2000-09-06 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Wednesday, September 6, 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 special meeting of June 6, 2000.
2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special closed session meeting of June 20, 2000.
2 -C. Report and recommendation from the Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic
Development to approve the annual audit for fiscal year 1998 -1999.
2 -D. Report and recommendation by the Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic
Development for approval of the FY 2000 -2001 ARRA Fund Budget.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Report from the Development Services Director recommending that the ARRA approve the
disposition strategy of engaging a Master Developer for Alameda Point and to authorize
staff to proceed with the selection process for such a Developer.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from APAC.
4 -B. Oral report from the Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development
(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.)
ARRA Agenda - September 6, 2000 Page 2
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, October 4, 2000.
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 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
AMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, June 6, 2000
1. CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA
The closed session was canceled and rescheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 2000. Chair
Appezzato convened the special meeting at 8:49 pm.
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 May 3, 2000.
3 -B. Recommendation to approve continuing resolution authorizing payment of Alameda
Point obligations at existing levels until adoption of the FY 2001 -2002 Operating Budget.
Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of
May 3, 2000 and the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4. ACTION ITEMS
4 -A. Recommendation to approve a Resolution Adopting Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station, Alameda.
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 DeWitt and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
-1-
4 -B. Recommendation for the approval of the Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States Government (Navy) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for
conveyance of portions of Naval Air Station, Alameda.
The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers on this item.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Member Daysog moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member DeWitt and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4 -C. Recommendation to approve the Lease in Furtherance Conveyance between the United
States Government (Navy) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the
Naval Air Station including East Housing.
The public hearing was opened.
Eve Bach of Arch Ecology, stated the copies of the materials for this item were not outside on
the table and the agenda of the meeting was not posted on the City's website. After the recess
called by Chair Appezzato, Ms. Bach stated she has seen the resolutions for the LIFOC and the
previous two action items, which she had not seen. Over a month ago, she subscribed to the
ARRA for the agenda and minutes and said she did not receive it. It has been almost impossible
for the public to follow these particular items on the conveyance. Ms. Bach stated that she hopes
the Board would make it more accessible for the public to know what is being acted upon.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
A letter from Tom McDonnell , State of California Department of Transpiration was introduced
and distributed to the Board.
Member Kerr moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Johnson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
5. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A. Oral report from the APAC.
Chair Lee Perez thanked the Board for their continued support on the restructuring of the APAC.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
- 2 -
7. COMMUNICATIONS r'ROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully,
L retia Akil
ARRA Secretary
APPROVED
ES OF THE SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, June 20, 2000
CLOSED SPECIAL SESSION
The special session was convened at 7:00 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding to address the
following item:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Attendees: Chair Appezzato, Member DeWitt, Member Kerr, Member Johnson and Member
Daysog.
Chair Appezzato announced the Board had met in special session and gave instructions to Real
Property Negotiators. No action was taken. Chair Appezzato adjourned the special session at
7:20 p.m.
retia Akil
ARRA Secretary
2-C 1
City of Alameda
Inter-department Memorandum
TO: Chair and Members of the Board of
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Zenda James
Finance Director
DATE: July 24, 2000
SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF:
1) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority General Purpose
Financial Statements for the Years ended October 31, 1999 and
1998
2) Single Audit Report Year Ended October 31, 1999
3) Internal Control Memorandum with Our Responses
Transmitted herewith are the above-referenced documents for your review and
acceptance.
Discussion/Analysis
Single Audit Report
There are no findings or questioned costs required to be reportable under OMB Circular
A-133 Section 1510(a).
General Purpose Financial Statements
These statements are for period ending October 31, 1999. The ARRA has approved the
change in its reporting period to coincide with the City's fiscal year-end of June 30;
therefore, the next report will cover November 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000.
Internal Control Memorandum
The auditors have made recommendations on internal controls and these are attached with
our responses.
Budget/Financial Impacts
There is no impact on the City of Alameda's General Fund. It is important to note that the
funds segregated in ARRA's books under "General Fund" are essentially lease revenues
and are used primarily for the agency's reuse efforts.
Chair and Members of the Board of
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
July 24, 2000
Page Two
Funds remaining in the Capital Projects Account at October 31, 1999 are bond proceeds
and earmarked for capital projects within the project area.
Recommendation
The reports are recommended for approval. The auditors, Maze and Associates, and staff
will be available to answer questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Zenda James
Finance Director
Attachment
cc: Kevin Kearney, City Auditor
Maria Giannelli, Maze & Associates
c: \cfd \wp \glaudit2
ARRA Audit 1998/99
Response to Maze & Associates findings of ARRA Housing Revenues:
07/19/00
The audited financial statements and Memorandum of Internal Control are not approved by the
ARRA Governing Body. To ensure that the Board members are fully informed of the annual
audit, these reports should be formally presented to the Board for their review and approval.
• Action: It will be presented to the Board for their approval.
ARRA contracts with real estate firm, Gallagher & Lindsey, for rental management services at
Alameda Point. Fiscal 1998 & 1999's rental activities were recorded in ARRA's general ledger by
a series of audit adjusting entries, as part of the October 31, 1999 financial statement audit. On an
ongoing basis, we understand the ARRA is to receive monthly statements provided by Gallagher
& Lindsey.
The ARRA should review and reconcile each report received from Gallagher & Lindsey to the
previous month's statements, and investigate any variances promptly. All rental activity should
be recorded monthly in ARRA's general ledger. In addition, periodic samples of rental
agreements should be selected and verified.
Action: Since the audit, Gallagher & Lindsey has been sending monthly income and expense
reports along with a copy of the bank statement and reconciliation to Alameda Point
Administration and the City of Alameda's Finance Department for review. Journal entries have
been posted to record monthly activities. Periodic samples of rental agreements will be selected
and verified by Alameda Point Leasing and Property Management staff.
We confirmed that there is a separate bank account for the Alameda Point rentals. It's a general
business checking account in the name of Gallagher & Lindsey and not a government agency
checking account. This account is only $100,000 FDIC insured even though the account balance
has been greater than $100,000 and reached $758,000 by March 2000. The account is non interest
bearing.
The ARRA should open an account in its own name to ensure compliance with the California
Government Code. This account should maintain the $5,000 balance indicated in the agreement
between ARRA and Gallagher & Lindsey; all other funds should be deposited in an interest
bearing account under the City's control. As part of the monthly accounting cycle, a check should
be issued to the ARRA for cash balances in excess of the $5,000 at the end of each month.
Action: Gallagher & Lindsey now transfers the funds less a balance of $5,000 to the City on a
monthly basis. Steps are in process to set up a new account for the Alameda Point rentals in the
City's name.
1
On our first visit to Gallagher & Lindsey's office, they were unable to provide bank
reconciliations for this account. Subsequent to our visit, Gallagher & Lindsey's accountant
reconciled the bank account from November 1998 through December 1999 only. The ARRA
should require that bank reconciliation be performed monthly and a responsible ARRA official
should review the reconciliation each month.
• Action: Bank reconciliations have been done on statements March 1998 to October 1999, the end
of this audit period. Monthly income /expense report and bank reconciliation have been
submitted to ARRA and the City for review.
The accounting records produced by Gallagher & Lindsey from March 1998 through February
2000 were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals and the
detail of the transactions each month did not agree to the summary reports produced. Gallagher
& Lindsey has been made aware of this and has revised their accounting.
• Gallagher & Lindsey has revised their reporting to the ARRA and the City by providing a
detailed monthly activity report.
During our review of Gallagher & Lindsey rent collection procedures, we noted that one of their
employees receives the checks from tenants, records the revenue in the system, and is responsible
for maintaining the bank account. These rent checks include her own, since she is a tenant in one
of the units. This employee also requests services and supplies, receives invoices, issues the checks
and records the disbursements into the system. The ARRA should require Gallagher & Lindsey
to segregate some of these duties and assign them to another employee in order to provide some
level of internal control over ARRA transactions. This same employee rents one of the Alameda
Point units. We noted during our testing that this individual's rent was usually late and as of
March 31, 2000 was late a cumulative total of 514 days and should have been charged $2,570 in
late fees. No late fees were charged.
• Action: The Gallagher & Lindsey comptroller now handles the processing of rents and the
payment of invoices to segregate duties.
•
Tenant rents are due on the first of the month. The date shown on the activity report is the date
the rents are posted to the system which may be several days after the tenant paid their rent.
Also, the employee in question moved out of one unit and lived with a relative for two months
while the unit they were going to move into was being upgraded. This transition period, along
with the difference in rent posting dates, accounts for the "days rent is late" as noted by the audit.
• Gallagher & Lindsey did not enforce the late fee policy unless a tenant was chronically late.
They will, however, now notify tenants that the late fee policy will be enforced.
We noted that tenants' security deposits are deposited in a Gallagher & Lindsey bank account
because they usually include the rental charge Gallagher & Lindsey requires of all new tenants.
Gallagher & Lindsey then issues a check to the ARRA account for the amount of the security
deposit collected from the tenants. The ARRA should require that all security deposits be directly
deposited to ARRA's account.
2
• Action: Gallagher & Lindsey uses a Client -Trust Account for these deposits which is regular
practice for Gallagher & Lindsey. However, now they will request that tenants provide two
checks - one to the City account for security deposit and rent, and one to Gallagher & Lindsey
for their rental fees.
We also noted that one of the Alameda Point units is rented to one of the owners of Gallagher &
Lindsey, who moved from a unit renting at $1,900 per month to a unit renting at $4,000 per month
as of September 1999; however the rent paid was only $1,900 instead of $4,000 for the month of
September 1999. After we inquired about the rental amount, Gallagher & Lindsey produced a
check for $4,000 dated February 2000.
• The units were required to be brought up to code and needed a Certificate of Occupancy prior to
being available for rental. During the period in question, the unit was expected to be available on
October 1, 1999 and was booked as such. The Certificate of Occupancy was approved earlier
than expected, and the tenants were able to move in on September 1st. The change in rental fee
was not noted on the books for September, but the tenant did pay the increased rental amount for
the subsequent months.
During our testing of rental receipts, we noted that one of the rental units is occupied by an
employee of Gallagher & Lindsey, and the rent paid for the unit is $800 per month. We found
that the market rate for similar units is $1,800. We understand that Gallagher & Lindsey asked
for $1,000 discount on a rental unit, but the agreement signed by the Board does not allow for any
discount. The ARRA should either amend the Agreement or the Gallagher & Lindsey employee
should pay fair market value for this unit retroactively to their move -in date.
• Action: This was a verbal agreement approved when Gallagher & Lindsey's contract was
negotiated. The contract has been amended by the City Attorney's office to include this term.
We found that some vendors invoices are written in pencil.
• Action: The vendor who submitted invoices in pencil has been asked to submit them in pen or
typewritten.
We also noted that checks were issued by Gallagher & Lindsey to ARRA without any invoice.
ARRA calls and requests a check be made to ARRA or City of Alameda and checks are issued.
The ARRA should require that a written request or an invoice be used for all disbursements to
ARRA or the City other than the monthly check recommended under "Cash ". ARRA
disbursements to Gallagher & Lindsey Inc for management fees are also made without any
invoice. The ARRA should require that an invoice be created by Gallagher & Lindsey and
approved by the ARRA for payment, as is called for in the Agreement between the City of
Alameda and Gallagher & Lindsey.
Gallagher & Lindsey now transfers funds less a balance of $5,000 to the City on a monthly basis.
This does not require an invoice. Gallagher & Lindsey will provide management fee calculation
documentation for payment of their management fee.
3
The agreement between ARRA and Gallagher & Lindsey states that no single improvement or
repair exceeding $500 will be made without ARRA's approval. It does not appear that this
procedure is being followed.
•
Gallagher & Lindsey's Property Manager and the Alameda Point Business & Special Projects
Manager were in verbal communication for improvements that require approval. They have
agreed to document these approvals in the future.
ARRA staff do not perform any site visitation or monitoring of rehabilitation work done to the
Alameda Point units. ARRA should monitor and visit the units to ensure work is done and that is
done adequately. Additionally, the ARRA should require Gallagher & Lindsey to provide an
accounting by unit of the work done.
•
The Alameda Point Business & Special Projects Manager has done walk - through inspections on
units completed. Alameda Point Facilities staff will make more regular site visitations and
inspections to monitor ongoing work.
Expenditures incurred for major rehabilitation work done to the rental units did not follow the
City and ARRA's purchasing policy. The ARRA attorney should review the agreement with
Gallagher & Lindsey to determine if they are exempt from following the City and ARRA's
purchasing policy.
Action: The City Attorney's office has been asked to write a legal finding on this matter. It was
ARRA's understanding that since ARRA contracted with G &L to handle the Housing activities,
Gallagher & Lindsey was exempt from the City and ARRA's purchasing policy.
We tested a selection of the Gallagher & Lindsey vendors who provided goods and services
charged to Alameda Point. We found that some vendors do not have City of Alameda business
licenses, and two vendors who have done work that requires a contractor's license do not have
one. The ARRA should require that vendors be required to have both a City of Alameda business
license and a contractor license when they perform work that requires a contractor license.
Of the fourteen vendors selected for testing, four are approved vendors per the agreement between
ARRA and Gallagher & Lindsey, two are suppliers and eight are not approved.
• We are waiting for the City Attorney's finding on the purchasing policy. Gallagher & Lindsey
required that all vendors show proof of licensing initially. They will send notice to all vendors to
show proof that their, licenses are current.
We also found that two vendors only had a P.O. box number as their place of business. The
ARRA should require that all vendors also provide a business address that is not a P.O. box
number.
• Gallagher & Lindsey has told us that they do require a street address from vendors if their
primary address is a P.O. Box, and they will watch this more closely in the future.
4
We also performed site visits at vendors recorded business addresses and noted the following:
The address given for one vendor (Dimond Roofing) which provides roofing services is occupied
by a used car broker.
• Dimond Roofing is listed in the Alameda City phone book at 2512 Blanding Avenue. His State
of California contractor's license #500845 is current and active. He has been licensed with the
City of Alameda since July 1981, license #001239, current through June 1999. At October 31,
1999 he was delinquent. Both licenses list the same address.
Another vendor (George Thayer) was not at the address in the disbursement files. We were later
given another address by Gallagher & Lindsey staff.
• According to Gallagher & Lindsey, Mr. Thayer had moved, and that is the reason Gallagher &
Lindsey gave the auditors another address. State of CA contractor's license #711.810 is current
and active. Mr. Thayer does not have a city business license, and Gallagher & Lindsey will
notify him that he is required to do so.
At the address given for another vendor (Super Rooter) there did not appear to be a business by
that name.
The City of Alameda Business License division shows Super Rooter as a valid business name:
William Faler, owner, 2236 Mariner Square Drive, Apt 15, Alameda, CA. Licensed with the city
since 1988, Business license #008001 is current.
One of the vendors (David Rolfe) providing handyman services is a tenant in an apartment
building managed by Gallagher & Lindsey. He is not listed in the agreement between ARRA and
Gallagher & Lindsey as an approved vendor.
• Mr. Rolfe is a resident manager in an apartment building managed by Gallagher & Lindsey. His
business license #021143 with the City of Alameda is current.
The street address given for another vendor (Total Tree Care) is actually the street address of the
Bay Point Post Office.
• Total Tree Care
Mailing Address: 646 Port Chicago Highway, P.O. Box 5343, Bay Point, CA 94565
Street Address: 4709 Evora, Concord, CA 94520
State of California contractor license #660013 is current and active.
City of Alameda business license #016387 is current and active.
Total Tree Care is also used by the City of Alameda's Recreation & Park Department and Public
Works for tree maintenance service around the city.
5
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
TO: Chair and Members of the Board of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kevin Kearney
Elected Auditor
DATE: July 27, 2000
SUBJECT: INTERNAL CONTROL MEMORANDUM - ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
I have reviewed the internal control memorandum prepared by Maze and Associates as
part of their audit engagement for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for
the period ending October 31, 1999. I have also reviewed the responses from staff and
am confident that appropriate corrective actions have been undertaken or are underway
such that subsequent audits will be much smoother.
Kevin Kearney
Elected Auditor
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
August 29, 2000
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger,
Assistant City Manager
2-D
SUBJECT: Report and recommendation by the Assistant City Manager for approval of
FY2000 -2001 Alameda Point Budget
Background:
At the April 5, 2000 meeting, the ARRA approved to change its fiscal year, from November
through October, to conform with the City's fiscal year, which runs July through June. In doing
so, Alameda Point Administration's budget was prepared using a 2 -year budget cycle rather than
the annual cycle.
On May 31, 2000, ARRA saw the ending of the Cooperative Agreement. Thus, some costs were
incurred by ARRA relating to operations and maintenance of Alameda Point. However, on June
6, the City, ARRA, and the United States Navy signed the MOU to convey portions of the
property for City use. The financial significance of this event gives ARRA the go -ahead to use
bond proceeds to fund Alameda Point capital improvement projects. Attachment 2 shows the
city projects that bond proceeds will now fund.
APA applied for extension on an existing OEA grant. The extension was given, along with
additional funding, which will be used for environmental services in order to comply with
USFWS mandates. In addition, ARRA is in the process of completing documents for an EPA
award of $100,000 (this amount was not calculated in the budget); to be used this fiscal year, as
part of a Superfund pilot program.
Discussion:
The budget is a concerted effort by the Alameda Point Administration team and other city
departments. It is a reflection of the success city staff has had in providing excellent services
while promoting the development of Alameda Point.
Fiscal Impact:
The sources of revenue include the fund balance from ARRA lease revenues, OEA and EDA
grants with matching funds from tenants, ARRA lease revenues and bond proceeds. Total
revenue is $19,519,033. The proposed budget continues service levels by the ARRA along with
several capital improvement projects. The total expenditure of funds is $19,219,754 leaving an
unappropriated fund balance of $299,279.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 29, 2000
Page 2
The following is the proposed budget for FY 2000 -2001:
Alameda Point Administration $1,806,355
This amount pays for the salaries and benefits of Alameda Point personnel. In addition, it funds five
positions that are outside the division. Also included are expenses, which are normally incurred
while doing business, such as legal advice, consultant services, travel costs and other general office
expenditures. (The administrative services formerly provided by the Cooperative Agreement are
included in this item.)
Alameda Point Operating and Maintenance Functions $2,165,000
This includes funding for contractual services for port operation, housing and building maintenance,
FISC interim leasing maintenance /operations, and insurance.
Law Enforcement $517,522
This continues the current level of service by the Alameda Police Department.
Fire Prevention $1,417,475
This continues the level of fire prevention service currently provided by the Alameda Fire
Department.
Building Maintenance $617,795
These funds include personnel and contractual services and costs associated with maintenance to all
city leased, occupied and vacant buildings at Alameda Point. In addition, to develop proposal/
System for inspecting and identifying City building repair issues.
Roads and Grounds $612,168
This includes personnel and contractual services, contractual grounds keeping services, street, street
light, and sidewalk repair. This year an inventory of trees at Alameda Point will be taken for
inclusion in the City data base.
Electric Power $802,500
This includes costs for Alameda Power and Telecommunications (AP &T) service to all city
buildings, street lights and transformers that must be maintained in vacant buildings. AP &T and
Alameda Point staff are currently developing strategies to reduce these costs.
Water $984, 628
This includes personnel and contractual services, water service to Alameda Point and repairs
performed by EBMUD associated with the maintenance agreement.
Sanitary Sewers $531,166
This includes personnel and contractual services, outside structural and grounds repairs, manhole
replacements and continues the level of service provided to maintain the sanitary sewer system.
Employees will also be trained and certified on OSHA standards regarding confined- space.
Storm Water $198,038
This includes personnel and contractual services, equipment maintenance and rental, manhole
replacements and continues the level of service provided by the Cooperative Agreement.
C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\ARRAfy00- 01.doc
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 29, 2000
Page 3
Telecommunications $171,200
This includes contractual services related to testing, repair and upgrades to the existing
telecommunications system. Much of this work is done to accommodate the high -tech needs of
tenants locating to Alameda Point.
Alameda Point Capital Improvement Projects $5,184,050
This includes the projects outlined in Attachment 3. The projects are related largely to the water
system health and safety upgrades and improvements to the sanitary sewers and electrical system.
EDA Capital Improvement Projects $4,211,857
This includes personnel and contractual services and expenditures related to building upgrades
included in the EDA grant awards. Tenants are required to provide matching funds for buildings in
which they have a lease interest.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve the FY 2000-
2001 Alameda Point budget.
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Assistant City Manager
By: Nanette Banks
Special Projects and Business Manager
Attachment: 1) Alameda Point Budget — Fiscal 2000 -2001
2) Capital Improvement Programs Funded by ARRA for 2000 -2001
NB:gis
C: \WINDOWS \TEM P\ARRAfy00- 01.doc
R EVENUES 1
1
Attachment 1
ALAMEDA POINT BUDGET - FISCAL 2000 -01
Carry Over:
Leases
Grants:
Operating
Capital
EXPENDITURES
AP Administration $ 1,806,355
$ 2,043,759 AP O &M 2,165,000
Law Enforcement 517,522
$ Fire Prevention 1,417,475
480,000 Building Maintenance 617,795
1,581,857 Roads And Grounds 612,168
1,800,000 Electric Power 802,500
Tenant Match 350,000 Water 984,628
Sub Total $ 4,211,857 Sanitary Sewers 531,166
Storm Drains 198,038
Lease Revenues - Current Year $ 6,296,087 Telephone /Cable 171,200
Subtotal $ 9,823,847
AP Lease Revenue Bond Proceeds
Alameda Point $ 6,967,330 AP Bond Fund
$ 5,184,050
$ 6,967,330
Capital - Grant/Others
Total Revenues $ 19,519,033 Grant $ 480,000
Grant 1,581,857
Grant 1,800,000
Tenant Match 350,000
Subtotal $ 4,211,857
Proposed expenditures $ 19,219,754
Estimated Fund Balance - 6/30/01 $ 299,279
APfy00- 01.x!s
Attachment 2
Capital Improvement Programs Funded by ARRA
For 2000-2001
AP - Bldg. Weatherproofing $ 100,000
AP - Electrical Pier Upgrades $ 175,000
AP - Estuary Sewer Relocation $ 1,800,000
AP - Misc. Roof Repairs $ 50,000
AP - Officer's Club Roof $ 750,000
AP - Sewer Upgrades $ 150,000
AP - Sidewalk Repair $ 30,000
AP - Storm Upgrades $ 100,000
AP - Street Light Repair $ 30,000
AP - Street Light Upgrade $ 100,000
AP - Survey $ 135,000
AP - Water Leak Detection $ 30,000
AP - Water Upgrades — Phase 1 $ 1,513,050
City Permit Streamlining Study $ 50,000
Citywide Aerial Photos $ 30,000
Citywide Traffic Capacity Ordinance $ 50,000
Public Works — Work Flow Analysis $ 15,000
Zoning Ordinance Update $ 51.000
TOTAL $ 5.184,050
C:\My Documents\ 8200att2.doc
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
August 31, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Doug Yount, Development Services Director
Pf�
Report from the Development Services Director recommending that the ARRA
approve the disposition strategy of engaging a Master Developer for Alameda Point
and to authorize staff to proceed with the selection process for such a Developer
Background:
In April, the ARRA hired a consultant team consisting of Jim Musbach, Economic Planning Systems
and Alexander "Duke" Bascom, Bascom Venture Partners to assist in re- evaluating the development
disposition strategy for Alameda Point. The December 1998 Alameda Point Business Plan,
contained a disposition strategy that presumed the Navy would remediate contaminated sites based
on a published clean-up schedule, and transfer "clean" property that, in turn, would allow the City
to sell five development "packages" to one or more parcel developers. During the early phase of our
negotiation last fall, following passage of the no -cost EDC legislation, the Navy asked staff to
consider taking much of NAS as a Sec. 334 early transfer, with the intention that the City engage
a single "master" developer to simultaneously perform the clean -up (at the Navy's expense) and
install back -bone infrastructure to support redevelopment.
During Phase One of the evaluation process, the consultants interviewed city staff to answer two
questions: (1) what is the capacity of the city to handle the redevelopment of NAS? ; and (2) what
is the appropriate role for City during the redevelopment process? In Phase Two, the EPS/BVP
consultant team interviewed eleven development companies to test market interest in a master
developer for NAS.
The consultants approached the eleven developers with the same set of questions. The questions
were compiled and included in the disposition strategy report, previously submitted to you for
review. In general, all of the developers found Alameda Point to be highly desirable and possessed
enormous development potential. Even with the identified constraints such as environmental issues
and refuge obligations, the market responded positively to this project.
Discussion:
The consultants used the findings from these interviews, along with their expertise and experience
from other closed military base conversions in which they have been involved, to evaluate the
complex challenges facing the redevelopment of NAS. The following is a summary of the key
recommendations:
1. The City of Alameda should define its role as providing city policies and services, as well
as overseeing the NAS disposition, coordinating public financing for infrastructure, and
managing the development and disposition contract.
2. The City of Alameda should engage a master developer for the entirety of NAS (excluding
the golf course) and avoid inefficiencies as well as conflicts inherent to parcelization.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 31, 2000
Page 2
3. The brownfield sector can pursue the NAS opportunity by joining the master developer team,
but there is no benefit to pursuing this sector as an alternative to a traditional developer.
4. The asset management should be offered as part of the solicitation, with the city prepared to
have a selected master developer act as its advisor or agent for these services during the
exclusive right to negotiate period.
5. The City should begin its solicitation for a master developer as expeditiously as possible in
recognition of the maturity of the economic and development cycle, and the need to
capitalize on potential efficiencies as early as possible.
It is important to note, the City will serve as the "Executive Developer" during this process. The
City will retain ultimate oversight and control over the quality and character of the development.
Attached for your review is the section from a previous consultant report which briefly describes the
role of the city in the development process (Attachment One). All of the details of the roles of the
developer and city will be defined in the RFP and later in the executed development agreement.
Also as part of Phase Two, the consultant team took these recommendations to the Alameda Point
Advisory Committee, Economic Development Commission and Alameda Point Business
Consortium of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. Attachment Two is written communication
from two of the three groups. Generally, each group felt the master developer strategy was right
for Alameda Point. The Chamber group does not take positions on issues affecting the base,
therefore chose not to submit written comments.
The final product from Phase Two is the attached report recommending that ARRA move forward
with the selection of a master developer and included a proposed selection process and schedule.
Building on lessons learned from the Catellus project, this process will ensure that the community
is informed and involved and that the city will get the necessary information in order to make the
best developer selection.
The report recommends a two step developer selection process and two community forums. The
proposed schedule brings a recommendation of a developer before the ARRA in March 2001.This
timing coincides with the Navy's conveyance schedule and will allow the city to have a developer
on board to negotiate with the Navy on clean-up issues.
There are some steps in the process that need further explanation at this point. These are:
1. Developer Selection Team —The following team is a list of the proposed team that will be tasked
with the duty of reviewing submittals by developers in the two step process and for guiding the
selection process:
a. Assistant City Manager, Community/Economic Development (Chair of team)
b. Chair of Economic Development Commission
c. Chair of Alameda Point Advisory Committee
d. Chair of Planning Board
e. Public Works Director
f. Planning Director
g. Development Services Director
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 31, 2000
Page 3
There would be a total of 7 individuals on this selection. committee aided by the City Attorney, city
project manager and consultants (financial, redevelopment, legal, tbd).
2. Marketing /PR assistance — Because the Request for Qualifications and Vision Statement
(RFQ/V) will also be useful in the city's overall economic development marketing strategy, it
is very important that they be of high quality including graphical presentations. The documents
should convey the reality of development at Alameda Point and the desirability of other
development interests and businesses to locate in Alameda to be part of this exciting future and
synergy. Also, it is important for the city to develop a website for public participation and
comment on the master developer selection process (this web site may also be useful for
comment on future development plans). Finally, a marketing/PR consultant could aid in the
compilation of information in the technical library, the hosting of tours, and the community
forums.
3. Immediate Next Steps in Process — the following are the next steps in the process for selection
of a master developer before the RFQ /V is released:
a. Assemble developer selection team and contract with assisting consultants
b. Interview similar communities for additional information on drafting of RFQ/V
language and conditions
c. Draft RFQ/V and RBP (Request for Business Plan)
d. Return to ARRA at a special meeting on October 17 with the following:
Draft RFQ/V and RBP
Project Timeline including steps for Developer selection, ENA
development, ENA period, DDA Development
Format of community forums
Suggested membership for developer negotiation team
Further detail on website, tours, information exchange
Fiscal /Budget Impact:
To complete the immediate steps listed above, the City (through the lead of the development services
department) would need to contract with a financial advisor, redevelopment or development attorney
through the City Attorney, and marketing/pr consultant to provide the necessary expertise to develop
the documents and prepare the city for release of the RFQ/V and RBP. The total cost of these
consultants for these tasks is estimated to be less than $50,000 and would come from the ARRA fund
(consulting services).
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body approve the disposition strategy of engaging a
Master Developer for Alameda Point and authorize staff to proceed with the selection process for
such a Developer, specifically to proceed with the immediate tasks outlined above.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Respectfully submitted,
Doug Yount
Development Services Director
By:
w1
Nanette Banks
Business & Special Projects Manager
DY/NB /la
Attachment One: Role of the City in the Development Process
Attachment Two: Comments from Community Groups
Attachment Three: NAS Disposition: Recommended Process and Schedule
August 31, 2000
Page 4
cc: David A. Berger, Assistant City Manager, Community & Economic Development
Alexander Bascom, BVP
James Musbach, EPS
C:\ LAKIL \ARRA \STAFFRFP\2000 \ARRADISP. W PD
Attachment One
Final Report
Alameda Naval Air Station Disposition Strategy Evaluation
May 31, 2000
III. THE ROLE OF THE CITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
The division of responsibilities between the public and private sectors should be based
on a careful assessment of the skills and financial tools each entity can provide to the
reuse process. Generally, the public sector is good at providing land, entitlements,
public services, and public financing. Additionally, it can manage developer selection
and disposition processes.
These functions can be categorized as "executive" level functions, corresponding to a
City role as "Executive Developer" versus master developer. If the agreement is well -
structured, the City retains ultimate oversight and control over the quality and character
of development, while protecting the local jurisdiction from undue risk exposure and
responsibility for development tasks it is ill- equipped to carry out.
Conversely, the private sector tends to be skilled at taking on risk in an uncertain
environment, marshalling financial resources from the investment community, phasing
demolition and infrastructure installation, and selling and /or building structures in a
manner that is responsive to the real estate market. Thus, these development functions
are often best carried out by private sector developers serving as "master developers"
for the project.
Based on research conducted nationally by EPS, and recent experience of both BVP and
EPS in a variety of complex base reuse projects, it is clear that, in general, local
governments are more successful in the role of executive developer, outsourcing master
developer functions to a private developer. Our assessment of the capabilities and
interests of the City of Alameda is consistent with this finding. The principle reasons for
this conclusion are described briefly below:
• Complex projects require seasoned experience in the day -to -day management of
development. Implementation of a reuse plan requires skills in contract
management, construction management, infrastructure planning, financing, asset
management, and marketing. Although expertise may be brought in -house by the
recruitment of an individual with strong development experience, this recruitment
may involve substantial effort and expense. Moreover, such an individual may find
it difficult to execute developer responsibilities in the context of a municipal
government structure.
• A complex political environment may argue for disposition to the private sector to
insulate transaction and development decisions from the political process to some
degree. Effective public involvement will, however, be important. The local
community will be more willing to accept the role of a private sector master
developer if it has a clear understanding of the pros and cons of private- sector
involvement, as well as the mechanisms available for ensuring accountability.
p2sumrpt.doc
Final Report
Alameda Naval Air Station Disposition Strategy Evaluation
May 31, 2000
• Substantial financial resources are required to carry out successful redevelopment of
a military base. Established private developers have access to the capital markets,
including substantial existing lines of credit.
Even with the engagement of a private sector master developer, the City plays a critical
role in the success of the project by providing: (1) regulatory support, including zoning
and general plan land use designations; (2) land and building assets; (3) low -cost
financing; and (4) the ability to hold the land to enhance project feasibility. This last
point relates to the ability of the City to be a "patient developer," because unlike private
developers, it has the ability to hold the land for long periods without incurring high
holding costs. This ability to hold the land allows the City to pursue public policy and
community development goals to a greater degree than a private developer can under
typical private development conditions.
7
p2sumrpt.doc
Attachment Two
August 14, 2000
TO: Disposition Strategy Recommendation Ad Hoc Committee, APAC
members, Doug Younty
FROM: Diane Lichtenstein for the Committee 523 -1235
SUBJECT: APAC Recommendations to ARRA for Alameda Naval Air Station
Disposition Strategy Evaluation May 31, 2000
The Alameda Point Advisory Committee agrees with the
Consultant's recommendation for the Disposition Strategy,
Master Developer for Alameda Point is essential. Howeve, weawish to
emphasize the following points as fundamental to the definition of the role
and functioning of the Master Developer:
1. The role of the Master Developer should be as the Planner /Coordinator
of the Project in order to assure planning and development expertise,
cost effectiveness and project funding. This will most likely result In
more than one developer.
2. The fundamental concepts of the Community Reuse Plan should be
adhered to. If market driven forces suggest a need for major
modification(s) to the Community Reuse Plan, the changes should be
subject to public scrutiny and review, and to City approval.
3. The public should be kept informed and aware through all stages of
the process. Public_ input must be a priority at policy, planning and
design levels to ensure that the development reflects the vision of the
community.
4. In the implementation of the Project, the short-term goals and
strategies must be consistent with the vision as expressed in the
Community Reuse Plan.
5. All efforts should be made to reach out to and employ local
developers, professionals, business and labor in all phases of the
Project.
6. The City of Alameda must retain and exercise active oversight through
all phases of the Project.
City of Alameda
Memorandum
August 10, 2000
To: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Frank Matarrese, Chair
Economic Development Commission
Re: Alameda Point Disposition Strategy Evaluation
At its July 20, 2000 meeting, the Economic Development Commission (EDC)
accepted the report on the Alameda Point Disposition Strategy Evaluation. The
EDC is advisory to the City Council and the Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) on matters of economic development and redevelopment. Recognizing the
key role that the CIC will ultimately have in implementing a master developer
strategy at Alameda Point, the EDC appreciates the opportunity to comment to
the ARRA as the strategy is being formulated.
As the ARRA moves forward on the master developer process, the EDC asks that
the following be taken into consideration:
•
•
recognizing the importance of the 15 to 25 year duration of the
relationship between the ARRA and a master developer;
ensuring that the master developer has sufficient up-front financial
resources to undertake the project and to prevent, for example, land
banking;
acknowledging that the length and cost of remediation be considered in
implementation of the strategy;
incorporating interviews with communities that have implemented similar
projects with master developers into the scope of the next phase of
work on the master developer strategy;
recognizing the importance of clearly defining the roles of the master
developer and the City; and
applying the lessons learned from the Catellus project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
FM/JB:sf
CC:
Frank Matarrese, Chair
Economic Development Commission
Doug Yount, Development Services Director
Dave Berger, Deputy City Manager
Economic Development Commission
G:TCONDEV \EDC \CORRESP \ARRACOMM.WPD
F:EDC \Correspondence \General #3
Attachment Three
MEMORANDUM
Economic &
Planning Systems
Real Estate Economics
Regional Economics
Public Finance
Land Use Policy
To: Dave Berger, Doug Yount, Nanette Banks
From: Duke Bascom, Jim Musbach
Subject: NAS Disposition: Recommended Process and Schedule; EPS #9256
Date: August 31, 2000
Bascom Venture Partners (BVP) and Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) were retained
by the City of Alameda to develop a disposition strategy for Alameda Point, the former
Naval Aix Station. An organizational capability study and market testing were
undertaken to determine the most appropriate means of achieving the City's goals
related to redevelopment of the site. As summarized in the final report, Alameda Naval
Air Station Disposition Strategy Evaluation, dated May 31, 2000, BVP and EPS
recommended that the City seek a Master Developer to carry out the redevelopment of
the base.
Since that time, BVP and EPS have made presentations to several community groups
and have received their feedback on the recommendations of the study. Two meetings
were held with the Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC), and one each with the
Economic Development Commission (EDC) and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
All of the groups were in support of the recommended strategy, and several suggestions
were made regarding the process. Key suggestions include selecting a master developer
with a sufficient balance sheet to sustain thorough economic downturns (EDC), and
providing opportunities for local, smaller builders to participate in selective vertical
redevelopment of the base (APAC).
RECOMMENDED PROCESS
BVP and EPS recommend a two -stage process. The first phase would be a Request for
Qualifications and Vision Statement (RFQ +V), and the second phase would be the
submittal of proposed Business Plans by a short list of developers selected based on a
competitive review of their responses to the RFQ +V. The process would incorporate
two community forums, with the first being to present qualifications and the second to
address Business Plans. The key elements of the process are described briefly below.
BERKELEY
2501 Ninth St., Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710 -2515
www.epsys.corn
Phone: 510 -841 -9190
Fax: 510- 841 -9208
SACRAMENTO DENVER
Phone: 916 -649 -8010 Phone: 303 -575 -8112
Fax: 916 - 649 -2070 Fax: 303- 623 -1294
Dave Berger, Doug Yount, Nanette Banks
NAS Alameda
August 31, 2000
Page 2
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND VISION STATEMENT (RFQ +V)
An RFQ would be drafted, outlining the information required to judge the qualifications
of each developer to serve as master developer of this project. This information would
include at least the following relevant project experience and track record, in -house
development capabilities, management team and structure, corporate balance sheet,
financing sources, and any partners that would be included on the team. Additionally,
the RFQ +V would elicit, at a minimum, the developer's vision for the property
consistent with the land use framework established by the reuse plan. This vision
statement would describe the development concept in terms of the location of uses and
tenants, character of development, amenities, and general approach to sequencing and
marketing of the site. This submittal would also address the interest, ability, and
strategies for the asset management of the Civic Core.
REQUEST FOR BUSINESS PLAN (RBP)
The RBP would replace the more typical Request for Proposals (RFP). The RBP
essentially requires a developer to conceptually program the site for development and
forecast the resulting cash flow with limited input by the City as expressed in Base
Reuse documents on entitlement, public financing, community requirements, public
policy constraints, toxic cleanup strategies, and other factors that will ultimately
determine the economics of the project. The final resolution of these detailed issues is
best left to the negotiations once a developer is selected and has signed an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement (ENA).
The Request for Business Plan would provide a realistic framework for the developer's
approach to developing the property, expected financing, city /developer roles and
responsibilities, and an initial estimate of costs and revenues associated with
development. The Business Plan would include a schematic land use plan, a sequencing
and development program, and a cash flow showing expected public financing as well
as developer equity and debt financing.
Additionally, the developers' Business Plans would address the following key strategic
planning issues that will have major impacts on the success of the redevelopment
project:
• Market Driven Refinement of the Reuse Plan. The final land use and development
program that is adopted to implement the reuse plan needs to be formulated by the
developer who will take the risk and make the investment to execute the program.
This market driven development program will allow the identification of efficiencies
stemming from coordination of environmental remediation and infrastructure
development.
Dave Berger, Doug Yount, Nanette Banks
NAS Alameda
August 31, 2000
Page 3
• Funding for Operations and Maintenance. Current base operations are funded
primarily from lease revenues. To ensure a leasing program that creates synergy
with the development program, it is desirable to have the master developer involved
in some capacity in the leasing and asset management. Bringing on the master
developer as soon as possible will help to minimize the opportunity cost of delayed
leasing, or the risk of executing leases that will not be synergistic.
• Golf Resort and Conference Center. Properties in northwest territories slated for
golf resort and conference center uses are outside development control and scope of
the Master Developer.
• Existing and Future Bond Obligations. As with operational funding, bond
financing related to the Naval Air Station depends in large part on the leasing
program. Thus, the same urgency to have master developer input on the leasing
program applies to the bond program as well as to operations.
• Environmental Remediation. The timely involvement of a master developer will
help bring closure with the environmental regulators, because the developer will
help define the timing and nature of remediation relative to the development
program. Similarly, the master developer can be instrumental in completing
negotiations with the Department of Defense on liability agreements and
remediation funding.
• Financing of Front End Costs. Certain investments in the water and electrical
systems are needed up front for the redevelopment to go forward. A master
developer is capable of bringing private equity and debt funding resources to the
project to finance these and other improvements in a timely manner, as necessary.
• Affordable Housing. The provision of affordable housing is a key community
concern. A master developer would facilitate the development of affordable housing
in the context of the overall development program for the Naval Air Station.
• Traffic Constraints. The traffic capacity of the Webster /Posey Tube represents a
potential constraint to development on the Naval Air Station and other areas of
Alameda. A master developer could help to resolve issues related to increasing the
capacity of the tubes. The developer would contribute through participation in
negotiations with City of Oakland and Caltrans, as well as development of a market
driven development plan that can be weighed against other development
opportunities and objectives in the north waterfront area.
pcocsched.doc
Dave Berger, Doug Yount, Nanette Banks
NAS Alameda
COMMUNITY FORUMS
August 31, 2000
Page 4
Public input will be important during the developer selection, to garner input from key
constituencies and to achieve buy -in on the developer selection. We recommend that
this input be achieved through two community forums sponsored by the EDC. These
meetings would be open to the public. The first would be held after selection of a short
list of preferred developers based on a review of the response to the RFQ +V. At this
meeting, developers would present their qualifications and vision for the site and
receive comments from community members. A second forum would be held after
submittal of the Business Plans. The developers would present their Business Plans and
receive input from the public.
PROTECT TECHNICAL LIBRARY
After approval of the process by the ARRA, an RFQ +V package for developers must be
developed, as well as a project technical information library. The library would contain
all the information relevant to the project that has been produced over the last five years,
including plans, engineering reports, environmental documents, market and economic
studies, and other pertinent information. The library would be accessible to the
developers doing due diligence, as well as to members of the public who want to
research the project.
TOURS
Informed individuals must be present upon request to lead tours which provide full
technical information on all dimensions of formulation and development. Those tours
must be proactive, informative, and timely.
INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Once the RFQ +V's have been issued, and continuing on to the submittal of the Business
Plans by short -listed developers, it will be necessary to establish and actively operate an
information exchange. This would include fielding and answering questions from
developers, or directing them to the appropriate resources in the project library, as well
as conducting tours of the property.
prorschet doc
Dave Berger, Doug Yount, Nanette Banks
NAS Alameda
RECOMMENDED PROCESS AND SCHEDULE
The recommended process and schedule is outlined below.
ARRA Board
Mail Out RFQ +V
RFQ +V Responses Due
Short List Developers
Community Forum #1
Business Plan Submittal Due
Community Forum #2
Recommendation to ARRA Board
September 6, 2000
November 3, 2000
December 8, 2000
December 20, 2001
January 10, 2001
February 7, 2001
February 21, 2001
March 7, 2001
August 31, 2000
Page 5
prorsrhird.doc
Correspondence /
Miscellaneous
0
I-0
1.
L ID
< "
z E
ID
W
a. a)
O C/)
Ct.
CD
Et
WCO
• =
C3 C13
Z
< c
U./ *(7)
DID
LU
.17• E
< CD
CI 4-e'
1 Building Sq. Ft.
50,0001
40,0001
0
o
0
1 52,2001
0
o
cl
co
(3
00
r....
-4-..
i0
r
0
7.111•
L.
-4:
0)
0
10
to,..
I,-
04
0)
r
-1-..
r....
r
1--
0
0
0_
,-
0
1.0
a,
v"
0
0
"t.
.-
07
55,4501
CV
oS
CV
15,0001
0
0
0
o
.4-
r-
1000'£
CO
,-.
co
a
o
coa
CO 0
co
o
0
cv
CV
60,8001
a
0
o
t-:
V'
14,0001
000`8
a
<,...
r-.,
co
o
Or
.--
0)0)
I-
a
<0
cl
CV
92,8171
1,..
oi
Ground Lease'
Ground Leasel
0
CO
6,000_1
0
N
170,0001
(
8,5071
1 Building #
)� 68 units
E
Z
CD
„._
`'4
(0
7
1 21
04
CO
CO
r
0)
r
1 Piers 1,2,3
L
03
<0
1-
r-
<0
102
V'
0)
t"'
.0)
°
CO
CO
-
CV
CO
CO
portion of 51
04
NY
CO
0
‘a
13
71)
=
CB
8
0
(r)
117 East'
118 West
170 South'
CO
CO
r
0.
CO
various units
r
04
(0
CO
r
r
531,532,5331
co
351
cq
a)
0)
FISC Wharf'
co
'-
various units'
various units'
in
231
43'
441
C D
0)
CO
Ca
NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED 1
OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 1
1 Signed Leases & Licenses
(Housing Units (Big White /Ranch Style/Twnhse)
6
c
03
Bustos Plumbing
Jimex Corporation
Kitz Corporation
Manex Entertainment
Manex Entertainment
Manex Entertainment
Maritime Administration
Maritime Administration (Warehouse /Office)
Marine Sanitation
My Houndog.com
Navigator Systems (Fumiture Mfg.)
Nelson's Marine (Boat Repair & Storage)
Nelson's (subletting to other businesses)
Operation Dignity (Homeless Collaborative)
Orton Development
Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Food Preparation)
[Performance Multihull
Piedmont Soccer
Port Distribution & Warehousing
Port Distribution & Warehousing
Port Distribution & Warehousing
Power Engineering
Puglia Engr. (Ship Repair)
RCD (Homeless Collaborative)
Richard Miller Photography
Rieder Structural Works (RWS, Inc.)
San Leandro Shelter (Homeless Collet))
Simmba Systems (Records Storage)
Studio 35
Trident Port Services
Trident Management
Trident Management 1
United Indian Nations (Homeless Collaborative
University Avenue Housing
Waters,Caldwell & Assoc. (Environ.Consuitant)1
West Coat Novelties 1
West Coast Seaworks (Marine Construction) 1
Woodmasters (Woodworkers) 1
...--
NO. OF EMPLOYEES
Gen. Svcs. Admin. (Maritime Museum Storage) 1
10
'14C
tO
'Kt
S.
.tt
CO
•11'
07
..41.
0
0
1-■
0
CV
In
CO
0
mt.
0
Lo
(t)
to
10
s.
VI
0
LO
0
10
0
tO
117
a
CV
40
07
tO
.1.
CO
CO
CO
CD
0)
I,
(13
CO
CO
CD
CO
0
I,
.4.,
is.
01
0.
07
0.
et
0.
to
h.
CO
0.
1...
1...
CO
1...
CO
0
CA
s-
CO
04
03
CO
CO
O
CO
Of
0)
0
r
CV
1 Building Sq. Ft.1
15,5501
0
a
0
of
0)
1 82,2501
130,0351
1 Ground Lease
89,0001
0
En
CO
CO
CD
a
o
(:)..
u-)
12,4301
10,5501
a
co
CO
147
0
o
0
CO
66,0001
a
a
0.
01
17,0001
104,0001
o
a
a_
0
,_
,..
a
o
coa
CO 0
co
3601
Ground Leasel
g
0
0,
a
a
v*..
N
58,4501
29,5501
a
co
oo_
OA
co
co
a
ts:
—
26,9271
42,0001
o
o
0.
0
-,--
32,0001
a
a
Nr.
'I'
o
a
co.
0)
170,0001
8,5071
0)
C
5
0)
N.
Pier 3
398
530
41 &77
Near Bldg. 530
01
0)
,-
o
1,--
at FISC
162 East
258
585
Tarmac & 405
527 West
CV
C`4
292
25 (Bay 1)
0
V'
C)
(1)
LL
CV
cy)
co
C)
N
Near Bldg. 360
r
along estuary
along estuary
522
76 &134
60
4941
0-
a,
CO
east of Bldg 3601
west of O'Clubl
24 -Bay3l
3381
391
117 West
103,105,809,8101
5641
Bldg 2 FISC'
CO
,-
CO
'<I"
,r-
r
C D
0)
CO
Ca
0)
03
r
0)
(0
cr
'Signed Leases & Licenses
1ACET (Environmental Tech. Incubator)
(AC Homet Foundation
'Alameda Aerospace (Advanced Turbine Tech.)
Alameda Aerospace (Tower Aviation)
'Alameda Naval Air Museum
Alameda Point Storage (Mini Storage)
Alameda Point Collaborative (Warehouse)
Alameda Point Collaborative (Office, etc.)
Alameda Power & Telecom (Storage Yard)
Alameda Power & Telecom
Alameda Unified School District (Child Care Cntr)
Alternatives in Action (HOME)
'Antiques by the Bay (Collectibles Faire)
Apelon (formerly Lexical)
!AVTS (Audio Visual Technical Services)
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
(saweO Joopui) wn peis
Bobac (Warehouse)
CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator)
Cellular One (Cell Site)
City of Alameda (Administration)
City of Alameda (Dog Run Park)
City of Alameda (Ferry Terminal Parking)
City of Alameda (Fire Dept Training)
City of Alameda (Gym & Pool)
City of Alameda (O'Club)
City of Alameda (Police Department)
City of Alameda (Public Works storage)
City of Alameda (Soccer Field) 1
City of Alameda (Tennis Courts) 1
Coach Specialties (formerly NB Industries) 1
Container Storage (Cans) 1
Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays) 1
Delphi Productions
Dignity Housing (Homeless Coll.)
Door Christian Fellowship Church 1
Dunavant of California (Storage) 1
Emerg. Svcs. Network (Office)
Forem Metal Manufacturing
Forty Plus (Career Counseling) 1
Fribel Internat'I. (Concrete Statuary) 1
Gen. Svcs. Admin. (Maritime Museum Storage) 1
Home Auto Repair 1,
('40)
•
(0
(s
0,
a)
0
1-
%-.
e
('10)
e
e
OF
117
a
<
e-
O
e-
CO
s-
0
04
c.
N
04
04
O
CV
04
in
CV
co
0104
1..
o
04
CO
04
0
0)
r
0)
CV
CO
00
CI
'
0)
to
01
tO
CO
h.
CO
O
CO
Of
0)
0
r
CV
07
It
Revised InterimLease.xis
DON LINDSEY
R E A. !_ T O R S President/Broker
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Members
City of Alameda Mayor, Ralph Appezzato
City of Alameda Vice Mayor, Tony Daysog
City of Alameda Councilmember, Barbara Kerr
City of Alameda Councilmember, Albert DeWitt
City of Alameda Councilmember, Beverly Johnson
Alameda City Hall
Alameda CA. 94501
Hand Delivered September 5, 2000
Dear Honorable Beverly Johnson:
When the ARRA considers the current consultant's report on the future of Alameda Point beginning
Wednesday September 6, 2000 we herein respectfully request consideration for a 'carve out'
development of 'Package K' as referenced in the 1996 Alameda Point consultant's report.
We believe Gallagher and Lindsey Inc. can make an effective case for removing this parcel from the
base proper and allow its development as a freestanding planned mixed -use development.
Our experience as the city's, leasing agent for these former naval homes as well as our long history in
Alameda as residents, in the real estate business with commercial and residential development in
Alameda and elsewhere, make Gallagher and Lindsey Inc. uniquely qualified to make and undertake
this proposal.
The coexistence of the 200 plus units of the Alameda Point Collaborative including transitional and
service enriched housing and the pre - existing fully rented officer housing, and the empty housing in
'Package K' present formidable yet exciting challenges for the redevelopment of this property.
Gallagher and Lindsey Inc. foresee a wonderfully unique village, which is responsive to its special
circumstances. Gallagher and Lindsey Inc. feels the commitment the city has made to the Collaborative
and affordable housing could well escape importance to a developer unfamiliar with the complex history
and issues involved. Isolation of the tenants now housed at Alameda Point is only one of the issues to
ponder. Circumstances, which could well avoid inclusiveness, are involved, if 'Package K' is left to a
master developer.
Additionally; the historical relevance of the homes in 'Package K,' as referenced in the 1996 Alameda
Point consultant's report, makes us want to re- double our efforts to keep this area intact.
Utilizing the unique architectural and environmental character of the existing area, our thoughts are to
create a new development based upon principles of accessibility, affordability, privacy, community,
environmental preservation and adaptive reuse of existing structures.
2424 Central Avenue • Alameda. California 94501 • Bus: 5I0.521.8181 • Fax: 510.523.1570
1
Beyond this, a Package K `carve out' could give the city immediate reuse and a revenue beachhead at
Alameda Point, well ahead of any other uses contemplated in the current consultant's report.
We would appreciate the consideration to discuss this at an appropriate time and forum to detail our
proposal, which understandably we view as proprietary at this juncture. We would appreciate your
consideration and direction in this matter.
2
°UHl oy, AMU tI.ULUUT;
415 495 1787;
Renewed HOPE Housing Advocates
PO Box 501
Alameda, California 94501
September 6, 2000
Board of Governors
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
950 West Mall Square, Bldg 100, Room I
Alameda California 94501
Sep -6 -00 4:53PM; Page 1/2
Arc Ecology
833 Market Street, Suite 1107
San Francisco, California 94103
Re: Item 3 -A — To approve strategy of engaging a Master Developer for Alameda Point
Dear Members of the Governing Board:
Staff is recommending a process for selecting a Master Developer for Alameda Point for the
redevelopment of Alameda Point. We believe that the basis for these recommendations is very
weak and the process outlined in the staff report is seriously flawed. The major weakness of the
staff report is that it sees the redevelopment of Alameda Point as no different from the
redevelopment of a privately owned piece of property. There is not mention of public benefit
issues.
We urge you to continue this item so that the problems can be corrected.
We trust that this item will also come before the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) as
well as the ARRA. The role of the ARRA in redeveloping former NAS property is limited to
receiving the property. Major decisions determining the process for redevelopment of Alameda
Point must be made by the govenunental body that will be responsible for implementing them.
In addition, the public is far less likely to know about items that come before the ARRA since
ARRA agendas and minutes are not posted on the City's web site, as are those of the City
Council and the CIC. We hope that the decision to send this item to the ARRA is not an attempt
to avoid public dialog on controversial issues of great concern to hundreds of Alameda residents.
The consultant report recommending a master developer does not objectively evaluate the
costs and benefits of using a master developer or consider the range of alternatives. The
consultant report gives no serious consideration to any alternative that does not use a
master developer.
The consultants based their conclusions on interviews primarily with potential master
developers who have a demonstrated interest in acting as master developers for
military bases. The rernediation companies interviewed by the consultants have
relationships with potential master developers, as does the insurance company. Their
responses were quite predictable.
Y The consultants did not interview reuse authorities that have chosen not use master
developers to find out about their successes and problems. The report does not even
explore the full range of alternatives.
> The consultant report lists services the master developer could assume (e.g. deal with
regulators and the Navy over cleanup issues, oversee leases, overcome traffic
acne, oy. rani, C\.ULUVW,
41b '9 1831;
Sep -6 -00 4 :54PM; Page 2/2
constraints) but never considers whether the City would pay less or more if these
services were purchased individually.
➢ In recommending that the City delegate all major redevelopment negotiations to the
master developer, the consultants assume — and the staff appears to concur — that the
City's interests are exactly the same as the master developer's.
The consultant and staff present a simplistic view of the respective roles of the city and the
developer in the base redevelopment process.
➢ The report essentially limits the City's role to that of regulator and provider of
services, ignoring the fact that the CIC will become the landowner. City ownership of
the base real estate provides opportunities to create public benefits, such as affordable
housing and targeted employment, business opportunities for local residents and
existing local businesses, that don't exist for privately owned land. Equating the
City's role in redeveloping real estate it owns to the City's role with private
developers potentially forfeits these opportunities.
The report assumes rather than analyses "inefficiencies as well as conflicts inherent to
parcelization", "no benefit to pursuing [the brownfield sector] as an alternative to a
traditional developer".
The public participation process outlined suggests an "announce and defend" approach
rather tbaa a sincere effort to create a community dialog about controversial issues and
difficult tradeoffs. The following paragraph clarifies that the intent is to talk the public
into accepting a master developer:
A complex political environment may argue for disposition to the private sector to
insulate transaction and development decisions from the political process to some
degree. Effective public involvement will, however, be important. The local
community will be more willing to accept the role of a private sector master
developer if it has a clear understanding of the pros and cons of private - sector
involvement, as well as the mechanisms available for ensuring accountability.
[attachment one — emphasis added]
Nor does the public participation process for the selection of the master developer provide
meaningful opportunities for resolving differences. Given the timetable, it appears there
will be little opportunity for the public to influence the content and form of the RFQ/V or
the RFBP documents, which presumably will include criteria for selection.
The 550,000 budget for the master developer selection process is not broken out. It is not
possible to determine whether this is a realistic figure.
Yours truly,
Wd4L
Tom Matthews
Renewed HOPE
Eve Bach
Arc Ecolov