2000-05-03 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Wednesday, May 3, 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 April 5, 2000.
2 -B. Recommendation to Approve CDBG /ARRA Funding Exchange for Building 7 Upgrades.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager regarding the APAC's
proposed restructuring and review of their advisory role status.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from BRAG.
4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items).
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction, or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the
agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be simultaneously cablecast on channel 15.
The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 7, 2000.
ARRA Agenda - May 3, 2000 Page 2
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Lucretia Akil, 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, April 5, 2000
2
1. SPECIAL SESSION
The special session was convened at 5:08 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding to address the
following item:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Attendees: Chair Appezzato, Member DeWitt, Member Kerr and Member Johnson.
Absent: Tony Daysog
Chair Appezzato adjourned the special session at 5:35 and convened the regular meeting at 5:55
p.m. He announced the Board had met in special session and that no action was taken.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the March 1, 2000.
3.B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the Deputy City Manager to apply to
the California Trade and Commerce Agency for a California Defense Adjustment
Matching Grant.
3.C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the Deputy City Manager to represent
ACET in applying to the California Trade and Commerce Agency for a California
Defense Adjustment Matching Grant.
3.D. Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending changing the ARRA fiscal year to
correspond to the City's fiscal year.
3 -E. Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending that the ARRA Governing Body
endorse Senate Bill 2049 (Perata).
-1-
Member Kerr moved approval of the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of
March 1, 2000 and the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4. ACTION ITEMS
4.A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager regarding adoption of a
policy limiting Purchase Options in future sublease agreements.
The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers on this item.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Member Johnson moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Kerr, and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
Discussion.
Member Daysog thanked Deputy City Manager David Berger for his clear response to questions
and concerns raised by residence and councilmembers.
4 -B. Report and Recommendation from the Deputy City Manager requesting authorization for
the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a lease of Building 585 with AIA
regarding the Home Project for 10 years.
Deputy City Manager, David Berger stated this item is a proposed lease for Building 585 to AIA.
There are two reasons why this is before the Governing Body this is evening. The first is that the
proposed lease term which staff and AIA is requesting, is greater than the seven (7) year limit,
which staff has authority to negotiate in interim leases. The second reason is to resolve the basic
terns and conditions for the proposed lease. The staff report fully describes what AIA is
proposing in the way of lease. AIA's proposal values services and programs that benefit the
community, in lieu of most of the rent. There is a net effective rent under their proposal and a
participation in revenues that would be generated. Staff believes that it has great merit, but has
concluded that in order to balance the competing interest of maximizing revenues, to operate and
maintain and protect the property, which the Navy is no longer providing any Caretaker funds,
staff felt the balancing of the interest should have been set at a higher level in this proposed
lease, which staff has described as the Alternative Proposal in the report. Deputy Berger
acknowledged the simplified version, which was passed out to the Board of the proposed rent
that would be paid by the HOME Project, under their proposal and the staff recommended
alternative. The Board is going to have to decide on the lease term and which of the Alternatives
is in the best interest of the community and Alameda Point Reuse and Redevelopment project.
-2-
Mayor Appezzato asked if the two issues are the lease term, seven or ten years and the difference
in the amount of rent?
Deputy Berger responded that the base rent AIA is proposing is $0.03 per square foot and staff is
proposing $0.15 per square foot and both would escalate. Both have a participation factor, so as
the project becomes successful, there are revenues that would come to the ARRA.
Mayor Appezzato asked regardless if the HOME project is successful, it must be successful
without affecting the City's General Fund?
Deputy Berger responded that is correct. The operation, maintenance and protection of Alameda
Point is without any of the City's General Fund money.
The public hearing was open.
Leslie Medine, HOME project coordinator expressed they have the support of the entire
community assembled for tonight's meeting. There is a petition with over 2700 signatures from
both the adult and youth groups within the community, which has been presented to Mayor
Appezzato.
Helene Hanson, HOME project passed out AIA proposal packets to the ARRA governing board.
Gina Rodriguez, HOME project indicated that youth, adult, community and HOME members
will be speaking tonight on behalf of AIA.
Joey Lujan, HOME project expressed that the youth of today are the gateway for the future,
searching for ways to find, improve and adjust themselves. HOME upholds a process of
understanding community, passion for themselves as a group and individuals. The purpose of
HOME is to develop the youth of the community into effective citizens and leaders for tomorrow
by developing their skills and providing an environment which allows them to develop projects,
which benefits the quality of life in Alameda.
Mickey Wilcox, HOME project stated this is his third year at HOME and it has grown since his
participation, which has been a central part of his life. Mr. Wilcox expressed he has worked with
youth, adults and funders and different entities to make the HOME project a success. This effort
should be available to the entire community.
Amanda Fenton, HOME project explained that the AIA proposal is divided into three main parts:
services in lieu of rent, the credit from the youth businesses, and a cash payment. Throughout
conversations with City staff, AIA wanted to insure that the City does not require any out of
pocket expenses for their proposal. This is how AIA came up with the $0.03 per square foot,
which would cover all municipal services which staff recommended to them. A handout was
given to each Board member which shows the three options of services in which the HOME
-3-
project provides. The first option (A) is if the City were to provide all of these services over ten
years, it would cost the city approximately $8,444,223. The second option (B) is the EDC
proposal which would give the City $8,973,207 worth of programming value for their youth. The
third option (C) which is the HOME proposal which provides all of the services provided,
including cash payments and credit, would provide the City with $9,632,512 worth of
programming for youth.
Michael Wong, HOME project spoke about the comparison of proposals between City staff and
AIA. He stated that although there is a significant amount of reduced rent in the AIA proposal,
other monetary credits and hours make up the vast difference in the dollar amounts.
Lauren Warner, HOME project stated HOME has spent over $750,000 on programs. Eighty -five
percent (85 %) is spent on staffing such as coaches, consultants, teachers and administrators. Any
of this money spent on rent would require the HOME staff to reduce their staff which would
effect the youth. Ms. Warner expressed that in the past three (3) months she has been at HOME,
their has been reduction and devotion of youth and coaches. HOME cannot afford to deduct
services, but would like to ensure the stability of the organization for the future.
Frank Matarrasse, Chairman EDC stated they sent a recommendation to the City Council in
support of the proposal from the HOME project. The HOME project staff gave a clear
presentation of their proposal, which included covering utility costs and protection of the
property and building upgrades. They approached this entire proposal on an economic basis,
which is why they have the unanimous support from the entire EDC team.
John Abrate, Vice - Chair, EDC indicated he has never seen the most prepared and comprehensive
financial plan that a group has ever done, until he reviewed the HOME project proposal. This is a
great opportunity to make history with the youth group.
Greg Breidenstine -Howe, Supervisor Wilma Chan's office, stated that Supervisor Chan supports
the AIA proposal which HOME has prepared. Supervisor Chan has been actively involved with
the HOME project since its beginnings. HOME has a proven track record for getting things done,
including the Skateboard Project. HOME prepares students for the real world, such as
communication and organizational skills. This project will not only benefit the youth, but the
entire community.
Paula McCloskey, CEO Alameda Chamber of Commerce expressed her support of the HOME
project. The students are not asking for money. They are willing to work and do whatever it takes
to make this project a success. Ms. McCloskey stated she has been involved in numerous other
projects and no other project has gotten students involvement such as the HOME project. This
process is bringing the connection between business and education.
-4-
Moira Fossym, in- coming Chamber of Commerce President expressed her appreciation to the
Council for the pro -youth stand they have taken in the past and hope they will continue to do
that. Ms. Fossym stated that the entire Chamber of Commerce is in support of the HOME project
and would like the Board to give them a chance to be the entrepreneurs that they aspire to
become.
Berry Bingham, Alameda, stated the success of our students is linked to the success of our
community. From the conception of HOME, the AUSD has been on the ground floor with the
HOME project. They deserve the chance to go forward with their proposal. They have secured
$200,000 for renovation of the building and another $750,000 for programs. Mr. Bingham asked
the Board to approve their proposal, as it is best for the community and City. In order to be good
successful students, we must take risks and go down that road with them.
Mayor Appezzato asked HOME project staff if they did in fact have a commitment of $950,000?
Leslie Medine, HOME project coordinator indicated yes.
Suzanne Lindsey, Gallagher and Lindsey stated that Alameda point is the future of the City. Ms.
Lindsey urged the Board to accept the HOME projects proposal, so the youth of the City will not
have to fight for everything they need.
Judge Richard Bartalini stated these young people are asking for an opportunity where they to
could provide community service, while at the same time develop the leadership qualities to
succeed in life. Although the cost of safety and maintenance is an issue, this is an investment in
the kinds of services and programs that the youth would like to provide. This is the kind of
development that the adults within the City have a responsibility to offer people. Judge Bartalini
urged that the Board accept the AIA proposal and that the City Manager, Jim Flint should be the
lead in expediting the lease negotiation.
Amanda Kruger, HOME project founding member stated her involvement in this project, has
given her the belief that she can do anything. She has sustained leadership qualities, putting on
youth conferences, creating festivals and working on the Skateboard project. All of this being
part of the HOME project. Ms. Kruger requested that the Board vote in favor the HOME projects
proposal.
Jean Travis, Alameda, spoke about her daughter, Samantha Travis' development since being part
of the HOME project. She stated her daughter has been with the HOME project for about six
months and since this time, has successfully handled the challenges of home life, academics,
sports and the community activity of HOME. She is receiving a broad understanding of
community politics. HOME project has been a perfect vehicle to channel her energies in a
community service type atmosphere. She is developing into a well - rounded positive individual
within the community.
-5-
Alicia Morrow, HOME project stated she has been part of the organization for two years. She
was chosen to represent HOME as part of their first conference. This conference gave her a sense
of community and belonging, something she had not previously experienced. Ms. Morrow stated
the HOME project enlightened her on the real world issues, such as racism. After learning this,
she is more confident, not caring what other people think of her, as she strives for greatness.
Tony Corica, Alameda, stated his son Craig has been part of the HOME project since its
beginnings. Mr. Corica is impressed with the concept of how HOME gathered students from the
three high schools within the City of various ethnicities and grade levels, working together to
improve their community. Mr. Corica stated he has had the opportunity to see the growth of his
son and his friends in real world skills. Mr. Corica expressed that the HOME project brings the
youth together with the community, for a successful future. He asked the Board to approve a
favorable lease agreement with HOME so they can continue to do their work.
Craig Corica, HOME project stated he has been involved with HOME since its beginnings back
in 1996. It is the most substantial thing he has been involved with in his life. He has been
involved with sports, drama, team building, presentation and leadership activities. HOME has
given him the experience he needs to pursue a successful career. He asked the Board to vote in
favor of HOME's proposal so they can continue producing future leaders of today.
Leslie Medine, HOME project coordinator stated she started the HOME project seven years ago.
Ms. Medine wants to motivate youth so they can be successful in life. She wants to create a since
of community and believes Alameda is the place to make this happen. Their are youth and
parents very involved with the success of this organization.
Ardella Dailey, acting AUSD Superintendent, expressed her support in favor of the HOME
project proposal. The youth, community and teen center is an important part of the Community
Reuse Plan, as part of the future site for this type of program. HOME has grown to the point
where the entire City can benefit from it. A proposal like this which brings everyone together, is
the future of Alameda.
Jack Bertram, President and CEO of Bertram Business Services, stated he operates a high tech
firm. Charles King from the HOME project works for him. Mr. King is putting together a data
base which will be used to build a web director. This is the benefit of what the HOME project
has done for him and Mr. King. Mr. Bertram asked the Board to support this project.
Charles H. Ward, III, Economic Development Commission, stated he has worked with some of
the youth over the past five months and has seen the processes they have had to go through to
make this dream a reality. This project makes sense economically. This project will provide the
youth with a place they can call home, give them authority to function in a professional
environment and help them to develop themselves overall. They have great drive and ambition
for the future of Alameda.
-6-
Justin Harrison, HOME project stated that when he got into high school, he was not a studious
student. However, through the HOME project, he is continually being motivated to graduate and
have something to look forward to in life. Mr. Harrison urged the Board to vote in favor the
HOME proposal, as it will give many youth like him the basic opportunity of graduating from
high school and making it through life.
Judy Blank, 34 Killeny Place, Alameda, stated she supports the HOME project proposal. She
expressed she is a parent of one of the participants and encourages the Board to support it, as it
will allow the youth of the future to become community oriented individuals.
Max V. Stiers, HOME project stated the youth of Alameda are in need of this type of
organization. With laws like Proposition 21 passing to lock the youth up, this type of
organization is needed more than ever. It is constructive and promotes non - violence through
community effort.
Iry Hamilton, 420 -E Ballena Bay, stated he has been involved with the HOME project for over a
year. Through his involvement, he has learned what a remarkable organization this is. It is very
important to support what the HOME project is proposing, as it effects the youth of the future.
This will create an opportunity for Alameda to have an identity and stories written about it with
civic pride. This is an investment in young people within the City and the Board should vote in
favor of it.
Gordon Li, HOME project stated he has been a HOME member for two years and attends
Alameda High School. He has grown and gained a significant amount of confidence being a part
of this organization, gaining leadership skills and running for school board offices. Mr. Li
expressed that HOME has given him enough experience, that he would like to give back to the
City.
Beverly Bruner Camp, Alameda, stated members of the HOME project have empowered her
significantly. After many years of relying on others, HOME has given her the realization that she
can do anything she likes independent of anyone. Through the HOME project, we have a lot to
be proud of with the youth of Alameda as they continue to graduate and become future
successful individuals for the City of Alameda.
Nancy Clark, President AIA, sponsor of the HOME project expressed her support.. This project
is all about learning and becoming effective citizens within the City of Alameda. She stated that
the City's staff has challenged members of the HOME project committee and cause them to
really look at their overall economic viability to sustain this project. This has forced each and
every member of HOME, including the youth, to do their homework to evaluate their proposal
and make it a reality. Ms. Clark asked the Board to vote in favor of the AIA proposal.
Adam McHolden, HOME project stated members of the HOME project, including the youth
worked very hard on the skateboard project. They are a good group and the Board should vote in
favor of the proposal.
-7-
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Mayor Appezzato stated the Board has a significant responsibility in converting the base. He
acknowledged that the AIA proposal is one of the best business plans he has seen, since the
Board has had to review so many public benefit conveyance plans, as part of the Community
Base Reuse Plan. About six months ago, on a three to two vote, the Board approved a museum
that did not have the resources the HOME project has. Mayor Appezzato did not support that
public benefit conveyance for a museum, because it was not financially feasible, however it did
go forward with a $2 million hit in revenue. If the Board can approve a museum which mayor
may not succeed, when we look at a group which represents our own community and the
business plan they have provided, it is worth the risk if we work together to make it succeed.
Mayor Appezzato stated he would vote in support of AIA proposal, if there is a motion and
second motion to support it.
Member Daysog thanked each HOME project member for their individual presentation and
thoughtful discussion. Like the youth, the adults share the same thoughts and feelings, in
knowing that there are challenges that youth face daily. It is imperative that we provide and work
for opportunities that provide constructive activities. Member Daysog stated although it is true
that the AIA proposal seeks sub - market rent, but if it means that we can establish a teen center
that diverts someone from activity that may not be the best thing for him or her, then we are
doing something positive. That is the value of doing something that is worth doing, in light of all
the challenges we face. Member Daysog stated he will second the motion.
Member Johnson stated this is a big event for the City of Alameda. There are so many
expectations that many youth have now, including necessary experience and a sense of
familiarity with real life experiences. The presentation is complete and the numbers look good.
Staff has been working under the financial direction of the council, which is why they prepared a
proposal. The age group in which the HOME project serves, has never been served within the
City. The recreation departments within the City are great, but they are not focused on serving
this age group. This project is a great effort in preparing our youth to go out in the world. This is
also the Board's one opportunity to lease out this property now, as the City of Alameda may not
be able to afford to lease or sell it at this rate. Now is the time to do it.
Member DeWitt stated that when this project was presented he evaluated it on two things: first, is
it a worthy project and second, is it a sound business proposition for the City? The AIA proposal
put together is worthy to support, considering they are doing upgrades to the kitchen area and
other parts of the building. Alameda has the potential for doing a lot of wonderful things with the
right direction, guidance and hard work, thanks to Leslie Medine. Member DeWitt stated the
program is worthy and is prepared to make a motion.
Member DeWitt moved approval of the AIA proposal. The motion was seconded by
Member Daysog, and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes -1 (Member
Kerr); Abstentions - 0.
- 8 -
Discussion.
Member Kerr stated she agreed this is an exciting proposal, although she has a couple of
concerns. Nornially, organizations who do not have a business income, only show some
documentation of the money they have. Many of the programs they propose like the Charter
school, would normally be funded by the Alameda Unified School District. Some of the services
promised include monitoring the skateboard park, which was already promised once and has not
been fully monitored. Member Kerr stated that we are needing over $3 million a year to upkeep
Alameda Point and not having title to the property, it is not a good time to take this type of risk.
Staff's recommendation has been extremely generous and kind. However, Member Kerr stated
that she cannot support the AIA recommendation because it is a half million dollars less than
staff's recommendation.
Mayor Appezzato stated Member Johnson's comments about City staff is correct. The Board sets
the policy and they are instructed to back it up. Staff has acted under the Board's direction. There
is a major financial responsibility to the community, however if the Board can approve a
museum, they can certainly approve this project. Like every other public benefit conveyance,
staff from the HOME project will have to make this work. HOME will be responsible for all of
the maintenance and rehabilitation and snaking the project succeed. Tonight the Board believes
they are doing the right thing that all 75,000 citizens of Alameda can be proud of.
5. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A. Oral report from the BRAG.
Pattianne Parker, Reuse Subcommittee Chair, stated the BRAG has voted to accept the HOME
projects proposal. The March 25, 2000 town meeting was a success, which addressed many
issues. The BRAG has renamed itself to the Alameda Point Advisory Commission (APAC) and
has a new mission statement, which will act as an advisory group to the local ARRA, which is
now the City Council members, not the regional members. Ms. Parker stated they are offering an
institutional memory, as there has been a lot of hours and public input into the redevelopment
process up until this point. The BRAG accepted the staff's proposal as it relates to the option to
purchase on sublease agreements. The BRAG's main goal is to ensure that no property is
designated or sold off before there is an update to the general plan which updates Alameda Point
into the City of Alameda.
5 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items).
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith, Alameda, stated that he understands one of the Councilmembers expressed some
concern about Main Street out at the base, having sinkholes. There are sinkholes near the lagoon
where Mr. Smith lives. When the elders had spoken about it, one of the wives had their legs go
through one of the sinkholes, which is about five to six feet deep. This is a landfill and there is
some great concern. The pipes on this landfill are going to break. The infrastructure bank of the
State of California should be properly advised, as it is the City's ultimate source of funding. The
governor of California increased this fund to $547 million, which gives the City a good reason to
claim dislocation of liabilities.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Kerr stated she has asked the City Manager to provide an off - agenda report on what is
happening with the museum. In the six months in which it has been approved, she has not seen or
heard of any activity going on at the base for this museum project. If the museum is imploding,
then the Board and staff needs to start a new marketing activity. Building 77 is sacred, which was
the deal between the Navy and the museum staff, however Building 41 is not. Member Kerr
stated she feels an even bigger urgency now, for the financial welfare of Alameda Point.
Mayor Appezzato stated he has a feeling the museum is going to go away and maybe the Board
and staff can trade this project (HOME), in place of the museum. There are two other museums
which are serving the community well and there is much concern that this museum was not
viable before and it is not viable now.
Member Kerr stated if it is not "flying," it is time to start a marketing effort.
Member Daysog thanked City Hall for putting up new flags over the entrance on Webster Street.
There are new federal, state and local flags.
Mayor Appezzato thanked everyone for attending the meeting and hopes the HOME project is a
success.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully,
Lucretia Akil
ARRA Secretary
- 10-
City of Alameda
Memorandum
April 19, 2000
To: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopm -nt Authority
From: David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Approve Funding Exchange for Building 7
Upgrades
Background
The Community Development Division administers Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds to benefit low- and moderate - income persons and
help prevent or eliminate slums and blight. On April 18, City Council
adopted the FY 2000 -01 CDBG Action Plan (Plan). The Plan allocates
$86,965 for Building 7 upgrades, contingent on an equal amount of Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) lease revenues being budgeted
for operation of the Alameda One -Stop Career Center (One -Stop) and Work
for Alameda Youth (WAY). Such an exchange of funds will prevent the City
from exceeding the CDBG maximum for public service projects, including
the One -Stop, while allowing critical economic development activities to
be funded. ARRA and the City Council approved a similar exchange of funds
for the current fiscal year in, respectively, August and September 1999.
Discussion and Analysis
The One -Stop was developed by the City of Alameda and the College of
Alameda in conjunction with numerous community -based organizations,
employers and the regional East Bay WORKS system. The One -Stop offers
career assessment, job readiness and training, placement and employer
services to local residents and businesses, and supports the WAY program.
The City initially funded the One -Stop and WAY under the CDBG eligibility
category of "Assistance to Higher Education." This practice was based
on a wide - spread understanding that the "Higher Education" category was
not subject to the CDBG program's 15% limitation on public service
funding. However, HUD has determined that activities in this category are
to be included in the public services "cap" calculation.
An exchange of CDBG funds with an equal amount of ARRA lease revenue
funds is proposed to avoid exceeding the funding cap in FY 2000 -01. CDBG
funds have been programmed to another eligible activity, specifically
that of updating Alameda Point Building 7. In return, ARRA lease revenues
would fund the One -Stop for the next fiscal year while staff determines
how to best structure on -going One -Stop funding.
The use of Alameda Point lease revenues to assist the One -Stop is
consistent with Alameda Point objectives. Relationships with Alameda
Point tenants have been developed and are becoming increasingly important
Honorable Members of the April 19, 2000
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
as Alameda Point tenants and the Homeless Collaborative move ahead to
address their training, hiring and placement goals. Included in the
allocation is approximately $30,000 for Work For Alameda Youth, and a
similar amount for the Chamber of Commerce to provide the Business
Liaison function.
Following approval, a Grant Agreement with the College of Alameda and
Memoranda of Understanding will be executed to delineate the various
agencies' responsibilities. Community Development staff will continue
to oversee the operations of the One-Stop, while the Building 7 upgrades
will be managed by Alameda Point staff in the usual manner.
Budget Considerations/Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the City's General Fund and no change is proposed
in the previously-approved funding levels for either the One-Stop or
Building 7. Alameda Point lease revenue set-asides comprise the overall
25% local match for the Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant
for upgrades to Alameda Point facilities. CDBG funds can be used as local
match for the EDA grant. It is proposed to substitute $86,965 in CDBG
funds for an equal amount of lease revenues which will then fund the One-
Stop. This funding exchange will allow uninterrupted funding for both the
employment and capital projects.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the ARRA, by motion, approve the funding exchange
for Building 7 utility systems upgrades.
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
D puty Ci y Manager
By: Carol Beaver
Community Development Manager
DAB/CB/GP:mlf
Attachment
cc: AP Business and Special Projects Manager
AP Leasing Manager
CD Administrative Management Analyst
CD Management Analyst
College of Alameda
Chamber of Commerce
Work for Alameda Youth
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
April 26, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
Background:
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
B' • G /Alameda Point Advisory Committee Restructuring
In December 1997, the City Manager met with the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Base
Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) to discuss the future role of the BRAG upon the sunset of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA). As a result,
the BRAG members began discussion of their future and worked with the City for direction.
In February 1998, the City sponsored an all -day, professionally facilitated workshop to develop a
mission statement and clarify the BRAG's role. Subsequently, the BRAG members determined that
the structure developed in the workshop was not what they desired and began to develop a new plan.
In October 1998, the BRAG Chairperson appointed a BRAG Restructuring Task Force to develop
a revised list of functional responsibilities for the group (Members: Joan Konrad, Diane
Lichtenstein, Mal Mooney, Larry Schulz, Andrine Smith; Non - Member: Helen Sause). At its
January 20, 1999 meeting, the BRAG received the task force report and recommended it to the
ARRA board for approval.
At its February 1999 meeting, the ARRA board considered and approved the BRAG's recommended
new name, the Alameda Point Advisory Committee, mission and purpose; but did not approve the
BRAG's request to expand its role to advise other City boards and commissions, noting that the
ARRA lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to grant such a request. As an advisory body to the
ARRA, the BRAG has subject matter jurisdiction only over matters within the jurisdiction of the
ARRA Governing Body. In addition to approving the new name for the BRAG, the ARRA further
clarified that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the APAC, instead
of BRAG) would not serve as an advisory committee as defined by Redevelopment Area law.
Discussion /Analysis:
Since the February 1999 meeting, the APAC Restructuring Task Force has continued to meet to
refine its role and purpose. The members continue to believe that they should have a broader
jurisdiction and want to serve in an advisory capacity to other boards and commissions and as a
community advocacy group. As a result, the APAC has put forth the revised mission statement and
goals and objectives. They have eliminated any reference to the ARRA Governing Body or any
specific board or commission. Their goal is to allow the APAC to weigh -in on discussions at any
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 26, 2000
Page 2
City board or commission "on behalf' of Alameda Point interests, particularly in regard to its
redevelopment.
At its March 2000 meeting, a majority of the APAC members endorsed the attached mission
statement, purpose, and goals and objectives. They plan to bring these to the ARRA board at the
May meeting to receive endorsement. Staff feels that the ARRA board has several options:
1. Maintain the APAC in its current capacity: The ARRA board could clarify to the
APAC that it is an advisory body to the ARRA, and is charged with subject matters
within the ARRA's jurisdiction. The role of the APAC under this option is to
continue to serve as an advisory body to the ARRA, and by explicit direction of the
City Council, to assist in incorporating the Community Reuse Plan into the update
of the City General Plan. Once that task is completed, there would be no role for a
separate citizen advisory group on Alameda Point. Other City boards and
commissions already have jurisdiction over different aspects of base reuse and
redevelopment implementation.
While adoption of the Reuse Plan in 1996 completed the five -step process initiated
to ensure orderly transition of NAS Alameda from military to civilian use, the
document states that it serves to guide needed changes to the City's General Plan and
land use regulations. In other words, integrating Reuse Plan policies into the
General Plan is actually the final step in the process of determining the community's
intentions with respect to long -term reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda.
From the staff's perspective, this is a logical juncture to conclude the important
planning role played by the APAC over the past six years. Once property
conveyance occurs, functions of the ARRA itself may well migrate to the City
Council, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Community Improvement
Commission (Alameda's redevelopment agency). The Planning Board, Housing
Commission, Economic Development Commission, Golf Commission and other
citizen advisory bodies of the City would carry out their customary functions with
respect to assisting the City Council /CIC to implement City and redevelopment
programs and projects consistent with policies reflected in an updated General Plan.
2. Disband the APAC: The ARRA board could agree that the APAC role of creating
the Community Reuse Plan has been completed and that transfer of the property from
the federal government serves as the perfect impetus for folding APAC members into
other boards and commissions. Many of the current APAC members, by design, also
serve on other City boards and commissions. Disseminating their familiarity and
expertise related to Alameda Point would be beneficial to the City at large and
consistent with the goal of making Alameda Point part of the City. On the other
hand, it could result in a loss of continuity in folding the Reuse Plan into an updating
the City General Plan, given the significant knowledge possessed by members of
APAC who were instrumental in the Reuse Plan formulation.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 26, 2000
Page 3
3. Allow the APAC to serve as Advisory to all Boards and Commissions: While the
ARRA cannot make this decision, the City Council is able to grant this request. The
Council could agree to allow the APAC to advise all of the boards and commissions
on matters related to base reuse and redevelopment, which would increase its scope
of authority to influence the outcome of all actions related to implementing
redevelopment of Alameda Point and other projects, programs and functions that fall
within the authority of other City boards and commissions. In approving this action,
the Council potential would exist for making the APAC a policy making body in
nearly equal decision making status of the ARRA. In staff's opinion, the APAC
would serve as a filter for decisions before they reach the Council, ARRA or
Community Improvement Commission level. This role would be greater than any
other citizen's group, board or commission in the City and, in many ways, could
make those other groups less effective because their advisory capacity as it relates to
Alameda Point will be diminished. On the other hand, the APAC believes that those
groups are not able to represent the interests of the community related to the aims
of the Reuse Plan, as well as APAC members, because those groups were not as
directly involved in the extensive citizen input process that guided founulation of the
plan.
4. Create a Citizen Group: The ARRA board could agree to disband the APAC and
invite its members to create their own citizen advocacy group related to base reuse
and redevelopment. This option would allow the APAC to fulfill its goals and
objectives, and is consistent with the mission statement and purpose proposed by the
APAC. Under this scenario the APAC:
a. would not be subject to the Brown Act and could therefore meet
as often as they liked, wherever they desired, with whomever they
choose;
b. could comment at public hearings before whatever board or
commission they desired, and take positions on any issue; and
c. would not require City financial support/resources.
Of course, as a private citizens group, the former APAC members would have no official standing
to be involved in merging the Reuse Plan into the City General Plan.
Fiscal Impact:
Options two and four could save the ARRA in direct expenditures related to supporting APAC
activities up to approximately $20,000 annually in meeting and staff costs. If option three is
selected, additional staff time and resources of an unknown amount would need to be spent
preparing reports, communications, and minutes of other boards and commissions related to their
interaction with APAC.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation:
April 26, 2000
Page 4
Based on the analysis and conclusions described above, staff recommends that the ARRA board
approve option one. This would result in the APAC "sun- setting" after the their work is completed
and the City Council has integrated the Community Reuse Plan into an updated General Plan. The
current work program schedule calls for this task being completed by December, 2001.
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Community and Economic Development
Attachments: City Attorney Opinion on Role of BRAG as Advisory Body to ARRA
City Attorney Clarification of Communication for the Purposes of BRAG'S
role as Advisory to the ARRA
Mr. Mooney's letter of November 18, 1999, outlining the APAC Mission
Statement and Purpose, which was approved by ARRA on
February 3, 1999 with Amendments
Extract from approved minutes of the February 3, 1999 ARRA meeting
re: APAC discussion
Proposed New APAC Mission Statement and Purpose
C: \M WARD\ MENSLEY \ARRA \STAFFREP \2000\APACOPTS. WPD
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - department Memorandum
March 7, 2000
TO: James M. Flint
Chief Executive Officer, ARRA
FROM: Teresa L. Highsmith
Assistant General Counsel
RE: Role of BRAG as Advisory Body to ARRA
Question
You have asked for clarification regarding the BRAG's role as an advisory body to the
ARRA, and specifically whether that role extends to providing official comment or advisory
function regarding matters agendized by legislative bodies within the City of Alameda, other
than the ARRA.
Answer
The BRAG, as an advisory body to the ARRA, has broad discretion to consider any
matter which will or may come before the ARRA for its consideration, or matters over which
the ARRA has subject matter jurisdiction, for the sole purpose of advising the ARRA. The
BRAG's role does not extend to provision of official comment or advice to other legislative
bodies within the City of Alameda on matters which are beyond the subject matter jurisdiction
of the ARRA, or on matters on which the ARRA has not already taken a position.
Background
The BRAG was originally created by the. City Council in July 1993 to provide advice
to the City on the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda. In 1995, the BRAG
recommended that it become advisory to the ARRA. In June 1995, the ARRA accepted this
recommendation and the BRAG became an official advisory body to the ARRA.
Members of the BRAG serve at the pleasure of the ARRA. (BRAG Rules & Procedures
section B.2). Absent any action taken by the ARRA to remove a Member, the Member can
choose to serve indefinitely on the BRAG.'
The BRAG's structure and mission were revised in April 1996, as approved by the
ARRA. BRAG proposed to meet once a month, with their primary focus on: 1) advocating
the incorporation of the Community Reuse Plan into the City of Alameda's General Plan, 2)
'There is no "term" provided for within the Rules & Procedures. However, maintenance
of Membership does require that Members must attend 75% of the meetings held during any 12-
month period.
James M. Flint
October 16, 1998
Page 2
continuing to make recommendations on proposed interim and long -term uses at NAS Alameda
as to their consistency with the Reuse Plan, 3) continuing to keep the general public informed
about and involved with the NAS planning process, and 4) commenting on regulatory issues
and related matters affecting the Community Reuse Plan. These four areas of "focus" which
the BRAG has defined for itself are broad and generally will encompass matters which are
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the ARRA.
Controversy Regarding Antiques by the Bay
Some misunderstanding regarding the role of the BRAG as advisory to the ARRA may
have arisen in the context of the Planning Board's consideration of the land use application for
"Antiques by the Bay" in May of this year. At that time, we were informed that the BRAG
intended to agendize for action the development of a "BRAG position" regarding the use of
NAS property by Antiques by the Bay in order to present this information to the Planning
Board as part of the Planning Board's consideration of whether to approve the land use
application. Because the BRAG is advisory to the ARRA, and not the Planning Board, it was
not appropriate for the BRAG to officially appear at the Planning Board meeting to express a
"BRAG position" on a matter that the ARRA had not even yet considered. Developing a
BRAG position purely for the purpose of advising the Planning Board clearly exceeds the role
of the BRAG, as advisory to the ARRA.2
The Antiques by the Bay lease had not yet come before the ARRA, and was not likely
to come before the ARRA in the future, because the ARRA has expressly delegated the power
to review and approve all individual leases of less than seven years to the Executive Director.
In spite of this delegation of power and duty to the Executive Director, there are still a number
of ways the ARRA could have considered this individual lease. For example, the ARRA
could have reviewed the "Antiques by the Bay" lease if 1) the Executive Director had
determined to place it on the ARRA agenda, or 2) the ARRA wished to consider as a policy
matter whether to review leases of similar subject matter or impact, whether or not the lease
was less than 7 years, or 3) the BRAG had requested either 1 or 2. The BRAG may, as
advisory to the ARRA, agendize such a matter for its consideration and recommendation to the
ARRA. 3
2In an August 1998 communication to you from Lee Perez, BRAG Chairperson, the
BRAG apparently understood our legal opinion to be that the BRAG is prohibited under the
Brown Act from soliciting or obtaining information or communicating with other boards or
commissions on matters relating to Alameda Point. This is not correct. The BRAG is not
prohibited from officially communicating with other City legislative or adjudicatory bodies, as
long as the matter is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the ARRA, and the communication
is consistent with an action or position that has been taken by ARRA.
3The BRAG was advised at the time that they could have requested that the Executive
Director place the decision to lease property to Antiques by the Bay before the ARRA and
thereby create subject matter jurisdiction to enable BRAG consideration of the matter for
recommendation to the ARRA. This was a matter within the discretion of the Executive
Director; it is our understanding that no such request was made of the Executive Director, and
James M. Flint
October 16, 1998
Page 3
Discussion
A legislative body may only act within its subject matter jurisdiction. 95 Ops. Atty.
Gen. 224 (1995). This concept is mirrored in the Brown Act at Government Code section
54954.3(a), in which it is specified that members of the public are allowed to speak to the
legislative body on a matter that is not agendized where the item is within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the legislative body. Subject matter jurisdiction is a legal constraint on the
authority of any legislative or adjudicatory body.
When applying the legal constraint of subject matter jurisdiction to the BRAG's ability
to agendize a matter or appear officially before other legislative bodies within the City, the
BRAG's role as advisory to the ARRA must be taken in consideration. As advisory to the
ARRA, the BRAG's subject matter jurisdiction is limited to matters which are or could be
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the ARRA.
Further, the BRAG's role as advisory to the ARRA, does not include developing
"positions" independent of the ARRA and communicating "BRAG positions" to other City .
legislative or advisory bodies, unless otherwise delegated to do so by the ARRA. This is
applicable even where the matter in question is within the ARRA's subject matter jurisdiction.
Certainly it would be inappropriate for the BRAG to communicate an official "BRAG
position" which is in conflict with a decision of the ARRA, to any body it does not advise. It
follows that it is not appropriate for the BRAG to communicate an official "BRAG position"
to any body it does not advise where the ARRA has not yet acted; such conduct exceeds the
role of the BRAG as advisory to the ARRA.
In conclusion, the BRAG may communicate with other legislative bodies within the
City on matters within its subject matter jurisdiction, and on which the ARRA has already
acted, where such communication is consistent the ARRA's position on the matter.
Teresa L. Highsmith
cc: Assistant City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Executive Director, ARRA
General Counsel
C: \/AWARD MENSLEY\BRAMBRAG2. MEM
the Antiques by the Bay lease was in fact approved by the Executive Director without any ARRA
Board action.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - department Memorandum
January 26, 1999
TO: James M. Flint
Executive Director, ARRA
FROM: Teresa L. Highsmith
Acting General Counsel •
?.V E a_.:
,IAN 2 71999
RE: Clarification of "Communication" for the Purposes of BRAG's role
as Advisory to the ARRA
Question
As follow up to an opinion dated 10 -16 -98 regarding the BRAG's role as an
advisory body to the ARRA, you have requested clarification regarding the BRAG's ability
to officially "communicate" with Iegislative bodies outside of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA ").
Answer
"Communication" is defined as any official statements, positions or inquiries,
written or verbal, offered through "use of direct communication, personal intermediaries,
or technological devices" in relating a collective concurrence of the BRAG to any
legislative or adjudicatory body outside of the ARRA. (See generally, Govt. C. §54952.2)
As stated in the opinion dated 10- 16 -98, the BRAG may communicate with other City
legislative or adjudicatory bodies as long as the matter is within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the ARRA and the communication is consistent with an action or position
that has been taken by the ARRA, or the ARRA otherwise requests such communications
be made by the BRAG.
Discussion
As an advisory body to the ARRA, the BRAG's role is to review and make
recommendations regarding matters which are within the subject mater jurisdiction of the
ARRA Board of Directors. (79 Ops. Atty. Gen. 69, 73 (1996)). This role does not extend
to officially communicating, either verbally or in writing, a BRAG position to any other
City legislative or adjudicatory body, unless delegated to do so by the ARRA.
James M. Flint
January 26, 1999
Page 2
This does not preclude individual members from expressing their personal opinion
as a part of any municipal hearing or meeting or other public testimony.
Teresa L. Highsmith
cc: Assistant City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Management Analyst, ARRA
10-mj. c: \ office \wpwin \wpdocs\mjones \brag.wpd
MEMORANDUM
November 18, 1998
From: Malcolm Mooney, Chair Ad Hoc Committee
To: Lee Perez, Chair BRAG
Subject: Report of Committee Meeting on BRAG Future Organization
The Ad Hoc committee you appointed to consider the fbture structure and service of the
BRAG met at Alameda Point, building 1, on Saturday, November 7, to discuss the issue.
All appointed members, except Diane, who had other commitments, were there.
After a review of previous BRAG actions on this subject and discussion of the City
Manager's objections thereto, a lively interchange of ideas and comments by all members
ensued. In the final analysis the following conclusions were reached and are presented for
consideration by the BRAG.
1. Our name should be changed to Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC). We
should not be a city commission.
2. Membership should remain as presently constituted including representation from
other city boards and commissions.
3. The organization should sunset in five years or such period as the governing body
shall select.
4. We should report to and serve at the pleasure of the City Council in its capacity as the
Local Reuse Authority for the Alameda Point redevelopment.
5. A statement of purpose should be added to our revised charter proposal The mission
statement is OK
6. We should be permitted to communicate with other city boards and commissions and
present commentary on matters related to the redevelopment of Alameda Point.
7. An appropriate representative of the city staff should be present at our monthly
meetings to provide information on implementation of the Reuse Plan including
planned or ongoing redevelopment and reuse activity.
8. Minimal staff support should be available for APAC meeting minutes and mailings
required to facilitate the business of the APAC.
A suggested purpose statement is as follows:
PURPOSE: To act as an experienced, diversified interest and knowledgeable
citizen organization focused on the coordinated redevelopment of Alameda Point in
accordance with the approved reuse plan developed by the residents of this city. To serve
as a forum for the receipt, exchange and dissemination of information and ideas between
special interest groups and individuals with respect to the progress and direction of
redevelopment activity. To make recommendations to the governing body with respect to
matters of concern to the citizens or the APAC.
MISSION: The Alameda Point Advisory Committee will provide community
input and advice, and advocate for the effective implementation of the Community Reuse
Plan for Alameda Point.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Members: Larry Schulz, Diane Lichtenstein, Andrine Smith, Joan Konrad,
and Helen Sause as citizen participant.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 3, 1999
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, District 3
Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember,°City of Alameda
Absent: Roberta Brooks, alternate for Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland
CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6, 1999.
2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special ARRA meeting of January 14, 1999.
2 -C. Receive report by the ARRA staff recommending the authorization to expend existing
City General Fund appropriation for Alameda Point activities.
2 -D. Receive report and recommendation by ARRA staff for approval of a six -month proposed
1999 budget for ARRA market rate housing lease revenue.
Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes as presented for January 6, 1999, and for
the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
1
ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Receive report and approval of the recommendations from the Base Reuse Advisory
Group (BRAG) and ARRA staff regarding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Management
Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Janice Delfino, Ohlone Audubon Society, 18673 Reamer Road, Castro Valley, requested
that Alternative C be considered. She noted that when the Navy turned over the property to U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, it would be up to the Service to encourage and increase the least tern
colony. She believed that the Service should protect the reason for establishing a refuge, and
then, as time goes by, provide for public access.
The public hearing was closed for Reuse Authority discussion.
Chair Appezzato noted that he visited with the Fish & Wildlife Service the week before, and
brought up some concerns. He mentioned that ARRA rejected the premise that the City of
Alameda should pay for predator control outside the wildlife refuge, and have asked the Service
to fund predator control outside the refuge. That was an early agreement with the Service when
the acreage was increased from 390 to 565 acres. Secretary Garamendi agreed in principle to
that, and ARRA asked to continue that principle. Chair Appezzato also had a face -to -face
discussion with Mr. Barry of the Fish & Wildlife Service, and they would do their best to fund
whatever is possible to make this a viable refuge.
Chair Appezzato also said that the beautiful land of the refuge should not be marred with the
chain link fence or barbed wire. The alternatives were not discussed, because the decision should
be worked out between the City of Alameda and the Wildlife Service.
He also indicated that the U.S. Navy was able to use the entry and exit from the carrier piers
without harm to the least tern.
Planner Elizabeth Johnson noted that all of the alternatives in the Management Plan were
consistent with the other restrictions that were discussed with Fish & Wildlife, and everything
had been worked out, with the exception of the predator fee.
Member Kerr noted that the proposed fence would not only be unattractive, but would also be
opaque, stretching from the Bay to the Estuary, and out to the Northwest Territories. She added
that the narrow channel created an unnecessary danger for small craft, and emphasized that she
wished to promote safety as much as possible.
Chair Appezzato noted that Mr. Barry's name should be added to the copy of the letter, and that
2
the Washington office should get a copy as well. He added that a restricted lagoon would not be
a viable option.
Alternate Ornelas shared the concern about the fence, especially the barbed wire on top and the
image it would project. She also questioned the need for the slatting on the fence. In response to
her question regarding the need for barbed wire, Planner Johnson responded that it was standard
issue in all urban refuges, to control access from people. An alternative is being sought for the
barbed wire.
Chair Appezzato noted that the people in Washington objected to an eight foot high barbed wire
fence, and that would be closely examined. Planner Johnson noted that a higher fence with no
slats would be effective, so that possible trespassers would see there was nothing to get to.
Chair Appezzato emphasized that the City was committed to making the Wildlife Refiige work,
and that tremendous compromises were made in the process. He noted that he would sign the
letter, and include the comments made during the public hearing.
Alternate Friedman moved approval of the staff recommendation, with comments. The
motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes —
5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
3 -B. Receive report of alternative recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA staff
regarding the no -cost leases for Buildings 77 and 41 for the Alameda Naval Air and Western
Aerospace Museum.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Douglas DeHaan, Alameda Naval Air Museum, 1305 Dayton Avenue, spoke in favor of the
issue. He noted the Museum would be a major impact in how the transportation issues would be
handled, especially during off - hours. The initial mission of the Museum was to be an education
conveyance; the BRAG has made it an economic conveyance as well.
Mr. Ron Reuther, ANAWAM, P.O. Box 14264, spoke in support of the proposed museum at
Alameda Point. He believed that the potential of this Museum had a strong relationship to his
experience as a zoo director. He noted that the Base Reuse Plan said that the Museum would
have the ability to lease both buildings. In addition, if the Museum did not require all the space it
requested, or if it did not succeed, the ARRA would be able to immediately lease the facilities to
other job - generating uses.
Ms. Nita Rosen, Alameda Naval Air and Western Air Museum, 1045 Island Drive, spoke in
favor of the issue. She will be a coordinator for the gift store at the Museum. She believed that
the sentiments of the Mayor, "Honor our past and imagine future" was especially relevant in
3
regard to the mission of the Museum.
Chair Appezzato emphasized that the primary issue was financing of the Museum.
Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, BRAG, 633 Sand Hook, noted that the revenue projections made by
staff for the Hornet attendance, and that there was a 200 percent increase in attendance. In
addition, there were 30,000 admissions to the Oakland Western Air Museums in the last year.
These figures lend credence to the projections, although she agreed with staff that the grant
projections were overly optimistic. While the $500,000 from the State would be greatly
appreciated, no check has yet been written.
Regarding construction costs, Ms. Lichtenstein noted that a very strong due diligence in that
regard. Professional estimators, architects and contractors were consulted, and the City has been
consulted regarding the realism of the financial figures. The business plan took an excessive
amount of time, which has been frustrating, although the effort is going in the right direction
now.
Ms. Lichtenstein noted that the Board assured the BRAG that they were on track, and she
recommended that they give them the few months to prove their performance. She noted that the
ARRA staff was doing its job — to lease Alameda Point — and over 1 million square feet have
been leased to date, bringing 1,000 to the Point. She noted that the potential of the Museum
would be well worth the wait; they are asking an additional five months. She noted that the
Museum was not meant to be a moneymaker, but if the ARRA could wait until July 1, 1999 to
make the lease permit.
Chair Appezzato noted that was a reasonable request. In response to the Chair's question
regarding what would happen between now and July 1, Ms. Lichtenstein responded that they
expected them to get the funding and have a strong business plan in hand.
Mr. Benjamin Hance, Western Aerospace Museum, noted that the launch of the Museum boiled
down to "show me the money." The Museum intended to use their own money to improve the
City's buildings, which he considered a fair trade. The City was not expected to support the
Museum. The use of Buildings 77 and 41 is seen as a unique opportunity, and they would like
the chance to enhance the opportunity.
Chair Appezzato noted that the ARRA supported the effort, but added that the Authority was also
charged with making the Base work. The major question before the ARRA has been where the
line should be drawn regarding viability. He added that the General Fund should not be used in
this project.
Mr. Jonathan Goldman, WAM/ANAWAM, 35 Embarcadero Cove, Oakland, noted that the
Museum was not asking for money from the General Fund, nor for capital contribution from the
City. They are asking for the opportunity to make their vision whole, which included the Hornet,
4
Building 77, and the indoor exhibit space that Hangar 41 would provide.
Chair Appezzato suggested that the staff should be directed to look for tenants for the space, to
provide additional incentive to the Museum Board , and the City would have a tenant for the
space. Mr. Goldman replied that the City and the Museum Board shared the same vision.
Mr. Franz Steiner, ANAWAM, 501 14th Street, Oakland, presented a visual presentation of the
vision for Building 77 and Hangar 41. In response to Member Daysog's question, Mr. Steiner
responded that the cost to occupy Hangar 41 and turn it into a museum was $450,000.
Considerable funds have been raised, but monies will be easier to obtain once the project is
further along.
Ms. Marilyn York, ANAWAM, noted that she would like to see Hangar 41 preserved as a
monument to the thousands of people who worked in Alameda, and made it a gateway to the
Pacific. She emphasized that their selfless dedication should be recognized, and their sacrifices
during World War II should be honored. She added that the once in a lifetime history that took
place on the home front in Alameda must be preserved.
Ms. Barbara Baack, Alameda Naval Air Museum, emphasized that it was important not to let the
aircraft deteriorate and suffer corrosion. These buildings are important for future generations to .
understand the military history of Alameda. Young people, seniors, and tour groups can benefit
from the combined museum effort, and she asked the Authority's support in delaying their
decision until July 1, 1999.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Chair Appezzato noted that he could support not terminating negotiations at this point. He
emphasized that the funds need to be raised, and did not want the City to be viewed as a
charitable organization.
Member Daysog supported Chair Appezzato in extending the decision until July 1, and also that
the ARRA should not turn away any prospective leaseholders during that time period.
Alternate Omelas supported the suggestion to delay the decision regarding the lease until July 1.
She expressed concern about allowing staff to market the property in a parallel effort, because it
may hinder the Museum Board's efforts to secure funding. It would be important to have a finite
deadline, however, to provide a catalyst to complete the business plan..
Member Kerr noted that Hangar 41 is not the only hangar on the Base that needs to be leased.
She noted that the $500,000 got through both houses in Sacramento, and reached the Governor's
desk. At that point, he decided to shift the money elsewhere, but it did gain the support of
Senator Perata. She considered it likely that with a new governor, the $500,000 could be
approved. She agreed that the deadline should be extended until the final deadline of July 1.
5
In response to Member Johnson's question regarding marketing efforts for the property, ARRA
Facilities Manager Ed Levine responded that they have intentionally not marketed the property.
It was offered on an exclusive basis to the Museum, but there have been inquiries on Hangar 41.
Mr. Levine noted that he has been hesitant to market it until the fate of the Museum has been
determined.
Chair Appezzato noted that it would be irresponsible to wait until July 2 to find an alternate
tenant.
Mr. Levine noted that staff's position is to assess the viability of the business plan, based largely
on whether the Museum Board has the money in hand to finance the project. If the plan was seen
to be viable, ARRA would recommend finalizing the details of the lease, and executing the lease.
In addition, any other potential renter would have to yield to the Museum.
Alternate Friedman moved approval to adopt the BRAG recommendation, and to extend
the deadline until July 1, 1999. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed
unanimously by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
3 -C. Receive BRAG report and recommendations regarding tourism as a means of economic
development at Alameda Point.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hugh McKay, McKay Associates/Muirhead Group, noted that tourism has not come forward
as a development issue in the past. He believed that tourism could create opportunities not only
for Alameda Point, but for the balance of the City as well. He added that the tourism efforts
could be fast - tracked, with the help of private enterprise to assist the museums and the parks. He
believed that a destination resort hotel with a five -star restaurant and 36 hole golf complex could
be implemented.
Mr. Ron Reuther, ANAWAM, P.O. Box 14264, spoke strongly in favor of the matter of tourism
for Alameda, and believed that the city site was unparalleled in the world. He added that the
more tourism destinations there were in the area, the more people would come to visit them.
Mr. Vince Mackel, 1020 Dayton, noted that the committee was in need of a master plan, which
would increase the attendance at both museums. He observed that the Reuse Plan was not a
master plan, and was more of a statement. He suggested that an outside professional group be
used to create a comprehensive tourism master plan to benefit the museums, and the community
at large. In addition, a master plan would be able to provide tangible evidence of the vision,
imagination and interpretations to financiers and other crucial parties.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
6
Member Daysog noted that the phrase "highest and best use" was a red flag for the Alameda
Point area. On one hand, a hotel could be a substantial revenue generator, but on the other hand,
it cuts into a separate vision of a recreation center. He noted that he did not buy off on point
number one at face value, and while it was true, there should be additional phrasing to suggest a
complementary or pre - existing community visions as established in the community reuse plan.
Member Daysog asked whether the proponents for the other golf course were involved in this
review process. Ms. Joan Konrad, BRAG, responded that they did not contact the Golf Course
Commission. They made an assumption that they wanted a revenue source from a golf course on
the Northwest Territory, and that they should have one that provided the most revenue. She
emphasized that a top quality development would attract more tourism to Alameda, and that the
details could be outlined at a later date. The Golf Course Commission would be involved in the
next phase.
Member Daysog noted that the Muirhead Golf Course would be bigger, and would be a greater
revenue source.
Ms. Konrad did not believe there was a contradiction with the Reuse Plan. Ms. Johnson noted
that a revenue generation criterion could lock the ARRA into a corner.
Member Daysog suggested adding the phrase to Item number 1, "consistent with the community
reuse plan."
Member Johnson agreed with Chair Appezzato's suggestion of putting in the phrase "highest and
best use," and recognizing revenue generation.
Ms. Lichtenstein suggested that it would clarify the issue to say, "the objectives of the
development of the Northwest Territory and Northern Shores should include the following." She
suggested omitting the development of a golf course complex, because the golf course is not
being alluded to. They are alluding to the concept that tourism in that area should be an
important component of the economic viability.
Chair Appezzato noted that the Base Reuse Plan is undergoing EIS/EIR review, and cannot be
changed dramatically without affecting that process.
Member Johnson noted that the language should be changed to, "... of a quality consistent with
the goal of tourism."
Member Kerr questioned whether this was a good time to pass an item like this, given the fragile
state of the EIR.
Member Daysog responded that by declaring a reaffirmation of the goals and principles, the
ARRA would be saying they are not changing the Reuse Plan. Chair Appezzato noted that it was
7
extremely critical to stay with the current Reuse Plan.
Member Daysog moved acceptance of the BRAG recommendations and report, with the
modifications. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson and passed by the following
voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
3 -D. Receive BRAG report and recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA staff regarding
the future role and responsibilities of the BRAG.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers on this item.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Mr. Lee Perez, BRAG Chair, noted that the BRAG and ARRA recommendations were the same,
except for one item. The only difference was in regard to who they could advise and work with.
The relationship should change in a few months, and the difference in that sense is minor.
Chair Appezzato agreed, providing it continues to evolve, and that the BRAG makes changes as
it sees it better supports the mission of the BRAG and the Reuse Authority.
In response to Member Daysog's question regarding City Council's designation of the Reuse
Authority after the ARRA sunsets, City Counsel Highsmith responded that the Joint Powers
Agreement could allow a vote at the end of April to terminate the ARRA. Alternatively, the.
body could choose to reconstitute the form of its membership. In order to take conveyance of the
property, the City needs a Local Reuse Authority to continue in some form through the point in
time where the conveyance of all the property has been accepted.
In addition, Counsel Highsmith advised that the letterhead would still say "ARRA" on it.
Member Johnson advised that this was a significant issue, especially whether the BRAG had the
ability to comment on matters within its jurisdiction to other boards or commissions.
Chair Appezzato noted that as long as the issue is within the subject matter jurisdiction of
ARRA, and the communication is consistent with previous positions taken by the ARRA, then
BRAG may communicate that position to other commissions.
Mr. Perez advised that the BRAG has had no interest in going beyond the BRAG's scope of
issues regarding the Base conversion. The BRAG would like the freedom from time to time to
maintain ongoing communication with others boards and commissions. He noted that once the
ARRA is reconstituted, this issue will be easier to change.
8
Counsel Highsmith advised that a BRAG member could communicate as a private citizen. Any
member of the BRAG could do so if the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the ARRA
to which they are advisory, and was consistent with an existing ARRA position.
Chair Appezzato noted that even City Council members are not able to appear before the
Planning Board, for instance, and speak on behalf of the Council.
Council Highsmith advised that the BRAG is in an advisory position to the ARRA, but not to the
Planning Board.
Mr. Perez emphasized that the BRAG was fluid, and that if changes were necessary, they would
make them.
Member Daysog noted that the phrase "as the committee shall select" was very good, but
wondered why a five year sunset period was selected. In addition, he believed that it should be
stated that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee is not a redevelopment project area
committee as defined by California Redevelopment law, as amended.
Member Daysog moved acceptance of the BRAG recommendations and report, with the
modifications. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following
voice vote: Ayes — 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions -0.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Bill Smith, 732 Central #16, noted that the tourism industry lacked an advocate, and
suggested that an additional consultant or tourist agency be used to facilitate communication
between all parties in the tourism effort.
The general meeting was closed by Chair Appezzato at 7:55 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Respectfully submitted,
glatS 71K(14)
Cory Sims
9
Proposed New t3KAV mIssIon
Statement and Purpose
MISSION STATEMENT OF THE
ALAMEDA POINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The mission of the Alameda Point Advisory. Committee (APAC) is to
advocate for implementation of the goals and objectives of the Community
Reuse Plan to create economic vitality and enhanced quality of life through
effective integration of the former naval base into the City of Alameda.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the APAC is to represent the community as stakeholder
throughout the development of Alameda Point; to serve as an experienced,
diversified citizen organization dedicated to ensuring that the Community
Reuse Plan is implemented; to represent the community by taking in and
disseminating information; and to advise the local reuse authority based on
citizen input.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Ensure implementation of Community Reuse Plan for Alameda Point.
2 Study and make recommendations with respect to matters which affect
development and effective implementation at Alameda Point.
3. Advise about public opinion on Alameda Point development issues.
Advocate for economically sound implementation of Community Reuse
Plan from interim through long term use.
5. Create channels of communication by which the APAC can be advised
of development proposals for Alameda Point pending before relevant
boards and commissions prior to their approval and implementation.
6. Hold community meetings to inform the public of development
activities and solicit public input.
Correspondence /
Miscellaneous
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Interim Leasing Status Report - May 2000
Revised Interimleasexls
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
Alameda Aerospace (Advanced Turbine Tech.)
long term
398
32,000
4
Alameda Aerospace (Tower Aviation)
long term
530
82250
5
Alameda Point Storage (Mini Storage)
long teen
Near Bldg. 530
Ground Lease
6
Alameda Point Collaborative (Warehouse)
long term
92
89,000
7
Alameda Point Collaborative (Office, etc.)
long term
101
88,650
8
Alameda Unified-School District (Child Care Cntr)
long term
258
12,430
9
AVTS (Audio Visual Technical Services)
long tern
22
66,000
10
Antiques by the Bay (Collectibles Faire)
long term
Tarmac & 405
4,880
11
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
long tern
292
2,700
12
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
long tens
25 (Bay 1)
17,000
13
Bladium (Indoor Games)
long term
40
104,000
14
Bobac (Warehouse)
long term
Bldg 2 FISC
110,000
15
Alameda Power & Telecom (Storage Yard)
long term
at FISC
16
CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator)
long term
20
66,600
17
Cellular One (Cell Site)
long term
Near Bldg. 360
Ground Lease
18
City of Alameda (Dog Run Park)
long tern
along estuary
19
City of Alameda (Ferry Terminal Parking)
long term
along estuary
20
City of Alameda (Fire Dept Training)
long term
522
2,400
21
City of Alameda (Gym & Pool) -
long term
76 &134
58,450
22
City of Alameda (O'Club)
long term
60
29,550
23
City of Alameda (Police Department)
long term
494
2,850
24
City of Alameda (Public Works storage)
long term
397
17,000
25
City of Alameda (Soccer Field)
long term
east of Bldg 360
26
City of Alameda (Tennis Courts)
long term
west of O'Club
27
Container Storage (Cans)
long term
338
42,000
28
CyberTran International (Test Track)
short tern
EW Runway
29
Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays)
long term
39
110,000
30
Delphi Productions
long tern
117 West
32,000
31
Dignity Housing (Homeless Coll.)
long term
103,105,809,810
4.400
32
Door Christian Fellowship Church
long term
564
8,600
33
Dunavant of Catifomta (Storage)
long term
Bldg 2 FISC
170,000
34
Emerg. Svcs, Network (Office)
long term
613
4,600
35
Foram Metal Manufacturing
long term
114
46,133
36
Forty Plus (Career Counseling)
long term
90
4,500
37
Fribel Intematl. (Concrete Statuary)
long tern
98
8,507
38
Gen. Svcs. Admin. (Maritime Museum Storage)
long term
169
86,300
39
Home Auto Repair
long term
459
5,400
• 40
Housing Units (Big White/Ranch Style/Twnhse)
long term
68 units
50,000
41
WA Engineers (steel Fabrication)
long term
113
13,100
42
JBi, Inc.
tong term
170 North
40,000
43
Jim Bustos Plumbing
long term
612
4,000
44
Lexical
long term
527 West
6,000
45
Manex Entertainment
long term
62
16,473
46
Manex Entertainment
long term
13
34,540
47
Manex Entertainment
long term
19
27,650
48
Maritime Administration
long term
Piers 1,2,3
49
Maritime Administration (Warehouse/Office)
long term
168
117,419
50
Marine Sanitation
long term
611
1,000
51
NB Industries (aka Carstar)
long term
24 - Bay 3
26,927
52
Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfg.)
long term
14
31,400
53
Nelson's Marine (Boat Repair 8 Storage)
long tern
167 & piers
55,450
54
Nelson's (subletting to various businesses)
long term
66
28,542
55
Operation Dignity (Homeless Collaborative)
long term
816 - 821
15,000
56
Orton Development
long tern
portion of 5
110,000
57
Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Foot Preparation)
long term
42
3,000
58
Performance Multihull
long term
608
8,213
59
Piedmont Soccer
1 year
soccer field
60
Port Distribution & Warehousing
long term
117 East
22,000
61
Port Distribution & Warehousing
long term
118 West
60,800
62
Puglia Engr. (Ship Repair)
long term
87
14,000
63
RCD (Homeless Collaborative)
long tern
various units
8,000
64
Quality Assured Products (valve Mfg..)
long term
21
66,000
65
Richard Miller Photography
long term
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
Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.)
long term
393
Ground Lease
69
Trident Management
1 year
FISC Wharf
Ground Lease
70
Trident Management
long tern
15
16,600
71
United Indian Nations (Homeless Collaborative)
long term
various units
6,000
72
University Avenue Housing
long term
various units
40,000
73
Waters,Caidweli & 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
NO. OF EMPLOYEES
1,846
NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED
75
OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
2,270,331
Revised Interimleasexls