
Officer in Charge
Alameda Point Caretaker Site Office
cc: Mr. Ed Levine