2000-03-01 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 1, 2000
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 the February 2, 2000.
2 -B. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manger to approve line item transfers in
the Alameda Point Budget for Costs Associated with Water System Maintenance and
Capital Improvements.
3. ACTION ITEMS
None.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from BRAG.
4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non -d
iscussion 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 cablecast on channel 15.
The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 2000.
ARRA Agenda - March 1, 2000 Page 2
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Lucretia
Akil 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, February 2, 2000
The meeting convened at 5:47 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: 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: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the November 3, 1999.
2 -B. Mid -Year Alameda Point Budget report from the Deputy City Manager.
Member Kerr moved approval of the minutes as presented for the regular meeting
of November 3, 1999 and the Mid -Year Alameda Point Budget report from the
Deputy City Manager. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes - 4. Noes - 0. Abstentions - 0.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to amend sections 2.02 and
2.03 of the ARRA By -laws to establish the Mayor and Vice -Mayor as Chairperson and
Vice- Chairperson of the ARRA Governing Body respectively.
Member DeWitt moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3 -B. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to amend ARRA Resolution
010 to establish a regular annual meeting of the ARRA Governing Body for the third
Tuesday in June and allow for special meetings as- needed.
1
The public hearing was opened.
Diane Lichteinstine, BRAG Vice- Chair, expressed that some clarification was needed on how the
ARRA intends to be open to the public.
Nanette Banks, Alameda Point, Business and Special Projects Manager stated this
recommendation is to move it to the Tuesday night meeting to conform it to the same way
Council does the CIC and Housing meetings. The public would have ample notice of the
meeting and the BRAG's information would be advanced to the ARRA in the same manner. If
there was an issue which required immediate action, staff would hold an as needed meeting and
conform to meet as the same time the Council meets, which means the ARRA could hold two
meetings in one month.
Jim Flint, City Manager, indicated staffs recommendation does conform to the Council's role as
the Housing Authority and the CIC. Those meetings are frequently called if they are needed. If
there is no business, it is not necessary to conduct a meeting, unless the Governing Body desires
to meet. This gives the Board the flexibility to conduct other meetings, as needed.
Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, questioned why staff recommended the regular scheduled
ARRA meetings to be eliminated? He stated there should be some regularity to the meetings, so
things do not occur in a crisis mode. These meetings should be specified and canceled if there is
no business.
Jim Flint responded that staff is always planning multiple meetings in advance and always know
if they are going to have items for the Council, CIC and Housing Authority. There are no regular
scheduled meetings for the Housing Authority or the CIC, yet staff always stays contemporary
with current issues which have to be addressed by the Governing Body. This would not impede
the Boards ability to make any decisions or staff's ability to manage these projects and to move
issues through in a timely manner.
Mr. Neveln asked is it reasonable to assume that these meetings would occur concurrent or just
before Council meetings?
Jim Flint responded yes.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Member Kerr stated that we are developing 25% of the City and this is not some minor project.
These issues may get lost within the Council meetings, as there are a lot of important issues that
occur within the ARRA meetings. It is important that we have some regularity of meetings
because it is difficult to get updates and current evaluations of what staff is doing. Member Kerr
indicated that if meetings are stopped on a regular basis and the Governing Body sits as Council
or CIC, it may be less informed than it is now.
2
Member DeWitt questioned staffs recommendation about the alternative Wednesday meetings
instead of having it on Tuesday. He asked if this meant that the ARRA will continue to have its
regular meetings on Wednesday's or will it occur Tuesday's with the CIC?
Nanette Banks responded that the paragraph he read was inserted so that the Board could have a
choice. Staff is recommending that the Board move their meetings to Tuesday and have them on
an as- needed basis. However, the Board may continue to have meetings on Wednesday's, if it so
chooses.
Member DeWitt asked what would happen if they continued to meet on Wednesday's?
Ms. Banks responded that was their decision.
Member DeWitt stated there are some issues that are going on which are very important and he
would like to continue to meet once a month.
Jim Flint responded that there would be no material difference in what they are doing to date.
The monthly meeting would be scheduled and if there was an agenda of items, staff would
conduct a meeting. If there were no items, staff would cancel as they have previously been
doing.
Member Johnson asked Ms. Banks if staff polled the members on their preference for Tuesday or
Wednesday nights?
Ms. Banks responded staff polled the members on what their preference would be and there was
a split decision, which is why staff put forward this recommendation.
Member Kerr stated it is very important to continue as they are until the City gets title to the
Base. It is a very critical time and very important to stay on top of what is going on, as there are
constant negotiations with the Navy.
Lee Perez, BRAG Chair, expressed their concern is that whatever decision the Governing Body
makes, it should be user friendly to the Commissioners and the community. There should be
separate, regular meetings for a transitionary period that is dedicated to one issue, which is
Alameda Point. Mr. Perez stated it should continue to meet for a while and then change.
Member Johnson stated it is important to keep access open to the public. If the Board schedules
meetings on an as- needed basis, there is not an opportunity for public input. Member Johnson
voiced she has no problems with going forward with the regularly scheduled Wednesday
meetings and can cancel a meeting as needed.
3
Member Kerr responded that she did not want to have a mandatory start on City Council
meetings at 5:30, as those meetings are very long. To start at 5:30 on Tuesday would detract the
Board from other City Council items later in the meeting.
Member Daysog recommended staff continue the meetings for eight (8) months and in the course
of that time, change it if the Board desires to.
Member Kerr motioned to continue the ARRA meetings on Wednesday's until January,
2001. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt and passed by the following voice
votes: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3 -C. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to authorize the Executive
Director to execute a 10 -year lease with two five year options to renew on Building 23
with West Coast Novelty Corporation.
The public hearing was opened.
Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, #301C, expressed that Hangar 23 is the most desirable Hangar
on the Base, due to its historic nature. It was available to Zebra, but they could not take it due to
their lack of financial viability. Mr. Bohan stated it would be a big disaster to turn this building
into a Warehouse and a total communication failure on the part of the Board, especially due to
the twenty -year lease. Mr. Bohan indicated he would like to see something that is representative
of what is presently going on at the base. If staff's recommendation passes, it would be a big
political failure.
Ann Mitchum, 732 Central Avenue, #16, expressed that at the last BRAG meeting, this was
considered against what was considered the dream vision for the Base. This does not live up to
the standards of what the community wants to see at Alameda Point. The two five year options
after the ten year lease are at the discretion of the lessee, West Coast Novelty, who would have
the choice of continuing the lease, as it would not be up to the City to make that decision. We do
not want to loose control of the situation.
Bill Smith, Alameda, expressed his concern with West Coast Novelty and their intentions on
future plans at Alameda Point. Mr. Smith indicated there is a novelty show in Reno and any can
go there and pick up these fifteen cent products which are manufactured overseas and are
marketed here for $1.50. Mr. Smith expressed that Alameda Point has not been properly
marketed as there are many incubators throughout the country and more are coming.
Larry Jones, Bay Street, expressed his support for West Coast Novelty. He stated he worked
with their principals for over a year in an effort to attain one long -term facility which they could
buy. This is a corporate warehouse facility, with no semi - trucks, just a business to the fulfillment
of the Internet. This is an opportunity to take something that Oakland thinks they have and an
opportunity to bring it to Alameda. This effort is not inconsistent with what is presently going on
with the base.
4
Brian T. McCroden, West Coast Novelty Corp., stated they had an option to build their own
facility in a neighboring city. However, it was moving at a slow pace and their realtor contacted
Mike and Ed, who have moved swiftly to make their lease a reality. West Coast Novelty is one
of the leaders in the sales, creation, marketing and distribution of a wide variety of sports,
entertainment and lifestyle licensed products. This is a big business with lots of employment
opportunity and growth. West Coast employs approximately 70 people and are interested in
employing people within the community. Mr. McCroden indicated they will not have many
trucks entering their site. The company has grown from the 1980's in the six figures, to
approximately $25 million a year. They are not a basic warehouse company, as they are
continuously designing products. Mr. McCroden stated they intend to put their entire corporate
headquarters at Alameda Point and put in $500,000 for upgrades and are very sensitive to the
historic nature of this building.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Member DeWitt asked Mr. McCroden how many people do they employ?
Mr. McCroden responded that they employ approximately 70 people and it increases and
decreases seasonally.
Member DeWitt asked about their sales tax revenue.
Mr. McCroden stated they are not a retail operation. They are a wholesale and Internet operation
and do not generate a lot of sales tax revenue.
Member DeWitt asked Mr. McCroden how much traffic would they generate at Alameda Point
in terms of large vehicles.
Mr. McCroden responded one to two large trucks and UPS and Federal Express.
Member Johnson asked what is the estimated tax revenue that would be generated for the City.
Mr. McCroden responded that whatever the City's tax rate is, put that number into $25 million a
year and that would be the annual payment to the City.
Member Johnson asked would their only warehouse be in Alameda?
Mr. McCroden responded that is correct.
Member Johnson asked how does their Internet business work?
Mr. McCroden responded they are individual orders, which are downloaded onto their system.
Once a day, UPS comes and loads these orders on their truck for delivery.
5
Member Kerr asked what is the City's revenue based on, net or gross?
Jim Flint responded that he was not sure of that but he suspects it is gross.
Lance Littlejohn, CFO of West Coast Novelty, indicated that in their present facility in
Emeryville which is comparable to Alameda, they would pay Alameda approximately $20,000 a
year.
Member Kerr asked Mr. Levine on their lease renewal, would their rent be renegotiated at the
end of their ten (10) years?
Mr. Levine responded no, because they have set the rent for years from eleven through fifteen
and that is established in the lease based on a CPI increase from the first years rent. Thereafter,
the second renewal option period would be set at 90% of the appraised fair market value at that
time, for years sixteen through twenty.
Member Johnson asked are there any rental increases during that fifteen year period?
Mr. Levine responded yes, there are CIP increases each year.
Member DeWitt asked Mr. Levine what happened to the incubator plans from four or five years
ago?
Mr. Levine responded that staff has two facilities presently, which seems to be sufficient to start
up any new companies.
Member DeWitt asked what happened to the electric cars?
Mr. Levine responded that regretfully, they have not been successful. There are some companies
that have hatched out of Calstart, although Zebra was supposed to be the big success story staff
was counting on, unfortunately they could not get their finance and go ahead with the lease for
Hangar 23 as they originally intended to do.
Member DeWitt asked are we moving to fast and using all of our space at this time?
Mr. Levine responded that West Coast Novelty is a first class tenant and is consistent with the
reuse plan. They are a headquarters operation and the space is not being use for some warehouse.
Significant employment will result from this lease.
Member Johnson asked what percentage of the building would be used for warehouse space and
what percentage for headquarters.
Mr. Levine responded that it is a 65,000 square foot building, of which 40,000 square feet is the
hangar space and 25,000 square feet is office space.
6
Member Johnson asked what is the amount per square foot that they are paying on the lease.
Mr. Levine responded thirty -one to thirty -six cents per square foot for the entire building. It is a
blended rate of the warehouse and office facility space. Normally when a warehouse is leased,
there is a certain amount of office space that goes with it and it is a flat rate which is applied to
all of the space.
Member Johnson asked how much of an investment are they making?
Mr. Levine responded approximately $500,000 and they are only be reimbursed for $125,000.
The building has already been improved and brought up to code compliance with EDA grant
money.
Member Daysog stated there is a vision that they would like to see in place but there is a need for
revenue to pay the bills at Alameda Point. Does staff have any leverage to move companies to
different locations on the base even though staff has entered into a lease agreement?
Mr. Levine responded that it would have to be negotiated, as we do not have leverage through
the lease. There are leases with Termination Provisions, should the need arise to redevelop the
property. We reserve the right to terminate the lease at some point during the term of the lease.
This provision is done with the lease primarily in the Inner Harbor area, not in the central core
area, as all of those buildings are designated for long -term use according to the Reuse Plan.
Member Johnson asked Mr. Levine would it be reasonable to renew at fair market value when
the option to renew carne up?
Mr. Levine responded it is strictly a matter of negotiation. This was one aspect staff had to give
on to make this deal.
Member Johnson asked what has CPI been most recently?
Jim Flint responded the most recent CPI for the Bay Area is 4.8 %.
Mr. Levine indicated staff is using Bay Area CPI rates.
Member Daysog expressed that we are moving forward as part of the vision for Alameda Point
with the West Coast Novelty lease. Although each company may not be perfect, there is space to
accommodate this company and other companies for the future which will accommodate our
vision for Alameda Point.
Member DeWitt moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
7
Discussion.
Member Kerr indicated she is encouraged that there is 25,000 square feet of office space, which
allows for flexibility for future use should West Coast Novelty decide not to renew, we will have
an upgraded facility and office space.
3 -D. BRAG recommendation to the ARRA Governing Body against including an option to
purchase in Alameda Point leases prior to the adoption of the General Plan Amendment.
The public hearing was opened.
Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed he agrees with the BRAG recommendation against
purchase options unless there can be some wording crafted by Mr. Levine, in the way he has
crafted the West Coast Novelty lease, so that everyone benefits. Mr. Levine has shown that a
good lease can be crafted without the purchase option as shown tonight.
Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, #301C, expressed staff should preserve their right to not have
to purchase the property. Mr. Bohan encouraged the Board to make the option to buy, a universal
vote of all members for a profitable lease.
Bill Smith, Alameda, expressed his concern over renting out Hangar 23 for twenty years. He felt
that there should be more electronic and internet type of companies at Alameda Point. The
incubators should be given more opportunities, as the property value at Alameda Point is going
to double in the near future.
Ann Mitchum, 732 Central Avenue, #16, stated she did not understand how the Governing Body
could approve the recommendation to go forward on Hangar 23 for twenty - years. She expressed
to the Board that if they are going to make a decision on a twenty -year lease and think they have
the power to do that, they had better think again.
Diane Lichteinstein, BRAG Vice - Chair, expressed that it behooves the BRAG to take a stand as
an.advisory body to reiterate the BRAG's position they have taken. BRAG is very cognizance of
the need for economic viability for Alameda Point. BRAG does not want a warehouse at
Alameda Point permanently with the option to purchase, as there are already two leases with that
option. Option to purchase for some buildings is a disservice to the community. Ms.
Lichteinstein indicated that the option to purchase not be given until the general plan is amended,
because at that time rezoning will be done. The twenty -years with West Coast Novelty should
not be permanent. We should keep our options open and have the opportunity to develop the
neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
8
Member Kerr stated her concerned over the use permits, which go through the Planning Board
under the zoning paragraph, is always industrial planning. The current zoning at the base is not
harmonious with the Community Reuse Plan. Member Kerr would like to see a movement
towards rezoning the base, although there are arguments against doing it until the City gets title
from the Navy, because it would influence economic transfer. This would require a general plan
amendment. In the future when use permits go to the Planning Board after the City gets title,
there would already be in place a consideration of use in terms of zoning, which would be
compatible with the Reuse Plan which was developed by the community. To continue to send
use permits to the Planning Board with the current zoning in place is a very dangerous thing to
do.
Member DeWitt stated are we selling property now for peanuts that could be worth billions of
dollars in ten or twenty years? The solution to the problem would be to not have a contract that
made purchase a total option, but have a contract that has a lease period for five or ten years with
the option to purchase, but the option to purchase will be based on the market value at the time
and it will be at the City's discretion. There should be a procedure that allows the lease and
purchase, but the purchase has to be based on what the City wants to do at that time. The master
plan is not sufficient to go and sell pieces of the land right now. Maybe in five or ten years from
now there should be a better idea of what the market value is. There should be a policy or
procedure with the option to buy, but the option should be in the City's control, market value and
our vision.
Ed Levine stated there are currently two purchase options in place, one with AVTS and the other
with Bladiuin. In both cases, they have the option to purchase. The market value they would
pay for the property is the appraised market value of the property at the time of the purchase.
They would not be able to lock up the property at the present, cheaper rates, they would have to
pay the appraised amount.
Member DeWitt asked what if we want to change businesses? Since they have the option to
purchase, does it mean the Board can deny them or are they going to be competitive with
everyone else?
Mr. Levine stated the Board does not have the option to change businesses.
Member Johnson indicated she understands the BRAG's position on this, however she does not
want to take away the option to purchase on a really good deal we want to go forward with. It
could take some time before the General Plan is amended and the option to purchase has been
used sparingly, only two facilities have the option to purchase. Member Kerr raised the issue of
zoning, which might be a better to have control of the property.
Member Kerr asked staff to prepare a report for rezoning the property and implication of
rezoning the property when title passes.
9
Jim Flint indicated staff can respond to that direction, however they are unsure as to how long it
may take to prepare such a report. It will entail a good deal of thought and study before a report
could be given to the Governing Body. It would take sixty to ninety to respond thoroughly. In
order to respond fairly staff cannot give the Board a timeline although staff can prepare an off -
agenda report at some time to reflect the concerns the Board has expressed.
Member Kerr stated it has been brought up before and the answer was that the Navy might look
amiss at the City rezoning the property before title is received, because it might effect the
economic development. Since the City may get title within the next six months and the issues of
planning are very important, it is dangerous to leave the present industrial zoning over the entire
base as it stands now. Ninety days is fine if staff thinks it can get it to the Board.
Jim Flint stated that the president has signed a no -cost legislation so this should not affect
rezoning during negotiations, because staff is not negotiating the economic value of the property
and we are not talking about taking an action until after conveyance of the property occurs. For
these reasons, this should not have any affect on the conveyance of the property.
Member DeWitt asked in the leases that have been done, is there a clause to renegotiate the
lease?
Ed Levine responded that typically there is a provision allowing the tenant the first right to
negotiate for renewal of the lease, but that is subject to staffs decision to extend the lease. At the
conclusion of a ten -year lease, if staff decides no more because the building is going to be
demolished or something else, then the tenant cannot exercise the right to negotiate. It is our
decision and in our control.
Member DeWitt asked how many buildings are left since most of the base is leased out?
Mr. Levine responded that most of the smaller and medium buildings are leased out. There are
approximately ten large buildings left, totaling approximately 1.7 million square feet, which staff
will be concentrating on over the next year. There are real interest from perspective tenants on
Buildings 2, 3 and 4, the former Bachelor's Quarters. Staff is talking with developers in
converting those into incubator offices, in line with the Community Reuse Plan. There is a
developer who is interested in the 300,000 square foot Building 8 who will do a similar type of
conversion whose been working with Dot Com companies in San Francisco and thinks he can
successfully reuse Building 8 and redevelop it for those kind of tenants.
Diane Lichteinstein stated the BRAG felt that the right for option to purchase be denied until the
General Plan is in place, but rezoning for the BRAG would accomplish that purpose. Until the
BRAG has a much better idea of what the community wants at Alameda Point, staff did not want
to make permanent decisions.
Member Johnson asked what about a policy that the Board's preference is not to give an option to
purchase, without completely eliminating it?
10
Ms. Lichteinstein stated the BRAG is cognizant of the need for income and economic viability.
Perhaps a trade off is the best that can be accepted, although ultimately the BRAG would like
their recommendation to succeed.
Member Johnson stated she would be more comfortable with a policy which is what they have
been following against the option to purchase until the rezoning is done.
Member Johnson asked can there be a motion made adopting a policy?
Assistant City Attorney, Terri Highsmith responded yes, as the agenda item is more regarding
formulating a policy.
Member Johnson motioned to establish a policy against granting options to purchase, but
making it clear that the Governing Body can grant options to purchase if they feel it is
appropriate and move forward as member Kerr suggested towards rezoning the base.
Motion was seconded by Member Kerr. Ayes - 4; Noes -0; Abstentions - 0.
Discussion.
Mr. Flint indicated staff could be directed to draft a policy for the Board's consideration, perhaps
in an off - agenda report, so that by the next meeting of the ARRA the Board could consider it.
Member Johnson asked would there be an opportunity for the BRAG to review the language
before it came to the Board?
Mr. Flint responded staff could prepare a draft policy, incorporate it into an off - agenda report,
present it to the Council acting as the Governing Body for ARRA and simultaneously distribute
it to the BRAG prior to the next Board meeting.
Ms. Lichteinstein expressed her concern over the timing of these things, as they are out of sync.
It would be helpful if the BRAG could get it in time to review and make a formal
recommendation to the ARRA.
Mr. Flint responded the BRAG could call a special meeting so they could have the time to
review and reflect on it prior to the next ARRA meeting.
Member Johnson agreed that it is a good idea that the BRAG have a special meeting so that the
Governing Body can get it in place soon, rather than later.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from BRAG.
11
Lee Perez stated that on March 25, 2000 at the old historic Alameda High School cafeteria, from
9 -12 PM, the BRAG will be holding their next town meeting to discuss the issues that are going
on, maintaining the open forum of communication and allowing the public participation in this
meeting.
4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items).
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Doug deHaan, 1305 Dayton Avenue, expressed that seven years ago when things first started,
everyone felt things would move quickly. Now that there is a twenty -year lease in place, the
Board may be short changing itself to give itself the flexibility it needs. If the Board starts
selling off property or giving the options to purchase, you have to worry about the remediation
that may occur. The vast majority of the cleaning up at Alameda Point will occur with the
redeveloper, not the Navy. Mr. deHaan cautioned the Board in the use of the way they choose to
use the purchase options.
Ann Mitchum, 732 Central Avenue, #16, expressed that Member Kerr's suggestion of rezoning at
the Base is a very good idea. Ms. Mitchum recommended there should be extra staff based on
the Planning Department in order to fulfill that, when that time comes. This also fits in with the
FISC property. The property should be used as a lot -by -lot, zone -by -zone infrastructure of
personal use products such as office, commercial housing, in terms of the architecture.
Bill Smith, Alameda, stated if we appreciate the infrastructure that the developers can put in the
Base, food, shelter, clothing the kind of amenities we can build upon, then more jobs can be
created. Mr. Smith indicated someone brought Zebra Motors $50 million for industrial use and
the Board has just lost it in approving the West Coast Novelty lease.
Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, encouraged the public to attend the Public Transit Committee
meetings, as it will play an important part in the development of the entire City and reduce
congestion.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Kerr asked could the Board get a one -time list of what the various entities are paying in
monthly and annual rents?
Jim Flint responded yes.
Jim Flint asked the Board to endorse the Mayor in sending a letter to Congresswoman Barbara
Lee, Wilma Chan and to the Mayor's and Council's of both the City of Oakland and San Leandro
for their participation on the ARRA Governing Body.
12
Member Daysog suggested that it was a great idea and perhaps we should give them a plaque, in
addition to the letter.
Member Johnson stated she agreed with Member Daysog's suggestion and also felt that it was a
good idea.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
Lucretia Akil
ARRA Secretary
13
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 24, 2000
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manger to approve line item
transfers in the Alameda Point Budget for Costs Associated with Water System
Maintenance and Capital Improvements
Background:
At the October 6, 1999 ARRA meeting, the ARRA approved the 1999 -2000 Alameda Point budget.
The budget included leases, grants, cooperative agreement funds, and bond proceeds as revenue
sources. The expenditures were distributed through Alameda Point Administration, Police, Fire,
Alameda Power and Telecom and Public Works. Last month, the budget was revised based on the
most recent lease revenue projections. Attachment 1 is the revised spreadsheet outlining the Alameda
Point budget for this fiscal year, as amended.
Discussion:
The budget, as approved, did not include costs for maintenance and operations of the Alameda Point
water system as required by the joint powers agreement between the City of Alameda Public Works
Department and East Bay Municipal Utilities District. In addition, the Fox Avenue Improvement
Project, a major capital project to provide a back -up source of water to the existing source, needs to
be paid for from these funds.
Funds will be transferred from salary and project savings in line items related to building maintenance,
roads and grounds, sanitary sewer, storm water control and administration at Alameda Point. There
have been several meetings with Alameda Point Administration and the Public Works Department
to identify the appropriate budget line items. Because the transfers will come from salary and project
savings, there should be no impact on service delivery and or current and future staffing due to this
transfer. A recommendation was not made in the previous month's mid -year report because staff had
recently identified that the approved water budget did not include the cost for operations and
maintenance, and disputed costs for the Fox Avenue project were recently resolved.
Fiscal Impact:
Staff has identified approximately $350,000 in the existing appropriation to be used to pay for these
costs and can be done through line item transfers. It will not increase the existing appropriation.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body approve line item transfers to accommodate costs
related to the water system at Alameda Point.
Honorable Members of the February 24, 2000
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Community and Economic Development
By:
Nanette Banks
Business & Special Projects Manager
DB /nab/la
Attachments: 1999 -2000 Alameda Point Budget Spreadsheet
H: \STAFF- RE.PTS\FOXBDGT. WPD
Attachment 1
IALAMEDA POINT BUDGET - FISCAL 1999 -00
R EVENUES
Carry Over:
Leases
Grants:
Operating
Capital
Tenant Match
Sub Total
Cooperative Agreement
3 months - July /Sep99
October - March
$ 132,601
1,200,000
1,581,857
350,000
Lease Revenues - Current Year
Debt Financing
Citywide $ 2,182,720
Alameda Point 3,071,473
BUDGET
Operations
$ 1,595,547 Administration
Law Enforcement
Fire Prevention
Building Maintenance
Roads And Grounds
Electric Power
3,264,458 Water
Sanitary Sewers
Storm Drains
Telephone /Cable
$ 1,225,000
$ 391,725
$ 5,194,880
5,254,193
Cooperative Agreement
Capital - Debt Financed
Sanitary Sewers
Water
Electric
Capital - Grant/Others
Grant
Grant
Tenant Match
FUND BALANCE
$ 4,246,866
488,358
1,198,478
935,000
642,840
1,000,000
334,000
441,285
250,000
160,000
$ 9,696,827
$ 391,725
$ 397,443
2,358,030
316,000
$ 3,071,473
$ 1,200,000
1,581,857
350,000
$ 3,131,857
$ 16,291,882
$ 633,921
Grand Total Revenues $ 16,925,803 Grand Total Budget & Fund Balance $ 16,925,803
Alaptzj8 /30/99
Correspondence / Miscellaneous
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Interim Leasing Status Report - March 2000
Revised InterimLease.xls
Signed Leases & Licenses
Term
Building #
Building Sq. Ft.
1
ACET (Environmental Tech. Incubator)
long term
7
15,550
2
AC Homet Foundation
long term
Pier 3
3
Advanced Turbine Techonology
long term
398
32,000
4
Alameda Point Storage (Mini Storage)
long term
Near Bldg. 530
5
Alameda Point Collaborative (Warehouse)
long term
92
89,000
6
Alameda Point Collaborative (Office, etc.)
long term
101
68,650
7
Alameda Unified School District (Child Care Cntr)
long term
258
12,430
8
Altamont Technologies (Composite Mfg.)
long term
25
18,000
9
AVTS (Audio Visual Technical Services)
long term
22
66,000
10
Antiques by the Bay (Collectibles Faire)
long term
Tarmac & 405
4,880
11
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
long term
Bldg 2 FISC
2,700
12
Big Whites (Housing Units)
long term
19 Homes
50,000
13
Bladium (Indoor Games)
long term
40
104,000
14
Bobac (Warehouse)
long term
Bldg 2 FISC
100,000
15
Alameda Power & Telecom (Storage Yard)
long term
at FISC
16
CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator)
long term
20
66,600
17
CALSTART (Test Track)
6 months
EW Runway
18
Cellular One (Cell Site)
long term
land only
19
City Garage Carstar (Vehicle Painting)
long term
24 - Bay 3
26,927
20
City of Alameda (Dog Run Park)
long term
along estuary
21
City of Alameda (Ferry Terminal Parking)
long term
along estuary
22
City of Alameda (Fire Dept Training)
long term
522
2,400
23
City of Alameda (Gym & Pool)
long term
76 &134
58,450
24
City of Alameda (O'Club)
long term
60
29,550
25
City of Alameda (Police Department)
long term
494
2,850
26
City of Alameda (Public Works storage)
long term
397
17,000
27
City of Alameda (Soccer Field)
long term
east of Bldg 360
28
City of Alameda (Tennis Courts)
long tern
west of O'Club
29
Container Storage (Cans)
long term
338
42,000
30
CyberTran International (Test Track)
short term
EW Runway
31
Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays)
long term
39
110,000
32
Delphi Productions
long term
117 West
32,000
33
Dignity Housing (Homeless Coll.)
long term
103,105,809,810
4,400
34
Door Christian Fellowship Church
long term
564
8,600
35
Dunavant of California (Storage)
long term
Bldg 2 FISC
170,000
36
Emerg. Svcs. Network (Office)
long term
613
4,600
37
Forem Metal Manufacturing
long term
114
46,133
38
Forty Plus (Career Counseling)
long term
90
4,500
39
Fribel Internet,. (Concrete Statuary)
long term
98
8,507
40
Gen. Svcs. Admin. (Maritime Museum Storage)
long term
169
86,300
41
Home Auto Repair
long term
459
5,400
42
Homet Foundation
long term
pier & parking
43
Housing Units (Ranch Style)
long term
31 units
50,000
44
Housing Units (Townhouse)
long term
various units
6,000
45
IWA Engineers (steel Fabrication)
long term
113
13,100
46
JBI, Inc.
long term
170 North
40,000
47
Jim Bustos Plumbing
long term
612
4,000
48
Manex Entertainment
long tern
62
16,473
49
Manex Entertainment
long term
13
34,540
50
Maritime Administration
long term
Piers 1,2,3
51
Maritime Administration (Warehouse/Office)
long term
168
117,419
52
Marine Sanitation
long term
611
1,000
53
Navigator Systems (Fumiture Mfg.)
long term
14
31,400
54
Nelson's Marine (Boat Repair & Storage)
long term
167 & piers
55,450
55
Nelson's (subletting to various businesses)
long term
66
28.542
56
Operation Dignity (Homeless Collaborative)
long term
816 - 821
15,000
57
Orton Development
long term
portion of 5
110,000
58
Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Food Preparation)
long term
42
3,000
59
Piedmont Soccer
1 year
soccer field
60
Port Distribution & Warehousing
long term
117 East
22,000
61
Port Distribution & Warehousing
long term
118
70,000
62
Puglia Engr. (Ship Repair)
long term
67
14,000
63
RCD (Homeless Collaborative)
long term
various units
8,000
64
Quality Assured Products (valve Mfg..)
long term
21
66,000
65
Richard Miller Photography
long tern
621
5,770
66
San Leandro Shelter (Homeless Collaborative)
long term
531,532,533
28,080
67
Simmba Systems (Records Storage)
long term
9
92,817
68
Transmeridian Warehousing
short term
FISC 3
72,000
69
Tower Aviation
long term
530
82,250
70
Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.)
long term
15
16,603
71
Trident Management
1 year
FISC Wharf
72
United Indian Nations (Homeless Collaborative)
long term
various units
6,000
73
Waters,Caldwell & Assoc. (Environ.Consultant)
long term
115
2,200
74
West Coast Seaworks (Marine Construction)
long term
43
10,500
75
Woodmasters (Woodworkers)
long term
44
5,100
76
Xebra Motors (Electric Vehicles)
1 year
25
18,000
NO. OF EMPLOYEES
1,810
NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED
76
OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
2,334,671
Revised InterimLease.xls
February 23, 2000
City of Alameda ® California
Ms. Leslie Medine, Executive Director
HOME Project
AUSD Superintendent's Office
2200 Central Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear ne:
Thank you for your January 31, 2000 letter regarding the HOME project's continuing interest in
establishing a "youth village" at Alameda Point. I know that several members of my staff have been
in regular contact with you regarding your interest in Alameda Point.
We are pleased that your pursuit of capital funding with potential private fenders is proceeding well,
and that you've narrowed your review of potential facilities for feasibility analysis. You have
requested that the City enter into a period of exclusive negotiations for potential interim sub -lease
of Buildings 585 (the former CPO Club) and the former Homeport Club (portion of Bachelor
Enlisted Quarters). Since you have obtained a Certificate of Occupancy inspection for Building 585,
we assume that you have already made the decision to limit your feasibility analysis to Building 585
and are no longer interested in an ENA for the former Homeport Club. In either case, sound
business practice dictates that Alameda Point buildings available for reuse not be taken off -the-
market without monetary consideration. Of course, credit toward initial lease payments is provided
for in an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA), if a lease is consummated on the affected
building.
Please submit your full application packet at the earliest opportunity. City staff has received copies
of your grant proposal Executive Summary which outlines the proposed use of Building 585 and
provides a three -year funding strategy for HOME operations. In addition, please include all those
items identified on the Required Documentation Checklist (enclosed). Members of the Development
Services Team (specifically Greg McFann, Building Services Manager; Jerry Cormack,
Development Planning Manager; and Ed Levine, ARRA Leasing Manager) are available to help you
and the Youth Coordinators complete the application packet with full understanding of the process
and the necessity for various submittals and reviews. Carol Beaver will continue to be your primary
point of contact with City staff. She is an excellent resource to help coordinate processing of your
application and other procedures and requirements outlined in the Assistant City Manager's
November 5, 1999 memo which you previously received (additional copy enclosed for your
convenience).
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
Printed on Recycled Paper
February 23, 2000
Page 2
We fully appreciate the time constraints imposed by your funders and will expedite the process, even
though there are many pending applications in the pipeline. Even with our best efforts to move
things forward, it may not be feasible to have a fully executed lease by mid -April. Assuming that
your application is complete and that our negotiations regarding lease terms proceed, we would be
happy to provide your potential funders with a letter stating our intent to enter into a lease and the
timeline for executing the lease and requisite approvals.
This brings us to the question of lease terms. As you know, the ARRA Business Plan projects lease
revenues for Building 585 at $0.40 /square foot. a rent "rebate" equal to the amount of code - required
improvements (estimated at approximately $50,000 based on your Certificate of Occupancy
inspection) could be amortized over several years to reduce lease payments we could consider an
additional rent reduction based on the social and economic benefits that the project can demonstrate.
Please summarize and submit with your application an analysis of the community and economic
development value your proposal would bring to the city and the Alameda Point community of
residents and businesses. Finally, since the HOME project is sponsored by the Alameda Unified
School District, we would like to understand how they will participate in funding the portion of the
lease related to school district use of the facility.
We will continue to work in good faith and as quickly as possible to arrive at a lease agreement that
achieves the ARRA's overall plan for financially viable development of Alameda Point. We look
forward to working with you to help make your latest initiative a success.
Sincerely,
/i• 2‘?'r404-4/.
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Community and Economic Development
Enclosures (2)
cc: ARRA Board
City Manager Flint
Assistant City Manager Wonder
Community Development Manager Beaver
Alameda Point Leasing and Property Manager Levine
Assistant Facilities Manager Hampen
Building Services Manager Mc Fann
Development Planning Manager Cormack
ARRA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
NEW TENANT SUBLEASE AGREEMENT
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION CHECKLIST
✓
Document
Date
❑
Application •
NOTE: Application is subject to approval by the United States Government
Department of the Navy; submitting an application to ARRA releases ARRA
from any liability whatsoever should the Navy withhold its approval.
Return completed Application and Hazardous Material/Waste Check List to ARRA;
❑
❑
■
Use Permit Application
Schedule meeting with Planning Department staff to discuss project and time frame
for application process;
Submit Use Permit application to ARRA for review and signature before submission
to City Central Permits;
Submit Use Permit application to Planning Department and pay fees;
•
Certificate of Occupancy
Obtain application from City Central Permits;
❑ ❑ 0 1
Certificate of Insurance AND Additional Insured Endorsement (see attached
instructions)
Send Original to City Risk Manager;
Fax Copy to ARRA;
❑
Utilities
Apply to Bureau of Electricity for electric service (see attached instructions);
❑
Obtain Bureau of Electricity service confirmation letter and forward to ARRA;
❑
Emergency Notification Form
Return Emergency Notification Form to ARRA; (see attached form)
❑
❑
❑
Telephone Services
Return Alameda Point Tenant Circuit Order to Joyce Price
Return Alameda Point Service Request to Joyce Price
Return Letter of Agency to Joyce Price
•
Sublease Agreement
Schedule meeting with Facilities Manager to negotiate lease terms;
❑
Business License
Obtain a Business License from City of Alameda Finance Department
Forms Attached:
1) Tenant Application; 2) Hazardous Material/Waste Checklist; 3) Use Permit
Application; 4) Memo regarding Certificates of Insurance; 5) Certificate of
Occupancy Application; 6) Emergency /After Hours Contact form; 7) Alameda
Power and Telecom letter describing process for obtaining electric service; 8)
Telephone Service information and application; 9) Business License Application
City of Alameda
Memorandum
November 5, 1999
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Robert L. Wonder
Aasistant City Manager
Re: Proponed "Youth Zone"
OFF- AGENDA
Background
city staff has been approached by Leslie Medine, Executive Director of
Alternatives in Action and the HOME Project (HOME), regarding a proposed
"Youth Zone" .(aka "Youth City" and "Youth Community"), now in the
conceptual stages of development within the HOME organization. Ms. Medine
and HOME representatives also have made presentations at the Economic
Development Commission, the. Social, Service Human Relations Board and
other public entities, soliciting support fax the, concept in advance of
a scheduled meeting with HOME furiders'on November 9. Their presentations
have met with enthusiastic interest and support. Although, as the entity
most directly impacted by this proposal, it raises many issues for us
which need to be more thoroughly discussed and in many cases resolved
before our full support can be added.
DiscussiQnand Analysis
HOME is a youth - directed, non - profit organization serving all three
public high schools in Alameda. HOME has developed and implemented
several community projects, including Work. for Alameda Youth, Home Sweet
Home (drop -in child care) and Cityview Skate Park. The City has supported
HOME activities in several ways, including CDBG funding of Work For
Alameda Youth, a Youth in Business program, funding for the Cityview
Skate Park and mentoring'by City staff of several other HOME projects
and events.
Az described in the attached information, the proposed Youth Zone would
be located at Alameda Point and would house youth -run busineaaea, art
projects, recreation, services and more. Organizers anticipate the
evolution of their "effective citizenship" model through the creation and
implementation of government and commerce eystems for the Youth Zone. As
with other HOME efforts, organizers anticipate and already have)
substantial adult involvement in the planning and implementation of the
Youth Zone.
ITEM #5
Honorable Mayor and
Page 2
Councilmembers November 5, 1999
City representatives have been approached regarding support for the Youth
Zone concept. The City supports a wide range of youth activities and few
are more important than those that promote leadership development and.
community service. As a method of engaging youth and young adults in day- -
to -flay issues of community lifer staff believes the Youth Zone concept
has merit, From a practical point of view however, the concept presents
some challenges which would need to be resolved before a serious effort
could be launched. A brief summary of the issues is provided below for
your consideration.
• Skate Park Operations: There continue to be concerns regarding
conditions at and around Cityview Skate Park. While the Skate Park
Task Force is working on solutions and some progress has been made,
a perception remains that the Skate Park contributes to increased
property damage experienced by Alameda Point administrators and
tenants. The ability of Skate Park organizers and supporters to
successfully change these perceptions would be a key factor in
obtaining support from affected parties, including the City, at
Alameda Point.
• Use of Alameda Point Facilities: The City has established a process
for allowing interim use:of facilities at Alameda Point, A request
for space at Alameda Point to accommodate Youth Zone activities
should follow the City's established process and require of Youth
Zone organizers the same demonstrations of financial feasibility and
organizational capacity that have been required of other interim
users. Consistency with the Reuse Plan should also be a
consideration.
• City Resources: As a community -build effort, the Skate Park was a
huge success. However, some City projects were put on hold when it
became clear that additional resources were needed to meet the
organizers' ambitious timeline. Even though the Youth Zone would not
be a construction project per se, those types of concerns still
exist. Therefore, as the planning of the Youth Zone evolves, it
would be important for staff to seek policy guidance from the
Council on priorities and allocation of resources so as not to
interfere with existing commitments and responsibilities..
Mechanism'for Planning and Decision - making: Stakeholders in the
process should be identified early on and included in the planning
and decision - making on an on -going basis. City participation would
help achieve a seamless development process by identifying issues,
time frames and procedures for tweeting standard City requirements
and addressing any legalities before specific actions get underway.
Through the proposed Youth Zone, Alameda has a unique opportunitY to
create meaningful, real -world learning opportunities for its young
If successful, Alameda will reap the benefits well into the
future as our youth assume the robs of effective citizens and residents
of the community, A thoughtful process along the way will help to ensure
its success.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
• I
Page 3
November 5, 1999
Budget impacts are unknown at this time. However, if this project moves
forward, it would need some additional staff resources to provide
guidance in developing the project proposal. That issue •will be
addressed at a later date.
ilt=11111111Cthla
No action is required. This is provided, for your information only, in
advance of staff's participation in a meeting with potential Youth Zone .
funders on November 9,
RU : cb
Attachments
cc: City Manager
Deputy City Manager
HOME ORGANIZATIONAL CHART AND -PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1999 - 2000
HOME is a youth - directed, non- profit organization serving all three public high schools in Alameda. Youth
in HOME are committed to making Alga a better place through the creation of community 'projects.
HOME believes that for adolescents the best learning happens. through doing: HOME youth have
successfully initiated a diversity of projects such u building the largest skate park in California, opening a
youth employment center staffed by young people and creating a youth- staffed childcare center serving
toddlers. This year our goal is to expand existing projects and develop new ones in order to create a "Youth
Zone" in Alameda. The "Youth Zone" will be *physical location housing youth -run businesses, art projects,
recreation, services and more. It will become a major hub for young people throughout the Bay Area.
YOUTH
ENTERPRISE
CtTER.
ARTS/
EXPRESSION 1
r��•I � V ,M- SUPPORT R
YOUTH IN THE SERVICES TO
i'' -• _.�. _..----r CHILDREN AND
YOUTH
MEDIA f
Through active reflection and analysis, youth and adults of HOME developed a new organizational chart
(above) and structure for the 1999 -2000 year.
• HOME members will participate both during and alter school_ Youth chose what work they want to do
based on interest and time available.
• HOME is open to youth Monday through Friday, 12 p.m. to 7 P.M. and occasionally on weekends.
Youth participate for six to ten hours a week and receive either 5 or 10 units of elective credit for their
work.
• HOME will focus on four printery community project areas: Youth Enterprise, Arts, Youth in the Media
and Services to Children and Yeah. •
• Each project area will have fifteen youth members and at lease one adult coach.
• One or two members from each project group will represent their group in the "center" of the
organization.
• The "center" group is char od with creating and implementing policy for the organization, future
planning, and supporting project, groups in achievug their,goals. It will include 20 - 25 youth and two
adult coach.
• An additional grasp of 10 -12 youth will work closely with the "center" group to provide support for
orgsnizstion. These members either have limited hours available to work in HOME or are new me,
participating primarily during 5* and e period.
• Each group in HOME decides their own grading policy, meeting times and structure with inp►•
their adult coach(es).
• Youth develop skills in public Ong, working in groups, knowledge of self, and a ran
skills involving project development and implementation.
NO v 7 M" 4)/ f24444
5 u R.PiV4 re>iki
f p04.
os+
01/12/2000 16:17 510 -748 -4504
ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 06,
WE'VE BJ1LT THE SK8PARK,
NOWLET'SBtJIW
THEYOtJTH ZO N E
HOME is A youth 4eveloptncnt organization. where young people work
collaboratively with adults to treat+e real world prolecfs that serve the greater
community.
• Youth in HOME have decided to work towards creating the first
YOUTH ZONE in the natiori right here in Alameda,
• The Youth Zone will include businesses, cnterginment, art youth
services and recreation.
• HOME Real World Protects like Youth Enterprise, Teen T.V., radio, Wornen's Project, Work for
Alameda Youth (WAY) and Home Sweet Home (ourchtldrare center) will be involved in creating the
You Zone. The SktiPark is our first step towatds- making this dream a reality.
• The Youth Zone will In elect be a `Youth Conununtty.' it will incorporate the critigl elements
oF4e nocracy, commerce and relationship that make up any viable community. As youth
develop the Village, they will gain skills-and values essential to being effective citizens in the
world.
• Democracy — Youth will create and implement a system of governance.
• Commerce - Through creating youth-run busitsesses.and raising funds to support the protect, youth
will develop business and Financial skills.
• Relationships -- lust like the Sk8P.irk, when pelvic work together towards a common goal they ku lid
strong relationships. These. relationships :art the heart ofany community.
• The Youth Zone will be built atonns4 tbe$k8P*rkatAlamtda'Potnt,
• We're looking For youth an adults to become involved in thb ambitious protect,
• We are in the early planning stages tithe Youth Zone. if you arc interested in helping to create a
'Youth Community,' fill out the teat off slip and return tt to the. HOM E #able.
YES, I'M INTERESTED IN HELPING TO MAMA YOV1142DNE IN ALAMEPA!!
NAME„
ADDRESS
TEL #