2001-08-21 ARRA MinutesAGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m.
City Hall will open at 6:15 p.m.
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9
Number of Potential Cases: One
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Alameda Point
Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
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.
AGENDA
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, August 1, 2001
Meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m.
City Hall will open at 4:45 p.m.
1. CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA 5:00 p.m.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Alameda Point
Negotiating parties: ARRA, U.S. Navy, and the Master Developer
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of June 6, 2001.
3 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of June 19, 2001.
3 -C. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of July 19, 2001.
4. ACTION ITEMS
4 -A. Report from the Director of Development Services regarding the Master Developer
presentations.
Presentation order is as follows:
Alameda Point Community Partners (30 minutes)
Harbor Bay/Lennar LLC (30 minutes)
Catellus Development Corporation (30 minutes)
5. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A. Oral report from APAC.
ARRA Agenda - August 1, 2001 Page 2
6. 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 that is not on the agenda.)
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
8. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next special ARRA meeting is
scheduled for Thursday, August 9, 2001.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Lucretia Akil at 864-
3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 6, 2001
1. CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA BOARD — Cancelled
2. ROLL CALL
The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
3 -A
Present: Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived 5:36 pm)
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 2, 2001.
3 -B. Recommendation from the Development Services Director to approve funding
exchange for ARRA building upgrades.
3 -C. Approval of the agreement between the City of Alameda and the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority regarding payments in lieu of the application of the
Citywide Development Impact Fee.
Member Kerr motioned for approval of the consent calendar. Member DeWitt seconded
the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Abstain: 0;
Absent: 1 (Member Johnson arrived after the vote).
4. ACTION ITEMS
4 -A. Report from the Development Services Director recommending adoption of a
resolution authorizing the Executive Director to sell or otherwise dispose of
personal property at Alameda Point.
Leasing Manager Ed Levine stated that considerable personal property (manufacturing
equipment, tools, etc.) was left behind when the base was closed. Some has already been
transferred to tenants, but there is approximately $1.5 million of excess property to be disposed
of. Some of the medical and dental equipment has been requested by the Alameda County
Health Department. However, many of the larger pieces of machinery could be purchased at
auction. Member Daysog requested access to the inventory list, and Mr. Levine said he would
make that available.
Member Daysog motioned for approval of the recommendation, Member Kerr seconded
the motion, and it passed unanimously.
5. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A. Oral report from APAC.
Lee Perez, Chair of the APAC, reminded the Board that there will be an Open House at Alameda
Point on Saturday, June 23rd. He also stated that the APAC continues to meet with staff about
the General Plan Amendment.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 5:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Luofetia Akil
ARRA Secretary
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, June 19, 2001
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
Present: Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
3 -B
2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
None.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Report from the Development Services Director recommending the approval of
the ARRA budget for fiscal year 2001 -02.
Member Kerr requested a line item budget. That will be made available in the future.
Member Johnson moved for approval of the recommendation. Member DeWitt seconded
the motion, and it passed unanimously.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
ctfully submitted,
etia Akil
Secretary
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 19, 2001
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
Present: Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
2. ACTION ITEMS
Report from the Development Services Director regarding the Master Developer
presentations.
Chair Appezzato announced that the Master Developer candidates would each make 20- minute
presentations and that their presentation order had been selected at random prior to the meeting:
Catellus Development Corporation, Alameda Point Community Partners /Shea Homes, and
Harbor Bay/Lennar LLC.
Development Services Director Doug Yount explained that these presentations are an additional
opportunity for the candidates to present their proposals to the community and the ARRA Board
and respond to any questions (there have already been some community forums). On August 9,
2001, the Master Developer Selection Team will return to the ARRA with their recommended
selection.
Catellus was represented by Nelson Rising, Chairman and CEO. He emphasized the advantage
of Catellus being a single entity; i.e., they have the financial resources to complete the entire
project, have experience in all areas of commercial, retail and residential development, and are
governed by a single board of directors. He then introduced Peter Lauener and Dan Marcus,
both of whom are already involved in the FISC development and will be working on the Webster
Street redevelopment. They pointed out that Catellus has already held several community
forums and received valuable feedback about all areas of the development. Catellus is also
involved with several volunteer organizations in the City, as well as the West Alameda Business
Association. They envision a seamless integration of Alameda Point into the community.
They have also analyzed the Tidelands Trust, existing leases, and the historic district restrictions.
In addition, they have met with The Collaborative and Renewed Hope regarding housing needs.
They understand the requirements for early transfer and soil remediation, as well as the necessity
for infrastructure improvements.
Thom Gamble represented Alameda Point Community Partners /Shea Homes. They
presented a video outlining their vision of Alameda Point. Eric Kaplan reiterated further
strengths and the Gondola as a major means of transportation to and from the Island. Stuart
Lichter gave a verbal presentation to the Governing Body, outlining the details of APCP strategy
for the early conveyance and environmental cleanup issues.
Harbor Bay/Lennar was represented by Tim Hoppen who emphasized Harbor Bay has all of
the financial resources to carry out the full development of the former Naval Air Station and is
familiar with the concerns of Alameda as they have developed Harbor Bay Business Park and
other areas of Alameda. Kevin Hanson presented to the Governing Body the BART layout for
Alameda Point. He presented visuals which outlined the timeline of a using as potential method
of transportation to and from the Island.
Public Comment:
Kate Berenson felt that Catellus should be selected because they have many years' experience
and have been involved in the community already.
Donald Lindsay is president of Gallagher & Lindsay, realtors and property managers at
Alameda Point. He and his wife have lived at Alameda Point for three years. They recommend
Harbor Bay/Lennar because of their successful development at Harbor Bay and previous
experience with military base conversions.
Don Patterson recommended that Harbor Bay/Lennar be selected because of their experience
with developing Harbor Bay and their emphasis on commercial development, which would
increase Alameda's tax base.
Irene Dieter endorsed Alameda Point Community Partners because they would bring increased
diversity and multiple visions while working in cooperation with Catellus' development of the
FISC property.
Thomas Jordan represented the Community of Harbor Bay Isle, who recommended Harbor
Bay/Lennar because of their successful development at Harbor Bay.
Gerald Lutz, CEO of the USS Hornet Museum, pointed out the improvements necessary to fully
take advantage of the tourism potential at Alameda Point and indicated the Hornet's interest in
working with whichever developer is selected.
Bill Smith stressed the importance of energy and transportation solutions in the development of
Alameda Point.
Rosemary Reilly works with seniors in Alameda, who have concerns about affordable housing
with nearby transportation access. She urged the developers to pay close attention to this need in
their plans.
Judy Goff Roveda & Barry Luboviski represented the Building & Trades Council of Alameda
County and AFL -CIO and recommended Catellus because they already have a successful
working relationship established with the labor unions.
Mike Dunlap represented the operating engineers union and encouraged the three developers to
work with labor.
Neil Garcia - Sinclair lives and operates a business at Alameda Point. He expressed concern
about the transportation needs for the entire island, not just Alameda Point, and encouraged
development of a light rail system.
Barbara Kahn endorsed Catellus because of their ongoing community interaction in the FISC
development process.
Bertram Harris recommended Catellus because of their previous development experience in the
Bay Area and their community involvement.
Marilyn York of the Alameda Naval Air Museum asked the developers to preserve the
historical sections of Alameda Point, to support existing lease agreements, and to encourage
tourism.
Bonnie Crowe recommended Catellus because of their plan to integrate Alameda Point into the
City.
Sara Baldi endorsed Catellus because of their interaction with the community and their plan to
link Webster and Park Streets via a light rail system.
Beverly Thruston expressed concerns about the integration of Alameda Point into the City. She
feels there should be a local small business participation requirement included in the developer's
agreement in order to preserve the community vision.
Linda Nguyen represented the HOME Project and stressed the importance of incorporating
quality of life issues in the development plan. The HOME Project endorses Catellus because of
their voluntary assistance to HOME and the vision of their plan.
Kurt Bohan expressed concern that the presentations were not specific enough and more
information is needed before a decision can be made.
Peter Lenhardt pointed out that the development of Alameda Point will affect all areas of
Alameda — transportation, energy use, housing, infrastructure, etc., and encouraged the
developers to consider solar panels on new construction and other energy- saving options.
Chair Appezzato closed the public comment period and requested feedback from the Board
members.
-3-
Member Daysog stressed the regional and long -term impacts of developing Alameda Point. The
most important issues to be addressed are transit, education, fiscal benefits, and housing. He
would like additional information about transit alternatives, housing /transit compatibilities,
school requirements, commercial development vis -a -vis increased tax basis, senior housing, and
long -term community input.
Member Kerr pointed out that the current transit plan for the City limits new development to a
small increase in the Tube capacity. She is interested in the developers' plans for alternative
transportation to Alameda Point which bypasses the Tube entirely. Access to the former Belt
Line for light rail may be limited by other redevelopment plans currently in place. She would
also like some other architectural style than pink and orange stucco, which dominates current
designs. She also had questions for the developers about the allotment of land for recreation use,
the development of the Big Whites, and how the development would be financed, including what
percentage of return on their investment the developers expect to receive.
Member Johnson inquired how the developers plan to work with the Hornet and Naval Air
Museum, whether the "transportation hub" would incorporate the ferry service, how the historic
character would be preserved, how the early transfer process will work (including how much
cleanup will be done prior to the transfer), what the timeline would be for BART service to the
area, and a comparison of what revenue would be generated by each developer's proposal. She
stressed the importance of cooperating with The Collaborative in developing the housing areas.
Member DeWitt felt that he needed more information from each of the developers regarding
their general "vision" of the development, since this is such a large and long -term project. He
expressed concern that Alameda Point Community Partners is already in the process of
developing several former military bases and may not have the financial resources to fund this
project. He also questioned how the developers would manage the project. He emphasized
again the importance of community involvement and soliciting citizen input in the development
process. He also questioned whether other City boards and commissions will be making their
own recommendations for the selection of the master developer. Doug Yount confirmed that the
Master Developer Selection Team consists of representatives from several community groups;
however, the Team will only make a recommendation, and the ARRA Board will make the final
selection.
Chair Appezzato advised that there are already plans by the MTC for BART service to Alameda,
including two tubes under the estuary and two stations. He also indicated that all three
developers have already done projects in Alameda which may be viewed. He stressed that the
development of Alameda Point must complement and blend in with the rest of the City and take
into consideration the geographic constraints of an island city.
Chair Appezzato thanked all of the presenters and suggested it may be worthwhile for them to
come before the Board again with responses to the questions and concerns expressed by the
Board members.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
ect submi ted,
etia Akil
ARRA Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
July 27, 2001
To:
From:
Subject:
Background:
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Doug Yount, Director
Development Services Department
August 1 Master Developer Presentations
At a special meeting on July 19, 2001, the three "short- listed "Alameda Point master developer teams
made presentations to the ARRA Board. The presentations, each twenty minutes in length, provided
an opportunity for the ARRA Board members, and the public, to hear from each of the teams about
their vision for the future development of Alameda Point. Following the presentations, ARRA Board
members identified specific areas of concern and interest for which they requested more information
from the developers. To address these focused issues, the development teams have been invited back
to the ARRA's August 1 meeting to make follow -up presentations on these specific areas.
It is anticipated that the ARRA Board will select the master developer at a special meeting on August
9, 2001.
Discussion:
Approximately ten months ago, the City began the process of selecting a master developer to
redevelop Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station. To date, the process has resulted
in three finalist development teams: Alameda Point Community Partners, Catellus Development
Corporation, and Harbor Bay/Lennar. The teams have responded to a Request for Business
Proposals (RFBP), participated in two community workshops, made presentations to the APAC and
the Master Developer Selection Team, met with staff and the consultant team to answer clarification
questions, hosted site tours for Selection Team members and ARRA Board members and presented
their proposals to the ARRA Board.
At the direction of the ARRA Board, the three teams have been invited to the August 1 ARRA Board
meeting to make follow -up presentations to focus specifically on areas of concern/interest identified
by Board members at the July 19 meeting. Each team will be given thirty minutes to address the
following topics:
•
•
•
•
transit /transportation
schools
Alameda Point Collaborative /affordable /senior housing
historic preservation
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
•
•
•
community character /architecture
community involvement/participation in the entitlement process
fiscal benefits /financing plan
early transfer /remediation
July 27, 2001
Page 2
At the end of the developer presentations, there will be an opportunity for public comment and for
questions and comments from ARRA Board. In addition, at the July 19 meeting, several questions
were asked of specific development teams by the ARRA Board. Those questions will be answered
as part of the August 1 presentation.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Board hear the August 1 follow -up presentations, take public
comments and ask questions of the three development teams. No action is requested at this time.
Respectfully submitted
1 t
Doug Yount, Director
De lopment Services Department ct
/Y.
Debbie Potter
Base Reuse & Redevelopment Manager
DY/DP:dc
G:\Potter\aug.wpd
Correspondence /
Miscellaneous
\\■ ‘9
\I\ TA 0 30
r),)
(Ni\ -N(c)t:IC UN
F1
To: Prospective developers
Fr: Tony Daysog, Alameda City Councilmember
Housing and Land Use Planning
• Senior housing: Even before many residents had expressed their interest in additional senior
housing on Alameda Point, prospective developers identified housing for this special needs
population as part of their respective proposals. As an added benefit, several noted that
residents of such housing typically make lower demands on traffic congestion.
•
In what ways have prospective developers and their respective partners
integrated plans for senior housing with plans for affordable first -time
homeownership for younger adult populations? What concepts do
prospective developers have in mind?
• Affordable housing: The City of Alameda has instituted far reaching affordable housing
approaches in the past several months. It reached a settlement with housing activists
whereby 25 percent of all new housing at Alameda Point will be set aside as affordable
housing, some for renters, others for first -time homeowners. Earlier this year, the City of
Alameda also raised affordable housing fees paid by developers of commercial and
industrial space by 15 percent, dedicating the amount collected by the fees to assist in
paying for affordable housing on Alameda Point.
Education
•
With respect to land use intensity and or how housing connects to other
considerations including transportation planning, how do prospective
developers envision implementing their affordable housing obligations?
• For developers who had created transit villages or utilized transportation
oriented development (TOD) approaches, what are critical success- factors
and which are replicable at Alameda Point?
• Several years ago, in exchange for making available state money for school construction
and rehabilitation, California voters capped the developer fee at around $2.00 (with
adjustments for inflation), all the while leaving room for developers, schools, and local
governments to mutually agree to higher developer fees. A developer, the City of Alameda
and the local school district arrived at an agreement that set developer fees at $4.25. State
law also allows school districts to seek developer fees in excess of the cap in the event that
e state money for construction or rehabilitation is no longer available.
• In what ways have prospective developers factored in the possibility of
higher school developer fees?
• Will prospective developers require the City of Alameda or the ARRA to
reduce the selling price of the Alameda Point to compensate for current or
future school developer fees?
Transportation
• The Posey Tube has the capacity to handle a maximum of 4,007 vehicles. Currrently, the
Posey Tube has approximately 2,788 vehicles going through it at peak morning commute
hours. Local officials estimate that approved development projects in the pipeline will
create an additional 463 morning commute hour traffic. Thus, the Posey Tube will have a
remaining capacity of 755 cars in morning commute hours. Recognizing this constraint,
prospective developers have offered innovative alternative forms of transit.
• For prospective developers who are proposing transit solutions that require
cooperation with other authorities in the region, such as the Port of Oakland
or BART, in what ways have these authorities expressed interest or even
support for your solutions (gondola or a new underground BART station)?
• Given the importance of alternative transit solutions to the success of
Alameda Point, what assurances can prospective developers provide right
now that Alameda provides the right geologic, atmospheric, or other
engineering- related conditions for their respective innovative approaches
(namely the gondola and the new underground BART station)?
Community Input
• Local residents have been involved in the military base closure and conversion process in
all phases, as volunteer members of BRAG -APAC, to local neighborhood activists, to
residents who are concerned about developments at Alameda Point but who at the same
time do not consider themselves as activists. Moreover, Alameda's Boards and
Commission have played a critical role in husbanding the integration of Alameda Point and
Alameda.
•
Are you familiar with the APAC or with the "Inner Harbor" committee that
was initiated by residents living adjacent to Alameda Point's Inner Harbor
Area and by city staff and, if familiar, in what ways do you envision working
with these committees?
ice: vt t,ttCr
Master Developer Selection Committee
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
City of Alameda
Oak and Santa Clara Streets
Alameda, CA 94501
Subject: Master Developer for Alameda Point
Dear Selection Committee Member:
ji
2001
I have been an Alameda resident for 15 years. I am also a real estate professional, having spent 20
years in the industry. I have been a banker and construction lender for Continental Bank in
Chicago, then one of the largest construction lenders. I have developed projects of my own. The
last one won a national award for design and planning excellence.
As an interested resident, I have reviewed the materials submitted by the applicants and attended
two of the community presentations. Based on their submissions, we are fortunate to have three
qualified applicants. All appear to have the capital, people and organization, and experience to
tackle a project the size and complexity of Alameda Point
However, I strongly support the selection of a local Alameda builder and strongly support the
choice of Harbor Bay/Lennar as the Master Developer for Alameda Point. Harbor Bay has been
part of Alameda for more than 30 years and has developed an excellent master - planned community
in our city. Such project also generates a large amount of taxes to pay for city services. While
Harbor Bay residents constitute only 1/8 of the city's population, their homes make up more than
50% of the city's property tax base. And Harbor Bay long has patronized local businesses, hired
local contractors, and employed local residents.
Last but not the least, Harbor Bay has silently supported many of our community organizations over
the years. I am a member of an organization of Filipino - Americans in Alameda (UPA). I was once
its president and have been on its Board of Directors for 10 years. For many years, our civic group
ran the city's emergency shelter for battered women and children. Harbor Bay was a supporter of
our efforts then. We also have an outstanding student award program. Many of our awardees have
become doctors, lawyers, and even an Alameda councilman. Harbor Bay has not only offered us
support; on its own, it is one of the major sponsors of the Adopt -a- School Program in Alameda.
I urge you to choose Harbor Bay not only because it is a member of our community but also
because they have demonstrated in our own backyard that they have the experience, the expertise,
and the creativity to make Alameda Point a success. I urge you take care of our own because our
own happens to be a most qualified choice as well.
Sincerely
Jay d9 los Reyes
16 ampton Cou
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel. 510.865.8754
E -mail: jdelosreyes @alum.mit.edu
Master Developer Selection Committee
David Berger, Assistant City Manager
Collette Meunier, Planning Director
Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director
Suzanne Ota, Parks and Recreation Director
Mike Pucci, Housing Authority Director
Doug Yount, Development Services Director, Ex- Officio Member
Gayle Codiga, Alameda Chamber of Commerce
Ardella Dailey, Alameda Unified School District
Allan Shore, Public Transit Committee (Xanthos)
John Abrate, Economic Development Committee
Gary Bard, Alameda Point Advisory Committee
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Ralph Appezzato, Mayor of the City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Council Member
Albert DeWitt, Council Member
Barbara Kerr, Council Member
Beverly Johnson, Council Member
James Flint, City Manager
David Berger, Assistant City Manager
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 215, ALAMEDA, CA 94501
(510) 523 -5955 waba @vdn.com
July 26, 2001
Mayor Ralph Appezzato and
ARRA Members
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mayor Appezzato and ARRA Members:
The Board of the West Alameda Business Association today passed a resolution of unanimous support
for the Catellus Corporation to be selected as the master developer for Alameda Point. This decision was
made after Question and Answer sessions by the Board with each of the three candidates qualified
by the City for this role as well as individual review of the Summary Comparison prepared by Keyser
Marston Associates, consultant to the City of Alameda.
The following factors were considered in arriving at this vote of support for Catellus:
1) Their proposal was most responsive to community input
2) Demonstrated understanding of the needs and goals of the business district
3) Favorable proportion of residential development and affordable housing
4) Respect for Alameda style and tradition
5) Proposed development appeared to be closest to the base re -use plan
formulated by community groups and the City
6) Realistic transportation plan with potential for early implementation
It should also be noted that all members of the Board were asked to recuse themselves from discussion
and voting on this matter if they had a commercial interest in the development or any of the develper
candidates. Iry Hamilton was the only member who identified potential conflict of interest and did so
recuse himself.
If any members of the ARRA, the Council or City staff have questions or requests for clarification on this
resolution, please contact me directly.
We look forward to your decision this coming August 9th.
Sincerely yours,
J
John Huetter
President of the Board
Dedicated to promoting and improving west Alameda through
an active partnership of community and business
EGIONAI. FAKna
EAST DAY REGIONAL PARK DISYflICT
July 20, 2001
Catehus.
Atm. Ms. Mutly Maybrun
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2150
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Appreciation for Support of Proposed Regional Park Improvements at Alameda
Point in Catellus' Master Developer Proposal
Dear Ms. Mayhrun_
The East Bay Regional Park District is very pleased prith Catellus' inclusion of financial
and physical accommodations for regional reccreeationiiin their Haste Developer Proposal
for Alameda Point. The acknowledgment of the intrinsic value and amenity that regional
recreation will provide to the Alameda Point commu ity is truly indicative of Catellus'
experience and success in partnering with varying interests to create vital and attractive
communities. Alameda Point could be another one of those special places if the provision
of regional recreation is facilitated in the meaner described in the proposal. We look
forward to another opportunity to work with Catellus and to add true value to the day to
day eiperiences of many more Fast Bay area residents.
Thanks for your efforts on this worthy project.
Mike Anderson
Chief of .Parkland Design
RECD t VED
.tUL 2 3 2001
cautlius
2060 Parana oaks Cuurt [`.o. Sox 6381 ra &kuaru1. CA 94606 0381
T. y7O n. %�J -O!35
tar: 510 560'43 fa
meow +eitaark3.ofg
TOO. 510 633 0460
cCiAtko of OITCOTOA;
Ocvotly 1,9114
r re2;: enr
w,rn ti
Gaiv! iravcirn
NCrPrealQent
W ;re 3
,lnnn .lutlet
ifa'i L11rRf
Wartl w
Ayn woskamn
oe crot tV
WaUO
Teo nodko
we`c
Lc:.ig cif t
w;■2 4
JF;n Sui
wem
Pat O'ation
3cnere16fencT '
** TOTAL PAGE.02 **
July 31, 2001
Angelo Siracusa
30 Orange Avenue
Larkspur, CA 94939
Dear Mr. Siracusa:
City of Alameda • California
Re: Transportation Section of Alameda Point Development Proposals
Your letter dated July 27, 2001, which concludes that the Catellus proposal is superior due to use of
the railroad right -of -way, was received in the Office of the City Clerk. Copies of the communication
have been transmitted to the City Council and staff for their information and consideration.
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint with the City Council.
Very truly yours,
weir
Lara Weisiger
Acting City Clerk
cc: City Councilmembers
City Manager
Assistant City Manager, CED
Development Services Director
ARRA Secretary
Office of the City Clerk
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380
Alameda, California 94501
510 748.4506 • Fax 510 748.4503 • TDD 510 522.7538
CI Printed on Recycled Paper
ANGELO J. SIRACUSA
30 Orange Avenue
Larkspur, CA 94939
Phone ....415/924 -0238 Fax....415/924 -0239
email asiracusa@msn.com
July 27, 2001
Honorable City Council
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Members of the Council:
I write this letter as a person involved in transportation and planning issues for most of my
professional life. In 1997 I retired after twenty five years as President of the Bay Area Council,
a regional public policy body, with strong emphasis on transportation matters. Also, from
1986 to early this year I was a Commissioner of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC.) So, while not a transportation technician, I have been intimately involved in the
planning and implementation of transportation policy throughout the Bay region.
I have reviewed the transportation sections of the three proposals to develop Alameda Point. I
believe that all three convey an understanding of the transportation challenges and offer both
conventional and innovative solutions within Alameda and linking Alameda to the rest of the
Bay Area.
In my service at MTC I had the reputation of pushing for practical and achievable solutions — in
both transit and road development and in ways to reduce demand. That viewpoint leads me to
conclude that the Catellus submittal is superior because its proposal for the use of the railroad
right -of -way can be implemented most easily, cost efficiently and quickly. A dedicated route
to move people on and off the island would be effective and enjoy a quick pay -off. It also gives
the City the long -term option of continuing and enhancing bus service or adopting light rail.
I commend the City of Alameda for your enlightened approach to the transfer of the former
Alameda Naval Station into civilian use for community and regional benefit. Because of your
approach and the natural advantages of Alameda, you have the unique opportunity to create a
very special community at Alameda Point.
Sincerel
C: Ralph Appezzato
ngelo Siracusa
From: <MFredrick @levi.com>
To: <rappezza @ci.alameda.ca.us >, <tdaysog @aol.com >, <bjohnson @ci.alameda.ca.us >,
<bkerr @ci.alameda.ca.us>
Date: 8/1/01 1:47PM
Subject: Master Developer Selection
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
I regret that I am unable to attend the August 1st presentations by the 3
finalists selected as potential Master Developers for Alameda Point. As you
meet in your role as ARRA to consider the developer of choice, I urge you to
support the Catellus Corporation.
As a resident of West Alameda and an active member of the West Alameda
Business Association, I attended many of the early base reuse workshops and
town hall meetings and have followed the progress of this project closely.
I have had an opportunity to speak with representatives of each developer
and also to review the comprehensive Summary Comparison prepared by Keyser
Marston for the City of Alameda. I am confident that the Catellus Proposal
best represents the ideas captured through extensive community input
initially gathered by the BRAG.
The Catellus Proposal:
demonstrates an understanding of the needs and goals of the West
Alameda Business District
offers a reasonable balance between residential, commercial, civic,
and cultural spaces
outlines a realistic approach to transportation alternatives
indicates a respect for Alameda style and tradition in both
lifestyle and architecture
captures the essence of the base re -use plan developed by the City
I respectfully request your support for the Catellus Corporation as Master
Developer for Alameda Point.
Regards,
Mi'Chelle Fredrick
Co- Chair, WABA Design Committee
CC: <lakil @ci.alameda.ca.us>
August 1, 2001
East Bay Region
7700 Edgewater Drive #800, Oakland, California 94621 - 3024.510 -553 -9833 Fax: 510 -553 -0432
.sonc.org
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Ralph Appazzato
Tony Daysog
Beverly Johnson
Al DeWitt
Barbara Kerr
Dear Alameda Council Members:
On behalf of Special Olympics Northern California, East Bay Region, I want to acknowledge the
support of the Doric Group of Companies for Special Olympics.
Tim Hoppen, of the Doric Group and also the Harbor Bay /Lennar has been a long -time donor of
the Sports Challenge event in Alameda that benefits Special Olympics. He is community minded
and involves his business contacts in outreach to help sustain Special Olympics funding for the
local Alameda Special Olympics athletes. His contributions have been great and we consider him
our most important corporate sponsor for Sports Challenge.
I know that Harbor Bay /Lennar considers Alameda a jewel. If they were to develop Alameda
Point, I'm sure they wo Id add to the beauty and a boost the economy to your lovely city.
In the Sprit of Special Olympic
Susan Hulse
Regional Development Director
East Bay Region
Special Olympics
Created by the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation for the,benefit;of persons with`'mental retardation.
EMU III I WEST OAKLAND COMMERCE ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 23612 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94623
(510) 272 -WocA (9622) FAX (925) 943 -7259
Visit www.wocajournal.com or www.westoaklandca.com
®41111 1 1 t
OFFICERS
Norman Hooks
President
George Burtt
VP Internal Affairs
Rod Blake
VP Public Affairs
Steve Lowe
VP Economic Development
Donald Puccini
VP Real Estate
Bob Tuck
VP Meeting Chairman
Ron Teffs
Secretary / Treasurer
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Rod Blake
Reefer Depot Services
George Burtt
Cameron Enterprises
Bob Haslam
Pacific Supply Company
Norman Hooks
Norman Hooks Architect
Larry Jacobs
Pacific Pipe Company
Dave Johnson
Oakland Commerce Corporation
Peter Kassel
Kassel & Associates
Steve Lowe
Urbanspace Development
Tom McCoy
BBI Construction
Jack Munson
Fee Munson Ebert Architecture & Design
Donald Puccini
Puccini Properties
Jim Putz
Port of Oakland
Francis Rush
West -Grand Adeline Association
Christine Saed
West Oakland Public Library
Roger Schmidt
Retsina Company
Jeff Sibley
J.T. Trucking Co.
Rusty Snow
Snow Property Company
Ron Teffs
Hard Chrome Engineering
Thomas Thatcher
Hamilton, Cohn, Thatcher & Assoc.
Bob Tuck
Atlas Heating
Richard Wang
National Recycling
July 27, 2001
Alameda City Council
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara
Alameda CA 94501
Re: Point Alameda to West Oakland BART Aerial Tramway
Dear Councilmembers:
WOCA's membership consists of approximately 200 of West Oakland's
most prominent property owners, business owners and /or business operators, all
of whom are dedicated to a higher and better local economy. As such, we believe
wholeheartedly that the proposed subject tramway will prove to be a major catalyst
in the overall improvement of our West Oakland transportation infrastructure, and
we ardently support and welcome the soonest implementation possible of this
major innovative link with BART.
We trust that, regardless of the developer chosen to bring Alameda Point to
its highest and best reuse, the City of Alameda will recognize the full worth of the
tramway to the greater metropolitan region, not only in terms of its eminently
worthwhile contributions to cleaner air and reduced traffic congestion, but also as
an unparalleled opportunity to generate greater tourism for the East Bay — needed
support for our widely- acknowledged shortfall of hotel, retail and entertainment
venues. In that light, the tramway becomes a virtual necessity for this sector of the
Bay Area, and, in any event, needs to be built either via joint agreement between
Oakland and Alameda or in some other public /private partnership with the eventual
Master Developer chosen for Point Alameda.
WOCA looks forward to working closely with r e City of Alameda to help
realize this supremely intriguing proposal, and we sh to commend you for also
thinking in terms of regional need in your endeavor o convert Alameda Point into
one of the most exciting residential, retail and recr -. tional destinations in the entire
Bay Area.
Cord' y,
Ste
Serving the Business Community Since 1990
, Economic Development
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific
MARINE DIVISION -- INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION
NATIONAL OFFICE • 1711 W. NICKERSON ST., S 11. D • SEATTLE, WA 98119 • (206) 284 -6001 • FAX: (206) 284-5043
August 1, 2001
Good Evening Mayor and City Council Members,
I am the Regional Director of the Inlandboatmen's Union, Marine Division of the ILWU. I serve
with Mayor Appezzato on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit
Authority.
I come before you to urge you to award the master development agreement of Alameda Point to
Harbor Bay Maritime/Lennar.
The Inlandboatmen's Union has had a strong and close working relationship with Harbor Bay
since 1992.
Harbor Bay is a fully licensed; PUC regulated operating ferry service with the experience and
expertise to expand service to Alameda Point in a timely fashion.
Harbor Bay and Doric were instrumental in the creation of the Water Transit Authority and are
well positioned to provide management and services for a Bay Area Wide Transit System and
currently provide representation on the Technical Advisory Committee of the Water Transit
Authority. This is the Regional Agency responsible for developing the world -class water
transportation system on the Bay.
We are currently in dialog with Lennar on the Hunters Point Project regarding expanded Ferry
Service and believe that this development team with all their real estate development, military
base re -use experience and water transit background are best equipped to be the Master
Developer at Alameda Point.
Harbor Bay understands the unique needs of the local community and is accomplished in
delivering water transit service. The Alameda Point Project's success will depend on moving
people on and off the island.
The quickest way to accomplish the movement of the individuals who will live and work on the
island is to develop a comprehensive regional water transit system in order to overcome the
transportation hurdles. This team knows best how to make it happen. For this reason I urge you
to select the team of Harbor Bay / Lennar as Master Developer of Alameda Point.
That concludes my comments. Thank you.
rely, r
PUGET SOUND
1711 W. Nickerson, Ste. D
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 284 -5040
FAX: (206) 284 -5043
Marina V. Secchitano
Regional Director
San Francisco Region
REGION 37
1711 W. Nickerson, Ste. D
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 284-5321
FAX: (206) 284 -5043
COLUMBIA RIVER
2435 NW Front Ave.
Portland, OR 97209
(503) 228-6000
FAX: (503) 223 -2556
REGIONAL OFFICES
SAN FRANCISCO HAWAII SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALASKA
450 Harrison Street 1001 Dillingham Blvd., Rm. 217 1911 N. Gaffey, Ste. A•B Post Office Box 6300
San Francisco, CA 94105 Honolulu, HI 96817 San Pedro, CA 90731 Ketchikan, AK 99901
(415) 896-1224 (808) 847 -0611 (310) 521 -9003 (907) 225 -6360
FAX: (415) 896 -1226 FAX: (808) 847 -8051 FAX: (310) 521 -9094 FAX: (907) 225-8656
JUNEAU
76 Egan Drive, Ste 300
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 586-8200
FAX: (907) 586-8222
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment
Authority
Hearing on selection of Master Developer for Alameda Point
August 1, 2001
As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Alameda
County Transportation Authority and a resident of Alameda since the
Navy left in 1997, I have long been interested in how the base will be
redeveloped and the type of commerce it will generate on the East Bay.
Circulation is integral to urban development and the transportation
elements proposed by Alameda Point Community Partners and Harbor
Bay /Lennar leave me very concerned about their impact on the city's
economic vitality and its quality of life.
A gondola to West Oakland BART does nothing to link the Point to the
rest of the island or to actual destinations on the mainland. A point -to-
point conveyance like a gondola does not even provide mobility within
the sprawling complex. BART trains going through West Oakland are
already over capacity, so it makes no sense to cram even more
commuters into a station where they cannot squeeze aboard to get where
they are ultimately headed. -g'sk dihcv
Shuttle buses are energy aid labor intensive and thus impracticable for
moving large numbers of people. Diesel Multiple Units are yet another
19th century technology that has no place in the new millennium.
Neither DMU's, light rail, nor bus rapid transit can provide the on-
demand 24 x 7 service expected by today's dynamic, individualistic
society. Delays to cross traffic and hazards posed to pedestrians,
rollerbladers, scooters and skateboarders by traditional system - oriented
modes of transit detract from community life.
Their capital cost is prohibitive and the operating losses would be a
liability on Alameda taxpayers or the developer for generations to come.
Don't look to Measure B for funding — there is no provision in the 20-
year Expenditure Plan approved last November for a corridor to
Alameda Point.
Bill Stremmel /ARRA: Recommendation for selection of Master Developer 8/1/01
And I should live so long to see a second BART tube with stations in
Alameda. Once again, they do nothing for intra - island circulation.
So that leaves the Catellus proposal to evolve existing rights -of -way into
a guideway for either an automated people mover or an advanced group
rapid transit. AGRT is being developed right here in Alameda by
CyberTran. BART has shown interest in this technology.
Another plus for Catellus from a transportation standpoint is a better
balance between housing and jobs. Commercial space is glutted while
the housing market remains tight. So by letting more people live closer
to work, Catellus' plan gets more cars off our local streets as well as
reducing the commute burden on county highways and the tubes. With
Catellus already slated to develop the FISC, choosing them to do
Alameda Point would allow the costs of the guideway to be shared
between the two developments. Financing the guideway and other
infrastructure is more assured dealing with a single entity like Catellus
than the partnerships advancing the other two plans.
Alameda will live with the consequences of the decision on August 9th
for the rest of this 21st century. I urge that you keep the long -range
interest of this community uppermost in your deliberations.
Bill Stremmel
2825 Newport Road
Alameda, CA 94501 -7117
phone: (925) 382 -0498
email: stremmel @home
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510-864-0370 FAX 510-864-2144
hudsonspangler@earthlink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-3963
August 1, 2001
TO: Members of the Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority (ARRA)
FROM: Bike Alameda
RE: Master Development Recommendations
Dear Members of the ARRA,
Bike Alameda's Advocacy Group has followed and researched the city's Master
Developer selection process for Alameda Point (AP) with great concern for the future of
our community. A number of complex factors must be carefully balanced in ARRA's
decision, and we appreciate all the time and effort that many members of our community,
city staff and elected officials have contributed to this long process.
As bicyclists, cycling and related issues such as transportation are our first priority. We
are not just bicyclists, however. We are also homeowners, working professionals, Master
Gardeners, renters, citizens, car owners, ferry passengers, taxpayers, parents, shoppers
and members of the wider community. It is from this wider perspective that we have
examined the potential Master Developer candidates from a more comprehensive
viewpoint than bicycling alone.
We have tried to examine the three finalists' proposals thoroughly, by attending
community workshops at Alameda Point (AP), reading the proposals and Reuse Plan,
and discussing the issues with a number of community members and activists. We also
met with representatives from the two developers selected for our own "short list,"
Catellus and Alameda Point Community Partners. (Additional information on our
priorities and decision-making will be available shortly at www.bikealameda.orq.)
Bike Alameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 1 of 4
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510-864-0370 FAX 510-864-2144
hudsonspangler@earthlink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-3963
HARBOR BAY/LENNAR
The proposal from Harbor Bay/Lennar had some commendable points. Unfortunately,
their bid did not seem as strong as other proposals. Their transportation management
strategy (including bicycling and other modes) was not detailed or visionary enough to
satisfy us, and it seemed overly dependent on diesel buses, and on BART.
ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND CATELLUS: OUR "SHORT LIST"
The presentations from Catel lus and APCP seemed to us to be clearly superior at the
June 23 Master Developer Community Workshop. Both plans appeared to meet our
requirements for sustainability, transportation management, environmental compatibility,
and social responsibility/community involvement. (We also found avid cyclists playing
major roles on each development team.) Many of us in Bike Alameda, and our friends in
the Alameda Transit Advocates (ATA) independently concluded that the Catellus and
APCP proposals were the most promising ones, with the APCP bid appearing to be
somewhat "greener" in the details of its approach than Cate! lus'. Catel lus appeared to
have an edge in technical knowledge, financial and management capability, and in the
quality of its presentations.
Representatives from Bike Alameda recently met with representatives from both Catellus
and APCP. We wanted to find out how comfortable we would be working closely with
each developer as the redevelopment of AP proceeded over the next 11-20 years.
Would they listen, be responsive to our concerns, and be willing to incorporate our
suggestions and goals?
Following the two meetings, our positive impressions regarding Catel lus and APCP were
confirmed. Bike Alameda's representatives unanimously agreed that we could work
successfully with either Catellus or APCP as Master Developers. Both firms represented
a significantly sustainable "green" agenda for the development at AP. In addition, both
Bike Alameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 2 of 4
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510-864-0370 FAX 510-864-2144
hudsonspangler@earthlink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-3963
have track records showing that they "walk their talk" regarding sustainable development
and environmental issues..
WE CAN WORK WELL WITH BOTH APCP AND CATELLUS
Our most significant conclusion is this: both developers seem genuinely interested in
being full partners with the City of Alameda in order to implement the kind of
development at AP that we desire as a community. Both seem eager to work with
groups like ours, and to learn from our ideas and suggestions. Both seem to have a
serious and continuing commitment to satisfy the community's needs and goals in a
socially and environmentally responsible manner. All of this is very encouraging for
Alameda's future and the future of Alameda Point.
APCP presents very innovative concepts and designs that showed more "green" details
than any other developer. Bike Alameda would love to see this kind of environmental
leadership (from aerial gondolas to bamboo flooring and recycling) be the hallmark of our
redevelopment throughout Alameda Point.
CATELLUS ENDORSED
Catellus won our endorsement, however. They intend to unify Alameda Point with the
rest of Alameda, and they seem slightly more willing to hear and incorporate our views
(and those of others in the community) during development. The addition of 2000 more
housing units, with less commercial development is an important response to our housing
crisis and a very intelligent response to the market. Catellus plans to reduce traffic
congestion significantly in the very near future through providing "clean" shuttles, and
local transit "nodes" within walking distance of most AP destinations. Members of the
Catel lus team have also spent many hours volunteering in Alameda, and we appreciate
that community involvement.
Bike Alameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 3 of 4
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510 - 864-0370 FAX 510-864-2144
hudsonspangler @earthl_ink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 -3963
We want to re- emphasize that we are comfortable working with either Catellus or with
APCP. Both propose intelligent, practical and detailed visions for the rebirth of Alameda
Point. Both firms are capable of improving their plans for Alameda Point with additional
community input. With this encouragement, both developers are capable of completing a
showcase project that will still be environmentally sound, progressive and sustainable in
another 50 -100 years. We look forward to helping Catellus —or APCP to make that
happen at Alameda Point and for all of Alameda.
e •ectfully submitted,
on Spangler
On behalf of Peter Lenhardt, John McCabe, Dan Wood, and Director Lucy Gigli
of the BikeAlameda Advocacy Group
BikeAlameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 4 of 4
Organization
Catellus has a strong team of, local in -house real- estate development profession-
als. The team is experienced in a full range of disciplines, required for the suc-
cessful development of Alameda Point, including:
• Catellus is an organization specifically organized to develop complex
projects such as Alameda Point.
• Master planning and entitlement experience.
• Coordinating and incorporating community input.
• Commercial, retail and residential (market rate and affordable) development.
• Asset management.
• Public and private financing.
• In -house legal counsel.
• Construction management.
• Environmental services and risk management.
• Project, infrastructure, environmental and building financing.
▪ Transportation program implementation and management.
• A local developer that knows Alameda as well as utilities, resource
agencies, Navy representatives and others key to Alameda Point.
• A single entity that makes fast, efficient decisions.
• An organization that Alamedans know — one that has met all of our promises.
Experience
Catellus has demonstrated its ability to meet the challenges presented by large
redevelopment projects.
• Negotiation of complex entitlement solutions.
• Redevelopment of former military and environmentally impacted properties.
• Development of affordable housing that is integrated with the community
• Create funding for implementation of transit solutions.
GATE LLUS
Financial Resources
Catellus has ample financial resources to fund the predevelopment, infrastruc-
ture, renovation and construction costs at Alameda Point. Catellus has the finan-
cial strength to complete the redevelopment without relying on investors or other
financial partners, and has committed to do so.
Commitment to Alameda
Catellus is committed to being an important and supportive partner in the
Alameda community.
Participates directly and actively in the community, not just through
philanthropy.
ffi Provides hands -on issue resolution; e.g. affordable housing at the
FISC /East Housing redevelopment.
Considers the social — as well as land -use — implications of reuse.
Understands the dynamic changes affecting the West End and the rest of
Alameda.
Catellus participates in, and supports, activities such as: Alameda Chamber of
Commerce awards program; Alameda Education foundation fund- raising con-
certs; Home Project building rehabilitation; Home Project skateboard park;
WABA "Concerts at the Cove "; and, WABA Streetscape Renaissance Program.
CATELLUS
They Vision and Pi
Honoring the Past
Creatively rehabilitate historically significant buildings and incorporate the exist-
ing historic assets — such as the USS Hornet museum and other landmarks —
into the development plan. Develop new buildings that respect the rich heritage
of Naval Air Station Alameda. Create a "History Walk ", an educational and recre-
ational activity honoring the history of the NAS Alameda.
Integrate with the Existing Community
Catellus' vision for Alameda Point is to fully integrate the development into
Alameda with seamless linkage of the Alameda roadway grid, community -ori-
ented open spaces, walkways and recreational amenities.
We are planning a human- scale, mixed -use development that encourages pedes-
trian and bike circulation and de- emphasizes the automobile.
Balanced Mix of Jobs and Land Uses
Create jobs at diverse income levels, and develop housing that is affordable to
those incomes. Mix areas of housing and commercial to encourage walking and
biking to work.
Residential Development Vision
Provide a broad spectrum of housing opportunities; from affordable to market -
rate units for families, singles and seniors. Incorporate distinctive architecture,
drawing on the existing neighborhood character of Alameda.
Commercial and Retail Development Vision
Immediately renovate and modernize existing buildings, and develop new struc-
tures that are compatible with historic buildings. Work with existing Alameda
Point companies to meet their needs and ensure they have the opportunity to be
at Alameda Point on a long -term basis. Design for: office; high -tech; biotech;
light manufacturing; marine - related; cultural; educational; and R &D uses. Attract
high - quality companies offering well- paying jobs.
Develop convenience shopping for residents, workers and visitors that supple-
ments rather than detracts from Webster Street and Park Street retail businesses.
The Vision and Project Features
Transportation
The Catellus approach to transportation is realistic, multi- modal, phased, practi-
cal and fundable.
• Incorporate enhanced ferry and bus systems, clean -fuel shuttles to
BART feeder, and improved bike connections. Support the WABA
alternative -fuel shuttle.
• Develop a transportation- demand management program with carpool
and ridesharing support.
■ As Alameda Point grows and demand warrants, create a light -rail
system on the existing Belt Line easement connecting to the Fruitvale
BART station.
Marina
Capitalize on growing market demand for pleasure -boat berths and marine serv-
ices. Develop a mutually beneficial public /private waterfront amenity. Envision
a 1,000 boat marina for houseboats and vessels of various sizes with on -land sup-
port services and marina- related restaurants and retail.
Community Outreach
Continue existing community - liaison and information programs. Create task
forces on key items such as historic renovation, parks, and open space.
Participation in community organizations. Expand current youth programs with
AUSD and The Home Project.
Land Uses based on Community Reuse Plan
2.2 million square feet of commercial office, R &D, Light manufacturing,
high -tech and bio -tech space.
2,400 homes (including 200 Alameda Point Collaborative units).
▪ 900,000 square feet of space for cultural, educational, civic uses, retail
and marine.
m 1,000 -berth marina.
• 79 acres of open space (not including streetscapes).
Uses are based on the goals that were established in the NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan.
Wildlife
Reserve
B -5
r
'''' B2 \\
\\
\\\.\
\\ ` B-4 \ \ \\
\` \
OPEN SPACE
DETACHED HOUSING
ATTACHED HOUSING
COMMERCIAL
CIVIC & CULTURAL USES
MARINA DISTRICT
RETAIL
MIXED USE OVERLAY
T
D -2
D -1
A -2
B -1
'1
C -1
ALAMEDA POINT CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Oakland
ernatiorla
Airpor t
Low density residential
Medium density residential
Public facilities
Retail
Office
Parks and
public recreation
Business park / General industry
Mixed use
Dedicated open space
0
2000
{
FEE
4000
HISTORY Walk
�ri.�...c �i+1*`ic.vtL �h.d:.'.tar,..,e�v...u.✓�:r�4
Origins.
of.ACameda
111.x: Cold l ✓ar
ends and
Navy departs.
Vietnam and
Man on the
Moon.
?rarea and
Cold War.
The Spanish
`Years.
The tale o
(lie rfornet.
Birth of
Alameda.
'Kt "WstiiSzOla
The American
Era.
The Second
World War.
Growth of
Industry.
Alameda
matures.
'The
V.S.Navy
Arrives.
CATF T,T.[ JS
ISTORY Walk
,+ •ux : ":�u�,isnw�i • 'x..r:]n -= s;u' 'a,':: c
for 'a gro
poplars,' : originally a forest of gia .
coastal live oaks, wildflowers, thick
underbrush and poison oak, situated on a
2,200 -acre peninsula, half of it marshland.
For nearly 3500 years it was sparsely
inhabited by its first residents, probalii'
,7,,nch of the Miwok tribe.
OI 1: vember 1 • 5. 3t
as apt S,,aplane Lagoon, a Mar tin i•:i )
Pan American Clipper left for Mini;
Under the command of pilot Car. ii, -
Edwin C. Musick, this Clipper i
initiated the first trans - Pacific airma.•
service. The aircraft had 41 seat: h •
cruised at 130 mph.
vc ind deeds of 1,000 acres from i,:
of Alameda to the U.S. Governor
51.00 marked the beginning
'•meda as a Navy town in 1935. hidii
e ar'ival of the Navy carne change
eda's geography through landf .I an
Ddif rations to the estuary. The buildin
AS Alameda began by infill of
3s len marshy land, to meet a plan t
e 1,000 men and 200 aircra B
nber 1939, Britain and Germ..,
at war, and Congress allocated
w; ., funds F 1
uction o -i base.
The Spanish Fears.
aifta
;.„.g of
rile area of h: id now knc h
Ithe East Bay to Luis Peralta. Alamed
became known as Bolsa de Encina:
because it was a peninsula shaped like a
purse (bolsa) and covered with r,ni:.
groves (encinal). Antonio Maria Peralta,
is's son, inherited Alameda and much of
Oakland in 1842.
1' fie .Second
War.
flag was firs: rais,
.'Jta.: si il5
official opens ig 01'. i4 C. :mi
1 . aptain crank :cCrhr, was
commanding officer. overseeing 39-:
-
sailors =Ind Marines an 200 civilian
employees The first. seven aircraft arrived
x
in 1941: by now there ..:re 150
i ea and 1.800 civilian. ; :orkec
ar, thk-ii December
t.r ..... ._1 ... bor. the NA,. Aiaina ,a v _—i..
able to handle aircraft carriers any Cher
a
vessels. Navy .''LAVES (won';e,,
rrs':•:ere first stationed at the base in
19 3, and played a key role through the
of the war.
Birth of Alameda.
In
Gf.. m; and ` in AL: ba ),
fo..r,,..ng father:, of ALL.. „Jda,
the entire area known as "the Encin
from Antonio Peralta. for the price
514,000. The name was changed '.o
Alameda, meaning "grove of pc: : :clr
trees '.
In 1853, a ferry service opened om
Alameda to San Francisco; it lastec
one year.
The tare of
The Hornet.
During the 14 • N • tai i,da :..._.
home to many P famous ships. among then
the USS Antietam, USS Boxer. and the
USS Valley Forge. Nearly 50 carrier-
based squadrons operaeilfrom the bass,
worked and served there. In March 1942.
At my Air Corps Colonel James Doolittle's
16 9-25 bombers were loaded from the
pier at NAS Alameda on the USS Horne:
(CV -8) for a secret mission. On ,April 18.
the aircraft took off from the Hornet 0ni:
mace the first bombing run on Tokyo be
U.S. aircraft. The Hornet was sunk in the
battle of the Santa Cruz Isinnas cr
October 27,1942. A new Hornet (CV-12,
was commissioned on 29 November
1943. She is now a museum at Alani-,!�-
The .American Era
64. A.A.
vice through to.- veed
alc,:,1 Lincoln Boole,ard. Cohen sold C,EF,
railway '.o Central Pacific in 1868, and
September of that same year the fir:; :.
Trans- Continental Railway reached it e
Pacific coast terminating at Alameda!
Korea and
The Cold War.
The pos - v,arperic . )id rednetion
of the military. h\ yosar n[ :cr the war er” _:.- -
there were only 187 officer and 1,7!
enlisted personnel a: NAS Alameda, f',II
base operations we! e reduced to minim.!
levels. But. earl■: in the 1950s, North
Korea invaded South Korea, the U.N.
pushed back. China entered the fray, ar i
file stability of posi-war post-war .world peace
Jr rater l .
Growth of Industry.
By eda
the _ ictories I „ • flora ?: Soap Comp
PaLiiic Oil, Standard Oil and the Gel
Pacific Railroad. It was also :!he i,;der
a major west coast shipbuilding indr stry
including the Moore Company. Bethleir _.l
Steel, and Todd Shipyards.
Vietnam and
Man on the Wioon.
Alameda NAS played a central role in
two of the defining events of the 1900s.
In 1965, American jet fighter bornbers in
South Vietnam home - based In Alameda
attacked communist ground ;hositiene
neutralist Laos, and in April 1968. ei
North Vietnamese port city of Hiaiphon n
was bombed by U.S. planes, dresroyiiiy
two pov. -or plants. Bu' Alamed .'s part
was not limited to the .:areeffors: in
1969, the USS Hornet CV -12 was use;i
for the recovery of the Apofo 11 and
Apollo 12 astronauts, tine first men on
the moon.
Alameda matures.
B
..B
Alameda.
C to own its own ei:e; :
sysieli i. With the 1894 merger of n0
Central and Southern Pacific railroads,
the Alameda Pier and The Mole (a r •
jetty that stuck out into the bay) provides_
an anchorage for ferryboats and e
terminus for the ever - increasing railroad
traffic. Alameda became a popular Wes;
Coast destination for recreation ann
sporting events. Alameda's Neptune
Gardens was the most famous alt at'
center in all of California.
In 1902, the i;n al Canal opened and
Alameda changed from a peninsula to an
isl ni.
Cold War ends
and Wavy departs
In 189. the trlin —tall, 'mbol o •
chilly, decades -old division between East
and West, began to be dismantled
by piece.
The USSR officially dissolved as :Pie
Baltic republics declared taei,
independence and the Communist pa:
was stripped of its power. And in 1 97
NAS Alameda was officially closed.
CATELLUS
•
Ayr
t « °
•
CATELIUS
cJ
PM Peak Hour Off- Island Project Generation
00
00
00 CO
000
000
03 C.0 Nt
0
0L()
"Cr
LC)
LC)
• 0 0 0 0 0
o co o t- CNJ
CV
0• 00000
oacocncn.st-
CN CY, (c)
0 0 0 0 0 0
C) 0) • CN
CO CNI
Other Bus Enhancements
1-*
0
U)
1.0
Worst Case Net Impact (Benefit)
cot
8
0
Level of Service
ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC
Morgan Stanley Centex Homes Shea Homes/Properties Industrial Realty Group
August 1, 2001
Chairman Ralph Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
RE: Alameda Point Community Partners Presentation
Dear Chairman Appezzatto and Board Members:
The following is intended to address specific questions raised by the Board
Members during our July 19th presentation of Alameda Point Community
Partners (APCP) Development Plan to reclaim Alameda Point and integrate this
project back into the fabric of the rest of the island.
I have attached exhibits to the rear of this letter that go into greater depth as to
the following categories:
• Fact Sheet on APCP (Exhibit 1)
• Transit Plan (Exhibit 2)
• Alameda Point Community Character and Housing (Exhibit 3)
• Historic Preservation (Exhibit 4)
• Fiscal Impacts (Exhibit 5)
• Community Involvement (Exhibit 6)
• USS Hornet Entertainment Venue (Exhibit 7)
Firstly, however, 1 will begin by addressing individual member questions in the
order in which we received them.
Member Tony Daysog
Response to the question concerning the feasibility of the transit proposal.
Doppelmayr, whose company is over 100 years old, has installed 6,500
tramways around the world. They have received the proposal and
confirmed that it is a solid solution that can easily span the estuary and
address all engineering concerns. The system proposed is capable of
operating in 95-mile per hour winds. Please see the "Alameda Estuary
Crossing" fact sheet attached to Exhibit 2 for more technical information.
Alariieda Point Community Partners, LLC • 2580 Shea Center Drive • Livermore, California 94550 • 925.245.3600
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 2 of 11
APCP had discussions with BART, Oakland Port, MTC, Air Quality
District, City of Oakland, and Congressional and staff members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. All stated a strong desire
to further explore this exciting urban transportation mode. However, until
further design discussions and environmental issues are researched,
written endorsements are not obtainable from these governmental
agencies, even though enthusiasm is high.
Response to the question about housing strategy around transit nodes.
APCP's development plan is in compliance with Measure A. Therefore,
we are unable to provide a higher density infill project, which is usually
desired at transit hubs. However, if the community desires to increase
densities in that area and accommodate adjustments to Measure A, APCP
will be happy to accommodate such, although we are not proponents of
such.
- Clean air shuttles and existing bus routes will occur along the Atlantic
corridor to provide the residents in that corridor access to the Alameda
Point Multi-Modal Transit Hub.
Response to the question about school fees.
- APCP has a strong philosophy that schools are extremely important to a
great community. Meetings have occurred with the school district and
APCP is prepared to enter into a voluntary fee program, which will
facilitate the district's desires.
The district had concerns of potential loss of school fees due to a
redevelopment district overlay. We have assured them that the district will
receive full SB50 fees for all phases of the project. We are also prepared
to enter into a development agreement that would allow the district to use
parts of these fees, which are legislatively restricted to new facilities, for
modernizing existing facilities. In addition, we agreed to consider funding
a portion of the school fees through a Mello-Roos or assessment district
so the schools could get fees earlier than during development, thereby
accelerating their capital improvement programs.
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 3 of 11
Other discussions with the district focused on the relocation of their Public
Benefit Conveyance property for their corporation yard and centralized
cooking facility. Their property is located in one of the prime locations for
residential development and we are exploring relocation to other
properties on the site, such as the auto repair facility or mess hall. This
way, not only will they have the property, but also the facilities. This
relocation will have no fiscal effect on the district.
In addition to the school district, we will be supporting the Home Project
and exploring other charter school alternatives. We also held discussions
with the Alameda Boys and Girls Club to help establish them in a facility at
Alameda Point.
On-site daycare will also be provided, which will be a strong community
amenity for the residents and employees.
Response to the question concerning business impacts on WABA and
PSBA businesses.
- Please refer to item 4 on Exhibit 6.
Response to fiscal impacts and benefits of APCP's development plan.
- Please refer to Exhibit 5.
In addition to the taxes and fiscal issues outlined in Exhibit 5, it is
important to remember that this project fully reimburses the City of
Alameda for requisite services for the project. In addition, a Landscape
and Lighting Maintenance District will be formed, and in conjunction with
the Home Owners Association, all project landscaping and open space will
be maintained by such.
Response to the question concerning housing diversification.
- Please refer to Exhibit 3.
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 4 of 11
Response to the incorporation of the community into the planning process.
With respect to the request of pages 31 and 32 of the RFP, APCP has not
been allowed to participate with a lot of the community organizations to
this point. Several of the supporters of our competitors stated that they
had "worked with them for the last 10 months" or have "been involved with
them over the past few years." This is clearly a result of former
relationships and is not as a result of this project, which has evolved in the
recent few months. It is critical to be a partner with not only the City, but
with the community at large in any successful development.
Please refer to pages 52 and 53 of our original submittal, which discusses
community involvement and philanthropic endeavors we have done on
previous projects.
Exhibit 6 on the attachments discusses our desires of community
involvement for Alameda Point.
Member Barbara Kerr
Responses to the questions concerning the Alameda transit crisis.
APCP looked at our competitors' solutions as part of our due diligence,
however, since such proposals represented regional funding and support,
we saw no immediate solution to the transit crisis. If these projects
happen, it will be a great addition to our transit package, nevertheless, we
researched a solution that was immediate and helped relieve the existing
crisis.
Please refer to Exhibit 2, which goes into detail on our entire Multi-Modal
Transit Hub. We have also enclosed articles showing existing and
proposed tramways being used as urban transit solutions. In this exhibit,
we also discuss the difficulties with the light rail proposal, which you
clearly stated during the hearing.
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 5 of 11
Response to the questions concerning the recreation acreage.
APCP's recreational and open space plan of the 116 acres does not
include the City's 27-acre sports complex presently being planned or the
Bladium. We had discussions with the Bladium to enhance their facility
and hopefully incorporate additional active outdoor recreational facilities.
The current APCP plan anticipates:
• 24 acres of active recreation (excluding the above mentioned
Bladium improvements).
• Two community event areas of approximately 6 acres each located
at the Marina Green and in front of Building 1 towards the estuary.
• The remaining acreage is composed of field type parks, trails, and
passive open space.
Response to clarify the reuse unit count.
Exhibit 3 gives a full housing summary. However, an answer to the
specific question is:
160 affordable seniors converted at Building 17.
120 lofts (work-live) conversions at Building 3
20 "big whites"
300 units
Response to the question on the Big White conversion.
Historic preservation of the "big whites". The plan, as presented by APCP,
highlights the team's dedication to preservation of the historic features.
The 20 "big whites" will be renovated and additions made in an
architecturally sensitive way to preserve and enhance their unique
character, while bringing them up to current market expectations, such as
having a two-car garage.
While their single-loaded street layout is inefficient by today's standards, it
is a significant contributor to their historic quality and provides housing
opportunities at very low densities, approximately 1.5 units per gross acre.
APCP understands that the space between historic buildings is as
important in contributing to the historic character of a district as the
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 6 of 11
buildings themselves, and does not plan to infill in around these historic
homes. The gracious tree-lined streets that give the neighborhood a
unique character are also preserved.
Response to the question on fiscal issues.
- In recent discussions, Dave Berger announced that fiscal issues would be
addressed in confidence in a closed session with the Board Members.
However, I want to assure you that APCP is prepared to move forward, as
outlined in our business plan, with a significant minimum payment paid in
equal installments over a five-year period upon achievement of residential
entitlements. The ARRA shall further receive a share of the overall profits
from redevelopment of Alameda Point after the master developer has
received a to-be-negotiated internal rate of return on invested capital.
This includes ARRA's participation in the development of homes through
its profit-sharing with APCP. In addition to the payment for land, the City
of Alameda shall receive from the partnership annual payments necessary
to make debt service payments on the Alameda Public Financing Authority
$10 million variable rate bonds and operating payments to meet the City's
goal of fiscal neutrality.
Member Beverly Johnson
Response to the question on working with the Hornet and the museum.
APCP sees the Hornet and Museum as a major cultural and entertainment
anchor to the development of our waterfront celebration. We met with
them to discuss their needs and desires and how our project can be a
benefit to them. APCP understands the importance of having all partners
on strong financial ground (or water, in this case) and we will be working
with them to address various financial programs. The gondola will also be
a strong component of getting people to the USS Hornet.
In addition, the Dahlin Group, our land planner and architect, prepared a
business plan for a flexible entertainment venue about the USS Hornet
Aircraft Carrier (see Exhibit 7).
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 7 of 11
Responses to the questions concerning the location of the transit hub and
the timing for BART development to Alameda.
APCP concurs with your concern of the location of the transit hub. Our
transit plan is the only one to truly have a full multi-modal transit hub at the
edge of the Seaplane Lagoon to incorporate the important ferry terminal.
See Exhibit 2, which clearly outlines our transit solution. It is also
important to review our comments about BART's 30-year timeframe
before developing to the island. As previously stated, this is why we have
taken our transit solution to BART.
Response to the questions to address historic preservation.
As shown in both Exhibits 3 and 4, historic preservation is an integral part
of our proposal.
The attached rendering, which we showed in our original proposal and
attached to Exhibit 4, clearly shows our zealous incorporation of history
and the reclamation of this property into a new vibrant community.
Response to the question on early transfer issues.
- The key to success on a project like Alameda Point is to have a strong
financial team that clearly understands the success for all stakeholders,
and that is willing to make an early investment in the reclamation and
development of the property.
The early transfer is a component needed to ultimately develop the entire
project as the privatization of the clean-up will be much more cost effective
and timely than going through a military process.
Too often the environmental contamination is used as an excuse for not
investing and the development sits idle for years. APCP stands
committed to immediately make an early investment into the project with
lighting, signage, landscaping, amenities, and needed infrastructure to
jump-start the development and create additional value to the property.
The success of such is clearly shown in projects like McClellan Air Force
Base, which you recently visited. The City will not only share in these
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 8 of 11
added revenues, but in an increased tax base upon the ultimate transfer.
This leverage is largely possible due to the City successfully putting in
place the existing tenant base.
To properly quantify the clean-up costs and obtain needed reports in order
to receive needed insurance policies, APCP is prepared to spend between
$250,000 and $400,000 to fill in data gaps in the Navy's assessments.
Upon the completion of these studies, APCP and the City will be prepared
to enter into negotiations with the Navy.
Upon the successful negotiation with the Navy, two insurance policies will
be obtained based upon the above data. The first is to indemnify the City,
the developers, and the tenants against any future unknown pollution.
The second policy will be to protect all parties from cost overruns during
the clean up.
Cherokee Investment Group and Industrial Realty Group are giants in this
field. Cherokee alone has handled over 260 transfers of contaminated
properties.
Response to the question about fiscal impacts on services and revenue
analysis.
- Please refer to the answers provided to the questions posed by Tony
Daysog. Also, please refer to Exhibit 5.
Response to the question about seniors housing and the collaborative.
- Please refer to Exhibit 3.
Member Albert H. DeWitt
Response to the question inquiring as to how much up-front cash is
involved.
- APCP has prepared a fiscal model, based on our proposal, which shows
$98 million will be invested by APCP before we start receiving any positive
cash flow.
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 9 of 11
Response to the question about our vision.
- Rather than through words, the development of our video was a large
fiscal investment to clearly and graphically show our vision. All of the
attached exhibits highlight the important components of our vision.
Responses to the question about how many base closures can APCP
undertake.
Our experience actually developing McClellan AFB and Letterkenny Army
Depot is what makes us uniquely qualified to develop Alameda Point. The
"lessons learned" at these sites are directly applicable to the task at
Alameda. Unlike our competitors, we've actually developed bases, not
just sat on the land waiting for entitlements and/or environmental
remediation. McClellan is widely considered the best base redevelopment
in the country.
The truth is, Lennar/HB are currently responsible for the development of
more military bases than we are. In fact, all of their bases are in or around
the Bay Area (Mare Island, Hunters Point, finalist at Treasure Island,
George AFB). What distinguishes us from them, however, is not the
number of bases we are each developing; it's the approach and track
record. Our development of McClellan is not a "land play." Unlike
Catellus at FISK and Lennar at Mare Island/Hunters Point, we've invested
almost $50 million in McClellan without actually owning the property and
prior to the early transfer of title. They, on the other hand, have invested
very little (if anything) while they wait for the properties to be entitled. One
final, very important point: we have no conflicting developments in the Bay
Area that will rob Alameda Point of our attention, finance, or marketing.
Catellus is conflicted with FISK and Mission Bay; Lennar is conflicted with
Mare Island, Hunters Point, likely Treasure Island, and Harbor Bay.
Even though financial constraints would not stop our team from acquiring
a lot more bases, we make a conscious decision to acquire only enough
properties in order to do the job right. Many of our reuse projects are in
various stages of development that do not require full-time attention by the
principal owners. This selection as the master developer of Alameda
Point is our top priority. Principal owners such as Thom Gamble of Shea
Homes, Stuart Lichter of IRG, Eric Kaplan of Morgan Stanley, David
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 10 of 11
Barclay of Centex Homes, and Bob Burke of Shea Properties stand
waiting to manage this great opportunity at Alameda Point.
Responses to the question of our property/asset management structure.
In all instances, a principal equity owner is in charge of the reuse projects
from acquisition and entitlement through sales and leasing and property
management. However, the support staff is normally local employees that
understand the local issues, marketplace, and needs. This also includes
the use of local construction trades and maintenance personnel.
- With the diversity of needs on this project from small tenant improvements
through to hundreds of millions of dollars in construction and
infrastructure, small and large local companies of professional consultants
and trades will benefit.
APCP is also prepared to invest venture capital with solid incubator
companies to help secure a location with Alameda Point. This could
include soliciting local businesses to expand their current operations to
include secondary locations at Alameda Point.
Response to the question of community involvement.
Please refer to Exhibit 6.
Response to the questions of union support.
APCP met with the various union organizers and attempted to enter into a
gentleman's agreement to use predominately union trades in the major
trade activities. This has been successful in other Bay Area counties such
as Santa Clara County where they vigorously support our projects.
However, the local unions have taken the stance that a 100% union
project agreement is needed prior to support.
It continues to be our position to not enter into such an agreement at this
time, until the business understanding is reached with the City of
Alameda. This is a fiscal issue with which our partner, the City, needs to
also agree and understand.
August 1, 2001
Chairman Appezzatto and Honorable Board Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 11 of 11
Chairman Ralph Appezzatto
Response to the statement of BART to Alameda being a long way off.
- As previously stated in the Beverly Johnson comments and in Exhibit 2,
we completely concur with Mr. Appezzatto's assessment. This proposal is
being considered in a 30-year timeframe.
Response to the statement of a transit solution that takes into account the
island nature of Alameda.
- This is exactly what we had in mind when we considered the gondola
system over the waterways and the ferry system across the waterways.
Response to the statement of the City's desire to work closely with the
Master Developer.
- APCP also strongly acknowledges the City as an important component of
the community in this project, who must also address a multitude of
concerns and issues. However, APCP also acknowledges the City of
Alameda as a financial partner and, as done at Hamilton Army Base and
McClellan Air Force Base, weekly or bimonthly meetings were routine for
scheduling and business discussion purposes.
As President of Alameda Point Community Partners, I look forward to opening
my new office at Alameda Point, and would like to take this opportunity to thank
you in advance for your support.
Sincerely,
ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY PARTNERS
Thom Gamble
President
TG:law
ARRA 080101 Letter doc
ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC
Morgan Stanley Centrex Homes Shea Homes /Properties Industrial Realty Group .
The Team
Morgan Stanley
• One of the largest, most active buyers of real estate in the world
• $20 billion invested in real estate acquisitions over last eight years
• Fund already raised and available for Alameda Point
• Funding not subject to stock market vagaries
Centex Homes
• Top five home builders in United States
• Publicly traded company with $5 billion capitalization
Shea Homes/Properties
• 120 year old company
• Built significant portions of Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Bridge, and BART
• Largest private home builder in United States
• Commercial portfolio in excess of 4,000,000 s.f.
Industrial Realty Group
• Among the largest private owners of industrial and commercial properties in United States
• Recognized as most active adaptive reuse specialist in the United States
Industrial Realty Group and Morgan Stanely are developing what has been identified as the
most successful base reuse project in the country — McClellan AFB.
In fifteen months of work, Industrial Realty Group and Morgan Stanley have completed
the following:
• Invested $1 million/month (total of $40 million by year's end) without owning the property.
• Created over 6,000 jobs
• Leased approximately 3 million square feet
• Recruited TRW, NextLink, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Americorp (domestic Peace
Corps), CalTrans, Win Communications, Boeing, and Technicon (a consortium of the
major auto manufacturers).
• Small business incubator on site.
Alameda Point Community Partners, LLC - 2580 Shea Center Drive • Livermore. California 94550 • 925.245.3600
EXHIBIT 1
Development Program
• No general fund money required or requested. Will not increase local tax rates. Totally
self - funded.
• Any one of the four companies involved has the fmancial capability of developing the
property alone. This creates multiple, redundant financing.
• Unlike our competitors, we will not bring in unspecified, unknown development
companies to complete portions of the project (e.g. housing construction). We will be
directly involved from start to finish.
• Senior management will be located at Alameda Point with extensive decision
making authority.
• We will assume all environmental liabilities and clean-up responsibilities at Alameda Point
• We will pursue and achieve an early transfer, as we we and our environment team have done
on other bases.
• Unlike our competitors, we have no competing commercial developments in the Bay Area.
Alameda Point is our first and only priority.
• Immediate investment in landscaping, signage, lighting and adaptive reuse.
Transportation Plan
• Only plan to link ferry, bus, auto, bicycle, and high -speed gondola in a multi -modal public
transit terminal located on -site.
• 1,800 car parking garage at multi -modal terminal will ameliorate existing tunnel and road
conditions on both sides of the estuary.
• Enhanced, environmentally friendly bus and shuttle service.
• State of the art, high speed, aerial gondola links on -site public transit terminal to West
Oakland BART station.
• Only transportation plan that requires no public financing. Totally self funded through pre
programmed $45 million line item in existing budget.
• Moves 8000 people per hour with no bottlenecks (= 200 fully loaded buses per hour)
• Seven minute ride from start to finish
• Fully accessible by bikes and wheelchairs
• Energy efficient electric motor creates no pollution
• Safe and reliable public transportation currently used around the world
• Designed to grow with demand
• Construction will not disrupt city streets or close local businesses
• Landmark for the city
Commitment to Alameda
• 116 acres of linked open space
• Dedicated pedestrian streets and walkways
• Cultural and public art space dedicated at Sea Plane Lagoon
• 900 slip marina at lagoon
• Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of most historic buildings
• Committed to keeping and expanding current tenants at Alameda Point
• 25% affordable housing
• Variety of housing price points and rental or purchase options, includes significant
workforce housing component
• Enhanced attractions at U.S.S. Hornet. Currently working with Hornet Foundation
(ie IMAX movie, teleconferencing center, Huntsville -style "Space Camp ").
• Committed to continued community involvement.
EXHIBIT 1
TRANSIT PLAN
APCP envisions a bold, exciting new plan that embraces waterborne, pedestrian,
traditional (including buses and clean -air shuttles), and gondola traffic all
converging in a multi -modal terminal designed to grow over time with increasing
traffic demands. The multi -modal terminal will provide easy off - island passage,
serve as a magnet for higher value employment, ease congestion and pollution,
compliment pedestrian commuters, and serve as a retail and recreational venue.
The plan, which is totally funded by APCP's development with no infusion of
public money, includes:
1. A state -of -the -art, high -speed aerial gondola, which links the on -site public
transit terminal to the West Oakland BART station.
A. It is capable of moving up to 8,000 people per hour with no
bottlenecks (this equates to 200 fully - loaded buses).
B. It increases the desirability of use with only a seven - minute ride.
C. Its energy efficient electric motor creates no pollution.
D. It is fully accessible by bikes and wheelchairs.
E. It's construction will not disrupt city streets or close local
businesses.
F. It will be a landmark for the City.
Enclosed, please find information concerning the use of this urban modal
transit system worldwide and other new installations being proposed
currently in the United States.
APCP held meetings with BART officials, Port of Oakland staff, and City of
Oakland elected officials, all of which indicated that this proposal has a lot
of potential and should be further developed. In addition, we met with
Congressman James Obester, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as Committee Member
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher and their staff to pursue this solution as a
west coast pilot project. If federal funds become available, the money
earmarked in our transit plan will drop down to additional cash flow, in
which the City will participate.
2. Consistent with the City's Draft Long Range Transportation Plan, APCP
will relocate the existing ferry terminal to a location within the Seaplane
Lagoon, adjacent to our multi -modal terminal. APCP included the funding
for new ferryboats. This ferry service will provide direct service to and
from San Francisco and Oakland.
3. APCP also included funds for capitol improvements and assets needed to
establish a clean air shuttle service. Funding is also available to expand
existing bus service.
EXHIBIT 2
4. As per historic solutions throughout the world, APCP will provide several
hundred community bicycles for residents and visitors to use within the
community.
5. The multi-modal terminal will exist for the benefit of every resident of
Alameda. Buses and shuttles will connect the other island neighborhoods.
Also, we will provide a location for an 1,800-car parking garage at the
multi-modal terminal, which ameliates the existing tunnel and road
conditions on both sides of the estuary.
6. An appropriate blend of complimentary land uses, the introduction of
senior housing, and live-work opportunities within this pedestrian-friendly
community will all work in concert to significantly reduce congestion and
pollution.
7. APCP is committed to establishing a transportation systems management
plan that will encourage carpooling and use of public transit.
Our plan equates to the construction of a new tube. Our program estimates
potential peak-hour trip capacity by the aerial gondola, enhanced ferry service,
and community shuttles to be approximately 2,470 trips per hour. Not only do we
address additional traffic created as a result of our development, our plan will
actually improve traffic and circulation, as it exists today, by creating additional
capacity island-wide through the tubes and over the bridges.
APCP considered the same transportation solutions as the other proposals. The
following are our comments:
1. Light Rail: The Draft Long Range Transportation Plan contemplates a
new light rail system as one of several longer-term solutions. APCP's
development plan retaines a right-of-way to allow the light rail system to
terminate within walking distance of the multi-modal terminal. However:
A. The cost of such a system is not identified.
B. Encroachments continue to occur along the existing ROW outside
of Alameda Point. On the Oakland side, the probability of an at-
grade crossing is slim.
C. Such a project would be very disruptive to the existing community
during construction and also has long-term acoustical impacts.
D. It is an inefficient use of resources to carry people all the way
across the island to the Fruitvale BART station. This is not a better
opportunity to reduce trips being made to points south because
many of the commuters traveling to Fremont or San Jose have
ample parking. (Hence, public transit represents an inconvenience
to such commuters.) Solutions need to focus on trips heading to
Downtown Oakland and San Francisco.
EXHIBIT 2
E. Any light rail or bus system would have to obtain a special
exception to the rule that the passenger and freight cars cannot use
the same tracks because the light rail alignment to the Fruitvale
BART station would utilize the single-line freight track across the
estuary.
2. BART: The long-range plan for BART is to reroute the main line from the
Fruitvale station to a new location at Jack London Square and back to the
West Oakland Station. The BART staff realizes something major needs to
happen with the downtown Oakland stations as they are too slow and clog
the system. If you map the new proposed route, it would only clip a corner
of Alameda at the eastern end of the island. This is nowhere near
Alameda Point. This above-mentioned proposal is at least 30 years off in
our discussions with BART officials, which gives no immediate relief for
the transit solutions of Alameda Point.
In the discussions with BART, we were told that no plans are currently
being envisioned to create an additional bay crossing south of the existing
tube from Alameda to San Francisco.
Realizing that ridership of BART by Alamedans is high, APCP would like
to rely on these solutions, but understands the long-term physical and
financial constraints on such a proposal. Therefore, our plan incorporates
an immediate fundable solution to get people to BART. As discussed
above, our ultimate parking garage allows other island residents to benefit
from our transit solution.
EXHIBIT 2
Doppelmayr
ALAMEDA ESTUARY CROSSING
19 -July - 2001
INTRODUCTION — Randy Woolwine
Vice President Doppelmayr NA
DOPPELMAYR - Largest Tramway Mfg. in World
Over 100 Years Old
6,500 Installations
Offices in 39 Countries
t5
J. 5. ea-04M7.
NO PUBLIC MONEY - Addressed by Other Members of the Team
MOVES 8000 PPH -
= 200 Fully Loaded Buses
Capacity can Vary with Demand
24 Passenger Cabins
Does not depend on Roads or Rails
Delays there will not slow the system
FULLY ACCESSIBLE - ADACompliant
Bicycles easily loaded inside cabins
Level Walk -in designs assures efficient loading
ENERGY EFFICIENT -
NO POLLUTION -
SAFE & RELIABLE -
GROWS W/ DEMAND
NO DISRUPTION -
ICON FOR CITY -
Powered by Electric Motor_.-
Energy Consumption varies with Demand
Electric Powered
Quiet Operation
Among the Best Safety Records in Public Trans.
>98% Availability
Redundant Systems insure Reliable Operation
Fail -safe Controls
- Capacity is Expandable with Right Infrastructure
Construction is Confined to Small Areas
Will not cause Road Closures Etc.
In Operation will not Hinder Street Activities
Like Cable Cars in San Francisco
Roosevelt Island Tram
Palm Springs Tram = Other Examples
EXHIBIT 2
c"")
EXHIBIT 2
ABRIEL B. TAIT/DFP
Niels Jorgensen, president of Skylink International, with his gondola.
He plans 60 of them to go between Windsor and Detroit.
1st aerial gondola debuts at
the RenCen
May 10, 2001
BY M. L. ELRICK
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
The Canadian businessmen striving to link
Detroit and Windsor by a steel strand unveiled
their first aerial gondola car Wednesday with a
solemn promise:
The view will be a lot better once they get it out
of a basement storeroom behind the Renaissance
Center's food court.
"Once you've seen it, how can you not like it ?"
asked Niels Jorgensen, president of Skylink
International. "It's like motherhood; you can't
argue against it. Not reasonably."
Not that anyone's about to pick on ma --
especially with only three shopping days left
until Mother's Day -- but the Swiss -made, eight -
passenger car appears impressive even locked up
in its lair.
Consisting mainly of transparent, smoke - colored
plastic windows trimmed in yellow plastic, the
magical levitating box has "Skylink" and
"Detroit River" emblazoned on its front. The
word "Skylink" is writ in blue, with waves
depicting the river's current.
Where others have failed during the past 40
years, Jorgensen hopes to succeed. Promising to
foot the $25- million bill, he's already convinced
General Motors Corp. to lend him access to a
tightly controlled office and conference area 13
floors above the river in the Renaissance Center,
its world headquarters.
The gondola model, showing cars taking off near
Ford Auditorium and landing near Casino
Windsor, shares space with models of GM's
vision for the riverfront and the Renaissance
Center. As in a top - secret military installation,
shutterbugs are not welcome.
But even Jorgensen is not ready to sell tickets,
readily acknowledging that the aerial gondola is
just a concept until Detroit, Windsor, GM,
Canadian and American customs and Ontario
Lottery & Gaming Corp. sign off on the land he
needs.
Still, a few Detroiters soaking up a lovely
afternoon near Hart Plaza said they hope his 14-
month odyssey through international
bureaucracies succeeds.
"It's a down idea," said Renee Avery- Phelps, 32,
of Oak Park. "As you can tell, it looks rundown,"
she said, looking down at the river's edge.
A commute to Windsor 190 feet over the Detroit
River is just what downtown needs, Avery-
Phelps added.
"It's different. It's fresh. It's new," she said. "I'll
definitely bring my son."
EXHIBIT 2
HOUSING SUMMARY
Led by Shea Homes and Centex Homes, the housing at Alameda Point will be as
diverse as the rest of Alameda neighborhoods. We envision a neighborhood
comprised of small intimate blocks of homes, near work opportunities, recreation
amenities and transit alternatives. This allows for a real blending of the different
types and price levels of housing available.
Important components of this vision include:
• The integration of the Housing Collaborative units. APCP has embraced
these units by connecting them into the new residential neighborhoods via
a linear park. While the location of this park may require the modification
of a few of the locations utilized by the Collaborative, the ties to the
community and the recreational value for the residents is very important.
APCP intends to work closely with the Alameda Point Collaborative to
ensure their needs are met and to fund whatever renovations are required
through the implementation of this plan.
• Senior housing opportunities. As our population ages, housing for seniors
becomes increasingly important. APCP plans to fill these needs with two
different options. First, Building 17 will be adapted into affordable senior
apartments. By combining two of the individual units, approximately 160
one-bedroom apartments will be created. Bathrooms will be completely
re-done to ADA standards. There already exist features such as "old-
time" classic mailboxes in the foyer, a dining facility and spaces ideally
suited for recreation/game room activities. Elevators will be added for
access to the second floor.
In addition to senior apartments at Building 17, a minimum of 70 new
affordable senior apartments will be constructed adjacent to the Estuary
with sweeping views of downtown Oakland and the hills beyond.
• Creative adaptive reuse of residential structures. APCP believes that
residential opportunities should not only include newly constructed homes,
but also unique opportunities not found in most communities. This is most
easily demonstrated through the re-use of buildings 2, 3 and 4 as lofts and
building 17 as affordable senior apartments.
Buildings 2, 3 and 4 and their parade grounds make a strong contribution
to the historic character of Alameda Point. APCP is proposing that they
are adapted into townhouse style lofts fronting on the historic parade
grounds or the green spaces between the wings. The character of these
buildings as well as their location make them ideal for this type of use. A
portion of Building 3 is not really suitable for this use, and APCP is
proposing preserving the historic facade facing the parade grounds while
EXHIBIT 3
removing the back portion. The area will then be filled in with new loft
style construction, some with tremendous views of San Francisco.
While they are targeted as 120 residential units, APCP believes the
program for these buildings should remain flexible enough to
accommodate townhouse ownership lofts, work-live spaces as well as the
potential for office or studio space and looks forward to working in
conjunction with the City to create a truly unique resource.
• Historic preservation of the "big whites". The plan as presented by APCP,
highlights the team's dedication to preservation of the historic features.
The 20 "big whites" will be renovated and additions made in an
architecturally sensitive way to preserve and enhance their unique
character, while bringing them up to current market expectations, such as
having a two-car garage.
While their single-loaded street layout is inefficient by today's standards, it
is a significant contributor to their historic quality and provides housing
opportunities at very low densities, approximately 1.5 units per gross acre.
APCP understands that the space between historic buildings is as
important in contributing to the historic character of a district as the
buildings themselves, and does not plan to infill in around these historic
homes. The gracious tree-lined streets that give the neighborhood a
unique character are also preserved.
• Housing adjacent to the transit hub. A hallmark of the overall plan, the
multi-modal transit hub is located where it is not only an easy walk to
businesses, but also within walking distance of homes. Pedestrian-
friendly, tree lined streets and dedicated bicycle paths and walkways link
the neighborhoods to this center. Complimenting the mix of single-family
homes, affordable work force town homes, located adjacent to the village
center and transit hub, embody the blending of transit solutions and
thoughtful community design. This housing as well as affordable
apartments located above the retail buildings, is strategically located to
provide residents easy access to both the multi-modal transit hub, as well
as the employment base and retail services.
EXHIBIT 3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
As shown by the attached rendering we produced to depict Alameda Point, you can
see our commitment to the history of the site and the reclamation of this property into
a new vibrant community.
We firmly believe in the opportunity provided by the unique historical assets and
atmosphere inherent to Alameda Point. The historical jewels that so greatly define
the site must be preserved and protected. We will preserve the historical assets at
Alameda Point, fully incorporate them into the development, and use them as a
foundation for new growth. We also recognize that the historical value in Alameda
Point is not discovered in any single building, but in the interplay of open space and
architecture within the site and the historic experience they represent. For this
reason, new development at Alameda Point must respect the past in a manner that
highlights the adaptive reuse of the majestic resources developed there over the last
50 years. (See the attached graphic presentation of the Historic Preservation Plan.)
We bring significant historical preservation experience to the development of
Alameda Point. In addition to developing a number of closed military bases around
the country, we specialize in the adaptive reuse of otherwise functionally obsolete
buildings. We understand the historic preservation process as defined by the Base
Realignment and Closure process because we have worked to preserve historic
assets and archeological sites at closed bases.
At the former Hamilton Army Base, Centex Homes and Shea Homes have voluntarily
invested capital and participated in fund raising efforts by the Novato Historical Guild
to construct a museum dedicated to the history of the Hamilton Base. Most recently,
Centex and Shea Homes have offered to act as general contractors for the final
phases of build -out of the museum.
At Alameda Point, we will preserve and reuse virtually all the site's historical assets.
Buildings 2, 3 and 4 will be adapted as loft apartments. The grand facade of Building
3 will be preserved and its rear will be demolished for the construction of new single -
family homes. Building 17 will be converted for multi - family senior living. The Great
Whites and the neighborhood they grace will be preserved as is. The historic
hangars will also be preserved. The historic grid street system, trees, and green
space will be preserved and serve as the model for the fully integrated open space
system interconnecting the new Alameda Point community and its new construction
development activities.
Alameda Point Community Partners intends to develop guidelines for both residential
and commercial properties with respect to historical preservation. We will also
incorporate urban design features such as directional signage that reflect the
architectural heritage of Alameda Point.
EXHIBIT 4
7
n
HISTORIC BUILDINGS
% 1 HISTORIC GROUNDS
El HISTORIC INFRASTRUCTURE
FISCAL IMPACT
• Sales tax revenue from retail
The rule -of -thumb math for sales tax revenues from retail outlets is as follows:
Retail spending per square foot: $300
Total retail square footage: 150,000
Total spending: $45 mil.
Sales tax revenue @ 1 %: $450,000
Prop 172 Sales Tax @ .5 %: $225,000
Total Sales Tax revenue: $675,000
• Strategy to minimize impacts on Atlantic and Webster Street business
As background to the following questions you should understand that military
installations, relative to non- military developments of similar size, contribute very little to
the local and regional economy. This is because the military typically does not
requisition most goods and services at the local level. Instead, the military buys in bulk
from specialized national and regional vendors. In addition, military personnel buy most
of their supplies on -base, where the prices are subsidized. These two aspects of
military life mean that little money is spent in the surrounding community. A measure of
this phenomenon is documented in the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Input- Output
multipliers. These multipliers measure the direct and indirect economic impacts on the
community of from local industries. Of these multipliers, the multiplier for the military is
one of the lowest. This is one of the primary reasons conversion from military to non-
military use has be relatively easy on local communities.
Before NAS Alameda closed, Webster Street was a successful, though not thriving,
entertainment and convenience retail hub. This despite the fact that comparable
services were available at subsidized rates on -base. At that time there were a large
number of successful restaurants, gas stations, bars /clubs and convenience /liquor
stores on Webster. There is every reason to believe the new employees and residents
at Alameda Point will spend a portion of their relatively high disposable incomes on
Webster and Atlantic Streets, as well as throughout Alameda. The workforce and
employee populations will be both young and relatively affluent, a demographic group
that spends a large fraction of their disposable income on food and entertainment.
Webster and Atlantic are good locations for convenience retailers, relative to Alameda
Point. These business are located nearer the geographic center of Alameda and also
benefit from high visibility /high traffic volumes. Retail development Alameda Point will
not benefit from the same characteristics. Because of these limitations, Alameda Point
will need to position itself as a destination retail center offering comparison goods.
EXHIBIT 5
The biggest change I expect to businesses along these streets, other than generalize
revitalization, is that these retailers will have to adjust service and product lines to
accommodate a target market that will be more affluent and educated than the market
currently served. I don't see any way around this situation, but it is hardly a problem.
• B2B sales tax revenue generated from commercial development
In the State of California, over 35 percent of all taxable transactions take place at outlets
other than retail stores. In Alameda that percentage is just 12 percent, presumably
because the City has a limited industrial/service base. In Fremont, a community that
has land use patterns similar to the development proposed for Alameda Point, taxable
sales from "All Other (non-retail) Outlets" is 41 percent. In an analysis prepared for
Placer County, HEG estimated that roughly $6,800 is spent per employee at non-retail
outlets throughout Placer County. With over 4.6 million sf of Industrial/Office space, and
assuming 300 sf per employee and $6,800 spending per employee, the project could
generate over $100 mil. in taxable sales and $1 mil. in sales tax revenue to the City
each year. Proposition 172, Public Safety Sales Tax would be $500,000. For this
reason, it should be expected that our development will generate a significant stream of
"Other Outlet" sales tax revenue and probably more sales tax revenue than will be
generated by our modest retail development.
• Analysis of city service support and additional fiscal impacts
The age of infrastructure and the affluence of residents and employees have a
significant impact on demand for City services. Old infrastructure is more expensive to
maintain. Poorer residents and employees are greater demanders of criminal justice
and health/welfare services, which make up a large percentage of municipal
expenditures. They are also small contributors to municipal revenues, including
property and sales taxes, and business licenses. With new infrastructure and relatively
affluent residents and employees, the development at Alameda Point should generate
below average service costs to the City for comparable land uses. For both practical
and political reasons, most fiscal impact models do not adjust for these factors, but most
analysts are aware of this relationship.
In addition to being a high fiscal revenue(excluding property tax)/low fiscal expenditure
development, the property owners association will assume some maintenance and
safety services with would normally be the responsibility of the local government.
Finally, APCP will continue making payments from existing lease revenues directly to
the City as a fiscal subsidy.
It does not appear to me that the service burden from our project on the City will be
onerous.
EXHIBIT 5
• Discussions of long-term revenue sources without preparing an entire
fiscal model
Most municipal revenues are a function of population, both residential and employee,
and private development. Our project will contribute both. The most important among
these municipal revenues will be Tax Increment to the Redevelopment Agency and
Pass-throughs to the General Fund. Starting from a zero base value, the TI will be .
enormous. Although APCP proposes to convert a large volume of existing space to
low-value adaptive reuse, the City benefits just as APCP benefits from the early cash.
Our proposed development will bring more TI revenue to the City sooner that the
Catellus' development with its smaller percentage of reuse space. Although we expect
the City to use the TI from the project to support the project, all pass-through revenues
will go directly to the General Fund.
Adaptive reuse of existing buildings may generate relatively low rent, but it can be
expected that many of these users will install equipment that will be assessed as
Unsecured Property. With office space, by contrast, there is rarely additional equipment
to be assessed.
Roughly estimating over the 45 year effective life of the Redevelopment Project, it
appears that the tax increment not used by APCP will exceed $200 million and pass-
through revenues to the General fund will be about $14 million. My estimates of
assessed value used in the tax increment forecast do not include the value of
unsecured property.
The list of non-ad valorem revenues the City will receive as a result of development of
Alameda Point is very long. Reading from the City's 2000-2002 Budget/Financial Plan,
those revenues include the following:
• Sales Tax
• Proposition 172 Sales Tax
• Property Transfer Tax
• Utility Users Tax
• Transient Occupancy Tax
• Utility Franchise Fees
• Business License Fees
• Permit Fees
• Interest Income
• Fines and Forfeitures
EXHIBIT 5
All of these revenues will grow with our project. To put the value of these
revenue streams in perspective, property tax collections are just 24 percent of
total General Fund revenues. Adding in the value of the Redevelopment pass-
through, which would be 20 percent of this 24 percent, the net revenue to the
General Fund from our project is 81 percent of what the revenue would be
without the diversion of property tax revenue to Redevelopment. Adding in the
value of the existing lease revenue allocated to municipal services, and that we
have pledged to continue, my guess is that there is zero fiscal impact of this
project on the General Fund.
Factoring in TI, things get even rosier. My rough estimate is that if TI revenues
are added to these other revenues, the City will receive roughly 275 percent of
the revenue they would receive without Redevelopment. By either measure, the
City is not hurting.
EXHIBIT 5
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The following represents Alameda Point Community Partners' (APCP) response
to community and ARRA board member comments during the ARRA meeting on
July 19, 2001. We fully intend to develop Alameda Point in a manner consistent
with the community's Comprehensive Reuse Plan.
Alameda Point Community Partners would like to comment on the development
of its name, as we clearly understand the importance of being an integral part of
the community and listening to all stakeholders. Also, as stated during our
presentation, the City of Alameda is considered the most critical of the partners.
Not only will it be crucial to work with stakeholders to develop a consensual
development plan, but to provide the City with a participation agreement of any
additional profits that exceed the initial underwriting and minimum and payment.
Community involvement programs that will need additional attention as the
project moves forward include:
1. APCP proposes to establish a community advisory board of directors,
made up of Alameda citizens who would assist the management
committee and executives in the development process. The City and
APCP will jointly appoint this seven - person committee.
2. APCP will continue to work to understand and integrate issues from
existing neighbors and homeowner associations. (Example: Recently
the development team, orchestrated by Thom Gamble, the approval of
1142 units at Hamilton Army Base in the City of Novato in Marin
County in 16 months with only one person at the final hearing to give
comments. This is an excellent example of building community
consensus.)
3. We will continue working with the existing commercial tenant base to
address their needs and immediately make a financial commitment
towards signage, lighting, security, infrastructure improvements, and
beautification programs that can strengthen their economic well- being.
Key tenant discussions to further enhance their role in the community
have occurred with: 1) Bladium as a recreation focus, 2) Nelson
Marina as marina support, 3) the film industry as entertainment, and
4) USS Hornet as regional entertainment and education.
4. Additionally, APCP will continue to meet with Alameda business
groups throughout the island to address their issues. There will be a
strong outreach for working with small local businesses.
EXHIBIT 6
Our overall economic program will take advantage of numerous
financial resources. Paramount among these is the financial strength
of the Alameda Point Community Partners itself. Not only will ACPC
be directly funding infrastructure improvements and upgrades, but
these private financial resources can be used either as matching funds
or "seed money" for securing state and Federal grant monies. In
addition to state and Federal grants, such as Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG) and Economic Development Administration
Infrastructure Grants (EDA), other agencies like Federal Home
Administration (FHA), California Trade and Commerce Agency, and
the California Center for Land Recycling, Housing and Urban
Development, are viable resources for securing financial assistance.
In addition to grant funding alternatives, public financing programs offer
alternatives for creating public improvement capital through the use of
numerous bonding programs (Tax Allocation Bonds, General
Obligation Bonds, Mello Roos /Special Assessment Bonds, etc.). Also
available will be funds generated through revenue producing
opportunities created by the development of the site. Examples of
potential financial contributors are:
• Transit occupancy tax programs
• Redevelopment tax increment financing
• Income from municipal parking facilities
• Recreation surcharges (for example, an additional fee on top
of the regular greens fee for the golf course could be
directed to a district for use in public infrastructure
maintenance throughout the community)
5. APCP will work with the Alameda Point Collaborative and other non-
profit and affordable housing interests to fully integrate Alameda Point
into a seamless community of residential neighborhoods, parks,
waterfront recreation areas, a variety of office and industrial areas,
convenience and lively retail, and a series of cultural and educational
resources — all weaved together by an integrated open space system.
APCP and their design team are also fully experienced in and
understand special housing needs such as those represented by the
Alameda Point Collaborative. At Hamilton Field, where, similar to the
Alameda Point Collaborative, there were several providers all
organized under the Housing Continuum of Marin. 60 transitional
housing units were included in the plan for Capehart/Hillside. These
units are blended in with the rest of the for -sale community. The
members of APCP in cooperation with the housing providers have
developed a coordination plan addressing future areas of cooperation.
EXHIBIT 6
In addition, the Hamilton Field transitional housing providers have
monthly meetings with Shea and Centex to discuss ongoing activities.
6. We will incorporate the needs of the Port of Oakland and other regional
agencies into our plan.
7. We will develop a strong environmental stewardship plan to protect not
only existing tenants, residents and guests from environmental
pollution but to protect and clean the air, water and soil while insuring
against loss or liability on behalf of the City and future tenants.
Dealing with toxics issues are only a portion of the existing
environment. Utilizing but also enhancing the existing grid street
pattern at Alameda Point not only continues the Alameda character,
but allows for the preservation of the mature street tree canopy that
already exists in the residential areas. APCP realizes the tremendous
importance of this asset and is well versed in preserving and
enhancing the resource through the design process. In the
redevelopment of Rafael Village and Capehart/Hillside at the former
Hamilton Field military base, the Shea /Centex team is preserving
approximately 65% of the trees. To further enhance the streetscape,
an additional 2,000 trees are being planted. This demonstrates a
thorough understanding of the importance of the character of the street
for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
8. APCP will continue to involve the environmental community, as it is
critical to incorporate the wildlife refuge and shorelines into our network
of open spaces to provide a conscious celebration of the site's natural
beauty. APCP has also incorporated a comprehensive strategy for
state tidelands issues at Alameda Point.
9. ACPC will also focus on the development of cultural and entertainment
facilities into the Marina, which will need a great amount of community
input. Partnering with the Hornet Foundation to explore enhancements
(such as having additional discussions with the founders of Huntsville,
Alabama's Space Camp, and IMAX Entertainment Technology) will be
a high priority.
10. Important economic components to Alameda are the leases and jobs
created by the MARAD fleet. We intend to renew MARAD's lease and
retain its merchant marine fleet at the site.
11.APCP will work closely with Alameda Power and Telecom to provide
community benefits and explore alternative energy sources. APCP
intends to capitalize on creative opportunities such as the acres of roof
space existing with the hangars for solar energy "farms ".
EXHIBIT 6
12.APCP is committed to sponsor an Alameda Point Community
Newsletter, which would regularly provide information to residents and
employees. This newsletter will be jointly developed with the Alameda
Journal.
In addition to regularly scheduled progress meetings with the City,
community outreach efforts would include community held coffees,
meetings or open houses with interested neighborhood groups,
community service groups, environmental organizations and special
interest advocates. In addition, an interactive informational web site
and project newsletter would be incorporated.
13.APCP is also committed to work with and participate in the funding of
educational opportunities with Encinal High School and George Miller
Elementary School. APCP will work with on-base employers and the
Alameda Unified School District to identify ways in which we can offer
assistance to these schools.
Beyond the needs of K-12, APCP will work with the College of
Alameda to develop internship programs that they will cooperatively
sponsor.
14.APCP is committed to working with a provider to develop an onsite
daycare facility. Discussions have occurred with the Alameda Boys
and Girls Club to help them secure and fund a west end location and
incorporate latch key and day care programs.
The Shea / Centex team has a history of attention to the needs of
families and children. An example is the freestanding daycare facility
and other programs they are currently funding in the Capehart/Hillside
area of Hamilton field.
15.APCP is committed to fund an interactive web page site, which will
outline upcoming events, announcements, and community news.
16.APCP will work with interested parties to attract weekend activities
such as antique fairs and community sports leagues to the large open
space areas within Alameda Point.
17.APCP will be involved with every step in the development of this
community, from exhaustive geological and environmental studies, to
the ultimate acquisition and construction. However, APCP's
involvement will not stop when the development is completed. As an
example, one homeowner association recently provided Shea Homes
EXHIBIT 6
with a special award saying, "Shea Homes built us a community, not
just a bunch of tract houses. They have been extremely generous with
time, money, and personal involvement in the creation of a community
in which we can all take pride."
18. Layne Marceau, President of Shea Homes, is presently the President
of the Home Aid Board in Northern California. The present project
involves expanding a shelter, Shepherd's Gate, for homeless and
battered women and their children. APCP will attempt to find similar
projects within Alameda.
EXHIBIT 6
DAHLIN GROUP
ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
Fish Rewrite — 5/15
The intention of the Position Plan to be submitted for review to the City of Alameda on
June 4, 2001, is to leverage assets currently available at Alameda Point to support and
promote the Silicon Island concept.
The largest asset now in operation, and the one with greatest nationwide exposure, is
the USS Hornet Museum. The primary mission of this Museum is to establish a historical
preserve of the ship itself and promote the heritage of naval aviation and space
exploration, both of which are technologically -rich environments. Our Plan would expand
this mission to more fully encompass and showcase various modern technologies that
are key to the SF Bay Area hi -tech companies and crucial to the ongoing expansion of
the new Information Age Society the world is now entering. This would include things
such as mobile computing, optical -based communications systems, and laser
technologies.
These exhibits would serve to provide a platform for public awareness and an anchor for
the Silicon Island concept of the revitalization of Alameda Point, which is targeting
Silicon Valley industry to relocate or expand to the Alameda privatized Naval Base.
Technology companies would be invited to sponsor exhibits that showcase their skills or
products, but done within the context of the Museum's educational mission. The
museum thereby becomes a potential recruitment vehicle as well as a science center,
entertainment venue and youth development center. Many experiential venues would be
developed to explain the technologies, in particular, of laser science and fiber optics to
support a tie -in of these multiple aspects, complementing the historic preservation
intention with a modern technology component.
USS HORNET NAVAL AIR & SPACE MUSEUM
MISSION
The initial mission of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation was to acquire the USS
Hornet, restore it, and establish it as a museum with emphasis on the legacy and history
of aircraft carriers and naval aviation. A continuing major goal is that this National
Historical Landmark be a significant community resource while fostering youth and
adults education programs focusing on naval aviation history, space exploration, science
technology and related subjects. Additional goals include using the museum as a site for
special ceremonies focusing on historical events and traditions of the United States
Navy and as a community resource for special Alameda city activities. An important
objective is promoting the museum as a destination for family- centered activities.
VISION
The Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation believes that the primary artifact of the USS
Hornet Museum is the ship itself. Implied in this statement is that in the process of
developing exhibits, signage, design and the overall look, priority will be given to
restoring the Hornet as much as possible to the appearance of an operational aircraft
carrier. The following uses of the ship have been envisioned to be primary functions:
2671 CROW CANYON ROAD • SAN RAMON, CA 94583
925.837.8286 FAX 925.837.2543
www.dahlingroup.com
EXHIBIT 7
• Ship As Museum
• Core collection consists of permanent exhibits including aircraft, Apollo
recovery vehicles and histories - visual, oral and written of the crews of
US Navy and Marine Corps, all Essex -class carriers, the battles and
operations, Doolittle Raid and all USS Hornets since 1775.
• Special exhibits include WWII, Korean, Vietnam Carrier Operations,
USS Hornet CV -8 and CVS -12 Airgroups and Antisubmarine Warfare
Operations, and Essex -class sister ships
• Ship As Educational Program and Technology Center
• Youth volunteer and skill - building programs and experiences
• Live Aboard Program
• Adult Education and Teacher Continuing Education Programs
• School Programs and Field Trips
• Family- oriented science and history activities
• Ship As Community Resource
• Historical Legacy of US Navy: history and traditions
• Fleet Week
• NROTC and NJROTC Cadets and Sea Cadets
• Holidays, Navy ceremonies and historical events
• Event location: large scale corporate, professional
• Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Sea Scouts
In keeping with this mission statement, Dahlin Group as part of Alameda Point
Community Partners, outlines the following possible venues to realize this goal:
• A Teleconferencing Center, which may located in a hangar at the Base,
(potentially hangar 41), with building 77 used as a restaurant facility. This center
might be developed in conjunction with:
• A Manned Spacecraft Recovery Museum which the Hornet
Foundation is now working on with the Smithsonian and NASA.
• A digital theater convertible to IMAX film format, a planetarium and
Internet teleconferencing
• Archival craft and memorabilia gifted or on loan from the
Smithsonian's NASM and the Kansas Cosmosphere & Space
Center for spacecraft recovery missions
• An on -ship science center basis of exhibits.
• A presentation of the basic science behind modern DoD
technologies (such as lasers) and their uses in industry and Naval
technologies
• A history and development of the science behind
telecommunications technologies
• An on -ship technology sector basis of exhibits
• Propulsion drives and future technologies now being developed by
the Navy
• The Navy's applications and the Silicon Valley's industrial
developments of fiber optical networks and lasers
• Three to four immersion simulation venues:
EXHIBIT 7
• Real -time flight simulation in military -grade F16 cockpits with a
flight training computer - animation training movie as a pre -show
teaching vector calculus and rotational kinematics
• A motion -based re- enactment of the 1944 WWII event of the
typhoon in the Philippine Sea in which the USS Hornet was
damaged and other ships sunk, scripted by the still - living
navigational crew. This venue would be software and special -
effects driven, and would teach Naval history, enhance the Pearl
Harbor commemorative program.
• A command center of a nuclear submarine performing undersea -
to- surface and undersea -to -air missions, in composite reality -
based footage and computer animation.
The principles behind submarine operations and systems
would be showcased in a motion - platform venue, driven by
software. This venue would showcase the Navy seals,
communications applications and current -day Naval warfare
missions in a series of rotated digital programs and films.
• A space missions command center. Recovery of the Manned
Spacecraft missions would be re- enacted from the USS Hornet, in
which participants could develop skills in team efforts to recover
astronauts who land in the sea, and the quarantine procedures
directly after landing, as were enacted during the Apollo 11 and 12
missions. This venue would teach Naval operations science,
search and rescue techniques. There is a direct tie -in with the
Smithsonian and NASA work currently ongoing with the USS
Hornet in the development of a Center to showcase the Apollo
Mission artifacts, as well as a complement to the existing Apollo
exhibit, the Apollo Training Command Module and the Mobile
Quarantine Facility now exhibited on the ship.
• A 3 -D dolphin immersion film. This venue would be designed to
raise public awareness about the abilities of the dolphin brain to
model the optical brain now being developed by the Navy and
NSA. This venue would teach Fourier transforms as sonic fields
and color fields and their properties for defense. This venue would
also be a tie -in to a computer animation on the technology of
Wave Division Multiplexing and the principles of broadband, the
fiber optic replacement of coaxial cable and copper wire and the
new economy of optics and wireless in telecommunications.
Basically a venue to teach wave theory.
• A Naval Flight Training school venue similar to a Space Camp of Naval Aviation
for Youths as well as adults
• Designed by Intersect Space Training Center, originator of Space
Camp, with a Mission Profile of:
• Naval Aviators in Basic Training
• Operations Systems in the Navy
• Pilots in Microgravity
• Mission Programming by pilots
• F -16 flight simulation: ship take -off and landings,
Tactical maneuvers and target shooting
• Water landings and rescue missions
" EXHIBIT 7
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Fall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, C.A. 94501
1. ROLL CALL
Thursday, August 9, 2001
Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.
City I1all will open at 5:15 p.m.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. CLOSED SESSION OF '!LIE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITII REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property:
Negotiating parties:
Under negotiation:
Alameda Point
ARRA, U.S. Navy, and the Master Developer
Price and Terms
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
A. join meat
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.
00,
ph
Ch
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Thursday, August 9, 2001
Meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m.
City Hall will open at 5:45 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
2. ACTION ITEMS
2 -A. Report from the Executive Director regarding selection of Master Developer for Alameda
Point and authorization to prepare and enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.
3. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item.
4. ADJOURNMENT
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.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter -Office Memorandum
2 -A
August 3, 2001
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Doug Yount, Director
Development Services Department
SUBJECT: Selection of Master Developer of Alameda Point
Background
The selection of the Master Developer to redevelop Alameda Point represents the
culmination of a 10 -month selection process and a key milestone of the 9 -year reuse
planning effort at Alameda Point. Since 1993, the City of Alameda and the community
have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to effectuating the successful
redevelopment and integration of the base into the City of Alameda. Accomplishments
include:
• development of the Community Reuse Plan in 1996. The plan was developed
through a two -year community process;
• executed purchase and sale agreement with the Navy in June, 2000;
• adoption of a redevelopment project area pursuant to Califomia redevelopment
law;
• execution of agreements with numerous regulatory agencies; and
• successful short-term leasing of more than 2 million square feet of existing
building space.
Discussion /Analysis
Master Developer Selection Process
After careful consideration, it was determined that the best approach to expedite the
successful redevelopment of the base would be to select a Master Developer. A Master
Developer's expertise, financial strength, and organizational structure are needed to
address the many complex issues facing Alameda Point. The Master Developer will
assume full responsibility to secure entitlements, fund all up -front development costs,
negotiate clean -up agreements, and undertake infrastructure improvements, thereby
minimizing financial and other risks to the City and its general fund.
A two -phase selection process has been used, with the first phase relating to the
solicitation and evaluation of Master Developer qualifications through the issuance of a
Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFQ). The second phase relates to the
Honorable Members of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 2
August 3, 2001
solicitation and evaluation of business proposals through the issuance of a Request for
Business Proposals (RFBP).
Alameda's Master Developer selection process has received national acclaim and has
been awarded the National Association of Installation Developers' (NAID) 2001 award
for RFP/RFQ Marketing. The award will be presented to the ARRA during NAID's
annual meeting on August 6, 2001, in San Antonio, Texas.
Community Participation
Community participation has been a cornerstone of the reuse planning and selection
process. The completion of the Reuse Plan and the execution of the agreements to
implement the provision of homeless housing required a two-year community process
and the dedication of countless hours by residents. This philosophy of community
involvement has been carried forward as part of the selection process. Numerous
programs have been implemented to invite broad and in-depth community participation,
as follows:
Master Developer Selection Team - The Selection Team was appointed by the
Executive Director of the ARRA (see attached roster). The Team is comprised of
one Assistant City Manager, four department heads, and representatives of the
following City boards and commissions: Planning Board, Economic Development
Commission, Public Transit Committee and Alameda Point Advisory Committee.
The Chamber of Commerce is also represented. The Selection Team is staffed
by the Development Service Department and has been assisted by a consultant
team of Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. and RBF Consulting. The Team has
been charged with evaluating the qualifications of the development teams and
recommending a short-list of developers to be invited to submit a Business
Proposal; assisting in determining the evaluation criteria and drafting the RFBP;
evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the short-listed teams based on the
submitted business proposals; and providing its assessment to the ARRA via the
Executive Director. The Selection Team met eleven (11) times during the
process, representing approximately 30 hours of direct meeting time. The
Selection Team also developed the "site specific and community development
issues" criteria contained in the RFBP and met separately with each
Development team to discuss specific issues.
Public Forums — Four public forums (two during the RFQ Phase and two during
the RFBP Phase) have been held to introduce the teams and their proposals to
the community and to provide the community with the opportunity to directly ask
the developers to address specific issues. These meetings were facilitated and
recorded by the firm of Moore, lacofano Goltsmon, Inc. (MIG). A Summary of
the questions and public comments received at the RFBP Phase public forums
was prepared by MIG and is attached to this report.
Honorable Members of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 3
August 3, 2001
ARRA Board Public Hearings — The three short-listed developers presented their
proposals and responded to ARRA Board and public questions during two public
hearings.
APAC Presentation — The short-listed developers appeared before the Alameda
Point Advisory Committee to make presentations and answer any Committee
member questions.
Web-site — The RFBP and Responses, along with other information generated
throughout the evaluation process (excluding proprietary confidential
information), have been posted on the City's web-site to keep the community fully
informed.
Tours of Developer Projects — The ARRA hosted a two-day bus tour for Selection
Team Members and ARRA Board members of projects chosen by each
development team as representative in some aspect to proposed development
for Alameda Point.
In addition, all documents related to the selection process are on display at City Hall,
Alameda Point and the Main Library.
RFQ Phase
The RFQ was issued on November 21, 2000. Seven responses were received to the
RFQ on January 12, 2001. After an intensive one-month review process, four of the
teams were deemed to meet the qualifications criteria specified in the RFQ and invited to
respond to the RFBP. RFQ criteria included relevant experience and track record, in-
house development capabilities, management team and structure, financial resources,
innovative approaches, support for the community, and public outreach. The short-listed
teams include: Alameda Point Community Partners, LLC (APCP) (a team comprised of
two of the four teams initially deemed qualified); Catellus; and Harbor Bay/Lennar, LLC.
Each team is highly qualified to redevelop Alameda Point.
RFBP Phase
The RFBP was issued on April 20, 2001, and Responses from each of the three short-
listed teams were received on June 4, 2001. Each team submitted a quality Response
to the RFBP, reflecting a tremendous investment of time, thought and resources into the
selection process.
The Selection Team evaluated the Responses and, on July 31, 2001, concluded its
evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each Master Developer relative to the
criteria specified in the RFBP.
Honorable Members of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 4
August 3, 2001
Discussion of Selection Team's Evaluation of RFBP Responses
Implementing the reuse of the base is complicated by a number of issues that cannot be
resolved prior to the selection of the Master Developer. Examples of complicating
factors and uncertainties include the timing for the conveyance of the property, need to
secure approvals from a number of regulatory agencies, and the extent of contamination
and requirement for an approved remediation plan. Given these issues and many
others, specific business terms cannot be determined at this point in time. As a
consequence, the RFBP selection criteria focus on the Master Developer's overall
approach, financial commitment, community commitment, framework for redeveloping
the property, and approach to maximize the financial returns to ARRA and minimize
risks to ARRA.
The evaluation process undertaken by the Selection Team was exhaustive. During the
one -month period from the end of June to the end of July, the Selection Team met five
times to review summary materials prepared by the consultant team, request information
from the consultant team and to evaluate the proposals. Countless hours were spent by
each team member reviewing the Responses and all supporting documents.
Additionally, the Team composed questions for each development team, interviewed the
teams and many toured prototype developments of each team. As part of the evaluation
process, the Team prepared an evaluation matrix format as well as the terminology to be
used to evaluate each development team's strengths and weaknesses. In addition, the
consultants provided the Team with independent expertise in evaluating many of the
financial and technical aspects of the criteria.
In accordance with the provisions of the RFBP, each team's Response was evaluated
relative to the criteria specified in the RFBP. The assessment of each team was
independent of the evaluation of the other teams. The criteria and the terminology used
to assess strengths and weaknesses are presented as part of the evaluation matrix.
The Selection Team's summary evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each
team relative to the criteria is presented in Table 1, "Executive Summary" of the
evaluation matrix. Accompanying Table 1 are nine tables detailing the evaluation of the
responses relative to each of the criteria, including specific sub - criteria for each of the
nine general criteria. These "Back -up Tables" are labeled Table 2 — Table 10. The
overall evaluations presented in Table 1 are based on the detailed assessments in the
Back -up Tables and carry forward the overall assessments provided at the bottom of
each Back -up Table.
The Selection Team used the following process to arrive at the overall evaluation: The
"Back -up Tables" and each of the sub - category criteria were discussed and language
was developed to reflect the majority opinion of the Selection Team. Throughout the
process, votes were taken on the assessment of each development team relative to
each criterion, with the majority opinion determining the Team's overall assessment.
Honorable Members of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 5
August 3, 2001
Once that process was completed, the Selection Team voted unanimously to
forward the overall evaluation matrix to the ARRA Board. In summary, the Team's
overall assessments of each development team and proposal relative to each of the nine
criteria are as follows:
In accordance with the established role of the Selection Team, the Team did not rank the
responses or provide a recommendation regarding final selection of a Master Developer.
Rather, the Team's assessment of strengths and weaknesses is available to the ARRA
Board to use in making its selection.
Next Steps
Following the selection of the Master Developer of Alameda Point, ARRA and the
selected Master Developer will commence negotiations of legal agreements. It is
contemplated that an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), an Asset Management
Contract and other interim agreements will be negotiated and executed. The negotiation
of the Disposition and Development Agreement will follow the negotiation of the ENA.
The Master Planning Process will run on a parallel track with negotiation of the DDA.
APCP
Catellus
HB /L
Approach to
Development
Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
Plan to Expedite the
Conveyance and
Redevelopment of
the Base
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Transportation Plan
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Developer's
Financial (Cash
Equity) Commitment
to the Project
Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Maximization of
Land Purchase Price
and Minimization of
ARRA Risks /Costs
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Weak to Moderate
Developer
Organization and
Senior Management
Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Management and
Maintenance of
Assets
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Weak to Moderate
Land Use and
Program Objectives
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
Community
Development and
Site Specific Issues
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
In accordance with the established role of the Selection Team, the Team did not rank the
responses or provide a recommendation regarding final selection of a Master Developer.
Rather, the Team's assessment of strengths and weaknesses is available to the ARRA
Board to use in making its selection.
Next Steps
Following the selection of the Master Developer of Alameda Point, ARRA and the
selected Master Developer will commence negotiations of legal agreements. It is
contemplated that an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), an Asset Management
Contract and other interim agreements will be negotiated and executed. The negotiation
of the Disposition and Development Agreement will follow the negotiation of the ENA.
The Master Planning Process will run on a parallel track with negotiation of the DDA.
Honorable Members of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 6
August 3, 2001
The community will be very involved in the Master Plan phase of entitlements. This
process is estimated to be completed within the next 24 months.
Fiscal Impact
Selection of a Master Developer has no immediate fiscal impact. Each team has agreed
in concept to fund the expenses incurred by ARRA to negotiate a Disposition and
Development Agreement and other required agreements with the selected Master
Developer. There may be near to long-term impacts, which will be driven by the
allocation of lease revenues to ARRA before conveyance and the long-term plan for
funding municipal services. Such fiscal impacts will be evaluated as part of the
entitlement and negotiation process.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the ARRA Board consider selection of a Master Developer based
on the Responses to the RFBP, community workshops, presentations to the ARRA
Board, public testimony and the evaluation matrix prepared by the Master Developer
Selection Team.
Following selection of the Master Developer, it is recommended that the ARRA Board
authorize the Executive Director to prepare and enter into an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with the selected Master Developer.
DY/DP:dc
Attachments
Respectfully submitted,
Doug Yount
Development Services Director
r
By Debbie Potter
Base Reuse & Redevelopment Manager
Master Developer Selection Team
CITY STAFF
NAME
ORGANIZATION
Dave Berger
City of Alameda
Suzanne Ota
City of Alameda
Colette Meunier
City of Alameda
Matt Naclerio
City of Alameda
Mike Pucci
City of Alameda
Ex -ofcio member
Doug Yount
City of Alameda
SELECTED DESIGNEES
NAME BOARD /COMMISSION
Gayle Codiga
Chamber of Commerce
Paul Fossum
Planning Board
Allan Shore
PTC
(Public Transit Committee)
John Abrate
EDC
(Economic Devp Committee)
Gary Bard
APAC
(AP Advisory Committee)
Ardella Dailey
AUSD
(Alameda Unified School District)
SELECTED DESIGNEE - ALTERNATES
ALTERNATE BOARD /COMMISSION
Ray Wentworth
Chamber of Commerce
Horst Breuer
Planning Board
Dion Griffin
PTC
(Public Transit Committee)
Doug deHaan
EDC
(Economic Devp Committee)
Alice Garvin
APAC
(AP Advisory Committee)
Bob DeLuca
AUSD
(Alameda Unified School District)
City of Alameda
MASTER DEVELOPER FOR ALAMEDA POINT
COMMUNITY FORUMS
JUNE 21 & 23, 2001
SUMMARY REPORT
Prepared by:
MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN (MIG), Inc.
800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
July 2001
Community Forums Master Developer for Alameda Point
Summary Report July 2001
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 21 and 23, 2001, the City of Alameda hosted two community forums as part of the
selection process for a Master Developer for the acquisition and redevelopment of Alameda
Point. The purpose of the forums was to provide the public with an opportunity to review
business proposals of the three short-listed candidates, as well as ask questions and provide
comments.
Background
Alameda Point (formerly Naval Air Station, Alameda) represents a rare opportunity to
develop approximately 770 acres in the center of the San Francisco Bay Area during an
exceptionally strong market. In 1996, the community prepared the Community Reuse Plan,
which outlines a vision for Alameda Point. Additionally, the community supported the
creation of a new redevelopment area to enable the rapid and efficient reuse of Alameda
Point.
The City of Alameda is currently seeking a Master Developer to acquire and redevelop
significant portions of Alameda Point according to the Community Reuse Plan. The Master
Developer will be selected by a two -step process. First, a short list of qualified developers
was identified through a RFQ /Vision Statement process, which included relevant experience
and track record, in -house development capabilities, management team and structure,
financial resources, innovative approaches, support for the community, and public outreach.
The second step called for the short-listed developers to submit a business plan designed to
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 plans 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.
Following are the short-listed Master Developer candidates (in alphabetical order):
• Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP)
• Catellus
• Harbor Bay — Lennar (HBL)
Format
The community forums were held on June 21, 2001 at the Mastick Senior Center, and on
June 23, 2001 at the HOME Project. Outreach for the forums included a newsletter insert in
all home - delivered copies of the Alameda journal flyers distributed throughout the city, and
notification on the project website. City of Alameda Development Services Director Doug
Yount opened the forums by welcoming participants and providing a brief overview of the
master developer selection process. He then introduced meeting moderator Carolyn
Verheyen of Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc., who provided an agenda overview and
explained the meeting format.
MIG, Inc. Page 1
Community Forums Master Developer for Alameda Point
Summary Report July 2001
Each candidate team for master developer was allowed 20 minutes to present an overview of
their submitted business proposal. Following these presentations, Ms. Verheyen moderated a
question and answer period with participants and master developer candidates. Participants
submitted questions on speaker cards that were answered by each developer. Andy Pendoley
of MIG recorded the questions and answers on a laptop computer.
The remaining portion of the meetings served as an open house where developers displayed
visual information regarding their business proposals. Participants were encouraged to visit
each developer to review the proposals in more detail and ask the developers questions one -
on-one. In addition, participants were encouraged to submit written questions and
comments on either a large wallgraphic or a laptop computer that were displayed in the
meeting room.
This report summarizes participants' questions and comments, as well as developers'
responses, where applicable.
II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSALS
Following is a compilation of participants' questions posed to developers during the
question and answer period. Responses from each developer are summarized concisely
below.
June 21, 2001
• How can proposed transportation improvements and enhancements be coordinated and
accomplished in an area that is served by multiple transportation agencies?
APCP —We recognize that coordination of these agencies is key. There is no single
solution. There must be a regional context when considering transportation needs.
Preliminary discussions have occurred already between our team and these agencies.
HBL —Our recommendations are being studied in the public domain right now
BART, MTC, and City of Alameda. Korve Engineering, our transportation consultant, is
currently studying the potential new BART transbay connection on behalf of the MTC.
The likelihood that these projects will occur is significantly high.
Catellus —There are a number of complex, expensive solutions, but we know that
transportation is a major issue. Many of our recommendations can be easily
accomplished without many approvals of multiple agencies including improvements and
enhancements for bus, clean air shuttles, etc. More significant projects can be phased -in
later by coordinating with these agencies.
• How do you distinguish your proposal from your competitor's in broad strokes?
APCP —All candidates attempted to follow the Reuse Plan. Our plan brings an
intermodal transportation site together. Our residential plan is central and avoids dealing
with environmental clean-up issues. We strived to preserve historical assets. We will be
focusing on significant reuse of facilities, though some will be removed. The intermodal
hub is intended to be a central, cultural hub, and the gondola will help enhance this.
MIG, Inc. Page 2
Community Forums Master Developer for Alameda Point
Summary Report July 2001
HBL —We've paid much attention to bringing local and regional visitors to the site, so
we've attempted to develop a network, including a diversity of uses on the waterfront
(retail, hotel, etc.). We've also developed a network of open spaces. In addition to the
waterfronts, we've included a number of strips of open spaces with bike and walkways
that are key. We've tried to work within the existing historic fabric and maintain those
facilities with significant long -term use. We've tried to clear those facilites with less long-
term feasibility (i.e., those on the campus side). We've tried to put a realistic spin on
transportation improvements in terms of incorporating the current planning in the
region. We have a multi-modal hub, but it's more realistic.
Catellus —Transportation is proposed as a phased approach that can be well - managed
and well - financed. There are many constraints that can be addressed by transportation.
We are in the City of Alameda, so we understand it. We've done focus groups on
housing and other issues. We can use this knowledge as the basis for the redevelopment
of Alameda Point. We are very active in the community with local housing and charity
efforts. We know the people and players in the City. We stepped outside of the box by
including bold statements that address the homeless collaborative and their constraints,
how to address power in the region, etc.
• How does your proposal address toxic remediation, particularly on a military base?
Catellus —We've addressed this in the FISC East housing effort, so we're very familiar
with the issues. We've also addressed these issues at Mission Bay and at Hercules
(removed oil refinery and developed homes). Key to Alameda Point is working quickly
with the City and Navy on the issue of early transfer: setting aside funding to ensure that
all issues, needs, and costs are addressed and are a part of the pro forma and monetary
requirements.
APCP —We have the nation's premier underwriter on our team. As owner of superfund
sites, such as McClellan, one of the largest sites with remediation issues, we understand
these issues. We are taking the lead on privatizing that cleanup. We've also worked on an
Army base to facilitate a quick turnover of the site when there was no solution. We
assembled all parties and had them agree that the site was clean due to an aquifer, and
they allowed us to acquire and develop the site to a depth of 8 feet. We can bring these
unique solutions to this project. We will also insure and indemnify the site for all,
including the tenants, who will be the beneficiaries.
HBL —This is an issue on almost any property. We utilized the same process as the
previous speaker on Mare Island by working the Navy, City and State to structure the
same type of program to have an Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement signed
by the Navy for a early cleanup and transfer of the site. This will be the same process
used on Alameda Point.
June 23, 2001
• What are the proposed structures and timeframes for financing the project?
HBL —We will provide all up -front financing with an initial commitment of $0.5B. We
propose a structure that is a 15 year cycle with 3 phases. We plan to work within
Alameda Point Advisory Committee's requests and remediation needs.
MIG, Inc. Page 3
Community Forums Master Developer for Alameda Point
Summary Report July 2001
APCP —We also propose a 10 year plan. We will provide a cash infusion immediately as
we wait for conveyances. We plan to improve landscaping and initiate leasing early on.
All members of our development team will be investing. We don't have all of the
strategies yet, but there will be an equity investment on all of our parts. We expect to
contribute $0.5B up- front.
Cattellus —We have $1.9B capitalization and $0.5B available now. We own many
properties around the country. We do not require loans, but we do have letters of credit
with many organizations. We've committed $50M up- front.
• What is the extent and cost of environmental remediation? Who will carry the liability,
the City or developer?
APCP —We have extensive experience with former military bases and assuming
liabilities and costs. IRG has 260 completed projects and is a leading company and an
expert in this task. McClellan Air Force Base is the second largest contaminated site in
the DOD inventory, and we assumed all liabilities and responsibilities. We know how to
do the work and cleanup based on our experiences. The community at McKenery
allowed us to do the cleanup in an innovative way. Lots of negotiation will be necessary
for an early transfer at Alameda Point, and we have the experience to make it happen.
Catellus —We expect $30M to cleanup, and the Navy has responsibility for doing so.
We have relationships with them, as well as an insurance policy as a stopgap. We will
take on the liability.
HBL —We expect $50 -100M will be needed for cleanup exclusive of the FISC site and
northern properties. Like Mare Island, we will negotiate with the Navy to have them pay
us to enable a faster timeframe. We expect negotiations to occur over 9 -10 months,
followed by five years of cleanup. The City will take tide to the land and liability, but
then we will indemnify the city. We have a process to negotiate with the Navy that is
different from the other candidates.
• How much liability will the City of Alameda assume directly from the city's treasury for
improvements to things like traffic signals, tree plantings, etc.?
Catellus —None. There will be tax increment from the businesses, and we request that
the City issue a bond to fund this type of infrastructure. We're committed to the City
maintaining its revenue stream, aside from covering our general management costs. Our
proposal will create additional funds.
HBL —None.
APCP —None. Based on the additional tax increment; the current tax base is left neutral.
What guarantee do we have that all elements of the plan will be implemented?
HBL —Proposing a process and partnership with the City and community to work
together to deliver a plan is the closest to a guarantee. We're not sure how a performance
bond would be possible, aside from working together as a partnership.
APCP —We'll go from an exclusive ri ght to negotiate based on partnership and
negotiation with the City.
MIG, Inc. Page 4
Community Forums Master Developer for Alameda Point
Summary Report July 2001
Catellus— Similarly, we have demolition agreements at FISC, we form entitlements, etc.,
to make sure the projects are implemented. Catellus will provide funding if there is
missing tax increment.
■ How do we provide input regarding a potential specific plan for the area?
City— Please provide comments via the website, forums, two upcoming City
Council /ARRA meetings, and letters to City Council members and the City Manager.
• How is sustainability and energy efficiency with innovative infrastructure possible over
time? More transit services and bicycle routes are needed. Successful bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit planning requires a higher density above 40 units per acre. Charter
amendments may be necessary.
APCP —To do this we must create a new portion of the community that is integrated
into the City and is easy to navigate. We are looking at innovative ideas for the multi -
modal station; i.e., bike racks at gondola stations. We have proposed removal of many
streets and roads that currently accommodate cars. Our proposal enables easy walking
within 1/4 mile to many arts, entertainment, and cultural venues. Our plan is compliant
with Measure A. We are happy to work with the community to address their needs and
to consider new initiatives.
Catellus —We have proposed innovative air and heat systems in commercial buildings,
and are considering solar, photovoltaic, etc. We've proposed transit improvements that
include more bus, ferry, walking, biking, and showers at major terminals. We have been
implementing bicycle routes at the FISC site. Our assumptions about density are in
concert with Measure A; no density higher than what a duplex would accommodate is
proposed. We have tried to maximize value, but the community should help to do this
and guide these ideas.
HBL— Sustainability is a four- pronged concept: energy and environmental issues, jobs
and housing balance, socioeconomic balance, and financial sustainability. Many large
concepts in our proposal are based on achieving sustainability within these areas. The
Presidio has this approach at the core, including the retrofitting of buildings.
Transportation demand management, bikes, electric vehicles are important. The mixed -
use district has good links to the City and maximizes trips without needing cars. The
fmancial plan minimizes costs to the City and uses tax revenues from the project to fund
everything. More community input is needed for refining the details and making this a
real model.
• What is the vision for providing positive youth development and services, as well as
involving youth in the planning process?
Catellus —We started a nationwide program for youth, including local involvement
(Building for Tomorrow). We take 20 -70 young people in special classes with our
development staff to educate them on development processes and associated professions
with an active project as a model. We are now working to place students in internships at
these companies. We are trying to start this in Alameda in the next school year.
MIG, Inc. Page 5
Community Forums Master Developer for Alameda Point
Summary Report July 2001
HBL —We have been able to work with youth in schools in conjunction with the
Chamber of Commerce and local clubs. We look forward to integrating them in our plan
by providing jobs and opportunities.
APCP —We can make history with youth. We support the HOME Project. We've had
conversations with HOME to integrate them into the plan in the future. The daycare
facility at the HOME Project could be key to this mixed -use project. Shea Foundation
has strong youth and philanthropic programs, including job training and mentoring.
Following are verbatim questions and comments provided by participants on the wallgraphic
and laptop stations during the open house periods. (No questions or comments were
submitted at the June 21 meeting.)
■ I am glad the video was presented, as it opened my eyes to the kind of structures
planned. We need to make sure we continue to design structures that lend to the
Victorians and craftsman structures now in place. I did not see this in the video. Stucco
is not Alameda. Trees are a very important part of Alameda. Take a look a Central
Avenue. My concern is the kind of trees. Not palm trees. We are not Long Beach.
Transportation is another concern. Let's not have another Harbor Bay. Gondolas don't
quite do it in Alameda. This is a quaint, beautiful town. Let's keep it that way and get
Alameda Point to flow with the rest of the city. Oh, please, not another South Shore
Center!
• One of the big questions appears to be transportation. What are the relative impacts of
the development plans on existing surface street traffic?
• What are the ranges of housing costs for the housing projects proposed by the
developers?
• Can increased housing density be applied on Alameda Point?
• Not too much retail which would impact with Webster Street and Park Street.
■ No palm trees; take a look at Central Avenue.
• No stucco houses. This is not Blackhawk.
• No gondolas. Make the traffic problem work.
• Please have more retail. Park and Webster are not sufficient. More recreational options,
arts, movie theater. BART sounds good!! Mixed use throughout development.
Transportation, buses, etc., good.
• More thought and answers should be provided to current residential residents.
• Most impressed with Catellus presentation.
• The exact link for the developers' plan on the City's website should be listed in the
Alameda Journal.
■ Do the taxpayers or the developers pay for all the elements of their plan?
• We don't need 40 units per acre. Leave Measure A alone.
MIG, Inc. Page 6
Community Forums Master Developer for Alameda Point
Summary Report July 2001
• $ questions. How much money (now) and later will Alameda's treasury be liable and
what about $ it will require for traffic lights, etc., which will be required now and later?
■ Measure A's density caps make effective transit use impossible, and will cause more
traffic congestion, limiting Alameda's potential for sustainable development and
increased energy efficiency. Alameda needs to amend Measure A for AP only before any
plans are approved. Higher density (well conceived, "green," sustainable, integrated,
transit - friendly, bike - friendly, etc.) is the only way to make AP work, and still look good
in 2101. —JS.
■ I believe that having the kids involved is a great idea.
• [A separate comment next to above comment:] Yes!
III. NEXT STEPS
The Master Developer Selection Team will analyze each proposal against the criteria
developed in the Community Reuse Plan. The ARRA Board will then consider the Selection
Team's evaluation, along with public input, ARRA Board members' review of the proposals,
site visits to projects representative of the developers' work, etc., and select a Master
Developer with the experience, commitment, financial ability, technical competence, and
vision necessary to successfully redevelop Alameda Point.
MIG, Inc. Page 7
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Point/NAS Alameda
950 W. Mall Square - Building 1
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog
Councilmember /Community
Improvement Commissioner
City of Alameda
Albert H. DeWitt
Councilmember /Community
Improvement Commissioner
City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr
Councilmember /Community
Improvement Commissioner
'43, of Alameda
Beverly Johnson
Councilmember /Community
Improvement Commissioner
City of Alameda
James M. Flint
Executive Director
David A. Berger
Assistant City Manager
Community & Economic
Development
®Recycled paper
August 3, 2001
To:
From:
Re:
(510) 864-3400
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
James Flint, ARRA Executive Director
Master Developer Selection Team
Transmittal of Evaluation Matrix for Alameda Point Master Developer
The Executive Director appointed the Selection Team to assist the Executive Director
in evaluation of RFQ responses and recommendation of a short-list of perspective
Master Developers, preparation of the RFBP and selection of the Master Developer.
The Selection Team has been meeting regularly since January and recently concluded
its work. The culmination of the Team's work is the attached evaluation matrix,
which includes an Executive Summary, as well as further evaluation of the Master
Developer Responses based on the selection criteria contained in the RFBP. The
detailed evaluation supports the Executive Summary assessment.
We hope this evaluation matrix assists the ARRA Governing Board in selecting the
Master Developer for Alameda Point. We were honored to participate in this process
and look forward to the redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Definitions of Evaluation Terms
Evaluation Template
Selection of Master Developer for Alameda Point
Strong — Fully meets or exceeds all criteria.
Moderate to Strong — Meets most of the criteria and is strong relative to some criteria.
Moderate — Generally meets the criteria.
Weak to Moderate — Meets some to many criteria but significant deficiencies exist
relative to some criteria.
Weak — Generally fails to meet the criteria.
Definitions of Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Template
Selection of Master Developer for Alameda Point
Approach to Development — Developer's overall strategy and implementation plan for
developing the property. Criteria include: Risk free financing plan, assurances that: the
entire property will be redeveloped; the developer will assume full responsibility for
developing the property, an expeditious phasing plan will be implemented, the project
will contribute to the quality of the community's character; be of quality construction,
optimize the use of the property, and that an initial investment will be made in upgrading
the property.
Plan to Expedite the Conveyance and Redevelopment of the Property— The
Developer's approach and ability to proceed with securing an "Early Transfer" of the
property. Criteria include: the build -out schedule; demonstrated ability to successfully
complete an early transfer; importance of an early transfer to the build -out schedule; and
strengths of the Developer's Early Transfer Team.
Transportation Plan — Developer's plan for meeting the transportation needs of the
proposed development, increasing transportation capacity and reducing trips through the
tubes. Criteria include: Ability to divert people to alternate modes of transit; increasing
trip capacity; degree that the plan is multi - modal; feasibility of near -term implementation;
financial feasibility; consistency with local and regional planning efforts; promotion of
pedestrian commuting; minimal environmental impacts, and incorporation of TSM/TDM.
10002.001 \001 -019 definitions of terms
Page 1
Developer's Financial Commitment to the Project — Developer's approach to
financing the project. Criterion is a large equity (cash) investment before the project is
anticipated to generate a positive cash flow.
Maximization of Land Purchase Price and Minimization of ARRA Risks and Costs
— Developer's proposed formula to determine the amount of the purchase price and
agreement to fully fund the ARRA's expenses incurred to negotiate a Development
Agreement. Criteria include the inclusion of a base purchase price, the provision for
ARRA participation in profits; the timing of purchase payments, and the preservation of
existing lease income to the ARRA.
Developer Organization and Senior Management — The composition of the
development entity and the identity and authority of the Developer's representative.
Criteria include: strong organizational structure; a single point of contact; contact's
authority to make binding obligations; availability of point of contact; and the strength of
the Developer's experience.
Management and Maintenance of Assets — Developer's proposal relative to
maintaining the property and allocation of interim lease revenue prior to the property's
conveyance. Criteria include: the Developer's commitment to assume full responsibility
for maintaining the property and managing the interim lease efforts; the preservation of
lease income to ARRA; the plan for long-term funding of municipal services; and
assurances that debt service on the existing bonds will not be jeopardized.
Land Use and Program Objectives — Developer's proposed land use plan. Criteria
include: consistency with the City's economic development goals and Reuse Plan; plan
for a seamless integration into Alameda; incorporation of an employment center, parks
and open space, cultural and civic facilities, educational facilities, a full-spectrum of
housing, and a trail system; plan to meet affordable housing requirements; and
consistency with Public Trust and historic preservation requirements.
Site Specific and Community Development Issues — Responsiveness to the 14
issues raised by the community. Criteria include: commitment to use local businesses;
inclusion of a plan to use recycled water; plan is environmentally sustainable; integration
with the Northwest territories; the provision of site for a power plant; and the plan to
integrate the Collaborative properties into the plan.
10002.001\001-019 definitions of terms
Page 2
Developer's Financial
(Cash Equity)
Commitment to the
Project
Transportation Plan
Plan to Expedite the
Conveyance and
Redevelopment of the
Base
Approach to
Development
Strong - The proposal provides for a cash equity investment
estimated at over 45% of early development costs. Developer
estimates that over $100 million of equity dollars will be invested prior
to project generating a positive cash flow.
Moderate to Strong - Major strengths are creativity, trip
reduction, and the contention that it will be 100% internally
funded. The plan is multi -modal and adds new trip capacity by
adding an additional crossing on /off the island (gondola) that
connects with the W. Oakland BART (transfer point for all BART
lines). Finally, all housing is located a quarter -mile from
business centers. The major risk is the feasibility of receiving
entitlements for the gondola.
Strong - Team is well qualified and has good experience in
negotiating ESCAs, including successful completion of an early
transfer agreement with the Army.
Strong - Major strengths are the early large investment into the
project, immediate visual impact, the financing plan, which focuses
on the use of equity, and its accelerated schedule. The approach
assumes adaptive reuse is the best way to maximize the value of the
commercial property; however, under some market conditions this
could limit the types of tenancies.
APCP
Moderate to Strong - The proposal provides for a cash equity
investment equal to approximately 25% of early development costs.
Developer estimates that over $25 million of equity dollars will be
invested prior to project generating a positive cash flow.
Moderate - Major strengths are that it is multi -modal and
relatively easy to implement, from a regulatory perspective, as
it relies heavily on existing transit infrastructure. Weaknesses
include that it does not significantly increase traffic capacity,
the connector BART stations -- Fruitvale and Lake Merritt - -are
not optimal (limited number of BART lines), the plan requires
significant external funding, need to purchase right of way and
light rail will require double- tracking.
Moderate - Catellus understands the basics of the early transfer
process, although experience is limited to early transfer without
acceptance of ESCA remediation responsibility (FISC site).
Moderate to Strong - Major strength is Catellus' focus on new
development. The phased plan will allow the property to mature and
support higher -end users. The financing plan focuses on issuing a
series of bonds (versus cash investment). This financing poses
some potential risks relative to cash but may benefit the project
through a lower cost of funds. This approach is a phased approach,
with a longer anticipated build -out schedule.
CATELLUS
Moderate to Strong -
investment equal to appr
Developer estimates that
invested prior to project
Moderate - Major strei
relatively easy to imple
transit infrastructure di
the connection to the F
which are not optimal I
powered transit, need 1
will require double -trac
BART crossing) require
entitlements.
Strong - HB /L and partr
with large complicated pi
negotiated an ESCA (M<
32 St g
ta a: o
o •-•-•
CD 3 a CD
-0 0
< Cn
cp •-•• g
=
3 a) K
= (T) `"" •
S) 0
E_--: a "(13
POI a
X.,
a) DJ
it; co
0 m
DJ 3
0
o a)
0 r4.
0 tii
> a.
or
m
(n .
Developer Organization
and Senior
Management
iii S. C Ca
0 P. fil F,,-
0 o 0 0
in rx, et
0 2 0
-0, -
> 0 r
X m
a.
Moderate to Strong - APCP will manage leases under a contract.
Plan has near term weaknesses and long term strengths. The near
term weakness (prior to conveyance) is that all exisitng interim lease
revenue in excess of what is used to fund bond debt - service and
muncipal services (fire /police services and maintenance of the public
right of way) will no longer accrue to the ARRA. A moderate
strength is that a portion of future interim lease revenue (prior to
conveyance) will be shared with the ARRA. The long term strength
of the proposal is that these municipal services will be funded by non
General Fund sources in perpetuity.
Strong - As a team, APCP is well - qualifed and capitalized. Also,
the team has a single point of contact. The President's office will be
located on -site at Alameda Point.
Moderate to Strong - Proposal includes both a base land payment
and a participation payment. The proposal requests dedication of
100% of available tax increment to reimburse the developer for
project costs. For the period prior to conveyance, the proposal
requests allocation of 100% of existing lease revenue in excess of
the cost to fund municipal services (fire /police /public right of way)
and a portion of future lease income. After conveyance, all lease
income will be retained by the Developer but basic municipal
services will be funded by the project (not the General Fund) in
perpetuity. Developer agrees to fund expenses incurred by ARRA
during the entitlement process.
APCP
Moderate to Strong - Catellus will manage all leases under a
contract. Plan is strong relative to the criteria. Prior to conveyance,
all existing and future interim lease revenues will accrue to the
ARRA. Over the long term, a portion of municipal services will be
funded by the General Fund as well as by sources other than
General Fund revenues.
Moderate to Strong - As an organization, Catellus is well qualified
and capitalized. Weaknesses are the co- management structure
(two Senior Vice Presidents). Both Senior Vice Presidents manage
several projects and one's office is located in Irvine.
Moderate to Strong - Proposal includes both a base land payment
and a participation payment. The proposal request dedication of
100% of available non - housing tax increment to reimburse the
developer for project costs. For the period prior to conveyance, the
proposal offers to preserve 100% of lease income allocation in
excess of the cost to fund municipal services (fire /police /public right
of way) for ARRA's use. After conveyance, all lease income will be
retained by the Developer and basic municipal services will be
funded by a combination of General Fund and project revenues.
Developer agrees to fund expenses incurred by ARRA during the
entitlement process.
CATELLUS
c 3 — 0- 5. ELI 0 c 2
cp '0 2 - c c 0) Fp- El; U, 0
g o
a a)
a) ,-. - 5. a 0 0 a)
= o 0 o 3 0 3 a) 0
0- "41 „ a) ■-+ 0 CD 0 -, A)
c -• 0- -, 0 cn 5. 0 fiD, i
Moderate to Strong - F
capitalized. Also, the Pi
in Alameda. Weakness(
one co- mangager, Senic
manages several project
0 o 8•
a 22. .eP c a .ec iii c sg a)
a - c ='-' "(.3 c c •
c.0u)
‘< -0 5 0 (D -6- 0 ti, a e4, an
> El -5. , ,.. — ..< a Q.
= -,-+ 0 a)
) 0 0 a)
„ *-4. 0 -. — 0.
—= CD 50c°00a.-13
0) 0
0 `0
0 3
c =
cp rim
to IN
0
0.
CO
7r.
ci
0
Or
...-. =
< tn
M 0
MI
-■
0
(0
-.
0
3
community development issues at Alameda Point. Their support for
local businesses, Alameda Power & Telecom and the EBMUD
recycled water program is particularly strong . APCP is also willing
to play a key role to negotiate agreements with regulatory bodies,
including lobbying efforts at the state and federal level,. However,
the team lacks experience with effectuating Tidelands Trust
exchange agreements at former military bases.
uses, a waterfront marina with public facilities, and preservation of
the NAS historic character. The primary weaknesses are that APCP
APCP
and community development issues at Alameda Point. In particular,
there is strong support for local businesses and Alameda Power &
Telecom. Catellus is also willing to consider financial contributions to
the efforts of the Collaborative and to ensure the development of the
Wildlife Refuge and the Regional Park. Catellus expresses a desire
to integrate all supportive service buildings at one location and
possibly move APC units. Additionally, the team lacks experience
with effectuating Tidelands Trust exchange agreements at former
military bases.
product types. The primary weaknesses are the lack of networked
open space, limited parks /open space for the number of residential
CATELLUS
m3
K).S.. it, '-' co ?...,: w
,--, -0 Da CD ar
,..., r•+ -. 0
o a) m (7D+ c
--,a)-0,......
(4..
2)
0
=
cp
at 3
5
0 (g ...<
—
•ii-,
cil
ca 7.-s• m
0
—,
a
r.
a) ca
0 0
-• 0
(i)
7.7V Al
0"
= ,.... ......
•-• r— —
- — •-.
C 0 0'
'1".. -", —,.
c. r.,
74* 3 -..
C Q.
— — gj
•-‹
0 .4.
A —"" 1—..
ti
ALIVRIIN11S
...7D‘ ;35; _01 s om
c c
• 0 0 0 a c
• A: 0
:0 .1° ocCa x0 )4 ==0( n
11) 3 cr,
-4, c E -o
=oci. g. *
• 0 0.
cn o o
C 5' ci•
- r. DI CD
3
' • < o c -
-03 -o -0 -
0.
cnociFira=c. 0c•
0: 2 o .•< c
• p or 2 ar
O ,• 5,000i0°t7
- a. 5- 4)
fg 2 - • R.'
sa
o " -"o• ▪ 0 CD
."). 3 co
-
.. 3
•-••• -o
• • 3.3.
5.
m 0 '
• 0
•
3 g
sy.
0 UI
(11
n) 0 73
• C s)
0 —
, 0_
CT
t D 0 2
• Fo• '
— 0
0
sni iaivo
"e• 5 i m i 3 3 5. 2- m
c is•. I:0 g 03 0 0 0 r
c 0 c
w 0.
i :,o, 7. 0_--* . 13 <sc ra * . 7 3. -5.,-. ' i -,7,.. T�3..
8c og! 1:h3 :
0
c co
cr 0 5
=
3.- o fg 5 -0 0 3 ,Z"
-to 3„••• ,„ ,,, 0
0' cip 0 a 0 CD g
IT >< CI" !Iit: .3 3 $
c
en • c c . 0 m. Iv
co 3 Y.,. in" •.-- 5 ° co
01 w 4:1 (S3 5, 0 • ...< ta 0
irr 0 0 — 0 -6*
rric n ,z 2-- 2 -03 ...0. 00 ... 22 5,.„.
— ul •-
Z — o :"-'• < (0
3 o o ,.... .. co CD = --I
0
2 5.. (0.10 a 0. c
co o g ill 'D
{fi .""
- 3 -•
0
3. -1 X"..: s z• .. 0 5
cr a 7▪ ,.
* *ESCA = Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement
Overall Strengths
and Weaknesses
Strength of Early
Transfer Team
--1 2 cn > ID
,wcce
w = 0 .... ,
= w 0 =
cn 12_ 0 ez o
(D ■4, r+
C "
M 0.
o)
-I
..<
Feasibility of
Approach to Early
Transfer
Realistic Build -out
Schedule
Estimated Build -
out Schedule
Strong - Team is well qualified and has good experience in
negotiating ESCAs, including successful completion of an
early transfer agreement with the Army.
Moderate to Strong - Team is qualified and has experience
in ESCA negotiation.
Moderate to Strong
1. Leterkenny Army Depot, Chambersberg, PA (Army)
Completed
2. Lowry AFB, Denver Colorado
90% completion of ESCA (expected to be complete by
September of 2001).
3. McClellan AFB, Sacramento, CA
25% completion of ESCA. IRG acting as total project
manager for closure of the base, plus negotiation of the
ESCA.
Strong — The team has thorough knowledge of and
experience with the process, both technically and from a risk
management point of view. Insurance coverage plan is
comprehensive.
Moderate —The 10 -year schedule requires a successful
early transfer.
N.)
cz)
...‘
._.‘
Moderate - Catellus understands the basics of the early
transfer process, although experience is limited to early
transfer without acceptance of ESCA remediation
responsibility (FISC site).
Moderate - Catellus is qualified based on its experience at
FISC.
Moderate
1. FISC Alameda Annex/Alameda Facilities (Navy)
Early transfer without acceptance of ESCA remediation
responsibility.
Moderate — The team has a basic knowledge of the process
and their offered approach is technically sound. Insurance
coverage seems appropriate.
Moderate to Strong — A 15 to 20 -year schedule has been
estimated, which allows some flexibility in the clean -up
schedule.
2015 to 2020
Strong - HB /L and partner, CH2M Hi
experience with large complicated pr
have successfully completed an ESC
Strong - Team is qualified and has E
transfer negotiations with the Navy (P
Charleston Naval Base).
Strong
1. Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Valk
Completed
2. Charleston Naval Complex, Charl
Strong — Demonstrated track record
unequalled. Staff is highly qualified.
Moderate to Strong — A 15 schedul
allows some flexibility in the clean -ul
N.)
cp
_.>
a)
Aaewwns
CD -0 CT CS 'CI -0
X 4-‹ -"‘
00 .000
ck)=- EC 5/9
cr c w
•-• ca
CD C C
(DO" (D(fl cow U2
cD a) -5 0 Ca
CD
• 3 L" ,..,(1)
- —
(T) TO 9
r+• ct.
. CD a)
0 0
Xa) D) (4))Cr
CD
o "c
m 0-
.-3a FD, -a)
a 0
co51),D-4- a
0 ea
• g;',* c• 0
Ct. =
(A CD 0
—I 0
cn
Ec TO 3 ci
U) 3
• c = c
-4 30 111
=
— CD (0
0.
-a
0
-o
-1
• 0 (.0 0
CD TY 0 -0
CD ID 0
3 cr
= g
'
ID _>a<
• o)
o ▪ 0 CD
CD 3 (9
33-c-
CD 0
g.a (Et
- M
a CO
co OQ.
= . c
_
CI 0
(0 0)
X Fa"
0
*
0
m
r
c
0) =
- ."‹
c3 o
aaa ®m
0
CD r CD
3 o
r2 z < 0
ID c
s<
r4- —. CD
c cr
Fos EY o 03
c (1) 0
0 CD
ID. i)
c
• c VJ
C.
O C
Auvwwns
sn-nalvo
5E.15. gugt;ff
gaNgz.ER31
fl 5t ri 1. 121
19:911:1.4
-32T,E.FD"3!4 54
1.11.1.4gga.g.
=0 F0s...
s.Ngaggg
g c,,Pg33
0 0*.aaz.-.=-00
3 a c 2 5 no 51 o3
f34414==.-.05,0>
o m
m o Tp4 E;
17.2's.
2-§53-,1E1gE
g=?...PE-2F0i0.g
q..-10m0
• '03 S. r:
2a5mmlwS
2!!.0 ,1ga0 *
33g7img=g
noo.a
41. -5 -. o
o.
-
o
El
a.
(i)
a -F3
a 3
—3
•-•
3 it
u; 5
ID
< 0
91
c
5' fa.
c�
5'
R.22:
-0 •
-4
0.
..• 4.‘•
• cD
co Er
E 5.
41,
O c
O 0
3:
(1.) ;uaw ;sanul 4nb3 Else°
5• 0 5•
< < 0
• < 0 0.
O 0 0
• — (I)
(D 0 0
CVO 10
at'
.
g co 0
r.t.0 co
6 3 c
"0 ° 0
a -a
o
cooxco
co 3 -0
ra• w
•-,/
• (s) It. 0
UI '<
A, 3 ts,
O 15.• 7 ?r•
.0.: o
< 0 g-
CD LI 0
0- • ad •R-
0. to
.z 0
< o
9 o (L'
o —
• • 5' -o
u,
3o
.0
g.
=
0- o 0
(I)
O • 0
co 0
O —
0.,
0
=
• c
o • 5
-0 g,
a.
§~
=
3
0.
a.
0
C
< 0
• 0
co 0
5 0
• o
• 3
3
o
-II
o
0 0
ID 0
A rd
0.
0
0.
0.
2
74,
sn l'131vo
< • 0< 5. 8
o9 co< CI9 ta.° co 0
0.-o ° "fij • C .
0
„ • 34 IT .:
-.0,- 5 0 a' ta
5
!........a
'6 3 2 Cn 1/1
^
0
02 .-1- 7.4 -1
(D 0 -.<• n" •-•t-'
a < — 0
0 it; 3 -a 5'
5 0 il
,... .0, .... - <
(I)
3
CD
O -6. .- 3 0
0 a o <
a.
VI , D) 2 Fir
!VNN31
Aavwwns
:yoeo,dde ped omi
co 0
0
-0 71 a 0
0
w 5 2
co
o- 74,
0 >
—
-13 3 3
AI C
0.9. 3
7 CD
3 •
3
3
cL
0
a
a.
0
0
ca
cn
0.
:yoeoadde ped amyl
SfTi31v3
Is3 > to
tg 5 .
ta
c
• o ta;
<
co c'D
0 0
a (1
—
23 0
O 0
• "."
• g
O 0
00
*0 0
5'
11)
M,
2
Aavwwns
§
-U
sml31vO
Overall Strengths and Weaknesses
Provides for Payment of Debt
Service on Outstanding Bonds
Long -term Funding of Municipal
Services (Post Conveyance)
Provides for Sharing Future Interim
Lease Revenue with ARRA Prior to
Conveyance
Preservation of Existing Interim
Lease Revenue to ARRA Prior to
Conveyance
Agrees to Assume Management
Responsibilities of Existing Assets
Prior to Conveyance__-
SUMMARY
Moderate to Strong - APCP will manage leases under a contract.
Plan has near term weaknesses and long term strengths. The near
term weakness (prior to conveyance) is that all exisitng interim lease
revenue in excess of what is used to fund bond debt - service and
muncipal services (fire /police services and maintenance of the public
right of way) will no longer accrue to the ARRA. A moderate strength
is that a portion of future interim lease revenue (prior to conveyance)
will be shared with the ARRA. The long term strength of the proposal
is that these municipal services will be funded by non - General Fund
sources in perpetuity.
Strong - Bond Debt Service will not be jeopardized.
Strong - To be funded internally by project revenues.
Moderate - Portion will be shared.
Weak - All existing interim lease revenue beyond that used to fund
bond debt service and municipal services ( police/fire services and
maintenance of public right of way) will be used by APCP to fund
improvements to the property.
Strong - Agrees to manage leases and maintain buildings.
APCP will manage leases under a contract. All existing interim lease
revenues will accrue to APCP. City /ARRA will continue to provide
police /fire and public infrastructure maintenance. APCP will
reimburse City for its expenses and continue to make debt service
payments on the $10 million bond. APCP will share future interim
lease income with ARRA. Upon transfer, municipal services
( police/fire services and maintenance of the public right of way) will
continue to be funded by Project Revenues in perpetuity.
APCP
Moderate to Strong - Catellus will manage all leases under a
contract. Plan is strong relative to the criteria. Prior to conveyance,
all existing and future interim lease revenues will accrue to the ARRA.
Over the long term, a portion of municipal services will be funded by
the General Fund as well as by sources other than General Fund
revenues.
Strong - Bond Debt Service will not be jeopardized.
Moderate - Portion to be funded by project revenues.
Strong - All future interim lease income will accrue to ARRA.
Strong - All existing interim lease income will accrue to the ARRA.
Strong - Agrees to manage leases and maintain buildings.
Catellus will manage all leases under a contract. All lease revenues
(existing and future) will be retained by ARRA and all expenses paid
by ARRA until property transfers to Catellus. Upon transfer, all
revenues will accrue to Catellus. City will continue to provide
municipal services. A portion of municipal services (police/fire
services and maintenance of the public right of way) will continue to
be funded by project revenues.
CATELLUS
Weak to Moderate - HB /L will manage leases
has near term weaknesses and is moderate in t
near term weakness (prior to conveyance) is till
lease revenue in excess of what is used to fund
muncipal services (fire /police services and main
right of way) will no longer accrue to the ARRA
future interim lease revenue (prior to conveyanc
to be invested into the project. Over the long tei
municipal services will be funded by the Genen
sources other than General Fund revenues.
Strong - Bond Debt Service will not be jeopard
Moderate - Portion to be funded by project rev(
Weak - All future interim lease income will be ii
project.
Weak - All existing interim lease revenue beyor
bond debt service and municipal services (polic
maintenance of public right of way) will be use(
improvements to the property.
Strong - Agrees to manage leases and maintai
HB /L will manage leases under a contract. All
will accrue to HB /L. City /ARRA.will continue tc
services, to be initially funded by a municipal se
will reimburse City for its expenses and continu
payments on the $10 million bond. Upon trans
accrue to HB /L. City will provide municipal ser
services and maintenance of the public right of
funded by a combination of municipal services
taxes and utili user fees.
HARBOR BAY /LENNAF
Cultural /Civic Facilities
Bicycle /Pedestrian Trails
Parks /Open Space
Adds Employment Center &
High -Tech Businesses
m 0,
x a,
5-
c
m 0
c
el
c.
o
m
5'
o
Consistent with Economic
Development Goals
Strong - Estimated 225,000 SF including library, reuse of chapel and
officers' club for weddings, outdoor gazebo, fire station, and City Hall
West.
Strong - Land use plan calls for a network of paths designed for
pedestrians and bicycles throughout Alameda Point.
Strong - 116 Acres of networked parks /open space; serves as the basis
for the entire land use plan.
Strong - Plan calls for 4.6 million SF of light industrial /office space
including space for "high -tech" tenants, assuming there is sufficient
market support.
Moderate to Strong - While APCP's land use and program objectives do
not directly address how Alameda Points fits into the larger context of the
City, their goal is to extend the unique characteristics of the City to
Alameda Point. APCP's proposal calls for a creative and interdependent
mix of land uses (similar to existing Alameda neighborhoods) that are
connected by a large open space network to promote live, work and play
at Alameda Point. In addition the plan calls for an extension of Alameda's
grid street system into Alameda Point. Residential units will vary in type,
size and price. APCP's integration strategy includes respecting the
historic heritage of Alameda Point.
Strong - APCP's plan calls for light industrial and office uses at Alameda
Point, including opportunities for existing Alameda businesses to expand.
In addition, APCP's proposal stresses the importance of creating a jobs -
housing balance and efficient transportation systems.
Strong - Estimated 270,000 SF including library, museum, possible reuse
of chapel and officers club for cultural /civic uses, fire station and City Hall
West. Catellus also proposes a historic walk.
Moderate to Strong - Historic walk and extension of Alameda bicycle and
pedestrian network .
Moderate - 79 Acres of parks /open space. Some neighborhood parks are
isolated.
Strong - Plan calls for 2.2 million SF of light industrial /office space
including "high -tech" tenants, assuming there is sufficient market support.
Moderate to Strong - Catellus' land use and program objectives are based
on the existing land use patterns in the City. Their primary goal is to fully
integrate Alameda Point into the City. While Catellus proposes a mix of
land uses, many of the proposed residential areas are in pockets and are
therefore somewhat isolated from light industrial and office uses. Vertical
mixed use is to be developed along the waterfront. Residential units will
vary in type and size and price. Catellus' integration strategy includes
respecting the historic heritage of Alameda Point.
Strong - Catellus' plan calls for light industrial and office uses at Alameda
Point, including opportunities for existing Alameda businesses to expand.
In addition, Catellus' proposal stresses the importance of creating a jobs -
housing balance and efficient transportation systems.
Strong - Establish a formal community program for planning cultural
civic uses. Estimated 250,000 SF including waterfront cultural facili
an interpretive center, possible reuse of chapel, fire station, and Citl
West. HB /L also proposes a historic walk.
Weak to Moderate - Very little discussion of this issue in the propos
HB /L does propose a historic walk and a pedestrian friendly area in tl
Marina area. The transportation mgmt. program will also encourage
bicycle commuting.
Moderate - 94 Acres of parks /open space. At this time, plan is onl-
conceptual and will be flushed out later with City /ARRA and commu
Strong - Plan calls for 4 million SF of light industrial /office space inci
"high -tech" tenants, assuming there is sufficient market support.
Moderate - At this time HB /L's land use plan and program objective
conceptual and detailed drawings are not included. HB /L's underlyin
philosophy is that any specific land use pattems will be developed ti
a community driven process. On a conceptual level, HB /L envisions
Alameda Point as a mixed -use district containing a full range of uses
services that are linked by a distinctive network of public transit, str
paths, promenades and public recreation areas. Part of HB /L's integ
strategy includes an extension of existng city streets into Alameda F
HB /L's conceptual development program does call for the preservatir
many of the historic structures. Given the lack of detail, it is difficul
assess their plan to integrate the project with the balance of the Cit.)
Strong - HB /L's plan calls for light industrial and office uses at Alarm
Point. In addition, HB /L's stresses the importance of efficient
transportation systems.
AUVWWfS
Sft1131V0
-13
0
0
HVNN31/AV9 H0911VH
■•,••••••
Correspondence /
Miscellaneous
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
NAME OF MEETING:
Phone Number
fi
• C
E
C
b .
0 a
V
c3
C
C
cri
E L
4
0
t"3 F
C
-0 L
C
g
z C
C
o
O C
"" • C
- L
� C
v
• C
a
0
r
0
0
Ov
• v
o
U E
of whether
HARBOR
BAY
August 8, 2001
Alameda Re -Use and Re- Development Authority
Chailnian, Ralph Appezzato
Commissioners: Al Dewitt, Barbara Kerr, Tony Daysog, Beverly Johnson
Executive Director: James Flint
Re: Alameda Point Proposal for Master Developer
Mayor and City Council:
On behalf of the Harbor Bay /Lennar team, I would like to thank you for giving us the
opportunity to compete as a finalist for Master Developer of Alameda Point.
It has been a positive experience for us to present our proposal and respond to the wide -
ranging questions from you, your selection committee and the community over the past
three months. We had assumed that during this period, our responses and verbal
expressions of flexibility on the financial terms and other issues would be incorporated
into the record as part of the effort to "fine- tune" the City's understanding of the concept
we presented in our written proposal. While we are disappointed that this did not occur,
we recognize the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the closing of the proposal
information process.
Based upon our hands -on experience in naval military base reuse and our analysis of the
process we are uncertain about moving forward. Our financial underwriting discipline has
made our team step back and re- evaluate the feasibility of the business teiuis, the
remediation plan and development approach.
Based on this re- evaluation we hereby respectfully withdraw our proposal.
We thank the City of Alameda for its consideration.
Sincerely,
MA%1— /1471/
Kevin Hanson Tim Hoppen
for Harbor Bay/Lennar for Harbor Bay/Lennar
Doric Realty, Inc. 1141 Harbor Bay Parkway Alameda, CA 94502 Phone: (510- 769 -5100 Fax: 510- 769 -5156
Edge Innovations X961 - Terra -Rolla Ave:- Pkourt- a+n- kie- w; -Gk-- 94043 --- 4.15'"9"34.2888 -rox .9-31.28aQ-
Alameda Reuse Authority Governing Board
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Greetings Board Members,
August 1, 2001
p C E
I am submitting this letter regarding the selection of a Master Developer for Alameda Point with
two clear pers.,pectives in
First, my interest in Alameda reaching its potential as a strong and growing community. My father
grew up here during the war, and many of my relatives have lived and died here. I am sure that
you are aware of the unique nature, character and history of Alameda. I believe that it is important
that we stay true to the community that has been built here and not get steamrolled. Alameda is a
relatively small city, we want to take great care in selecting the guardian of this 2 billion dollar
project.
Second, my interest in Alameda reaching its potential as a place for business and growth. I am
the COO and one of the founding principals of Edge Innovations. We have been in the
entertainment business for more than 10 years, and have a vested interest in seeing the area
grow and support a strong business community.
After attending presentations by each developer, reviewing proposals and discussing various
issues with each developer, other business owners and residents, I strongly support the selection
of Alameda Point Community Partnership in the bid for Master Developer. I believe that the city,
community and businesses of Alameda will be listened to, treated with respect, and well served
by the Community Partnership. We want to grow something at Alameda Point where the
multitude of tradeoffs are weighted appropriately with vision for the future of the city, community,
businesses and environment.
I have deep personal concerns about the vision and methods of Catellus. Even though they are
exceptionally thorough in the presentation process, I fear that they may become an overly
influential corporate force if selected, which could negatively impact the project and the city as a
whole. Additionally since they already have the 200 sore F!SC development project in Alameda,
it seems that having a balance with a different developer for the Alameda Point project would help
foster some healthy competition ultimately benefiting the community.
I appreciate your time and efforts in this matter and am very excited about the future of Alameda
for all of us.
Warm Regards,
Ty Boyce
Edge Innovations
2701 Monarch St.
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 864 -3375
July 27, 2001
Dear Mayor Appezatto:
I would like to take this time to share my appreciation for Doric Development.
They supported this years Earth Day Celebration at the College of Alameda in
many ways. They contributed a significant donation, were sponsors on our Earth
Day T- Shirts, and presented information about their Ferry Service, which is a
valuable service for Alamedans.
I believe that Doric Development would create beauty at Alameda Point. They
have been in Alameda for many years, are local residents, and are open to
utilizing sustainable methods in their work.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Esha Michelle Nagle
Wake Up America Project, Inc.
Youth in the Community
July 30, 2001
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Members
c/o Doug Yount
Director, Development Services
950 West Mall Square, Room 215
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear ARRA Members:
On behalf of HOME, we are pleased to submit this letter recommending Catellus as our choice
for the Alameda Point Master Developer. As a youth development organization, HOME is
committed to building a strong community at Alameda Point — one that values young people,
community participation, civic spaces, and diversity. We believe that Catellus has demonstrated
its commitment to these issues through its thoughtful business plan and through its track record of
community involvement.
Background
We are a team of four youth, representing HOME, which has been tracking the Master Developer
selection process since January. Since the selection of the Master Developer will drastically
change the future of Alameda Point, we believe it's in the community's best interest to have all
the involvement we can. We feel that it is important for us to express our opinion on behalf of the
youth of Alameda because for the past five years, HOME members have been doing just that.
We attempted to take an unbiased approach, establish contact with each candidate, and take
advantage of every learning opportunity. Collectively, we have:
• Attended the first Community Forum in January at the Officer's Club
• Examined each of the RFQ submittals
• Attended the ARRA meeting Adopting the Short List
• Hosted the June Community Forum at HOME
• Read each of the Business Plans
• And finally, we completed an analysis to determine the master developer we would like to
see shape the future of Alameda Point, a stance which we publicly voiced at the July 19th
ARRA meeting.
Evaluation
HOME is deeply involved with our community. The Master Developer will radically change our
community, for better or for worse. With this in mind, our ideal Master Developer is one who:
• Will improve Alameda Point by involving the community
• Will listen to and incorporate the community's wishes
• Will keep their promises to the community
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 +
• tele: 510 -748 -4314 • fax: 510- 748 -4326 • website: www.homeproject.org •
• Will make the land they develop serve multiple uses and diverse groups
• And finally will invest in young people and their families through community spaces, youth
development programs, and work force opportunities.
We evaluated each master developer business plan based on four categories that we have
expertise with and that are of great importance to us:
1) Commitment to Youth Development
• Youth services and programs
• Youth employment
• Youth involvement in Alameda Point
2) Community Involvement
• Alignment with Reuse Plan
• Plans for communicating with and involving residents and tenants in the development of
Alameda Point
3) Community Spaces/ Services
• Open spaces
• Pedestrian walkways and bikeways
• Recreation areas, community and art centers that encourage interaction
4) Diversity: Ethnically and Economically
• Potential partnership with the Alameda Point Collaborative
• Affordable housing for different income levels
• Encouraging diversity in employment opportunities
Why Catellus Excelled
When we reviewed each of the developer's plans in relation to the issues we care most deeply
about, we found that Catellus' plan excelled in every category.
1) Commitment to Youth Development
Catellus outlines a specific youth program they would like to develop in Alameda. This program
called, "Building for Tomorrow," will help youth experience the real estate development process
and coordinate internships in architecture, engineering, development/finance and construction.
This program has been established across the country and has received high reviews. Not only
does it provide a positive youth development opportunity, it will also create an avenue for youth
to shape Alameda Point's development.
2) Community Involvement
Catellus intends to continue community meetings, focus groups, and one -on -one dialogue to
enable residents and tenants to inform development plans. Catellus also plans to continue its
involvement with organizations including: Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda Chamber of
Commerce, West Alameda Business Association, Historic Advisory Board and HOME. Finally,
Catellus' plan mirrors the Reuse and Redevelopment Plan that was developed through an
extensive community participation process.
3) Community Spaces/ Services
Catellus wants to honor the Reuse Plan by putting educational and community services within the
civic core. In respect to the Alameda Point Collaborative, Catellus plans to build a new building
to expand their services, and they commit to having HOME remain an important community
educational facility. They also mention the idea of a "historic walk," which would be an
important historical, educational and recreational community landmark.
2
4) Diversity: Ethnically and Economically
Catellus plans to integrate the levels of housing, but at the same time, keep the housing style
similar, so as not to segregate each level of income. Also, in addition to working with the
Alameda Point Collaborative, Catellus will also seek the aid of several other housing
development organizations (listed under chapter 6 of the section entitled "site specific and
community development issues "). Catellus has demonstrated a commitment to working for low
income housing through its extensive negotiation with Renewed Hope, Are Ecology, and the City
of Alameda.
Throughout their plan, Catellus' strength was its in -depth description of its plans and actions.
From firsthand experience, we have learned that their word leads to action. Over the last 10
months, Catellus has been an active supporter of HOME, following through on its commitments
to us in many different ways. Beyond a generous financial contribution, Catellus representatives
have volunteered to serve on HOME panels, rolled up their sleeves to help construct our building,
donated materials when needed, and celebrated HOME's Grand Opening with us. These
examples demonstrate Catellus' accessibility and amiability in dealing with the community,
evidence that strengthens the findings from our analysis.
Conclusion
We understand that you have a difficult decision to make and that you must weigh other
important issues in your overall analysis. We hope that the areas we highlighted in this letter are
ones that you will consider with equal attention, remembering that the heart and soul of Alameda
Point will always be the community that we build together. Regardless of who is ultimately
selected, HOME's youth and adult members look forward to partnering with the Master
Developer, ARRA and the City in making Alameda Point an outstanding community landmark
for the future of Alameda.
Sincerely,
HQME's Master Developer Recommend. ion Team
Carolyn Ver Duin
HOME Youth Member
aul Bothwell
HOME Youth Member
Kendra Capen
HO Youth Member
Linda Nguye
HOME Youth Member
3
INC
Ignacio Neighborhoods Committee
Domingo Canyon • Hillside Estates • Hillside Knolls • Hillside Park East • Hillside-Fark7 —" ._..
Ignacio -BMK Business Association • Ignacio Creek • Ignacio Garden • Loma Verde
Marin Country Club • Marin Glen • Pacheco Ranch .Estates
583 Fairwa Drive o Novato, California 94949 -5879 o (415) 382 -1277
August 8, 2001
Alameda City Council
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
clo Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
Subject: Alameda Point Community Relations
Dear Councilmembers:
On behalf of the 1,500 households represented by the Ignacio Neighborhoods
Committee, I am pleased to offer our enthusiastic recommendation of Shea/Centex
(Alameda Point Community Partners) to accomplish your project.
During the period from 1993 to the present, our neighborhoods coalition was
heavily involved with elected and appointed officials of the City of Novato, Marin
County, and the Secretary of the Navy in the campaign to redevelop the Navy housing
portion of Hamilton Field. We supported the selection of Shea/Centex as the master
developer- for the property and have been extremely satisfied with the very close
cooperation and coordination between Shea/Centex and the surrounding neighborhoods.
Senior officials of Shea/Centex repeatedly met with representatives of the Ignacio
Neighborhoods Committee and with the general membership of the various homeowner
associations to discuss design concepts, landscaping, project phasing, and special efforts
to minimize any impact on noise and traffic. Shea/Centex exceeded our expectations in
their speed in razing the existing 504 units of housing in the Rafael Village portion of the
project, their care in preserving heritage trees, and in almost completely avoiding any dust
or traffic delay.
For a city that routinely speaks out against development of any kind, the fact that
only one homeowner appeared at the Novato City Council meeting to question the
Shea/Centex project proposal is a testament to the Shea/Centex community relations
success. The City Council gave its unanimous approval.
We know and appreciate very much that Shea/Centex has incurred substantial up-
front costs to ensure that the redevelopment project has proceeded in accordance with the
wishes of the surrounding neighborhoods. in my opinion, the close cooperation between
Shea/Centex and Novato residents has created a model for other communities that plan to
convert former DoD properties to private use.
I offer our neighborhood coalition's enthusiastic recommendation of Shea/Centex
for your project. Please feel free to contact me if I can offer any additional information,
Yours truly,
Huh . Sc
g
Chairman
(415) 382 -1277
2
TO:
RE:
FROM: BikeAlameda
Dear Members of the ARRA Board,
We deeply appreciate the tremendous c
process by community members, city st
other groups, the Mayor and the City Co
over many years has brought us to this
represents the opening of a new chapte
we can.
BikeAlameda
WW4v.bjkeaiameda.crg I bikezAarneda@pecbell.net
pecbell.net
(510) 595 -4690
August 9, 2001
Members of the. AtamedalRedevelopment and Reuse Authority Board
(FAX: 748 -4503)
Catellus Endorsed as Master Developer
mmitment of time and energy invested in this
, the Alameda Point Advisory Committee and
mil and the ARRA Board. Much hard work
int. Tonight's Master Developer decision
in our efforts to create the best community that
Pete Lenhardt, one of our members, sale. that we should support "whichever
candidate...offers the greatest support to bike, pedestrian, and transit needs. This is not
only for the sake of our vested interest, blot in the interest of the whole community...A
planned community with good commitmept to biking, pedestrians, and transit, is a
community that offers the most 'livable' cionditions to its residents."
The members of BikeAlameda's Advocacy Group have attended community workshops,
independently analyzed the three finalist' Master Developer proposals, and then
separately interviewed representatives ofi the two master developer teams whose
proposals most closely matched our criteria and our goals. We have also studied with
interest the just - released "matrix" report,1 the draft Long, Range Transit Plan, and other
related documents.
We examined these proposals for their wide- ranging implications for the future health
and vitality of Alameda, and we carefully analyzed the specific transportation issues
involved. BikeAlameda has neither been offered nor accepted any financial or other
compensation by any person or organizaijon during this process.
After careful deliberation, BikeAlameda endorsed Catellus over Alameda Point
Community Partners (APCP) to be the Mp„ter Developer for Alameda Point. We believe
Bi�CeAlameda
www.bikealaraecfa,or bikealarneda@pacben.net 595 -4690 ��acbeCt. net
that Catellus' approach integrates. Ala rnpda Point more seamlessly with the rest of
community, and provides more compretlensive and practical near -term transportation our
solutions for all of Alameda, We supporit building 2000 more homes at Alameda Point,
and we believe that Catellus' plans for I usiness and commercial development will of the right kinds of jobs to our c mmunity. Most important, we concl ail bring
will be more receptive to community issies and suggestions over time, uded hat they
We applaud the innovative aspects of A CP's designs, and we hope that some of their
expertise and design details will be inco °rated as the new Alameda Point unfolds. We
feel that we can work effectively and co fortably with either candidate but we b
that Catellus conceptual and philosophical approach is more in tune overall with needs and goals, as we undOrstand them.
The draft Long Range Transit Plan, the ending General Plan Update process and
several other community planning initial es will inevitably influence the course of
redevelopment at Alameda Point. Conti ued active community involvement is the key
element in these and other efforts to im rove not only the specific proposals and plans
tor Alameda Point, but to improve our 1i s. Since the details of the successful ro os
will certainly be modified as developme p p al
circumstances, we urge the ARRA Boar it to choose the M ster Devela eg
responsive to the community and its con erns. p that is most
BikeAtameda believes that Catellus will l e the best partner far all of Alamed
make these changes together in the co to a as we
9 years. We urge you to select Catellus as
the Master Developer for Alameda Porn
Thank you for your consideration,
M. S ' a e , or BikeAlameda
H: 864
1 037 San Antonio Avenue
Alamecia, GA 94501 -3963
(lpie (-1,6 vi A
FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA • 3 RD FLOOR • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Office of the Mayor
Jerry Brown
Mayor
August 9, 2001
Stewart Lichter CEO
Industrial Realty Group
3140 Peacekeeper Way
McClellan, CA 95652-9508
Dear Stewart,
Thank you for sharing your firm's proposed Alameda Naval Air Station Re-use Plan.
(510) 238-3141
FAX: (510) 238-4731
TDD: (510) 839-6451
I was particularly interested in the proposed gondola that will provide an efficient non-polluting
transportation link between Alameda and the proposed West Oakland Transit Village. This
innovative idea could provide both Alameda and Oakland with an effective solution to an existing
critical transportation need.
I look forward to learning more about your project and I welcome the opportunity to work with
Industrial Realty Group and Morgan Stanley on this and other projects that benefit Oakland.
ALAMEDA POINT BUSINESSES
August 7, 2001
Alameda City Council Members
2263 Santa Clara, Ste. 320
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Master Developer Selection:
Dear Distinguished Members of the City Council,
After meeting with each of the three Master Developers, and reviewing the individual business plans,
a group of the Alameda Point Businesses are in agreement with the Master Developer Selection
Team's overall evaluation matrix. Upon review of the matrix, primarily page 5 (enclosed), it is
apparent that Alameda Point Community Partners should be chosen as the Master Developer for
Alameda Point.
Sincerely,
Edge
:
chum_ ' ad Shook
ovations -
oyce
anski
Peter Novak/ f ,
k . Fez • (Acme. co¢i1
tions - John Iacopi J Wholesale Wherehouse - John Kienoski
an Corr
R.S.W. - J. Raider
Gold Coast E
thW
Delphi - Kyle Woods
- Kirk Hoeffler
Nelson's Marine Inc. - C rl Nelson Home Au - John Brennen
ALAMEDA POINT BUSINESSES
Honorable Members of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 5 '
August 3, 2001
Once that process was completed, the Selection Team voted unanimously to
forward the overall evaluation matrix to the ARRA Board. In summary, the Team's
overall assessments of each development team and proposal relative to each of the nine
criteria are as follows:
In accordance with the established role of the Selection Team, the Team did not rank the
responses or provide a recommendation regarding final selection of a Master Developer.
Rather; the Team's assessment of strengths and weaknesses is available to the ARRA
Board to use in making its selection.
.• .
Next Steps- •
Following the selection of the Master Developer of Alameda Point, ARRA and the
selected Master Developer will commence negotiations of legal agrqements. It is
contemplated that an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), an Asset Management
Contract and other interim agreements will be negotiated and executed. The negotiation
of the Disposition and Development Agreement will follow the negotiation of the ENA.
The Master Planning Process will run on a parallel track with negotiation of the DDA.
APCP
Catellus
HEM_
Approach to
Development
Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
Plan to Expedite the
Conveyance and
Redevelopment of
the Base ..
Strong
'
Moderate
Strong
Transportation Plan
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Developer's
Financial (Cash
Equity) Commitment
to the Project
Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Maximization of
Land Purchase Price
and Minimization of
ARRA Risks/Costs
Moderate to Strong
•
Moderate to Strong
Weak to Moderate
.
Developer
Organization and
Senior Management
Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Management and
Maintenance of
Assets
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Weak to Moderate
Land Use and
Program Objectives
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
Community
'Development and
Site Specific Issues
Moderate to Strong
Moderate to Strong
Moderate
In accordance with the established role of the Selection Team, the Team did not rank the
responses or provide a recommendation regarding final selection of a Master Developer.
Rather; the Team's assessment of strengths and weaknesses is available to the ARRA
Board to use in making its selection.
.• .
Next Steps- •
Following the selection of the Master Developer of Alameda Point, ARRA and the
selected Master Developer will commence negotiations of legal agrqements. It is
contemplated that an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), an Asset Management
Contract and other interim agreements will be negotiated and executed. The negotiation
of the Disposition and Development Agreement will follow the negotiation of the ENA.
The Master Planning Process will run on a parallel track with negotiation of the DDA.
T-1,11111
ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC
Morgan Stanley Centex Homes Shea Homes/Properties Industrial Realty Group
August 9, 2001
Mayor Ralph Appezzato
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
Re: Gail Ann Greely Letter
Scope: HOME Project Contribution
Dear Ralph:
I am writing to apologize for any misrepresentation of Alameda Point Community
Partners' involvement in the above referenced matter, HOME project is a very
important component of the community and after our selection, we intend to
make them an integral part of the project.
However, under no circumstance did George Oliver have any authority to make
the offer alleged in this letter. George has been an over zealous proponent of
our proposal and I want to make it perfectly clear he is not a paid consultant,
employee or has any financial interest in this project. No partner or staff member
authorized any such offer.
I hope you accept this letter as my sincerest apology regarding the above.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need further clarification.
Thank you_
Sincerely,
ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC
Thom Gamble
President
TG/law
Appercete 080901 Home.doc
cc: Doug Yount, Development Services Director, City of Alameda
James M. Flint, City Manager, City of Alameda
Carol A. Korade, City Attorney, City of Alameda
Gail Ann Greely, Esq.
Alameda Point Community Partners, LLC • 2580 Shea Center Drive • Livermore, California 94550 • 925.245.3600
r.uc,uc
TOTAL P.02
Youth in the Community
August 9, 2001
ARRA Board
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear ARRA Members:
A rumor is circulating in the community that the position of HOME youth on selection of a master
developer for Alameda Point has been influenced by a large financial contribution. This is
absolutely not true and we want to set the record straight.
HOME's Support for Catellus is based on our team's comparative analysis of the three competing
business plans. As outlined in a letter we submitted last week for your review, Catellus' plan
excelled above the others based on the following issues and evidence:
1) Commitment to Youth Development
Catellus outlines a specific youth program they would like to develop in Alameda. This program called,
"Building for Tomorrow," will help youth experience the real estate development process and coordinate
internships in architecture, engineering, development/finance and construction. This program has been
established across the country and has received high reviews. Not only does it provide a positive youth
development opportunity, it will also create an avenue for youth to shape Alameda Point's development.
2) Community Involvement
Catellus intends to continue community meetings, focus groups, and one -on -one dialogue to enable residents
and tenants to inform development plans. Catellus also plans to continue its involvement with organizations
including: Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, West Alameda Business
Association, Historic Advisory Board and HOME. Finally, Catellus' plan mirrors the Reuse and
Redevelopment Plan that was developed through an extensive community participation process.
3) Community Spaces/ Services
Catellus wants to honor the Reuse Plan by putting educational and community services within the civic core.
In respect to the Alameda Point Collaborative, Catellus plans to build a new building to expand their
services, and they commit to having HOME remain an important community educational facility. They also
mention the idea of a "historic walk," which would be an interactive historical, educational and recreational
community landmark.
4) Diversity: Ethnically and Economically
Catellus plans to integrate the levels of housing, but at the same time, keep the housing style similar, so as
not to segregate each level of income. Also, in addition to working with the Alameda Point Collaborative,
Catellus will also seek the aid of several other housing development organizations (listed under chapter 6 of
the section entitled "site specific and community development issues "). Catellus has demonstrated a
commitment to working for low income housing through its extensive negotiation with Renewed Hope, Arc
Ecology, and the City of Alameda.
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 •
• tele: 510 -748 -4314 • fax: 510 -748 -4326 • website: www.homeproject.org •
Catellus has never offered HOME money or other assistance in exchange for HOME's support in the
developer selection process. In HOME's communications with them, Catellus representatives have always
been careful to comply with the rules of the selection process.
Thank you,
HOME's Master Developer Recommendatjon Team
Carolyn VerDuin
HOME Youth Member
eul Bothwell
HOME Youth Member
cc:
endra Capen
HOME Youth Member
-U.
Linda Nguyen
HOME Youth Member
James M. Flint, City Manager
Carol A. Korade, City Attorney
t,F
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 •
• tele: 510 -748 -4314 • fax: 510 -748 -4326 • website: www.homeproject.org •
Youth in the Community
August 9, 2001
ARRA Board
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear ARRA Members:
A rumor is circulating in the community that the position of HOME youth on selection of a master
developer for Alameda Point has been influenced by a large financial contribution. This is
absolutely not true and we want to set the record straight.
HOME's Support for Catellus is based on our team's comparative analysis of the three competing
business plans. As outlined in a letter we submitted last week for your review, Catellus' plan
excelled above the others based on the following issues and evidence:
1) Commitment to Youth Development
Catellus outlines a specific youth program they would like to develop in Alameda. This program called,
"Building for Tomorrow," will help youth experience the real estate development process and coordinate
internships in architecture, engineering, development/finance and construction. This program has been
established across the country and has received high reviews. Not only does it provide a positive youth
development opportunity, it will also create an avenue for youth to shape Alameda Point's development.
2) Community Involvement
Catellus intends to continue community meetings, focus groups, and one -on -one dialogue to enable residents
and tenants to inform development plans. Catellus also plans to continue its involvement with organizations
including: Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, West Alameda Business
Association, Historic Advisory Board and HOME. Finally, Catellus' plan mirrors the Reuse and
Redevelopment Plan that was developed through an extensive community participation process.
3) Community Spaces/ Services
Catellus wants to honor the Reuse Plan by putting educational and community services within the civic core.
In respect to the Alameda Point Collaborative, Catellus plans to build a new building to expand their
services, and they commit to having HOME remain an important community educational facility. They also
mention the idea of a "historic walk," which would be an interactive historical, educational and recreational
community landmark.
4) Diversity: Ethnically and Economically
Catellus plans to integrate the levels of housing, but at the same time, keep the housing style similar, so as
not to segregate each level of income. Also, in addition to working with the Alameda Point Collaborative,
Catellus will also seek the aid of several other housing development organizations (listed under chapter 6 of
the section entitled "site specific and community development issues "). Catellus has demonstrated a
commitment to working for low income housing through its extensive negotiation with Renewed Hope, Arc
Ecology, and the City of Alameda.
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 •
• tele: 510 -748 -4314 • fax: 510 -748 -4326 • website: www.homeproject.org •
Catellus has never offered HOME money or other assistance in exchange for HOME's support in the
developer selection process. In HOME's communications with them, Catellus representatives have always
been careful to comply with the rules of the selection process.
Thank you,
HOME's Master Developer Recommendat'on Team
cc)La(i
( Jam.
Carolyn VerDuin
HOME Youth Member
aul Bothwell
HOME Youth Member
endra Capen
HOME Youth Member
Linda guyen
HOME Youth Member
cc: James M. Flint, City Manager
Carol A. Korade, City Attorney
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 •
• tele: 510 -748 -4314 • fax: 510 -748 -4326 • website: www.homeproject.org •
Youth in the Community
August 9, 2001
ARRA Board
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear ARRA Members:
A rumor is circulating in the community that the position of HOME youth on selection of a master
developer for Alameda Point has been influenced by a large financial contribution. This is
absolutely not true and we want to set the record straight.
HOME's Support for Catellus is based on our team's comparative analysis of the three competing
business plans. As outlined in a letter we submitted last week for your review, Catellus' plan
excelled above the others based on the following issues and evidence:
1) Commitment to Youth Development
Catellus outlines a specific youth program they would like to develop in Alameda. This program called,
"Building for Tomorrow," will help youth experience the real estate development process and coordinate
internships in architecture, engineering, development/finance and construction. This program has been
established across the country and has received high reviews. Not only does it provide a positive youth
development opportunity, it will also create an avenue for youth to shape Alameda Point's development.
2) Community Involvement
Catellus intends to continue community meetings, focus groups, and one -on -one dialogue to enable residents
and tenants to inform development plans. Catellus also plans to continue its involvement with organizations
including: Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, West Alameda Business
Association, Historic Advisory Board and HOME. Finally, Catellus' plan mirrors the Reuse and
Redevelopment Plan that was developed through an extensive community participation process.
3) Community Spaces/ Services
Catellus wants to honor the Reuse Plan by putting educational and community services within the civic core.
In respect to the Alameda Point Collaborative, Catellus plans to build a new building to expand their
services, and they commit to having HOME remain an important community educational facility. They also
mention the idea of a "historic walk," which would be an interactive historical, educational and recreational
community landmark.
4) Diversity: Ethnically and Economically
Catellus plans to integrate the levels of housing, but at the same time, keep the housing style similar, so as
not to segregate each level of income. Also, in addition to working with the Alameda Point Collaborative,
Catellus will also seek the aid of several other housing development organizations (listed under chapter 6 of
the section entitled "site specific and community development issues "). Catellus has demonstrated a
commitment to working for low income housing through its extensive negotiation with Renewed Hope, Arc
Ecology, and the City of Alameda.
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 •
• tele: 510- 748 -4314 • fax: 510- 748 -4326 • website: www.homeproject.org •
Catellus has never offered HOME money or other assistance in exchange for HOME's support in the
developer selection process. In HOME's communications with them, Catellus representatives have always
been careful to comply with the rules of the selection process.
Thank you,
HOME's Master Developer Recommendaton Team
CkusL
Carolyn VerDuin
HOME Youth Member
Poi'
au1 Bothwell
HOME Youth Member
,(7/.g iA4"
endra Capen
HOME Youth Member
12i
Linda Nguyen
HOME Youth Member
cc: James M. Flint, City Manager
Carol A. Korade, City Attorney
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 •
• tele: 510 -748 -4314 • fax: 510- 748 -4326 • website: www.homeproject.org •
Ten Key Values
Ecological Wisdom
Grassroots Democracy
Social Justice
Feminism
Nonviolence
Decentralization
Respect for Diversity
Community Based
Economics
Personal and Global
Responsibility
Future Focus
Cantac
Steve Gerstle
510/864-8363
Green Party - City of Alameda Chapter
August 9, 2001
To: Members of the ARRA
From: The Alameda Green Party, presented by Richard Bangert
First, our compliments on a selection process well done: from
the rigorous criteria set forth, to the Master Developer Selection
Team created to evaluate the proposals, to the public meetings
and availability of information. Well done.
The Green Party as a general rule does not endorse corporate
entities or their projects, and has not done so in the case of the
master developer here. This accords with our principle of not
accepting corporate campaign contributions. The Green Party
has, however, closely followed this screening process and has
strong opinions about its eventual outcome.
We would like to see the most up -to -date, sustainable urban
planning concepts incorporated into this project. We would like
to see the use of renewable resources for energy production,
particularly solar energy, and the use of renewable building
materials and building materials manufactured from recycled
sources. And we would like clean, non - polluting transportation
alternatives to be provided.
Regarding the workforce employed to complete this project,
several Green Party principles come into play. We strongly
support unionized labor and the principle of collective
bargaining. We also, as a matter of principle, strongly support
the small businessperson, the small contractor, and minority and
women contractors.
The Green Party looks forward to participating in the public
review of the various phases of this project. Thank you again
for providing these opportunities for public input.
�p
CATELLUS
Following is a partial list of individuals and organizations that have endorsed
Catellus as the Master Developer of Alameda Point. (Organizations are in bold.)
Patricia Berry, Marketing Concepts
Bike Alameda
Steve Case, Neptune Plaza Hotel
Kim Cleghorn, Prudential California Realty
Bonnie Crowe, Prudential California Realty
Disabled American Veterans, Chapter 8
Michael Dugan, Elders' Inn
Jim Franz, American Red Cross
Gail Greely, Attorney at Law
Bert Harris, Spritzers Sidewalk Cafe
Melissa Harris, Spritzers Sidewalk Cafe
Barry Luboviski, Alameda Trades Council
Judy Goff, Central Labor Council of Alameda County
Anita Ng, Garden Cleaners
Chief Bronson Perry, USN (ret), Disabled American Veterans
Kate Prior, Tucker's Ice Cream
Kent Rosenblum, Rosenblum Cellars
The Home Project
Carolyn Ver Duin, The Home Project
Linda Nguyen, The Home Project
Leslie Medine, The Home Project
Paul Bothwell, The Home Project
Kendra Capen, The Home Project
USS Hornet Museum
Gerald Lutz, USN (ret), USS Hornet Museum
Rear Admiral Thomas Mercer, USN (ret), USS Hornet Museum
Alan McKean, USS Hornet Museum
West Alameda Business Association (WABA)
John Huetter, WABA president, Alameda resident and business person
Bob Rogers, WABA
Georgia Madden, WABA
Mi'Chelle Fredrick, WABA
Victor Jin, WABA and Property Investment Services
Michael Vernetti, Alameda resident
Sara Baldi, Alameda resident
Kate Berenson, Alameda resident
Barbara Kahn, Alameda resident
Michael Gregory, Alameda resident
Bill Rogers, Alameda resident
Drew Harrison, Alameda resident
J. Hunter Harris, Alameda resident
Jennifer Chang, Alameda resident
Irma Garcia - Sinclair, Alameda resident
Neil Garcia - Sinclair, Cyber Tran International
Bill Stremmel, Cyber Tran and Citizens Advisory Committee, Alameda County
Transportation Authority
1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 2150, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 (510) 267 -0646 FAX (510) 267 -0940
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 216, ALAMEDA, CA 94501
(510) 523 -6955 wabaavdn.com
July 26, 2001
Mayor Ralph Appezzato and
ARRA Members
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mayor Appezzato and ARRA Members:
The Board of the West Alameda Business Association today passed a resolution of unanimous support
for the Catellus Corporation to be selected as the master developer for Alameda Point. This dedslon was
made after Question and Answer sessions by the Board with each of the three candidates qualified
by the City for this role as well as individual review of the Summary Comparison prepared by Keyser
Marston Associates, consultant to the City of Alameda.
The following factors were considered in arriving at this vote of support for Catellus:
1) Their proposal was most responsive to community input
2) Demonstrated understanding of the needs and goals of the business district
3) Favorable proportion of residential development and affordable housing
4) Respect for Alameda style and tradition
5) Proposed development appeared to be closest to the base re -use plan
formulated by community groups and the City
6) Realistic transportation plan with potential for early implementation
It should also be noted that all members of the Board were asked to recuse themselves from discussion
and voting on this matter if they had a commercial interest in the development or any of the develper
candidates. Iry Hamilton was the only member who Identified potential conflict of interest and did so
recuse himself.
if any members of the ARRA, the Council or City staff have questions or requests for clarification on this
resolution, please contact me directly.
We look forward to your decision this coming August 9th.
Sincerely yours,
John Huetter
President of the Board
Dedicated to promoting and improving west Alameda through
an active partnership of community and business
Chairman Ralph Appezzato
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Chairman Appezzato,
August 6, 2001
We in the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation have invested over six years
in securing the USS Hornet from the Navy, preparing the Hornet as a Museum,
and preserving the legacy of the Naval Air Station, Alameda. Our careers and
futures have been dedicated to promote the Hornet as a symbol of peace, and as a
community resource, especially for the education of the children.
Initially, our organization was careful not to endorse any of the master
developers for Alameda Point. However, one company, Catellus, demonstrates a
commitment for the historical preservation of our former military base.
Representatives of the Alameda Point Communities Partners met with us but did
not return. Harbor Bay /Lennar never returned our initial call.
Executives and employees from Catellus have scheduled meetings with our
trustees, staff, and volunteers, and have pledged their support to the Hornet
Foundation and its community projects.
1 speak for our Foundation members and trustees, that decades from now, it
will not be the portfolios of the master developers that survive, but the long
range commitment to preserve the legacy of the Navy and USS Hornet. Our vote is
for Catellus.
Sincerely,
Gerald Lutz
CEO & Founding Trustee
Pnct ciFfira RAY 44(! • Al OAGM 1- _i�1.___ et" c041 e14 •11 _ r. I,.,
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment
Authority
Hearing on selection of Master Developer for Alameda Point
August 1, 2001
As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Alameda
County Transportation Authority and a resident of Alameda since the
Navy left in 1997, have long been interested in how the base will be
redeveloped and the type of commerce it will generate on the East Bay.
Circulation is integral to urban development and the transportation
elements proposed by Alameda Point Community Partners and Harbor
Bay /Lennar leave me very concerned about their impact on the city's
economic vitality and its quality of life.
A gondola to West Oakland BART does nothing to link the Point to the
rest of the island or to actual destinations on the mainland. A point-to-
point conveyance Iike a gondola does not even provide mobility within
the sprawling complex. BART trains going through West Oakland are
already over capacity, so it makes no sense to cram even more
commuters into a station where they cannot squeeze aboard to get where
they are ultimately headed. The gondola also entails a risk at the high
elevation required over the shipping channel supported by piers in poor
soils in a seismically active region
Shuttle buses are energy and labor intensive and thus impracticable for
moving large numbers of people. Diesel Multiple Units are yet another
19`h century technology that has no place in the new millennium_
Neither DIviU's, light rail, nor bus rapid transit can provide the on-
demand 24 x 7 service expected by today's dynamic, individualistic
society. Delays to cross traffic and hazards posed to pedestrians;
rollerbladers, scooters and skateboarders by traditional system- oriented
modes of transit detract from community life.
Their capital cost is prohibitive and the operating losses would be a
liability on Alameda taxpayers or the developer for generations to come.
Bill Stremmel / ARRA- Recommendation for selection of Master Develo • er 8/1101
Don't look to Measure B for funding — there is no provision in the 20-
year Expenditure Plan approved last November for a corridor to
Alameda Point.
And I should live so long to see a second BART tube with stations in
Alameda. Once again,, they do nothing for intra-island circulation.
So that leaves the Catellus proposal to evolve existing rights-of-way into
a guideway for either an automated people mover or an advanced group
rapid transit. AGRT is being developed right here in Alameda by
CyberTran. BART has shown interest in this technology.
Another plus for Catellus from a transportation standpoint is a better
balance between housing and jobs. Commercial space is glutted while
the housing market remains tight. So by letting more people live closer
to work, Catellus' plan gets more cars off our local streets as well as
reducing the commute burden on county highways and the tubes. With
Catellus already slated to develop the FISC, choosing them to do
Alameda Point would allow the costs of the guideway to be shared
between the two developments. Financing the guideway and other
infrastructure is more assured dealing with a single entity like Catellus
than the partnerships advancing the other two plans.
Alameda will live with the consequences of the decision on August 91h
for the rest of this 21 century. I urge that you keep the long-range
interest of this community uppermost in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Bit! Stremmel
2825 Newport Road
Alameda, CA 94501.-7117
phone: (925) 382-0498
email: stremmel@home
Youth in the Community
July 30, 2001
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Members
clo Doug Yount
Director, Development Services
950 West Mall Square, Room 215
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear ARRA Members:
On behalf of HOME, we are pleased to submit this letter recommending Catellus as our choice
for the Alameda Point Master Developer. As a youth development organization, HOME is
committed to building a strong community at Alameda Point — one that values young people,
community participation, civic spaces, and diversity. We believe that Catcllus has demonstrated
its commitment to these issues through its thoughtful business plan and through its track record of
community involvement.
Background
We are a team of four youth, representing HOME, which has been tracking the Master Developer
selection process since January. Since the selection of the Master Developer will drastically
change the future of Alameda Point, we believe it's in the community's best interest to have all
the involvement we can. We feel that it is important for us to express our opinion on behalf of the
youth of Alameda because for the past five years, HOME members have been doing just that.
We attempted to take an unbiased approach, establish contact with eaoh candidate, and take
advantage of every learning opportunity. Collectively, we have:
• Attended the first Community Forum in January at the Officer's Club
■ Examined each of the RFQ submittals
• Attended the ARRA meeting Adopting the Short List
■ Hosted the June Community Forum at HOME
• Read each of the Business Plans
• And finally, we completed an analysis to determine the master developer we would like to
see shape the future of Alameda Point, a stance which we publicly voiced at the July 19th
ARRA meeting.
Evaluation
HOME is deeply involved with our community. The Master Developer will radically change our
community, for better or for worse. With this in .mind, our ideal Master Developer is one who:
• Will improve Alameda Point by involving the community
• Will listen to and incorporate the community's wishes
• Will keep their promises to the community
• 2750 Todd Street, Alameda, CA 94501 •
• tele: 510 - 748 -4314 • fax: 510- 748 -4376 • website: www.homeproject.org •
• Will make the land they develop serve multiple uses and diverse groups
• And finally will invest in young people and their families through community spaees,.youth
development programs, and work force opportunities.
We evaluated each master developer business plan based on four categories that we have
expertise with and that are of great importance to us:
1) Commitment to Youth Development
• Youth services and programs
▪ Youth employment
• Youth involvement in Alameda Point
2) Community Involvement
• Aligrunent with Reuse Plan
• Plans for communicating with and involving residents and tenants in the development of
Alameda Point
3) Community Spaces/ Services
▪ Open spaces
• Pedestrian walkways and bikeways
• Recreation areas, community and art centers that encourage interaction
4) Diversity: Ethnically and Economically
• Potential partnership with the Alameda Point Collaborative
• Affordable housing for different income levels
• Encouraging diversity in employment opportunities
Why Catellus Excelled
When we reviewed each of the developer's plans in relation to the issues we care most deeply
about, we found that Catellus' plan excelled in every category.
1) Commitment to Youth Development
Catellus outlines a specific youth program they would like to develop in Alameda. This program
called, "Building for Tomorrow," will help youth experience the real estate development process
and coordinate internships in architecture, engineering, development/finance and construction.
This program has been established across the country and has received high reviews. Not only
does it provide a positive youth development opportunity, it will also create an avenue for youth
to shape Alameda Point's development.
2) Community Involvement
Catellus intends to continue community meetings, focus groups, and one -on -one dialogue to
enable residents and tenants to inform development plans. Catellus aJso plans to continue its
involvement with organizations including: Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda Chamber of
Commerce, West Alameda Business Association, Historic Advisory Board and HOME. Finally,
Catellus' plan mirrors the Reuse and Redevelopment Plan that was developed through an
extensive community participation process.
3) Community Spaces/ Services
Catellus wants to honor the Reuse Plan by putting educational and community services within the
civic core, in respect to the Alameda Point Collaborative, Catellus plans to build a new building
to expand their services, and they commit to having HOME remain an important community
educational facility. They also mention the idea of a "historic walk," which would be an
important historical, educational and recreational community landmark.
2
4) Diversity: Ethnically and Economically `.
Catellus plans to integrate the levels of housing, but at the saute time keep the housing style
similar, so as not to segregate each level of income. Also, in addition to working with the
Alameda Point Collaborative, Catellus will also seek the aid of several other housing
development organisations (listed under chapter 6 of the section entitled "site specific and
community development issues "). Catellus has demonstrated a commitment to working for low
income housing through its extensive negotiation with Renewed Hope, Arc Ecology, and the City
of Alameda.
Throughout their plan, Catellus' strength was its in -depth description of its plans and actions.
From firsthand experience, we have learned that their word leads to action. Over the last 10
months, Catellus has been an active supporter of HOME, following through on its commitments
to us in many different ways. Beyond a generous financial contribution, Catellus representatives
have volunteered to serve on HOME panels, rolled up their sleeves to help construct our building,
donated materials when needed, and celebrated HOME's Grand Opening with us. These
examples demonstrate Catellus' accessibility and amiability in dealing with the community,
evidence that strengthens the findings from our analysis.
Conclusion
We understand that you have a difficult decision to make and that you must weigh other
important issues in your overall analysis. We hope that the areas we highlighted in this letter are
ones that you will consider with equal attention, remembering that the heart and soul of Alameda
Point will always be the community that we build together. Regardless of who is ultimately
selected, HOME's youth and adult members look forward to partnering with the Master
Developer, ARRA and the City in snaking Alameda Point an outstanding community landmark
for the future of Alameda.
Sincerely,
H ME's Master Developer Recommen. ion Team
Carolyn Ver Duin
HOME Youth Member
444-/
au! Bothwell
HOME Youth Member
Kendra Capen
HO jyYouth Member
Linda Nguy
HOME Youth Member
3
EGIONAL AKK
EAST L'AeT REGIONAL PARK !)iSTRIGT
P-114
3uiy 20, 2001
Cutelloc
Acm. Ms. t.tay Brun
[t)99 liaison St., Svite. 2150
Oaaiand i.l 94,512
11.1;; Appredatton for Support of fereposed Reginald Psric Improvemcttrs at Alameda
Pelrit iu Catelie31 Master De/slope!' P opbsai
Dear Ms. May hrun
The least Bay Regional Pork District is vary pleased wig Catellus' inciusioa of financial
anal physical ueoomznodatiaas for rcgior►al rectorial in their Mac Developer Proposal
for .Mammals Point. ?he acknowledgment of the itttrtlssic valuc and sroeniry that cesiooal
rcat:allot) will provide to the Alameda Point eotnttzumty is truly indicative of Catellut;•
cxpertoaCc and success in parttwring- with guying "rests to create vital and amactive
co:nmunitics. Alameda Point could be another ono of those speeisii ptacra Wale provision
or regional le::reation is facilitate•,'' in the manner described setae proposal. We look
forward m another upporeunity to work with Catritus and to ulri tavc value to the day to
day oi,tpertcncas of many more Pad Bay area residents
Thardca lur• your efforts on this worthy ptujc r.
Sin orit,
r;.
Mike Anderson
Chief of Parkland 1)e3i ti
2850 Varolra rims Giurt Ca 94305 Grc''
era Ta. �W 6.41.4115
ti
sx :t03.i3OM/ •... If: :B3 -43t3
N•07', .aA:
,7 ;a
do ?I
▪ ^ 2a
• ca,:
.r•.��c: un: a7r
AA TOTAL PAGE. e2 X*
August 9, 2001
F,ndonsement for ARRA Master Developer of Alameda Point
Mr. Chairman and Members of the ARRA Board:
I have been very closely involved in your Base Reuse process. First, as one of the
earliest people to step forward to save HORNET in May of 1995, then as the
Executive Vice President of the ACHF, shepherding HORNET through your BRAG
and ARRA approval processes. During that time, I attended nearly all ARRA,
BRAG, and Town Meetings. As some of you may remember, during those years, I
worked closely with various Alameda City departments in obtaining the permits for
the USS HORNET Museum, including EIR and EIS Negative Declarations. I am
currently a Director of WABA, and Chair of WABA's Economic Restructuring
Committee. You all know me, and know that I am well informed regarding all that
has transpired in the development of Alameda Point. I am no longer at HORNET,
and do not represent the HORNET or WABA organizations this evening. I am here
this evening solely as a very interested and concerned citizen in the selection of
Alameda Point's Master Developer.
I very highly recommend your selection of Catellus as Master Developer of Alameda
Point. Here are my reasons:
• Catellus has already demonstrated a thorough understanding of the needs of the
West End community, and especially, of the Webster Street and West Alameda
business areas.
• Catellus's proposal is the most responsive to community input, and the closest,
to the finalized Rase Re -use Plan, and thus has the best overall general concept.
One major reason is Catellus's proposed extension of the city's existing street
grid into Alameda Point, thus unifying Alameda Point with the rest of
Alameda. I-he Partners proposal of using the existing street entrances into
Alameda Point. just maintains the fenceline separating Alameda Point from the
rest of the city - -as it was when the Navy was there.
• Another major reason Catellus's is the best plan, is their comprehensive
1
transportation plan, combining area shuttles, Light rail, and bus access to BART
and ferries. The Partners transportation plan featuring the tram, has a serious
drawback - -it will further perpetuate the separation of Alameda Point from the
rest of Alameda.
• For several years, we at WABA have been closely studying transportation
options to link Alameda Point, Webster Street, and West Alameda. The
Catellus transportation plan does this best, has the greatest potential for early
implementation, and will therefore be the most beneficial of the two plans for
the City of Alameda.
• With Corporate Headquarters in San Francisco, and no partner organiwitions to
consult to make decisions, only Catellus has the ability to make straight-
forward optimal business decisions in a timely manner.
• Lastly, the. . tog(' the financial ability to complete an outstanding, high quality,
and prestigious showcase development of Alameda Point.
Again, I strongly recommend approval of Catellus, as the Master Developer of
Alameda Point.
2
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510-864-0370 FAX 510-864-2144
hudsonspangler®earthlink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-3963
August 1, 2001
TO: Members of the Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority (ARRA)
FROM: Bike Alameda
RE: Master Development Recommendations
Dear Members of the ARRA,
Bike Alameda's Advocacy Group has followed and researched the city's Master
Developer selection process for Alameda Point (AP) with great concern for the future of
our community. A number of complex factors must be carefully balanced in ARRA's
decision, and we appreciate all the time and effort that many members of our community,
city staff and elected officials have contributed to this long process.
As bicyclists, cycling and related issues such as transportation are our first priority. We
are not just bicyclists, however. We are also homeowners, working professionals, Master
Gardeners, renters, citizens, car owners, ferry passengers, taxpayers, parents, shoppers
and members of the wider community. It is from this wider perspective that we have
examined the potential Master Developer candidates from a more comprehensive
viewpoint than bicycling alone.
We have tried to examine the three finalists' proposals thoroughly, by attending
community workshops at Alameda Point (AP), reading the proposals and Reuse Plan,
and discussing the issues with a number of community members and activists. We also
met with representatives from the two developers selected for our own "short list,"
Catellus and Alameda Point Community Partners. (Additional information on our
priorities and decision-making will be available shortly at www.bikealameda.orq.)
Bike Alameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 1 of 4
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510-864-0370 FAX 510-864-2144
hudsonspanglergearthlink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-3963
HARBOR BAY/LENNAR
The proposal from Harbor Bay/Lennar had some commendable points. Unfortunately,
their bid did not seem as strong as other proposals. Their transportation management
strategy (including bicycling and other modes) was not detailed or visionary enough to
satisfy us, and it seemed overly dependent on diesel buses, and on BART.
ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND CATELLUS: OUR "SHORT LIST"
The presentations from Catellus and APCP seemed to us to be clearly superior at the
June 23 Master Developer Community Workshop. Both plans appeared to meet our
requirements for sustainability, transportation management, environmental compatibility,
and social responsibility/community involvement. (We also found avid cyclists playing
major roles on each development team.) Many of us in Bike Alameda, and our friends in
the Alameda Transit Advocates (ATA) independently concluded that the Catellus and
APCP proposals were the most promising ones, with the APCP bid appearing to be
somewhat "greener" in the details of its approach than Catellus'. Catellus appeared to
have an edge in technical knowledge, financial and management capability, and in the
quality of its presentations.
Representatives from Bike Alameda recently met with representatives from both Catellus
and APCP. We wanted to find out how comfortable we would be working closely with
each developer as the redevelopment of AP proceeded over the next 11-20 years.
Would they listen, be responsive to our concerns, and be willing to incorporate our
suggestions and goals?
Following the two meetings, our positive impressions regarding Catellus and APCP were
confirmed. Bike Alameda's representatives unanimously agreed that we could work
successfully with either Catel lus or APCP as Master Developers. Both firms represented
a significantly sustainable "green" agenda for the development at AP. In addition, both
Bike Alameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 2 of 4
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510-864-0370 FAX 510-864-2144
hudsonspanglergearthlink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-3963
have track records showing that they "walk their talk" regarding sustainable development
and environmental issues..
WE CAN WORK WELL WITH BOTH APCP AND CATELLUS
Our most significant conclusion is this: both developers seem genuinely interested in
being full partners with the City of Alameda in order to implement the kind of
development at AP that we desire as a community. Both seem eager to work with
groups like ours, and to learn from our ideas and suggestions. Both seem to have a
serious and continuing commitment to satisfy the community's needs and goals in a
socially and environmentally responsible manner. All of this is very encouraging for
Alameda's future and the future of Alameda Point.
APCP presents very innovative concepts and designs that showed more "green" details
than any other developer. Bike Alameda would love to see this kind of environmental
leadership (from aerial gondolas to bamboo flooring and recycling) be the hallmark of our
redevelopment throughout Alameda Point.
CATELLUS ENDORSED
Catellus won our endorsement, however. They intend to unify Alameda Point with the
rest of Alameda, and they seem slightly more willing to hear and incorporate our views
(and those of others in the community) during development. The addition of 2000 more
housing units, with less commercial development is an important response to our housing
crisis and a very intelligent response to the market. Catellus plans to reduce traffic
congestion significantly in the very near future through providing "clean" shuttles, and
local transit "nodes" within walking distance of most AP destinations. Members of the
Catellus team have also spent many hours volunteering in Alameda, and we appreciate
that community involvement.
BikeAlameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 3 of 4
LINDA L. HUDSON & JON M. SPANGLER
PH 510-864-0370 FAX 510 - 864 -2144
hudsonspangler @earthlink.net
1037 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 -3963
We want to re- emphasize that we are comfortable working with either Catellus or with
APCP. Both propose intelligent, practical and detailed visions for the rebirth of Alameda
Point. Both firms are capable of improving their plans for Alameda Point with additional
community input. With this encouragement, both developers are capable of completing a
showcase project that will still be environmentally sound, progressive and sustainable in
another 50 -100 years. We look forward to helping Catellus—or APCP —to make that
happen at Alameda Point and for all of Alameda.
e •ectfully submitted,
on Spangler
On behalf of Peter Lenhardt, John McCabe, Dan Wood, and Director Lucy Gigli
of the BikeAlameda Advocacy Group
BikeAlameda Comments on Master Developer selection, 8/01/01 Page 4 of 4
Attn: fry Hamilton
Fax Number: 510/865-5165
Irv-
Kevin Roberts suggested we contact you in regards to placing our name on a list of
residents who wish to express their position on the development of Alameda Point
without speaking at tomorrow night's Council meeting.
We attended a Community Council meeting a few weeks ago and heard presentations
from all three Master Developers. After considering the pros and cons of each group, we
would like to support Catellus for this development project.
Thank you,
dal/1)V
Jennifer Chang
J. Hunter Harris
941 Shorepoint Ct #F309
Alameda, CA 94501
510/864-2889
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates
P. O. Box 5
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 522 -2073
August 9, 2001
To: ARRA Board of Directors
Planning Board
Economic Development Commission
Housing Commission
Arc Ecology
833 Market Street, Suite 1107
San Francisco, California 94103
(415)49 -1786
Subject: SELECTION OF ALAMEDA POINT MASTER DEVELOPER
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the selection of a Master Developer for
Alameda Point. We have met with and reviewed the business plans submitted by Alameda Point
Community Partners, Catellus, and Harbor Bay - Lennar and would like to share our assessments
of their comparative strengths and weaknesses. We have decided not to recommend a specific
developer, but rather to provide feedback that will contribute to improving whichever developer
the Council selects. Although we have focused primarily on affordable housing issues, we also
have considered other aspects of the business plan that would affect Alameda's diversity, and
quality of life, especially for the adjacent West End neighborhood.
Our comments come in three parts: first we explore issues as they apply to specific plans; second
we present recommendations common to all three business plans; and third we propose ways to
sustain public participation after the City selects a Master Developer. Seeking out the full range
of community views throughout the pre- development phase provides the best protection against
dissatisfaction at the end of the process and delays that sometimes result. It has been our experi-
ence that it is counterproductive for the City to try to save time by limiting public participation to
the legally required minimum (in the past, as part of the environmental review process, and as
comments on development agreements after they have been crafted.)
I ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS PLAN HOUSING ISSUES
In providing our views of the strengths and weaknesses of the three business plans, we have as-
sumed that problems we identify can be solved and that the strengths of the plans are theoreti-
cally transferable. That said, the more limited amount of information available from Harbor
Bay — Lennar has prevented us from understanding how they would approach our issues of con-
cern. Lennar's reluctance to spell out specific ideas and commitments also surfaced at Hunters
Point. The community, the City, and official advisory boards were unusually critical of Lennar's
failure to provide information specifically required by the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
(ENA) about its plans for redevelopment of the Shipyard — a reuse project that is far behind
every schedule written.
The analysis below compares how the three developers approach issues of particular concern for
our organizations:
Renewed Hope — Arc Ecology
8/9/01
page 2
COMPLIANCE WITH AFFORDABILITY CRITERIA
IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
All of the prospective developers now recognize that their development must comply with the
terms of the City's settlement with Renewed Hope and Arc Ecology for very low, low, and mod-
erate income units. We have reviewed the numbers provided in the templates and are assuming
that the Business Plans will be modified where they do not comply. However we would like to
flag problems that surfaced during our review.
Plus Minus
Alameda Point Community Partners
1. More affordable units are shown in the 1. More than half of the affordable units (230
Business Plan (424) than are required by out of 424) are for seniors; 330 non - senior
the Settlement Agreement (334). units are required.
(Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement
states, "Housing units developed to meet the
affordability obligation created by the devel-
opment of non - senior housing may not be re-
served exclusively for seniors. ")
2. Very low income units increased to 9%
(6% required) with a corresponding de-
crease in low income units (from 10% to
7 %),
3. Sets goal to lower down payment require-
ments - 0% and 5% in addition to 10% re-
quested by City (7/31/01 memo to Re-
newed Hope and Arc Ecology).
Catellus
1. Fully complies with Settlement Agreement.
2. The affordability requirements produce the
greatest number of units (547) because the
total number of units is highest (2,204).
3. Grouping together of low and very low in-
come units (in the templates) suggests the
potential for increased number of very low
units.
Harbor Bay - Lennar
1. Not enough information.
2. Expects to reserve some of the affordable
units for seniors (no market rate housing
appears to be designated for seniors).
Renewed Hope — Arc Ecology
8/9/01
page 3
ESTIMATED PHASE -IN OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, PER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement requires the obligation for affordable units to be "im-
plemented in conjunction with the approval of each residential development Project at Alameda
Point." Although it is not possible to determine the phase in of affordable units from information
in the Business Plans, the phasing of new residential units (based on the report provided by the
City) gives a general picture of each developer's obligation to the extent that they do not build
affordable units before obligations kick in. We consider it a plus if the affordable units are built
sooner rather than later.
Plus Minus
Alameda Point Community Partners
phase 1: 13% of new units
phase 2: 55% of new units
phase 3: 32% of new units
Catellus
phase 1: 45% of new units
phase 2: 45% of new units
phase 3: 9% of new units
phase 1: 54% of new units
phase 2: 46% of new units
phase 3: 0% of new units
Harbor Bay — Lennar
MAKING USE OF THE GUYTON EXEMPTION
All of the developers contemplate using the Guyton exemption to provide the required very low
and low income units.
Plus Minus
Alameda Point Community Partners
Innovative approach to involve the Housing
Authority in building lower income units over
commercial, using the Guyton exemption
Catellus
Considering replacement of homeless rehab
units with new units, which would draw down
the pool of units exempt from Measure A
without providing any net gain in affordable
housing.
Harbor Bay — Lennar
No information provided.
Renewed Hope — Arc Ecology
8/9/01
page 4
RELATIONSHIP OF AFFORDABLE UNITS TO
MARKET UNITS: LOCATION AND SIZE
APCP and Catellus have somewhat different approaches to dispersing units: APCP envisions af-
fordable projects in 3 different neighborhoods while Catellus would include units — especially
moderate income units — within market rate developments. We do not view one approach as nec-
essarily better than the other. (No information is available from Harbor Bay - Lennar other than
that the affordable units would not be clustered in one neighborhood.)
The comparative size of affordable and market rate units is a rough indicator of the quality of
affordable units.
Plus Minus
Alameda Point Community Partners
Low and very low income units are very small
on average: 882 sq ft. Market rate units are
very large (2,369 sq ft)
Catellus
Affordable unit size is generally consistent
with market units: 1,074 sq ft on average for
affordable, 1,822 sq ft for market rate.
Harbor Bay — Lennar
No information available.
JOBS- HOUSING BALANCE
Based on a rough projection of 5 employees per 1,000 square feet of industrial and commercial
development, the ratio of jobs to housing units range from 5 to 21
Plus Minus
Alameda Point Community Partners
15 jobs per unit of housing
Catellus
5 jobs per unit of housing
Harbor Bay — Lennar
21 jobs per unit of housing
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLEANUP
By originally designating all areas at Alameda Point for mixed uses or housing, Alameda crafted
a Reuse Plan that obligated the Navy to clean up the entire base, including Installation Remedia-
tion (IR) sites, for unrestricted use. Negotiations with the Navy over the funding of early transfer
Renewed Hope — Arc Ecology
8/9/01
page 5
will be occurring at the same time that the master developer will be applying for City approvals.
If the redevelopment applications avoid putting housing on the IR sites, it seems likely the City
will lose its leverage to negotiate sufficient early transfer funds to clean up those sites to residen-
tial standards. If non - residential cleanup standards are applied to the Alameda Point IR sites, the
decision to use them for non - residential uses (excluding uses serving children, such as child care
centers and schools) will be essentially irrevocable. If in the future the local real estate market
cannot support the level of industrial space planned, the City and the developer will not have the
flexibility to substitute residential uses. Similarly, any possibilities for residential adaptive reuse
in the long term future would be extinguished. The City and the developer would also lose the
ability to substitute housing for industrial uses if transportation improvement should be infeasi-
ble.
Plus Minus
Alameda Point Community Partners
Housing appears to avoid IR sites generally.
Catellus
Housing is planned for every part of the base,
apparently including IR sites. Catellus has
committed to covering remediation costs where
the Navy falls short.
Harbor Bay — Lennar
Housing avoids IR sites.
II COMMON ISSUES
Consult with potential residents of affordable housing.
All of the plans call for clustering of the very low and low income housing units, challenging the
City's article of faith that affordable housing units should be distributed invisibly among market
units. The underlying reasoning seems to be that people who need affordable units would be
stigmatized if others knew who they are. Under current market conditions, there is really no rea-
son that families whose income match those of half the households in Alameda should experi-
ence any shame for help they receive in coping with a dysfunctional housing market.
We believe it would be helpful to solicit the opinions and ideas of people typical of families who
will be eligible to live in these units. The City and the developer should host workshops with
very low, low, and moderate income families to explore their ideas and preferences about clus-
tering and other issues related to the location and design of the affordable units..
Include market rate rental units in the housing mix.
In general, the three developers' plans call for market rate units to be sold rather than rented.
(APCP may be a partial exception since their 192 carriage units could potentially be rented.) In
general, moderate income units would also be for sale. We have two concerns about reserving
virtually all the rental units at Alameda Point for the families with the lowest incomes: first,
households who can afford market or near - market rents, and need or prefer rental housing are
being ignored; and second, prejudice against renters based on their lower economic status will
Renewed Hope — Arc Ecology
8/9/01
page 6
become a self - fulfilling prophecy. Alameda Point is a large enough development to accommo-
date a variety of needs. We recommend that the City negotiate with the developer to include
market rate rental housing in the mix.
Revise plans to provide a more sensitive transition to the adjacent West End
neighborhood.
All three developers have proposed inappropriate land uses for the southeastern edge of Alameda
Point, adjacent to the existing West End residential neighborhood. The sensitive boundary area
needs to provide a graceful transition to the existing neighborhood, which would exclude power
plants, a sea of parking, industrial, office, and commercial areas. (In a later section of this letter,
we call for involvement of West End residents in planning for this vulnerable edge.)
Require developer to work with the City to address off -site displacement effects
of Alameda Point redevelopment.
The creation of tens of thousands of jobs at Alameda Point will cause many lower income
Alameda families to be displaced as increasing competition for the City's supply of housing
causes sharp price increases. Plans to prevent off -site displacement need to be part of the effort
to redevelop Alameda Point.
III CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Provide opportunities for the public to learn about and comment on project
tradeoffs while the City is in negotiations with the developer.
Although the developer submittals are called business plans, the kind of quantitative financial
information normally expected is not included. We have been presented with broad -brush de-
scriptions of a development program, with very little detail about developer financial commit-
ments or their expectations of public subsidy.
In the past, there were no opportunities for the public to provide feedback about the major pro-
grammatic and financial tradeoffs development options while negotiations were under way, ex-
cept for mandatory environmental review comment periods. Otherwise public comment occurred
at the beginning of the process (before tradeoffs had been identified), and at the end (after a
complicated package had been carefully constructed that was no longer subject to substantial
modification.
For Alameda Point, we recommend a process to provide the public with a forum to comment on
the development and financial policy issues as they are evolve during negotiations. At a mini-
mum, the Council should schedule public hearings to consider the following:
• specific provisions of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA), including a proc-
ess for involving the public in design of the project;
• a draft of the ENA;
• the affordable housing component of the development, including financial projections
and location of units
• traffic and realistic transportation plans, including the amount of acreage dedicated to
parking;
Renewed Hope — Arc Ecology
8/9/01
page 7
• public facilities (power plant, schools, Bay access, recreational facilities, public
buildings);
• preliminary drafts of the Disposition and Development Agreement and the Develop-
ment Agreement..
As a matter of environmental justice, provide opportunities for the West End
community to participate in planning a transition between Alameda Point and
their neighborhood.
Although all Alamedans will be affected by the redevelopment of Alameda Point, people living
in the West End will be most seriously impacted if incompatible uses are allowed near the shared
border. Inappropriate uses seem to be planned for the portion of Alameda Point that backs up
against residential streets south of Atlantic (the eastern edges of Planning Area C -1 and the
southeast corner of B -1). It appears that all three developers want to place the parking for Indus-
trial uses to buffer contact with adjoining residents rather than integrate Alameda Point into the
adjoining neighborhood. The developers and the City need to give West End residents a voice in
planning a transition zone that breaks down barriers.
IV CONCLUSION
In redeveloping Alameda Point into a new neighborhood, Alameda has an obligation to develop
this public -asset to benefit the public, rather than to maximize profit. We welcome development
that will strengthen Alameda as a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse community, and
that will help vulnerable people to survive the tidal wave of rising housing prices. We look for-
ward to working closely with the developer the City selects in order to ensure that Alameda Point
develops into a neighborhood that improves the quality of life of existing residents.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance.
Yours truly,
Tom Matthews
Chair
Eve Bach
Staff Economist/Planner
Cc: Paul Sevy, Shea Homes
Dan Marcus, Catellus
Dan Reidy, Harbor Bay - Lennar
Jim Flint, City Manager
Doug Yount, Development Services Director
Arc Ecology
833 Market Street + San Francisco, California 94103
phone: 415 4951786 ♦fax: 415 4951787 ♦ e -mail: evebach @mindspring.com
August 9, 2001
To: ARRA Board of Directors
Planning Board
Economic Development Commission
Subject: SELECTION OF DEVELOPER FOR ALAMEDA POINT
Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Business Plans submitted by Alameda Point
Community Partners (APCP), Catellus Development Corporation ( Catellus), and Harbor Bay — Lennar
(HB -L). Together with Renewed Hope, we have previously sent our comments related to housing. Our
comments below go beyond Renewed Hope's housing focus, and for this reason we are submitting them
separately. Our purpose is to share observations that reflect our experience working in other communities
facing base conversions, with the hope that they will be useful to you.
These comments do not recommend which developer you should select.
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LEASING
PRIOR TO PROPERTY TRANSFER
The plans of both APCP and HB -L call for lease revenues to be turned over to the developer, with
payments back to the City to cover expenses, defined as bond debt service, and Police and Fire services.
APCP control of the leasing operation would kick in immediately; HB -L would wait for the Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA). We have a number of concerns.
The formulas calculating these costs can be structured many different ways — either to favor the City or
the developer, depending on assumptions and accounting methods adopted. APCP and HB -L clearly are
anticipating a formula that will provide them with a front-end subsidy. To provide this subsidy up front,
prior to understanding its long -term value to the project and prior to knowing what benefits the City
would receive in return, seems premature.
Giving the developer so much control over leasing operations so early in the process would make it
impossible for the City ever to walk away from negotiations. Once a master developer is chosen, reuse
authorities normally find it very difficult to consider termination of the relationship, even when
negotiations are going badly and the developer is not living up to obligations (The experience of the
Hunters Point negotiations is an example). The City should not make this problem worse by locking into
a relationship about the property with the developer before agreement on conveyance terms has been
reached. It would not be necessary for negotiations to break down for these complications to weaken the
City's position; it would be enough for the developer to know that the City would have a mess on its
hands if the City or the developer ended negotiations.
The City should not put itself in a position where it risks disruption to leasing operations and revenues if
termination of negotiations becomes necessary; or where extricating itself from an unworkable
relationship invites time consuming and expensive conflict over the "divorce" terms.
If the City is desperate to turn over management of its leasing program to someone else, the relationship
proposed by Catellus — in which the City would pay a fee for these services — seems a better way to serve
the City's interests. If the developer needs a front end income stream, it should be negotiated as such.
Arc Ecology
August 9, 2001
Page 2
Mixing the two needs together will make it hard for the City and the public to keep track of costs and
benefits.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSALS
All three plans propose substantial transit improvements, including ferries, light rail, new BART Bay
crossings, and a gondola, that in general seem inconsistent with proposed densities. The financing of both
capital and long term operating costs is not clear, although all of the developers seem to suggest that the
City would not have to foot the bill.
Where the developer would pay costs, it is important that to understand how that commitment would
affect income the City realizes from sale of the property. HB -L, for example, has proposed to pay the City
for the land by sharing half the profits after they have collected a 25% internal rate of return. To the
extent that HB -L pays for the diesel light rail connection to BART or contributes significantly to a BART
station near Alameda Point, those funds (and the 25% profit on them that HB -L would receive) will have
come from the City's share of excess profits. This expense would cause a substantial delay and reduction
in the City's realization of the purchase price for the land.
The APCP plan provides a different example. APCP has pledged $45 million to build the gondola system.
They have also proposed to purchase Alameda Point from the City with a combination of a fixed land
payment plus profit sharing after the developers If the City negotiates a high fixed price and the profit
sharing is a minor consideration, APCP will pay for the gondola. If the City expects to be remunerated for
the land primarily with shared profits, the City will be paying for the gondola.
In both examples, the extent to which fares pay for operating costs (assuming that fares would be charged
for anything more elaborate than a shuttle bus) will depend directly on the rate of use, which in turn
depends on the density of development. In considering some of the more grandiose transit schemes, the
City will ultimately have to confront whether it wants the development densities that are needed to
support strong transit links to regional transportation systems.
It will also be important to ensure that Alameda Point tax increment funds are spent to benefit Alameda
Point redevelopment. It is not clear to what extent the link to Fruitvale BART station proposed by HB -L
would benefit Harbor Bay Island more than Alameda Point. Or to what extent a ferry link to Mission Bay
— another Catellus Project — would benefit Mission Bay.
Reduce parking requirements to support developers' transit proposals.
We do not question that additional transit is needed to accommodate the scale of development proposed,
but achieving a transit utilization rate high enough to relieve congestion will only happen if the amount of
parking is much lower than current City standards require. The US Environmental Protection Agency has
numerous studies documenting the effectiveness of linking transit improvements with restrictions on
parking.
Clarify how much, and what kind of development would take place if regional
transportation systems do not develop as projected.
The developers in different ways has assumed that large public investments in the region's transportation
systems will address the congestion problems associated with their buildout plans for Alameda Point. The
developers need to explain how they would adjust their plans if the regional systems do not grow as
hoped. The public needs a clear picture of the amount and type of development that could be
accommodated with local and developer funds only.
Arc Ecology
August 9, 2001
Page 3
Clarify the location of the Bay Trail and access to the water.
Although all of the plans emphasize that Alameda would be developed as a waterfront community, it is
not possible to tell how accessible the Bay will be to the general public. The public needs to have a voice
in determining the location and design of the Bay Trail.
Do not assume that past success with Early Transfer funding is replicable.
Recent news from the Navy is that the 2002 budget it will be $92 million short for its "must fund"
projects, most of which are in California. The relatively generous funding of the Mare Island early
transfer, rather than serving as a model for other California transfers, has channeled funds away from
other California projects. The Navy has already rescinded its agreement to fund a big part of the Hunters
Point cleanup.
Clarify that land uses proposed are consistent with revised Public Trust boundaries.
It is not clear whether proposed land uses are consistent with the revised boundaries.
Provide opportunities to review alternative approaches to the boundary between
Alameda Point and the Wildlife Refuge.
Other than planning for compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Service requirements for the transition
zone at the Refuge boundary, the developers have generally ignored (with the possible exception of
Catellus) the potential benefits to development of an adjoining a wildlife refuge. The City should convene
a meeting to learn how other communities have maximized public benefit and real estate value of sites
adjacent to wildlife viewing opportunities.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Yours truly,
ve Bach
Staff Economist/Planner
Cc: Paul Sevy, Shea Homes
Dan Marcus, Catellus
Tim Hoppen, Harbor Bay- Lennar
Jim Flint, City Manager
Doug Yount, Development Services Director
CyberTran in Alameda
CyberTran is the brainchild of Dr. John Dearien, formerly of the US Department of Energy
(DOE). Dr. Dearien developed the system in order to solve a transit problem at one of the
country's biggest national labs. The US DOE funded the initial development of CyberTran, while
funding for development in Alameda has come from the US Department of Transportation
through CALSTART.
Dr. Dearien's analysis concluded that the least expensive passenger rail system to build, operate,
and maintain with safety and high service would be one with individual, small 10 -20 passenger
vehicles, electrically powered for zero emissions, running in a guideway for safe containment,
elevated over traffic, and computer operated. The vehicles would operate on- demand like an
elevator. Small, ground level stations would be located off the main line, linked by an of ramp
and onramp. A high number of these lightweight vehicles operating at safe distances from each
other could move up to 10,000 people per hour per direction.
What would this mean for Alameda?
• By locating a CyberTran corridor along the old beltline railway, with stations every mile
or so, CyberTran could serve the entire population of the island. Since the island is long
and narrow, no one on the island would be more than a mile or so from a station, making
a bike ride, rollerblading, skateboarding, wheelchair, short walk, bus ride, or quick drop
off an option to get onto CyberTran and then onto BART. This would reduce vehicle
traffic in the tube and over the bridges.
• These stations would also function to move people between them, and out to the Point,
reducing vehicle congestion in the city and around the Point. Stations near the top of
Park and Webster and along the Northern Waterfront could connect people from one end
of the island to the other without driving. It also would bring workers to the island who
currently drive, thus reducing tube and bridge traffic congestion at rush hours.
• CyberTran operates on demand. A passenger enters a station, inputs their destination,
gets into a vehicle, and waits no more than five minutes before leaving to go to their
destination, at any time of the day or night. Off -line stations mean passengers go from
the Point to BART directly, bypassing intermediate stops for a trip time of 11 minutes.
• Quiet and small, CyberTran vehicles would be elevated over traffic along the beltline.
No at grade crossings mean no interfering with other traffic, and thus no collisions or
injuries.
• A Morrison - Knudsen study indicated that CyberTran would cost "from 10 -50% of
existing technology ". Current cost estimates for CyberTran are in the range of $10
million per mile or less. CyberTran also has low operations and maintenance costs due to
high energy efficiency and lightweight; low power components.
• Finally, future growth of the CyberTran system will allow additional networked lines to
run elsewhere in the East Bay, over the Bay Bridge to San Francisco, and to the rest of
the Bay Area. CyberTran is not a single point -to -point line but instead the first piece of
what will become a regional transportation network.
The first CyberTran system is expected to go into passenger service in 2005. Our demonstration
project has the support of many Bay Area transportation experts, and Alameda community and
business leaders. We believe CyberTran's development time fits into the proposed Alameda
Point development schedule. Alamedans have an opportunity to be among the first to get this
exciting, new, paradigm in transportation, made in America.
(510) 864 -3221
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
Selection of Master Developer for Alameda Point
August 9, 2001
( wrier
Alamedh. Poin there is now so much traffic it is difficult to
cross busy streets at peak hours. Workers going to jobs at the many
enterprises which have moved into facilities vacated by the Navy, youth going
to skateboard at Cityview, visitors to the Hornet and teams going to play at the
Bladium account for the growing number of trips. These are all intra- island
trips which would not be served by the gondola proposed by Alameda Point
Community Partners.
The gondola is a San Francisco- centric solution that sends retail dollars and
jobs out of Alameda. Contrary to what was claimed about trip destinations at
last weeks' hearing, the proportion headed to San Francisco is nowhere close
to 60 %. According to Public Transit Committee reports the proportion of
work trips from the West End to San Francisco is only 26% of total work trips
off the island. The proportion of trips for all purposes from the West End to
San Francisco is only 17% of the total number of trips off the island.
The rush of traffic down Main Street after the ferry arrives would be repeated
on a larger scale down Atlant ':u d the plan incorporating the gondola as
its transportation element be selected. More commuters — many of them from
origins on the mainland — would be driving through the tube and parking on
Alameda Point to catch a lift over to West Oakland BART.
Let's go with the Catellus plan that uses what already exists, namely the right -
of -way through the northern waterfront to provide circulation within the
development and link it with the rest of the City.
Sincerely,
Bill Stremmel
2825 Newport Road
Alameda, CA 94501 -7117
phone: (925) 382 -0498
email: stremmel @home
Honorable Mayor Apezzato and City Council Members. My name is
Mariano Jauco and I have been an Alameda Resident since I was 2 years old.
I am a lay minister of St. Joseph's Basilica and have served on the board of
Directors for the Tri-City Homeless Coalition, the United Way of the East
Bay, and as a member of the AUSD Equal Employment Opportunity
Advisory Committee. I am also a member of Renewed HOPE and was the
Executive Director of the AMCCC. However, I am speaking tonight as a
20-year resident of Alameda. I have heard the phrase Silicon Island coined
by some of our City Officials to describe Alameda. As a 14-year ex-Silicon
Valley worker, I am concerned that Alameda will become an Island made up
of Concrete Buildings, Fast-Paced, Me-only individuals and businesses. It is
already happening today.
I would like to propose an alternative vision. If everyone could close
their eyes for a moment.
• Imagine an Island where nature and the environment are honored and
toxins are eliminated.
• Where diversity exists among people of different ethnic, cultural, and
socio-economic backgrounds.
• A place where fire fighters, policemen, teachers, nurses, and City
Workers are able to afford homes in the place where they work.
• Imagine a community where senior citizens, single adults, youth and
children have equal respect and representation to be who they are.
• A place where the needs of the handicapable and marginalized are clearly
addressed.
• A place where all can live, work and be in harmony and in balance.
This is my proposed vision for the future of Alameda, a "Town Island" of
true community and hope for the future.
With that vision in mind, after reviewing the proposals and hearing each of
the 3 developers present their vision of Alameda Point. I would encourage
you and hope that you would select Catellus Corporation because, they have
come the closest to that ideal vision that I have just sper1M of. Thank you for
your time and consideration. apwen
Mariano M. Jauco
1021 Auburn Ct.
Alameda, CA 94502
510 865-1839
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
950 West Mall Square, Suite 100
. Alameda, CA 94501
August 14, 2001
Dear ARRA:
We have reviewed the proposals submitted by Catellus, Harbor Bay, and the Alameda
Point Community Partnership and would like to express our opinion on their relative
merits. We both strongly favor the Alameda Point Community Partnership's plan as the
best for our community.
As the details of Alameda Point's development become clear over the next few months
and years, we hope and expect that public input will be solicited and heeded in the final
design. To that end we hope you will take note of a few further opinions.
In general, we would like to see more open and public space than any of the plans offer,
especially along the waterfront(s). Alameda Point is the rarest of gems: relatively
undeveloped land in the center of a major urban area. We should take the time to
consider just how unique this location is, especially the views of the central Bay, the
bridges, and San Francisco. If we take full advantage of these assets, they alone will draw
the people needed to make Alameda Point a success. Make these public spaces the
crowning jewel of the project and everything else will succeed in their wake.
We believe that the people — especially the young people —of Alameda also deserve more
public recreation than currently exists in our city. To that end we would like to see public
playing fields such as baseball and soccer fields, and a large public pool on the Point.
The playing fields could be used as greens for concerts and festivals, attracting further
people, culture, and money to the island.
One last view: we have seen land listed merely as `Northwest Territories' on some maps,
left blank on others, and shown as a golf course on one. We would be strongly opposed
to any decision to use this prime land as a golf course without a full public review, as
with the rest of the Point. We hope to hear from you regarding the current status of
this land.
Thank you for your time,
sseeph Yon
2508 Eagle Ave.
Alameda CA 94501
Avon @uclink4.berkeley.edu
calL\
Sally Yon