Correspondence - Updated 3/19 — Alameda City Council, March 19, 2024

From: Trish Spencer
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 5-H Guidance materials re historic district protections Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 3:42:33 PM
Attachments: image.png
VerPlanck.docx
From: Shelby S <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2:11:16 PM
To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Historic guidance materials to peruse on your morning tour Councilmember Spencer-
I saw your comment attached to the Gold Bar Item, so I am re-sending you this to have at hand to refer to when the City Manager tells you incorrect information about protection of the vistas at Alameda Point--especially along the Hangars across the bay both south and west--thats all
vistas btw, not just the "named" historic vistas--they are all historic. And they're all supposed to be maximized for public access. Please see the attached report as well--VerPlank is an expert that was commissioned by the City themselves, so....

Regards, Shelby Sheehan
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shelby S <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:34 AM
Subject: Historic guidance materials to peruse on your morning tour To: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]
>, Malia Vella
<[email protected]>, Trish Spencer <[email protected]>, Tony Daysog <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
For the Tourists—

I hope you all enjoy your tour of the Point in the morning. As you know, I am pretty zealous about preserving those view corridors along West Tower and Monarch and across the Bay, and I am continuing to be disappointed when I see factual errors in documents written by City staff and officials that intentionally mis-state the content of the governing regulations.

I have provided mountains of lengthy emails with excerpted references (with page numbers to check for veracity!) from numerous regulations and guidance documents enumerating the multitude of land use regulations protecting the Historic vistas. I have combed through all the land use plans, EIRS, zoning codes and permits, and I have demonstrated that the City is intentionally thwarting the public process… I even asked the City Attorneys to brief the issues and begged to be corrected---All I got back was crickets.

I have vociferously complained about the egregious abuse of process for those City as-lead-agency- and-developer-and-tax-beneficiary Projects. I have vehemently asserted the lack of transparency gives the appearance of backdoor deals and conflicts of interest--and each project appears to intentionally chip away at the integrity of the Historic character of Alameda Point at the expense of the public.

Worst of all, when Ybin Shen was asked in a City Council Meeting if there were any Historic Protections for the Hangars on the Base, he said: “I don’t think so—ask Andrew or Allen, ..and--- keep the advice I gave in closed session confidential.” (That’s weird…so he knows better than to overtly breach his Bar ethics in public. Interesting)

What will it take? What more evidence do you need?
What if a “Definitive” report could be created as a “Gold Standard” to evaluate Projects for compliance with the Historic District Guidelines.

Better yet, one the City would “officially recognize”. This Report would obviously apply to any project—any use permit—any zoning determination, etc.—and of course the Historical Advisory Board would use it too.

What if: this “Gold Standard” guidance document already exists? Here’s the good news: It does!
Did YOU know that?---Do you know who does know?---Andrew Thomas. He even commissioned it!
In 2016, Andrew Thomas (yes, THAT Andrew Thomas) personally commissioned the February 25, 2016 Memorandum from VerPlank Historic Preservation Consulting, entitled: “Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Cultural Landscape Guidelines”. This report was generated as part of the environmental review for Site A Block 11 in 2016 (Ah, the good ole days!... when the City hadn’t quite perfected their methods yet). --Holy moley why aren’t we already using this for every project?? What have we even been doing for the last 8 years?
Well, better late than never: That time can start TODAY. à I call your attention to the 2016 VerPlank Historic Preservation Consulting Memo, commissioned by none other than Andrew Thomas himself.***
***This report will be especially helpful when looking at the existing conditions along Hangar Row. ((àprint out the attachments to take along with you on the tour today)) --The standards here might be a bit different than what is in your Exhibit 4 handout, though- --You be the judge.

Spoiler Alert: Just about the FIRST thing VerPlanck says is that all Projects (this includes discretionary/conditional use permits of course) within the Historic District must receive a Certificate of Approval from the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) —so why does the Planning Dept tell them they only have limited “recommendation” authority? Suspicious….

Quick tangent: --HAB is currently wasting away, having been robbed of all its power under the stranglehold of the Planning Department. It is currently operating only as the “demolish an old garage” committee. The Board can’t even make their own agendas! Your first question about that is likely the same as mine: How could a City employee have absolute control over a Citizen Oversight Board? I know, right!? (…mind blown..)

But before we look at the report…
Here are the author’s credentials (they look pretty solid to me):

A. Credentials
Mr. VerPlanck meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for both History and Architectural History, with 18 years of experience analyzing Projects with historical properties in the San Francisco Bay Area for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, including a decade of experience working in Alameda. à Indeed, Mr. VerPlanck authored Page & Turnbull’s NAS Alameda Historic District Assessment and Historic Preservation Strategy in 2004. (!!!), and as an independent preservation consultant he has consulted on several other projects in Alameda, including most recently the Del Monte Cannery.

B. Methodology
Christopher VerPlanck met with Mr. Andrew Thomas at Alameda Point. He developed his guidance procedure consistent with the following documents: (1) JRP National Register Nomination for Naval Air Station Alameda, (2) JRP Cultural Landscape Report for Naval Air Station Alameda, (3) Page & Turnbull’s NAS Alameda Historic District Assessment and Historic Preservation Strategy, (4) Guide to Preserving the Character of the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District (1997), (5)The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996), and (7)The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1997).

The Memorandum describes the procedures to be undertaken when projects are located within the boundaries of the NAS Alameda Historic District, concentrating on the methodology for evaluating Projects in the NAS Historic District for compliance with the Rehabilitation Standards and Cultural Landscape Guidelines. The analysis in this memorandum follows the format outlined in Attachment A of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for Site A of the Alameda Point Project per the Alameda Point EIR’s Mitigation Measures 4.D-1a to 4.D-5.

ATTACHMENT--------------------------------------------------------- The thing we’ve all been waiting for” VerPlanck’s Guidance for new uses, infill buildings, and alterations to landscape features in the NAS Historic District Review these as you tour, and consider whether those ugly tall construction view-blocking chain link fences and any other view-blocking or property enclosing feature OR a bus lot is compliant with these Guidelines or if they've even undergone any type of proper procedure..

The following is also attached for printing.

NAS Historic District Character-defining Features
The National Register nomination found the district to be significant for its architecture, contributions to community planning and development, landscape architecture, and military history.

Per VerPlanck’s guidance, the first step in ascertaining whether a project complies with the Secretary's Standards is to determine if the project would retain the bulk of the property’s seven “character-defining features, including the potential effect relating to visual impacts to the historic district’s setting--as compared to the Secretary’s ten “Rehabilitation Standards”.

VerPlanck’s Guidance Memo specifically addresses impacts to the existing sightlines of Building 77 and the row of the Seaplane Lagoon Hangars—which just happens to be about the best possible example for comparison to what you are going to see during the morning’s tour! There are seven characteristic features of importance to be preserved when determining compliance of new buildings or landscape features (LIKE A FENCE): Spatial Organization; Views/Vistas; Topography; Vegetation; Circulation; Water Features; and Structures, Furnishings and Objects.

General Management and Design Guidelines should address ways to ensure that new building siting, massing, parking areas, and landscape areas are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character-defining circulation features of the large, open areas within the Operations/Hangars Areas. --Dont forget that every single land use policy and/or regulation explicitly states the primary importance of maximizing and protecting the viewscapes from the Point to the SF Bay. --Thats the opposite of minimizing it to 60 feet wide by the way.

#1. Preservation of Spatial Organization:

The design guidelines should address ways to maintain, to the extent feasible, the open qualities of the character-defining spatial organization and views in the Operations/Hangars Areas. · Important view corridors should be retained and enhanced by removing existing fencing and other intrusive obstacles and by directing the eye along these views through the orthogonal layout of the proposed park.
· Compliant Projects:
o Retain the orthogonal pattern established by the roads and building mass and volume. o Retain and preserve the north-south bi-laterally symmetrical alignment from the Main Gate through Building 39 and the Seaplane Lagoon.
o Preserve and maintain the deep setback of low ground cover around Buildings 77, 20, 21, and 22.
#2. Preservation of Views/Vistas:

The design guidelines should address ways to Preserve and retain the signature view corridors. · Compliant Projects do not disrupt the large, open vistas:

Along Monarch Street and the west side of the Landplane Hangars -Along Tower Avenue and along the south side of the Seaplane Hangars -Southward to the Seaplane Lagoon and piers.
-Westerly across Airfield

.#3. Preservation of Flat Topography:

The design guidelines should minimize impact to the flat topography within the historic district. ·
Compliant Projects maintain, to the extent feasible, the appearance of the flat topography.
· minimize the visual appearance of any modifications to the topography. · Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.

#4. Preservation of Vegetation Characteristics:

The design guidelines should protect and maintain the vegetation within the historic district. · Compliant Projects
· Protect and maintain the low ground cover on the south and southeast corner of Building 77 and surrounding the Control Tower.
· Avoid adding foundation planting beds or trees at Building 77 within the open space area created by the setback.
·
Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.

#5. Preservation of Circulation:

Circulation within the NAS Alameda historic district is preserved by the large, open areas within the Operations/Hangars Areas.
· Compliant Projects
· Have no permanent enclosed buildings or other high featur · es that would disrupt the large, open vistas and view corridors in the area. #6. Preservation of Water Features:
· Compliant Projects
o Retain and preserve the Seaplane Lagoon, including its bulkhead and ramps on the north edge, the rip-rap sides, and jetties on the south side. o New features, such as pedestrian, visitor and boating facilities, docks, and/or piers should be designed to be compatible with character-defining features of the Seaplane Lagoon.

#7. Preservation of Structures, Furnishings and Objects:

There are no character-defining structures, furnishings, and objects (e.g., benches, planters) in the Operations/Hangars Area.
· There is no precedent for features like the future construction of an entertainment pavilion at the east end of Seaplane Lagoon.
· Compliant Projects are low-profile, transparent, or otherwise unobtrusive to ensure that the taxiway area retains its character as a large, open area with few large obstructions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Alterations and New Development in the Historic District

Rehabilitation Standard #1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Rehabilitation Standard #2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.

The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided.

Rehabilitation Standard #3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken.

Rehabilitation Standard #4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.

Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Rehabilitation Standard #6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.

When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

Rehabilitation Standard #7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

Rehabilitation Standard #8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property.

Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

VerPlanck's Memo provides a complete procedure for evaluating compliance of proposed discretionary actions..

One more thing: I defy anyone to find a Certificate of Approval for any of the fences blocking the public views between the Hangars. Even if you could find a CoA, look to see if the fence is compliant with the CoA, and/or if there fraudulent entries on the permit application---so far the closest is the Bladium permit western side, but the rest have scant/fraudulent documentation, or none at all.

It is my hope and intent that distribution of these guidelines empower the public to demand Transparency for all current and future City-projects at Alameda Point.

Enjoy your tour!
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
VerPlanck’s Project Evaluation Guidance

#1. Preservation of Spatial Organization:

The design guidelines should address ways to maintain, to the extent feasible, the open qualities of the character-defining spatial organization and views in the Operations/Hangars Areas. • Important view corridors should be retained and enhanced by removing existing fencing and other intrusive obstacles and by directing the eye along these views through the orthogonal layout of the proposed park.
• Compliant Projects:
o Retain the orthogonal pattern established by the roads and building mass and volume. o Retain and preserve the north-south bi-laterally symmetrical alignment from the Main Gate through Building 39 and the Seaplane Lagoon.
o Preserve and maintain the deep setback of low ground cover around Buildings 77, 20, 21, and 22.
#2. Preservation of Views/Vistas:

The design guidelines should address ways to Preserve and retain the signature view corridors. • Compliant Projects do not disrupt the large, open vistas:

.#3. Preservation of Flat Topography:

The design guidelines should minimize impact to the flat topography within the historic district. • Compliant Projects maintain, to the extent feasible, the appearance of the flat topography. • minimize the visual appearance of any modifications to the topography. • Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.

#4. Preservation of Vegetation Characteristics:

The design guidelines should protect and maintain the vegetation within the historic district. • Compliant Projects
• Protect and maintain the low ground cover on the south and southeast corner of Building 77 and surrounding the Control Tower.
• Avoid adding foundation planting beds or trees at Building 77 within the open space area created by the setback.
• Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.

#5. Preservation of Circulation:

Circulation within the NAS Alameda historic district is preserved by the large, open areas within the Operations/Hangars Areas.
• Compliant Projects
• Have no permanent enclosed buildings or other high featur • es that would disrupt the large, open vistas and view corridors in the area. #6. Preservation of Water Features:
• Compliant Projects
o Retain and preserve the Seaplane Lagoon, including its bulkhead and ramps on the north edge, the rip-rap sides, and jetties on the south side. o New features, such as pedestrian, visitor and boating facilities, docks, and/or piers should be designed to be compatible with character-defining features of the of the Seaplane Lagoon.

#7. Preservation of Structures, Furnishings and Objects:

There are no character-defining structures, furnishings, and objects (e.g., benches, planters) in the Operations/Hangars Area.
• There is no precedent for features like the future construction of an entertainment pavilion at the east end of Seaplane Lagoon.
• Compliant Projects are low-profile, transparent, or otherwise unobtrusive to ensure that the taxiway area retains its character as a large, open area with few large obstructions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Alterations and New Development in the Historic District

Rehabilitation Standard #2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided.

Rehabilitation Standard #4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Rehabilitation Standard #6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.

Rehabilitation Standard #7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

Rehabilitation Standard #8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken

Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property.

defy anyone to find a Certificate of Approval for any of the fences blocking the public views between the Hangars. Even if you could find a CoA, look to see if the fence is compliant with the CoA, and/or if there fraudulent entries on the permit application---so far the closest is the Bladium permit western side, but the rest have scant/fraudulent documentation, or none at all.

From: Tod Hickman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 3-5-24 City Council Meet and City Manager threats against us.

Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:13:59 PM
Attachments: Re Comments.msg
Letter to Council RE Ms. Ott threats.pdf
Hello Lara,
Hope all is well on your end.

Please include this forwarded email and 2 attachments, that were initially sent to all 5 Council members, in tonight’s Agenda. It pertains to item 5H.

Thank you,
Tod and Estela
Building43Winery
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Tod Hickman <[email protected]>
Date: March 18, 2024 at 3:24:25 PM PDT
To: [email protected], Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>, [email protected], Malia Vella Council Member
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: 3-5-24 City Council Meet and City Manager threats against us.
Hello City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter, "Letter to Council RE Ms. Ott threats" in PDF format. Also see the associated email chain titled "Comments".

We take this situation and Ms. Ott's threats very serious.

We are pleading for resolve.

Respectfully,
Tod and Estela
Building43Winery
Hello Council Members,

As a small business leasing City owned property, we are reaching out to you for assistance.

Please see below for recent communications with the City manager after the last Council meeting. As you may recall, during the Gold Bar agenda item, staff replied to a question regarding a 9-foot barrel wall and contacting the affected businesses. Staff asserted that they had talked to us about fencing and screening and gave the impression that we had no concerns. This simply is not true.

We had only been told that the City potentially had a tenant for the Hangar 1 building and everything was still confidential. Staff asserted that they could tell us no more. The last time we had met with City staff was 3 weeks prior to this Council meeting. I publicly spoke to this agenda item and reported that staff was lying about their representation of our conversation regarding this item. Again, there was no conversation about this item at any time. Again, staff simply told us they potentially had a tenant for the Hangar 1 building, and they could not speak about anything because it was still confidential.

My response to staff’s lies about our interaction was important for the record due to my long-standing concern, opposition, and public comments about the reduction and blocking of view corridors at the Point, as well as to protect the integrity of the public process. Anyone who has been listening inherently knows my position on this and should know that I/we would never concede to further destruction of the views at Alameda Point.

Our position is quite the opposite, we are vehemently opposed to further degradation of the view at the point, not to mention the illegality of this concept.

For example, the concept that Gold Bar is trying to use this wall to conceal some type of "equipment" they are planning on storing between them and the Natel building is very concerning. It is unclear if this equipment is shipping containers, lifts, tanks, or something unforeseen. It is hard to believe that they would be allowed to store anything in this view corridor as Hanger 1 was a much larger operation and they never used this area for storage of anything, using it instead for customer/public parking, while maintaining the visual integrity of the Point as required per the Alameda Municipal Code.

Just as important to us personally, in our business relationship and ongoing negotiations with the City, is the email sent by the City Manager at 0922 hours the very next morning. In her early morning email she makes implied - if not direct- threats, that lead us to believe that unless we agree to her demands she will retaliate.

As shown in the attached email, Ms. Ott states that my comments the night before were “reprehensible and unforgiveable” and that I should “refrain from tearing down City staff”.

This suggests that I don’t engage in free speech and don’t call out staff “or else”. She is demanding our complicity against our own interests. This is disturbing, as we are entering our lease extension negotiations. This gives us no reason to believe the City will act in good faith.

The reason we are reaching out to you now is that we have tried to remedy this with Ms. Ott but have not received a response or solution. We want the Council to be aware of these communications and requirements for the City to act in good faith.

Pertinent to the upcoming council meeting: The Gold Bar lease should be temporarily tabled until further investigation is complete. For the following reasons:

1) Staff appears to have attempted to intentionally mislead the public by using a photo shopped image of the fence area where the barrel wall was proposed. I believe this has already been brought to your attention by a Council member and another member of the public.

2) According to the staff presentation, Gold Bar is not ready to open to the public for at least another year which is detrimental to the Alley, which needs a tenant to perform now; therefore, no harm will come to the City or tenant by delaying temporarily.

3) #1 and #2 above show this item was not yet ready to be heard and staff needs more time to “provide excellent service”

For the record, the proposed barrel wall and other structures in the view corridor would be a violation of the biological and planning restrictions associated with this area of NAS. It will destroy the Historical Character of the Point and will create a “Pay To View” atmosphere which deprives the Public of their precious resource. The California Least Tern must also be considered per CA Fish&Game. We are aware that some of you are also opposed to view blocking structures and recognize the need to follow the rules and laws associated with this area.

Until this situation is remedied, we respectfully request the City table the Gold Bar lease and provide a good faith resolution regarding the threats contained in the City manager’s e- mail.

We look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully,

Tod Hickman and Estela Villagrana
Building43Winery
Alameda Point

From: Tod Hickman
To: Jennifer Ott
Cc: Estela Villagrana
Subject: Re: Comments
Attachments: image001.png
image001.png
Hi Jen,
I’ve given this some more thought. I am not sure by what you mean by the use of the word “unforgivable”? It sounds very threatening as our lease is up for renewal. We have been treated so different from every other business and this exacerbates the situation.

Please clarify what you mean by the use of the word “unforgivable”? I would additionally like to know if you have gotten to the bottom of the fact that your staff member did lie about talking to us about the view blocking barrel wall? Did you think thru the situation and realize we would have never been ok with that? Did you rewatch the meeting video and analyze her response and body language?
Are you just upset that I called it out in public?
I would like to meet this coming Monday am to resolve this. The Council meet is Tuesday and I would prefer to avoid that as the venue to get resolve on this.

Respectfully,
Tod
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2024, at 9:22 AM, Jennifer Ott <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Tod:

I was shocked to hear your comments last night about City staff and think they were reprehensible. I know City staff took time to meet with you to ask your and Estela’s thoughts about a prospective spirits tenant in Bldg 22 (something you both have been asking for) and to explore your thoughts and position on any fencing they may need to potentially screen or fence off the tenant’s exterior operational uses. The fact that you publicly called them liars was patently false and unforgiveable. I respectfully request that you refrain from tearing down City staff, who work hard to perform public service at the highest level and to engage you and other tenants and the community in often complex policy issues.

Jennifer Ott
City Manager
City of Alameda
[email protected]
c: (510) 867-8237

From: Therese Hall
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Subject: [EXTERNAL] Building 22 at Alameda Point
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:12:25 PM
Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers,
Re: 3/19/23 Consent Calendar Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement with Gold Bar Spirits, Bldg 22 I urge you to reconsider the lease with Gold Bar Spirits Company Inc. for a Portion of Building 22, a historic Naval Hangar along Spirit Alley, located at 2505 Monarch Street, at Alameda Point, Alameda.

I am concerned that the current proposed lease allows for a fence (stacked barrels, up to 9 feet) to permit storage of equipment, dumpsters, etc along side the hangar the City intends to lease. Storage of any kind between the hangars obstructs public views of the San Francisco Skyline, the Bay Bridge etc., but most importantly, it completely changes the character of this historic district and sets a precedence for future leases.

Maintaining the open space between hangars as specified in Historic District guideline documents insures that going forward, views will be protected for everyone’s benefit, not just those who have the money to PayPerView as a
customer at one of these leased establishments.

Also, please consider that using any of this area for storage, results in the removal of parking for customers all along Spirit Alley which in turn affects all businesses
along Monarch Street
Thank you and I trust that you will make every effort to maintain the Historic Character of the Alameda Naval Air Station for now and future generations.

Sincerely,
Therese Hall
From: Herb Behrstock
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hanger 1: oppose impediments to open views, or approval of lease violating current ordinance/standards
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:09:14 PM
Clerk -- Please convey to the Mayor and City Council before its session scheduled for tonight.

I oppose any concession to the proposed leasee of the "Hanger One" building that is in violation of current ordinances and standards that the Navy and City of Alameda have in force. In particular I oppose any waiver or omission that would allow the leasee to block the views of the SF Bay, or that would be out of harmony with the practice of other tenants leasing on Spirits Row.

Thank you.

Herbert Behrstock
Harbor Bay Isle resident
[email protected]
510-864-9005
From: Trish Spencer
To: Irma Glidden; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 5-H Gold Bar Spirits
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 12:49:32 PM
From: Tod Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:43:08 AM
To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 3-5-24 City Council Meet and City Manager threats against us.

Hi Ms. Herrera Spencer,
Thank you for the reply on this. You are the only one we have heard from and have not received any resolve or contact from the City manager relating to the correspondence we sent her.

Yes we would like you to facilitate attachment to the agenda.

Thank you for all the work you do for the people and businesses of Alameda.

Tod and Estela
Building43Winery
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 18, 2024, at 4:55 PM, Trish Spencer <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Hickman,
Thank you for your email. I believe it relates to Agenda Item 5-H. However, it doesn't appear that you've cc'd the City Clerk. If you'd like it to be attached to the agenda item, please let me know or email to [email protected].

Sincerely,
Trish Herrera Spencer
Councilmember
From: Tod Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 6:24:23 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Malia Vella Council Member <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3-5-24 City Council Meet and City Manager threats against us.

Hello City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter, "Letter to Council RE Ms. Ott threats" in PDF format. Also see the associated email chain titled "Comments".

We take this situation and Ms. Ott's threats very serious.

We are pleading for resolve.

Respectfully,
Tod and Estela
Building43Winery
From: Diane Ferris Weiler
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 9:13:16 AM
Dear Mayor and City Coucil members,
Re: 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St.

I am an Alameda West End resident who frequently goes to this area for recreation. An obstruction here to the view would be an eyesore and significantly affect the beauty of this public space. My family walks, bikes and drives around this area to enjoy the spectacular and unique views.

Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

The area also falls within the NRHP Historic District. Since the building is located in "Zone 1" of the historic district where the guidelines state, "No new buildings, light posts, vegetation greater than 4 feet in height, landscape turf, or other structures greater than 4 feet in height shall be constructed," please draft the lease to incorporate this language. Please also remove the current 7' x 15' x 24' chain-link enclosure with wooden slats that appears to violate the guidelines specified for maintaining the character of the historic district.

Thank you,
Diane Ferris
Alameda resident for over 20 years
From: Donna Fletcher
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Agenda Item 5-H: Please protect our view corridor! Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:57:20 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Members of the Council,
Please prioritize protecting Alameda's spectacular views of the San Francisco Bay by amending the lease for Building 22 to restrict the use of outdoor storage equipment currently blocking our precious waterfront .

I understand that Building 22 also falls under the guidelines of the National Register of Historic Places which state that no new structures higher than 4 ft. should be constructed. If this is the case, please request the removal of a 7'x15'x24' chain-link enclosure on the property which appears to violate these guidelines.

Alameda's prime location for unobstructed views of the San Francisco Bay is a unique asset which Alamedans greatly value.

Please help us protect this asset in current and future development planned for Alameda Point.

Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Donna Fletcher
112 Centre Court
From: Shelby S
To: City Clerk; Trish Spencer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ah, the Hangar 22 fence issue...sigh...

Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:08:21 PM
Councilmember Spencer-
I suppose I'm not the only one who noticed staff's "supplemental memo" was non- responsive to your questions.

This item is full of biasing obfuscation, including no one paying any attention to the fact that the rent will be free to the proposed tenant for an entire year, and it wont be open to the public for at least that long.

They are not ready to lease this property (at least not for the purported purpose...which make ya wonder about all sorts of things they might be wanting to hide behind fences).

What kind of "reviving Spirits Alley" plan is that?
What are they really up to?

And what is with that silly sentence they added to the lease? This is what they come up with? COME ON! It feels like we're being punked, right? It is also another obvious attempt to "chink-chink-chink" down the values of the historic resources.

Tsk tsk.

If only we had a citizen oversight board whose sole purpose is to protect the City's historic resources--if only Alameda had a Charter that gave broad authority to that Board--and if only Alameda had a process to review these types of things, like--where a permit would need a "Certificate of ..of...mmm--maybe we could call it a "Certificate of APPROVAL" And if only the Alameda Zoning Code spoke to this issue.

Then the lease could say "any exterior alterations are subject to review by the Historical Advisory Board and must obtain a Certificate of Approval." Wouldn't that be cool?
Good luck tonight.
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
From: Carme001
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Meeting- Agenda 5-H
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 9:33:23 PM
Attachments: Zone 1_Alameda Point_Marina Area_4 Feet Height Limit.png Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers,
Re: 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

I support new businesses on Alameda Point, and it's really great that a new distillery is planning to take over the Hangar 1 space. But let's make sure that everyone in Alameda will be able to enjoy views of San Francisco and the Bay Bridge as people walk, bike and drive along Spirits Alley. I hope you will support drafting a lease that ensures this for the people of our island City.

Thank you.

Best,
Carmen Reid

From: Jerry Harrison
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect Views along Monarch Ave./ Hangar 1/ Former Naval Air Station Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 9:10:37 PM
Please be sure that the City Council protects the views from Alameda Point when considering the proposed Hangar 1 building lease. Thank you.

Jerome Harrison
1211 Mound Street
Alameda CA 94501
510-521-2358
From: Dodi Kelleher
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Allen Tai; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 7:36:36 PM

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I am supportive of new commercial business in the area, especially to replace that which has been lost, but I am also concerned to preserve the view for all, in addition to whomever might lease the building. Please consider lease language to not only insure no obstructive fencing but also no bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels, pumps or other storage vessels, so as not to block the bay cityscape views beyond the fence area. This language should be specifically compliant to fit within the NRHP Historic District Guidelines, given that the building is located in "Zone 1" of the historic district.

Respectfully,
Dolores Kelleher
From: sheila milberger
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 7:35:32 PM
Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers,
Re:3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

Thank you,
Sheila Milberger & Jon Michels
448 Lincoln Ave
We appreciate your help in supporting our community!
--
Sheila Milberger
510-393-3813 cell
[email protected]

From: Edward Sing
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Reyla Graber
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 5H - March 19 2024 Alameda City Council Meeting Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 7:31:19 PM
Lara - Please forward to the City Council. Thank you!
Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers,
I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

Please also require the removal of the existing 7' x 15' x 24' chain-link enclosure with wooden slats which appears to violate the guidelines specified for maintaining the character of the historic district.

Thank you.

Ed Sing
Alameda Resident 28 years
From: Reyla Graber
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protect our public views at Alameda Point--Regarding CC meeting of 3/19/24Agenda item %-H Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 6:55:18 PM
Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers,
Re: 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

Thank you.

Reyla Graber
Alameda resident
From: Karen MIller
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 5-H
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 6:26:01 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council members,

Re: Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22

I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

Please also remove the current 7' x 15' x 24' chain-link enclosure with wooden slats that appears to violate the guidelines specified for maintaining the character of the historic district.

Regards,
Karen Miller

Virus-free.www.avast.com
From: Geoffrey
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Cc: Alameda Community; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Council citizen comment on 3/19 meeting item 5-H Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 1:48:05 PM
A great view is essential to the success of Alameda Point redevelopment as are good relationships with investors.

Hangar One has been a great neighbor but they are blocking our view. Please resolve this before signing a new lease with them
Thanks
Geoff Dalander
215 Hudson Bay
Alameda, CA 94502
Agenda here: ITEM 5-H
https://legistar1.granicus.com/alameda/meetings/2024/3/5986_A_City_Council_24-03- 19_Meeting_Agenda.pdf?id=470a3608-7edf-4393-a867-121898bd410b From: Ellen Chesnut
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Council meeting on March 19th
Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 6:56:02 AM
Dear Council Members,
Hello. I work as a volunteer librarian in the library of the Alameda Naval Air Museum. We’re on the 3rd floor. I
have the door open to the balcony so visitors have
spectacular views of San Francisco. I think that’s why in their good judgment the National Register of Historic
Places designated the entire area before the views that we see as a district to be free of any impediments.

Once visitors step out on the balcony of our library and see for themselves, I imagine their hearts soar and they are transported visually and emotionallly.

So, I ask you Council members when you vote on Tuesday, March 19th, keep in the views and respect the awesome
history and legacy of the old Naval Air Station.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Ellen Chesnut
From: Alexandra Petrich
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3/19/24 Agenda, Item 5-H (Lease Agreement for Building 22) Date: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2:47:54 PM
Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers:

I am writing to express my concern that the current proposed lease agreement for Building 22 does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as to prevent the blocking of cityscape views.

Thank you.

Alexandra Petrich
From: Shelby S
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Yes, Virginia, there ARE roads between the Hangars Date: Saturday, March 16, 2024 11:03:19 PM
Attachments: image.png
please add to comments on the Gold Bar CC item Thanks :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shelby S <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:41 PM
Subject: Yes, Virginia, there ARE roads between the Hangars To: Jennifer Ott <[email protected]
>
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>, Trish Spencer <[email protected]>, Yibin Shen <[email protected]>, Malia Vella <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Ms. Ott-
At last night's meeting, you stated "Its not a street, its a leased Premises" when referring to the street between Hangars 22 and 23.

However, there is a street there, at least according to the City Parcel map and See ClickFix and Google Earth (see below). As a matter of fact, cars drive on it and park next to it.

Also, all the streets between the Hangars align with the parcel boundaries--but even if they didn't, the leaseholder and/or landowner have at most "nonexclusive" rights to those areas.

None the less, the Historic Guidelines in all cases prohibits view-blocking uses. If you need me to, I can send you the lists I made again. That also means NO FENCES.

HOWEVER--you also know the City has a Historical Advisory Board that is supposed to review every lease and every project at the Point, even if it isn't in the Historic District. I told you this last night but-- even if i didn't---your job is to know this already, and we both know you do in fact know this already.

In any case, you don't need new guidelines, you already have them. if only you would follow them. That's what a CEQA review is supposed to be for. Tell me again why you think its OK not to follow the law??
In other words, if there is a potential lessee who "needs" to store equipment outside that violates these regulations (between the Hangars)--they dont get to, its against the law.

OK=Daily operations moving equipment around (like barrels, forklifts... ), Outdoor seating, also OK
also OK=outdoor storage in the back of the building not over 4 feet (?) high. also OK= outdoor activities in the front of the building NOT OK=Outdoor storage between the Hangars (including storing cars, equipment, pallets, pipes, and/or having a tower outside that violates the biological restrictions) If you need any more advice on what the Historic Guidelines are, or how to implement them, please feel free to contact me--free of charge. Im well-versed in them.

Regards, Shelby Sheehan
FYI--Here is a handy reference for you for the next time (from SeeClickfix but identical to the City parcel map at: https://www.alamedaca.gov/BUSINESS/Geographic-Information- System-GIS/City-of-Alameda-Citywide-Viewer)
NOTE: the Blue Dot is Building 44
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
From: James Hudkins
To: City Clerk; James Hudkins
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Views from former NAS
Date: Saturday, March 16, 2024 5:56:28 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
The views toward the Bay are so beautiful from so many angles and places.

Some of the best are from the Encinal Boat Ramp, along the Estuary and so many other places.

I have seen so much of the Former NAS as a place for the sort of utility which provides opportunities for small business, production of goods and services, employment and paying taxes.

There are so many places with great views from so many places.

The people are much better off if we don't restrict business this way. They do so much good.

A few more view sites do not make much incremental improvement.

Let's not over regulate and let things happen which actually make things better for actual people instead of a few peoples vanity aesthetic.

Jim Hudkins
From: Diana Tweddale
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Building 22
Date: Saturday, March 16, 2024 4:53:31 PM
Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers,
Re: 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

Thank you.

Diana Tweddale
2791 Shaner Dr.

Alameda 94502
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jenean
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 Date: Saturday, March 16, 2024 4:20:54 PM
Dear Mayor and City Coucilmembers,
Re: 3/19/23 Agenda Item 5-H, Lease Agreement for Building 22 I am concerned that the current proposed lease agreement does not sufficiently protect the city views along Monarch St. Please amend the current lease to restrict outdoor storage equipment including "bins, dumpsters, tanks, barrels and pumps and other storage vessels" so as not to allow the blocking of cityscape views.

Thank you.

We appreciate your help in supporting our community!
See:

Base Reuse Guidelines on landscaping and views here:
https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/departments/alameda/base- reuse/environmental/summary_map_of_biological_planning_restrictions-3.pdf Thank you
Jenean Livesey
415 875 0155
From: Shelby S
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: fun with photoshop: Hangar 22 exterior Date: Thursday, March 14, 2024 11:21:31 PM
Attachments: image.png
Hello Clerk--I see my email was attached to Councilmember Spencers communication RE the Gold Bar item for next Council meeting. The email did not have the images showing so here it is again with the images as a matter of record.

Regards, Shelby
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shelby S <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:21 PM
Subject: fun with photoshop: Hangar 22 exterior
To: Trish Spencer <[email protected]
>, Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>
#1. 2022 unretouched #2. last night's presentation --
Shelby
510-435-9263
--
Shelby
510-435-9263

Alameda City CouncilMarch 19, 2024

Alameda City Council
March 19, 2024