From: Francesca at A.R.M. Team
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to animal research on our island Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:32:13 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Sir/Madam:
As a resident of Alameda since 1987 and residential properties owner, please count me in as a vehement opponent to SCIENCE CORP becoming a tenant of our city.
My stance and that of many other residents is that we cannot for the sake of a few revenue dollars into the city’s coffers, silence our humanity.
Monkeys and other “experimentally desirable” animals are SENTIENT beings that feel pain, anguish, and terror just like you and me.
Ultimately, even If compassion does not move you to reject this prospective tenant, I beg you to disallow such immoral activity to infect our island.
Respectfully,
Francesca Battani Strucksberg
From: Hannah Taylor
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] VOTE NO to Science Corp.
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 8:20:52 PM
Hi Alameda City Council Members,
I am an Alameda resident and animal lover. If you too consider yourself an animal lover, I strongly urge you to vote AGAINST leasing a large city property at the naval base to Science Corp. (10/17 meeting; Agenda # 7A)
Per a Reuter’s article of 12/5/22 an expert estimates that 1500 animals were killed including 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys at the hands of Science Corp from 2018 to 2022.
Unless you hate animals, voting no is a no-brainer.
Thank you,
Hannah Taylor
[email protected]
From: Stacy Baar
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote No re: A Science Corporation
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 8:20:52 PM
I have spent a lifetime protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
The City of Alameda has a longstanding reputation for the ethical, humane treatment of animals with such organizations as FAAS, ICRA and the Latham Foundation.
Do not bring disgrace to our Island City.
VOTE NO!
Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Susan Dunn
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Vote No on the lease to Science Corp for the purpose of experiments on animals.
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 4:18:56 PM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
gala-logo-2022-web-vs5.png
Dear City Council,
:There is an experimentaal animal research firm slated to rent a large City Property here in Alameda. Hundreds of Monkeys, rabbits and rats will be used in their exploratory projects.
As a concerned citizen of Alameda, I ask you to reject this lease and to vote No. At next Tuesday’s 10/17City Council meeting :Agenda# 7A , the City Council will vote whether or not to lease a large City property at the base to Science Corp. The CEO and President of Science Corp, Max Hodak, was the former president and co-founder of the Neuralink Corp.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine( PCRM) ( over 900,00 members) under Hodak ‘s tenure as President, found evidence of serious animal abuse of their Rhesus Macaque monkeys. Additionally, 3 Neuralink employees stated there was ongoing animal abuse at the company. Some of these monkeys and other animals suffered significant pain as a result from botched experiments and were eventually killed. Per a Reuter’s article of 12/5 22 an expert estimates that 1500 animals were killed including 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys at Neuralink from 2018 to 2022. Hodak quit Neuralink in 2021 to found Science Corp. Hodak has written an online article about his new company entitled “A Science Corporation" It seems clear from his article that brain exploration will be the primary goal, whether its by photonics or some other means. Hodak , writes that he envisions a New World where we may be “...Adding new senses....” [to our already 5 senses] Perhaps this sounds like interesting experimentation, until you think of the heavy suffering and cost to many, many innocent animals that will be extremely confined and subjected for a long time to this experimentation and then will be killed. Hodak writes ominously [ that the experiments]” ....will not be non invasive”.
Please note that Jeff and Susan Dunn, from 36 Sunny Cove Circle in Alameda, are opposed to this lease.
Thank You,
Susan and Jeff Dunn
Members, SFBATCC
San Francisco Bay Area Theater Critics Circle
Reviewers: AisleSeatReview.com
[email protected]
[email protected]
36 Sunny Cove Circle
Alameda, CA 94502
510-759-9771 Susan (c)
650-520-1074 Jeff (c)
From: Eloise Hill
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO on Science Corp Lease!
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 3:11:01 PM
The CEO and President of Science Corp, Max Hodak, was the former president and co- founder of the Neuralink Corp and was found by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, under Hodak ‘s tenure as President, to have permitted serious animal abuse of their Rhesus Macaque monkeys. Additionally, three Neuralink employees stated there was ongoing animal abuse at the company. Some of the monkeys and other animals at that facility suffered significant pain as a result of botched experiments and were eventually killed. Per a Reuter’s article of 12/5/22 an expert estimates that 1500 animals were killed at Neuralink including 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys.
Hodak quit Neuralink in 2021 to found Science Corp. and has written an online article about his new company entitled “A Science Corporation". It is clear from his article that brain exploration will be the primary form of research whether by photonics or some other means.
This is not kind of facility the citizens of Alameda want here on the island. Vote NO on leasing to Science CORP!
Eloise Hill
From: Jeanne Gregory-McCaffery
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Science Corp!
Date: Saturday, October 14, 2023 1:29:49 PM
No Science Corp in Alameda !
Absolutely not !
Vote No !
Sent from my iPhone
1 City Clerk
From: Shelby S <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:14 PM
To: Trish Spencer
Cc: City Clerk; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; City Attorney; Tracy Jensen; Historical Board; Christopher Buckley; Steven Buckley; Carmen Reid Subject:
[EXTERNAL] for public comment--RE opposition to animal research facility lease --please vote no on Science Corp 7B
Attachments: 2016-3628 - Exhibit 2 - Draft Resolution.pdf; 2016-3628 - Exhibit 1 - Monarch Street Fencing Proposal.pdf; 2015-2289 - Presentation to Council.pdf; 2015-2289 - Ordinance - Revised showing redline.pdf
Councilmember Spencer-
I hope you have noticed that the proposed company, "Science Corp", to occupy Building 11 does animal research on-site.
"The company’s work requires use of a vivarium for live animals used in the research and development of the
products, including mice, rabbits and non-ape primates,"
First and foremost, I do not believe the Point is the appropriate location for an animal research lab --recall the pushback you got for the pesticide drones--and this is much worse! Further it does not conform with the City's stated ethics or the spirit or the vision for Alameda Point.
Do you think kids and families want to walk and bike past an animal research facility? Does it belong on the most widely trafficked area for tourists etc,? This area should be reserved for customer serving entertainment along West Tower and Monarch.
Why in the world would you put a company that experiments on animal right smack dab at the corner right in the middle?
---How about a go kart track instead? Wouldnt that be fun? Add an arcade! Bring back Neptune Beach! You get my point.
Aside from the amorality of it (live primates! really?) I also am concerned about the medical waste and potential for improper handling, and I dont think it was adequately addressed in the lease.
Also I could not find any information on the Company--and the agenda items do not provide sufficient information.
Second, once again, Andrew Thomas is ille
gally bypassing the City's own legal process to
get the lease and the fencing approved by Ordinance.
2 This lease AGAIN allows ugly non-permissible fencing on the entire Hangar parcel, blocking views of Seaplane Lagoon, which:
exceed the square footage of the leaseholding.
illegally allows the 7+ foot opaque screened chain link fence blocks the legally-protected Historic public views
violates the Historic Preservation Code, the Zoning Code, and the goals of the NAS land use plans to MAXIMIZE public access and views, and has not and cannot get approved from either the regular design review process or the Historical Advisory Board Certificate of Approval (that why we bypass it baby!) All City Officials and Staff as well as the City Attorney are well aware of the restrictions on view-obstructing fences along the Hangars despite their recent public statements and/or complicit silence.
Its the City Attorney's primary job to know land use regulations (and ensure the City abides by them!)--and he committed an obvious ethics breach misleading the public when he stated there are no protections for the Historic Views.
As did Councilmember Vella when she fraudulently stated the City Attorney owes no duty to provide accurate information about land use regulations to the public.
Instead of disparaging your pictures then denying it, she should publicly correct the record, as should Mr Shen.
In addition, there is documented proof demonstrating the expertise of both Councilmember Vella and Andrew Thomas regarding the Historic Hangars and regulations about fencing, as can be seen in the December 01, 2016 Historical Advisory Board meeting.
At that meeting, Malia Vella was a board member when Andrew Thomas proposed a resolution streamlining the COA process with a uniform fence design along the Monarch St Hangars. This was back when the HAB had not yet been gutted.
Mr Thomas' presentation was very informative, and Ms Vella's input was doubly so as they both contributed their extensive knowled
ge of regulations and design constraints on
fences to protect the public vistas between Hangars (not just on Monarch) Long story short: DONT BLOCK THE VIEWS!
The meeting even provided a little insi
ght about Member Vella's recent bemoaning of the
6 foot fence at Rockwall she so disliked---but the ugly tall chain-link black screens along Hangar row they sit silently endorsing? hmmm...
It was a beautiful thing to see a thoughtful discussion about the Historic District regulations by the HAB, Councilmember Vella, and Andrew Thomas. What a stark contrast it is to the back door deals that are made today--Do you think they forgot that knowledge, or .......do you think they are trying to skirt them? Right.
3 WHAT HAPPENED?
For this item, perhaps there can be redemption, and I implore ALL members on the dais to act ethically by disclosing accurate information and vote no on this item.
Thank you.
=======
PS. Resolution and presentations are attached--you might also want to take a closer look at the landscaping improvements Natel promised to do v how it looks now--For the record, it looks like a junk yard and blocks the view of the Bay Bridge. =======
Link to 12/01/2016 HAB meeting:
https://alameda.granicus.com/player/clip/1883?view_id=6&redirect=true&h=8eb502eb 9787d1b0e0de823e1d7f32ed
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. ______
New Series
APPROVING A LEASE AND AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE TERMS OF A 10 YEAR LEASE
AND AN OPTION TO PURCHASE WITH NATEL ENERGY, INC. , A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, FOR BUILDING 23 LOCATED AT 2401
MONARCH STREET AT ALAMEDA POINT
WHEREAS, Natel Energy, Inc. (Natel) designs and manufactures innovative hydropower systems that generate renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, the premises will be used as office, research and devel opment, and light manufacturing; and
WHEREAS, Natel previously occupied Building 400A and currently occupies Building 19 at Alameda Point under a license agreement ending in December of this year; and
WHEREAS, with funding from the United States Department of Energy and the Small Business Innovation Research Program, Natel has been allowed to grow and commercialize their invention, thus, prompting their expansion and relocation; and
WHEREAS, at their new location, Natel is expected to expand to approximately 150 employees, and
WHEREAS, Building 23 consists of approximately 65,000 square feet of rentable space with adjacent parking in front of the premises; and.
WHEREAS, Natel is interested in an option to purchase the premises upo n certain conditions set forth in the lease.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that by four affirmative votes that:
Section 1. The City Manager of the City of Alameda or his designee is hereby authorized to negotiate, execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, a lease and option to purchase with Natel Energy, Inc. , a Delaware corporation, for Building 23 located at 2401 Monarch Street at Alameda Point for ten years, which includes an option to purchase the property subject to such technical or clarifying revisions as are reasonably determined necessary by the City Manager and approved by the City Attorney, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the same.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance if, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the 11-17-2015
5-H Revised Ordinance
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the Ci ty of Alameda hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsections, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases are declared to be invalid and unconstitutional.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
_____________________________
Presiding Officer of the City Council
Attest:
____________________
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
* * * * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted and pas sed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the ___ day of _______________, 2015, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have he reunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this ____ day of _____________, 2015.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Janet C. Kern, City Attorney
City of Alameda
City Council
November 3, 2015
Natel Lease and Option to Purchase
Alameda Point
11-17-2015
5-H Exhibit 5
• Lease for 65,000-square-foot Building 23
with Natel Energy
• 10-Year Lease with One 5-Year Renewal
Option
– $0.54 per square foot monthly rent with annual
escalator
– $440,000 annually and $4.8 million over 15
years
• $8 million option to purchase
– $91 per square foot building value and $25 per
square foot excess land value
– Supported by market values in the I-880 Corridor
– $10 million in planned investment
Lease and Option Summary
SLIDE #1
1. Attracts high-quality tenants to certain buildings with significant investment potential
2. Compensates for City’s inability to invest significant capital in buildings and maximize value
3. Generates significant upfront capital leveraging building value to pay for infrastructure for “manufacturing” adaptive reuse area
4. Helps corrects infrastructure deficiency that creates major annual and long-term liability to City
Recommendation for Sale of
Certain Property
SLIDE #2
• Typical average values in I-880
Corridor range from $55 to
$65/SF for Class C
manufacturing space
• Natel option price at $91/SF
exceeds market due to
premiums for views and
building uniqueness
Market Support for Option Price
SLIDE #3
# Address Use SF Acres Buyer Seller Sale Date Sale Price Price/SF
1 727 Kennedy St.
Oakland, CA Warehouse 235,000 8.81 Westcore Properties Hornstein Investment Co. 6/30/15 $13,850,000
$58.94
2 810 81st Ave.
Oakland, CA Manufacturing 192,557 9.75 Arvus Equity LLC Ellis Partners LLC 2/2/15 $10,265,000 $53.31
3 580 Julie Ann Way
Oakland, CA
Manufacturing 70,440 2.91 Julie Ann Way Bakery
Associates LLC
Hackman Capital
Partners 5/9/14 $4,100,000
$58.21
4 425‐427 Hester St.
San Leandro, CA
Manufacturing 85,089 4.4 Mi Rancho Lowenberg Corp. 4/24/14 $5,100,000 $59.94
Recent Sales Comparables
• Alameda Point Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for Zoning Amendment and Site A development
• All new development and property owners to pay fair-share of municipal services special tax to offset any long-term fiscal impacts • Natel property to pay municipal se rvices fee to offset their fair- share
– $67,000 per year in property tax
– Comparison with lease revenue needs to factor in capital reserve for infrastructure - $430,000 in debt service
Fiscal Impacts of Project
SLIDE #4
• FY2015-16 Development Impact Fee
for Alameda Point: $1,003,439 per acre
for commercial uses
• Building 23 property: 5.3 Acres
• Minimum infrastructure burden equals:
$5,318,227
• $8 million purchase price exceeds
infrastructure burden by: $2,681,773
Pro Rate Share of Infrastructure
SLIDE #5
• Alameda Point Zoning Ordinance (30-4.24)
• EIR Mitigations – Biological, Traffic, Historic, etc. • Declaration of Restrictions – Biological Opinion
• Master Infrastructure Plan Resolution
• Development Impact Fee Ordinance
• Design Review Ordinance
• Historic Preservation Ordinance
• Sewer Lateral Ordinance
• Parcel Map Conditions
• Transportation Demand Management Plan
Restrictions on Future Property
Owners
SLIDE #6
Q & A
SLIDE #6
Building 23 – Alameda Point
Value Discussion
• $8,000,000 Total Price
o ± 55,000 SF Footprint (± 65,000 SF Total)
o 5.3 Total Acres (230,868 SF)
o ± 120,868 “Extra” Land at 50% Site Coverage
• “Extra” Land at $25.00 = $3,021,700.00
• Building Footprint = $90.51 Square Foot
• Total Building Square Footage = $76.58 Square Foot
Monarch St. Fencing Proposal for
Historical Alameda Board
12/1/2016
Table of Contents
I.
Overview
II.
Letter of support
III.
Aerial map
IV.
Fencing Renditions of 2401-2501 Monarch
V.
Fence Construction Detail
VI.
Color Discovery
Overview
This document outlines the request to HAB for the permission to add
fencing to properties on the Alameda Naval Base at Monarch St. Three
master tenants have joined together and agreed on a design that would
bring a consistent look and allow for access to the city view we all cherish.
The fencing would be mostly replacing existing chain link fencing. There is
one new section requested that would be placed on a previously existing
fence line. In this document we outline every aspect of the fencing project.
Historical Data:
From the data we found, there was never any fencing in between the
hangars due the fact that the base was secured at the gate and big air craft
were moving about in this area where fencing would cause issues.
Fence Locations:
Our proposal requests installing this fencing in existing locations at the
hangars on Monarch St. The current fence line is located at the east edge
of the hangar, except on both the north and south ends where the fence
line is set back from the hangar in line with hangar doors compartment. The
only new fencing requested is on the south side of Building 23 spanning to
Rock Wall. Should the fence line change from what is outlined in this
document the tenant unification would most likely break due to losing 3,000
or more square footage and cost. See diagram in section III for detail.
Construction:
Materials for this design are wood, hog wire and brackets. This design
would utilize the existing chain link fence poles to minimize cost, waste and
make it stronger. Wood would be mounted on the fence pole and the
crossbars would be attached to the wood. We would utilize heavy gauge
hog wire for the view sections and the gates.
Fence Color:
We did an extensive color discovery as you can see in section VI to show
what different colors would look like in contrast to the buildings. After
visually seeing all the colors we, the tenants like the wood color that
matches the fence Rock Wall already has in place.
Aerial Map
Fencing Renditions
Fencing Renditions (part 2)
Construction Detail
Fence:
Gate:
Color Discovery
Tenant's Choice
Dark Wood (matching existing fencing):
Hangar Color:
Copper Roof Color:
Yellow Trim Color:
Cityscape Color:
Exhibit 2
Item 7-A, 12/1/2016
Historical Advisory Board
CITY OF ALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
DRAFT RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED FENCE DESIGN SO
TENANTS MAY INSTALL FENCING AT THE FRONT OF THEI R BUILDINGS FACING MONARCH STREET IN WITHIN THE NAS ALAMEDA HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Hangars Row (Spirits Alley) tenants notified City of Alameda Staff about their need to install fencing in order to secure their premises; and
WHEREAS, Spirits Alley tenants were informed that, since Spirits Alley is within the NAS Alameda Historic District, Historic Advisory Board approval would be needed before fencing could be installed; and
WHEREAS, an application was made by the City of Alameda for a Certificate of Approval for the approval of the proposed fence design; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation for 2300 Monarch Street is Alameda Point Civic Core; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance classification for 2300 Monarch street is Alameda Point, Adaptive Reuse; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board held a public hearing on December 1, 2016 for this application, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Historical Advisory Board the construction of the fences was adequately considered by the Alameda Point Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 201312043) that was certified by the City of Alameda on February 4, 2014 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Final EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of redevelopment and reuse of the lands at Alameda Point. No further review is required for this review of the project designs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Historical Advisory Board approves the Certificate of Approval request to construct new fences consistent with Exhibit 1: Proposed Fence Designs, subject to the following conditions:
(1) All new fences shall be:
i Consistent with the fence design shown in Exhibit 1.
ii Painted in a color to match the wall colors of the buildings. iii Placed at the rear of the front columns facing Monarch Street. (2) HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, the Alameda City Historical Advisory Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, 2 action, or proceeding (including legal costs and attorney’s fees) against the City o f Alameda, Alameda City Historical Advisory Board and their respective agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval by the City of Alameda, the Historical Advisory Board, Alameda City Planning Board, or City Council relat ing to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding.
NOTICE. The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by Notice of Appeal stating the appellant claims that either the Board's decision is not supported by its findings or its findings are not supported by the evidence in the record.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
* * * * *