In the November 7, 2010, article, “Point Molate casino proposal dead?” By Katherine Tam, Contra Costa Times, Jim Levine is quoted: “…it was the city that asked Upstream to develop a casino project, beginning in late 2003.”

It appears that Levine may be correct, but what constituted “The City” may surprise you – or maybe not. A review of E-FORUMs, including referenced documents and media accounts, indicates that a majority of City Council members and selected staff began planning secretly for the Point Molate casino and a partnership with the Guidiville band as early as 2002. At what time Levine and Upstream became part of that plot is not clear.

What is appalling is the level of secrecy that surrounded meetings and negotiations among City staff, selected Councilmembers who were pushing a casino, Chevron and the Navy. Not only was the public frozen out of these secret meetings; Councilmembers who were not pushing a casino or were not favorable to Chevron were also kept in the dark.

According to a January 18, 2010, article, “ Broker claims city owes $1.5 million for Point Molate,” by Josh Wolf in Richmond Confidential, the casino initiative started way before Levine’s involvement. According to Cushman and Wakefield Real Estate Broker John Troughton, there is “a letter that shows he [Troughton] met with four council members and city officials about Point Molate in November 2002. Council members Nat Bates and Jim Rogers attended the meeting along with former council members Richard Griffin and Mindell Penn, according to the City’s letter, which Troughton showed Richmond Confidential.”
Troughton claims that during this meeting, which four of the then-nine council members attended, the city agreed to pay a $1.5 million finder’s fee if he could convince the Guidiville Band to open a casino at Point Molate. Although the letter documents that the meeting took place, the commitment to the finder’s fee was not documented, so Cushman & Wakefield had no written contract on which to base their fee claim. Apparently, however, Troughton was ultimately successful in hooking up Richmond with the Guidiville band.
By February 2003, a misguided assistant city attorney, Rachel Dragolovich, did not understand the way title to base closure projects were routinely handled by the Navy and opined that the City was at substantial risk with the Navy’s proposed quitclaim deed form of conveyance. The City staff recommendation at that time was to simply let the Navy sell it to the highest bidder. In my E-FORUM, I noted, “This recommendation comes after months of secret meetings among the mayor and senior City staff members with the Navy. Despite several requests for information over the past few months, I, as a member of the Reuse Authority, was never made aware of the substance of these secret meetings until two days ago.”

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and on May 29, 2003, the City released an RFP for a developer for Point Molate.
Proposals for master developer of Point Molate were due July 9, 2003, and seven responses were received. The City of Richmond has informed the Navy that it wished to proceed with transfer of the former Navy fuel depot to the City, and the final arrangements for disposition were to be set by July 31, 2003. The seven responders to the development RFQ were:
Castle Companies
12885 Alcosta Boulevard, A
San Ramon, CA 94583

The Haile Group, LC
1206 Oxford Street
Berkeley, CA 94709

Lowe Investments, LLC
1900 Powell Street, 12th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608

The Eagle Group
EEC
700 Murmansk Street, #7
Oakland, CA 94607

Horizon Partners
201 Third Street, #1
Oakland, CA 94607

Renova Partners LC
1250-I Newell Avenue #236
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

In the summer and fall of 2003, Chevron started to become a player in the future of Point Molate, throwing every monkey wrench it could find into any future development. In a letter to the
Secretary of the Navy, Chevron Board Chairman Dave O’Reilly invoked “the tragedy of September 11,” and whined in a letter to the Navy that the proposed uses of Point Molate:  “… fail to take into account the serious and immediate security risks development of the point Molate property presents to the Bay Area, the local economy and the Richmond Refinery.” O’Reilly went on, “… ChevronTexaco believes that any use of Point Molate must be compatible with the secure and safe continues operation of the Richmond refinery, and requests the Navy to take all appropriate steps to ensure the security and operation of our refinery are not compromised in any respect.”
Instead of responding personally to O’Reilly’s letter of August 25, 2003, the Secretary of the Navy forwarded it to a subordinate, who informed O’Reilly: “The Navy does not have a role in establishing security restrictions on future use of the property related to the Richmond Refinery.”
By November of 2003, the City had not acted on any of the proposals in response to the RFP but instead was in secret negotiations with Chevron. None of the respondents to the RFP had been contacted about interim use of the facility, nor had any move been made toward selecting a developer. In my November 3, 2003, E-FORUM, I wrote: “ Instead, City officials have been conducting secret meetings with ChevronTexaco to discuss a rental of the property for a year or so for perhaps millions of dollars. The terms “slippery slope” and “foot in the door” come to mind. Allegedly, Chevron’s motive is concern for its security. This is a pretty transparent pretense coming from a company whose level of concern about its western flank is so high that it allows a construction camp and homeless encampments on its property and fails to deter dumpers (see West County Times October 26, 2003, “Refinery seeks Point Molate Security buffer – ChevronTexaco officials say Richmond site is secure, but they are asking city to halt plans to develop closed fuel depot”).”
Speculation was that Chevron was eying Point Molate for a future LNG terminal: “ChevronTexaco went on to say that ‘additional LNG terminal projects are also under consideration for potential installation in California.’ There are indications that Chevron’s ultimate plan for Point Molate is to develop it as a LNG terminal for Mexican gas.”
On December 4, 2003, the E-FORUM noted that staff had secretly selected a potential developer, which was an amalgam of several of the responder to the RFP, including LFR Levine_Fricke, which later morphed into Jim Levine and Upstream:
After months of seeming inaction on the future development of Point Molate, Richmond Redevelopment Agency staff surprised City Council members with a request for a joint meeting of the Local Reuse Authority/Richmond City Council ON DECEMBER 16, 2003, to approve a six month Exclusive Right to negotiate (ERN) with a development team made up of two previous proposers, Lowe Enterprises, which included Shell Global Solutions and Henry Kelso, and Upstream Investments, LLC., which included Cherokee Investment Partners, Legacy Partners, the Odermatt Group, LFR Levine-Fricke and International Risk Group.
The various members of the proposed combo development team include real estate developers (Lowe and Legacy), environmental remediation experts (Shell and LFR Levine-Fricke), financiers (Cherokee), planning consultants (The Odermatt Group) and underwriters (International Risk Group). Upstream Investments, LLC, appears to be an organization formed for this particular project that originally included all of the players except Lowe and Shell. I have no idea who Henry Kelso is. The rest are all major players that bring money, experience, and technical expertise.
Interestingly, staff reports that, “We have not come to terms with ChevronTexaco in regard to a lease for Point Molate.” However, the shadow of ChevronTexaco continues to loom large as staff concludes, “ Since the Navy and ChevronTexaco need to be a part of the solution for what is developed at Point Molate, it is not optimistic to think that the ERN can be finalized in six months, however, that is ample time to determine that the developer is negotiating in good faith and if so, the City Manager would have the discretion to extend the term.”  
Despite over a year of secret meetings and plotting to bring a casino to Point Molate, there was no mention of a casino in the agenda item of December 16, 2003, which authorized the city manager to negotiate and execute an exclusive right to negotiate with Upstream Investments and Lowe Enterprises to become the master developer of Point Molate.
Not much happened that is documented in early 2004, but in April, 2004, some 18 months after Councilmembers Bates, Rogers Griffin and Penn along with City Manager Isiah Turner first met with John Troughton to explore bringing a casino to Richmond, those City Council members not involved in plotting for a casino became aware of secret discussions between Steve Duran and Lobbyist Daniel E. Boatwright of Sacramento Advocates with the objective of bringing a casino to Richmond:
Early in the month of March, after telephone conversations with Steve Duran, I recommended an expert in Native American Affairs to advise the City of Richmond relative to siting and obtaining a tribal casino at point Malotte (sic). The point would be an excellent location for such a venture for a variety of reasons. As called upon, I will continue to assist in the casino venture.
By mid-2004, the casino cat was out of the bag but had not yet received any public acceptance or endorsement by the City Council. Yet, the deal had already been secretly made. In a status report prepared by Steve Duran transmitted to Councilmembers today (November 15, 2010), Duran wrote in a recap of the recent history of Point Molate, “A majority of the City Council and the City Manager liked the idea of a casino, and Point Molate was considered the best place because it is not near any neighborhood.” If Duran’s memory is correct, those five would have been Bates, Bell, Griffin, Rogers and Penn. There is no record that this consensus ever took place in public, and it was likely a violation of the Brown Act.
Stay tuned for Part 2.
Copies of E-FORUMS during the period 2002 through nid-2004 that describe the prelude to the Point Molate casino follow:
RAB and Navy at Odds Over Point Molate Cleanup
August 6, 2002
One of the biggest disappointments in my 6 ½ years on the City Council is the failure to transfer ownership of the Point Molate Navel Fuel Depot to the City of Richmond. If there was ever an example of a good project drowning in government bureaucracy, this is it. It was such a simple idea. The navy cleans up the place and gives Richmond the key.
One problem is that the Navy does not want to clean it up before it leaves. And until the nature and timing of the cleaning is resolved, nothing will happen.
One good thing the Navy did was to establish a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) of community representatives to assist it in determining the appropriate level and means of clean up. Unfortunately, the Navy apparently is not interested in what the community wants and is now locked in a bitter struggle with the RAB that includes a personal power struggle between the RAB community leadership and the contractor to whom the Navy has delegated its interests. In a bizarre form of parliamentary procedure, the Navy RAB procedural manual calls for co-chairmanship of the RAB by the community representative and the Navy’s representative. But it is the Navy’s chair who prepares the Minutes of the group’s deliberations and apparently takes license in the interpretation of each meeting’s discussion and proceedings. What the Minutes report and what actually happened is often of two different worlds.
I am inviting anyone desiring additional information to contact Don Gosney, RAB co-chair at dongosney@attbi.com.
Point Molate To The Highest Bidder?
February 24, 2003 After six years of waiting for the Navy to convey the former Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot to the City of Richmond, City staff is now recommending that the U.S. Government, instead, simply sell it to the highest bidder. This recommendation comes after months of secret meetings among the mayor and senior City staff members with the Navy. Despite several requests for information over the past few months, I, as a member of the Reuse Authority, was never made aware of the substance of these secret meetings until two days ago.
Now, without any public discussion or input, the matter is on the Agenda of the City Council (Reuse Authority) executive session for tomorrow night.
A letter from Don Gosney, Chair of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) on this subject follows, and attached files include the memo dated February 25, 2003 (curiously, it is dated three days from now) from City staff making the disposition recommendation and a letter from the U.S. Navy to Mayor Anderson.
___________________________________________
Michael Bloom
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot


Michael:
As a part of the informational packet delivered to the Richmond City Council members on Friday afternoon there was an agenda item for this coming Tuesday evening regarding Point Molate.  The session is set up as an Executive Session which means that it will not be open to the public.  It does not even appear on the City's web site which tell us what's happening at the Council meeting on Tuesday.

Included along with the agenda was a copy of two letters.  The first was from the City's Redevelopment Agency explaining their recommendation to have the GSA sell the site to the highest bidder.  The other letter was from Wayne Arney to the Mayor delineating some of the highlights from a recent meeting he had with the City's Redevelopment staff.  [Transcripted copies of these two letters are attached.]

What has so many member of this community up in arms is the speed with which all of this is happening.  It was only three weeks ago that the RAB was made aware of the possibility of a third party sale and now we're told that all will be a fait accompli in less than three months.

Strangely enough, this all comes as a great surprise to most of the Council members.

While we had been aware of the Navy's interest in an Early Transfer of the site, it now appears that the Navy prefers and is trying to force a third party sale of the site.  This is the part we can't understand.

There is a great fear that Chevron/Texaco will make every effort to secure this property to use as a buffer between their refining operations and any potential for a lawsuit the next time they blow up or spit something into the air.  As you can imagine, should Chevron make the deal, there will no longer be a need for the Navy to continue their cleanup activities.  Furthermore, there will be no redevelopment of the site other than bigger and stronger fencing to keep the public off of their land.

Many of us fail to see how this will be in the best interests of the City or the community.

The actions by City Staff and our Mayor are our concern and the Navy should not be expected to answer for them.  we hired them and we elected them and we can work with them.  The actions by the Navy, however, are not of our doing and, since we neither elect or hire the Navy, they are not responsible to this community.  As you might imagine, we have questions and concerns about what's happening and just why it's happening to us now.

Since it will take the Navy at least a year to seal the USTs and remediate IR Site 3, why is the Navy applying such pressure to rid themselves of Point Molate in the next few months?  The Navy has done such a fine job of dragging their feet these past six years and all of a sudden things have to happen right now.  Had this project been a private enterprise, the amount of time it would have taken would have certainly been but a small fraction of what the Navy has taken and the costs would have been significantly smaller.  At the very least, the cost of overhead would not have been the driving factor in the total budget.

The manner in which this is being shoved down the collective throat of this community, the Navy is making all of this such a financial burden on the City that their only option is to walk away.  There is no way that the City can bring on a developer for the 85% "clean" part of the site when the heart of the property is still more than a year away from possible remediation.  In the mean time, the City would be liable for the maintenance. upkeep and security of the site.  For a financially strapped city like Richmond, this is a cost they cannot be expected to bear.

Perhaps you can explain to me why the Navy has finally made their move and is forcing this issue now.  I can guarantee you that this will be a hot topic at our next RAB meeting and we all will be anxious to hear what the Navy has to say on the subject.

More than anything, Michael, we need to know just what's going on.  The City has been less than forthcoming with information and appears to be negotiating deals without keeping all of the principals informed.  Since the communication between the City and the RAB leaves us not as well as informed as we would like, and we have such a wonderful rapport with the New Navy, we're hoping we can learn from what you have to offer.

Perhaps you and I can discuss this on Monday.  My schedule is pretty loose and I expect o be at (925) 686-5880 almost all of the day.  If you have a few spare minutes, perhaps you can give me a call.

Don Gosney
Community Co-Chair
Point Molate RAB
929 Lassen Street
Richmond, CA  94805-1030
dongosney@attbi.com
(510) 233-2060
fax: (510) 234-8912

Decision on Point Molate Future Draws Near
May 31, 2003
On May 29, 2003, the City of Richmond released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) targeted at potential developers of the former Naval Fuel Depot at Point Molate. The  RFQ is available on the Internet at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/~CED/redevelopment/CurrentRFPs.htm.
There will be a Project Information Meeting on June 11, 2003, 2:00 p.m., Harbor Master’s Building, 1340 Marina Way South, Richmond, California; a Site Tour on June 13, 2003, and the RFQ Submittals are due: July 9, 2003, 5:00 p.m.
It is anticipated that the Richmond City Council will make a decision within the next few weeks whether or not to request transfer of the property from the Navy to the City of Richmond. One purpose of the RFQ is to gauge the level of developer interest. If the City declines the transfer, the Navy plans to turn the property over to the General Services Administration to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. There has been some hesitancy by City staff in the past to recommend transfer because of uncertainty regarding potential liability for maintenance during the interim period between transfer and development and for contamination. It has been made clear, however, that the United States of America will take full responsibility for cleanup and contamination liability in perpetuity. In the initial transfer, 85% of the property, which is the portion that has been cleaned, will be conveyed. The Navy will continue remediation work on the remaining 15% over the next several years. Unfortunately, some of the most desirable portions for development are in the areas where remediation continues.
Point Molate is a stunning waterfront property that includes an intact "company town" called Winehaven, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, dating from the time it was the largest winery in the United States -- some say even the entire world.

There are approximately 290 acres of land at Point Molate above the mean higher high tide line, including 90 developable acres with slopes under 15 percent. Formerly a Naval facility, the Point Molate site is fully assembled, and will, if the City agrees, be transferred from the U.S. Navy to the City of Richmond sometime this year. The City will maintain control over development of the property.

Reuse planning for Point Molate has created a vision reflecting the City’s commitment to achieving the site’s maximum potential. The preferred development alternative in the Point Molate Re-use Plan is a mixed-use village centered around the historic Winehaven and related winery buildings, with a retreat center, light industrial, and other complementary land uses. However, some of the proposed uses in this preferred alternative -- specifically residential uses -- may not be feasible given the potential risk of toxic upset at the industrial operators to the east. The EIS/EIR for the Point Reuse Plan has found that there is a potentially significant, unmitigatable impact upon residential development at Point Molate related to the risk of off-site chemical releases from industrial properties to the east of the Point Molate peninsula. Future development proposals for Point Molate will require project-specific CEQA review to analyze environmental issues.

The Request for Qualification (RFQ) is Phase One in a two-part process that will culminate with the selection of a development team for Point Molate. The purpose of this RFQ is to identify qualified master developers who will be invited to participate in Phase Two of the selection process. It is critical that respondents to the RFQ indicate a minimum proposed purchase price as a part of the RFQ submittal. During Phase Two, the City will issue a Request for Proposal’s to the short list of qualified master developers selected through this RFQ. The RFP will require a detailed development and financing plan for Point Molate. Upon selection of the Master Developer, the City intends to execute a Master Development Agreement.

It is the intent of the City to transfer title to the selected developer upon the selection of the developer. As part of the RFQ process, please indicate the purchase price to be paid for the property in its “AS IS” condition. The developer should not assume that any City or Redevelopment Agency funds are available to the project.; however, the City will cooperate regarding special financing mechanisms to support the project such as improvement districts, assessment districts, industrial revenue bonds, etc. It is the intent of the City to transfer the property to the developer. The Navy has been the lead in environmental clean-up. According to Navy documentation, approximately 85% of the site clean-up at Pt. Molate is complete. The developer will need to assess the environmental clean-up requirements necessitated by the developer’s specific project proposal and determine if additional remediation is required. The developer may need to pursue negotiations with the Navy regarding incremental remediation and other topics related to development. Respondents to the RFQ/RFP may submit written requests for information regarding the Pt. Molate site which will be forwarded to the Navy for review and response. The developer will be responsible for securing all development entitlements, including CEQA processing for project development.

Ford Assembly Building and Point Molate
July 20, 2003
FORD ASSEMBLY BUILDING
Two of the most ambitious development projects in recent Richmond History have attracted proposals from a total of thirteen developers, and the Richmond City Council (sitting as the Redevelopment Agency and Reuse Authority) will be making selections within the next two to eight weeks.
After the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Assembly Plant Partners was terminated in June due to failure to produce some $25 million need to complete the project, competition was reopened. Although the DDA was terminated, the $15 million of Federal FEMA funding was preserved and spent on time for a major start on rehabilitation. Proposals from new developers were due July 7, and a total of six were received, but one was deemed insufficiently responsive to the RFP. The other five purport to have the requisite funding to complete the project and the $1 million non-refundable deposit required to enter into an Exclusive Right to Negotiate agreement. The City Council (Redevelopment Agency) is currently scheduled to interview the remaining five contenders and select one or two for final negotiations at a special meeting on August 4. The five developers are:

STG Realty Ventures, Inc.
915 Piner Road, Suite E
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Orton Development, Inc.
3049 Research Drive
Richmond, CA 94806

TMG Partners
100 Bush Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

HDP, LLC
Harbour Point Development
A Venture Between McMorgan & Company, Mariposa Property and Craneway Associates
555 Florida Street #40
San Francisco, CA 94110

Point Richmond Rivets Development Group, LLC
3288 Pierce Street, Suite M-126
Richmond, CA 94804

POINT MOLATE
Proposals for master developer of Point Molate were due July 9, and seven responses were received. The RFP may be seen at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/~CED/redevelopment/pointmolate.htm. The City of Richmond has informed the Navy that it wishes to proceed with transfer of the former Navy fuel depot to the City, and the final arrangements for disposition are to be set by July 31, 2003. The City Council (Reuse Authority) will probably interview developers in September and select one or two for further negotiation. The seven responders to the development RFQ are:
Castle Companies
12885 Alcosta Boulevard, A
San Ramon, CA 94583

The Haile Group, LC
1206 Oxford Street
Berkeley, CA 94709

Lowe Investments, LLC
1900 Powell Street, 12th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608

The Eagle Group
EEC
700 Murmansk Street, #7
Oakland, CA 94607

Horizon Partners
201 Third Street, #1
Oakland, CA 94607

Renova Partners LC
1250-I Newell Avenue #236
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
One of the concerns some had about Point Molate is that the remaining level of contamination and the lack of infrastructure would result in a negative value, and the City would be stuck with a white elephant money pit. The good news is that the initial reaction from developers projects values ranging from $4 million to as high as $100 million.
One unfortunate sticking point is that the higher value ranges anticipate mixed uses that include substantial residential development. Thanks largely to Chevron-Texaco, residential use of the property will be an uphill battle. In 1997, the Richmond City Council, acting as the Point Molate Reuse Authority adopted a Reuse Plan that envisioned a vibrant mixed-use waterfront community centered around the buildings of Winehaven, a historic community on the National Register of Historic Places. Winehaven was built in 1908 to replace a similar facility destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. Until, Prohibition, it was the largest winery in the United States - some say even the world. When the EIS/EIR was completed, the City's Reuse Plan received a blow when it was determined that Chevron's ammonia storage (half a mile away over a 700-foot high ridge) was so dangerous (within the Alternate Release Scenario for the Risk management Plan) that housing at Point Molate would be “incompatible” with the adjacent refinery. The science of the RMP was challenged by experts, but the Navy refused to budge, and the dream of a mixed-use village withered. Convoluted reasoning, however, left open the door for transient housing, such as B & B, and the prospect of some kind of conference center utilizing the dozens of historic bungalows was still alive. Now Chevron has taken aim at even that, citing security and safety in a letter (see attached PDF file) dated July 9, 2003, to the City of Richmond wherein they conveyed their objection to any development other than "industrial, manufacturing and restricted open space (meaning no people)."

Point Molate Featured in National Preservation Magazine
August 5, 2003
The following story, featured as “story of the week” appeared in the July 25, 2003, on-line edition of “Historic Preservation,” the official magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The text follows this message, and the original can be found at http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/archives/arch_story/072503.htm.
From Preservation Online, the online magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
www.preservationonline.org
Storming the Castle
This month, the U.S. Navy will transfer a historic winery to a Bay Area city with dreams of developing the waterfront site, but an oil refinery could block public access.

Story by David Weinstein / July 25, 2003

Wine lovers whizzing home from Napa often spot a medieval fortress in the working class city of Richmond, seven miles northeast of San Francisco.
But the view from a bridge over San Francisco Bay quickly disappears. Few suspect that Winehaven, as the 96-year-old sprawling brick-and-concrete building is known, once produced more wine than any of its competitors in Napa. Between 1900 and 1919, the Historic American Building Survey reports, Winehaven "was the largest wine producer in America," making up to 12 million gallons a year and employing 400 people.
Yet Winehaven is so obscure that longtime resident Lucretia Edwards never saw it until the mid-1970s, even though she lived two miles away and had spent two decades fighting for public access to the shoreline.
"I fell in love with the buildings," Edwards says. "They are so astonishing, those great red-brick castles. They're so out of place, it just made me laugh!"
The U.S. Navy, which turned the winery into its Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot during World War II, ceased operations in 1995 and plans to transfer it to the city in a few months. Richmond hopes to select a developer later this year for the 320-acre site, which includes other historic and non-historic buildings, warehouses, and a charming company town of 29 bungalows.
Seven developers have expressed interest in the site, according to architect Tom Butt, the city council's leading preservationist, and the council will interview them in September. Proposals vary widely, he says, but several have suggested residential use of the site.
A handful of preservationists and environmentalists hope to save what they can of Point Molate's heritage and ensure public access to the site, which has views of San Francisco Bay, the mountains of Marin County, and the undulating ribbon of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. However, some worry that Winehaven's nearest neighbor, the Richmond Chevron Refinery, owned and operated by ChevronTexaco Corp., may succeed in blocking public access to the site.
The refinery, the largest in Northern California and the city's largest employer, is separated from Point Molate by a 500-foot-tall forested ridge. ChevronTexaco opposes any use of Point Molate other than industrial and "restricted open space," Gary Fisher, a Chevron external affairs manager wrote to the city. Fisher noted that wildfires could spread to the refinery and said security concerns have heightened since Sept. 11. "The opportunity for trespassing and vandalism, including an avoidable increased risk for a potential terrorist act directed towards the refinery, increases with public access," Fisher wrote.
Edwards, who helped list the Winehaven Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978, is worried that Chevron's opinions may overrule all others. "We're a company town," she says, "and we pretty much do as we're told."
Despite its charms, few people find the winding road to Point Molate to see Winehaven, its piers, the charred remains of a whaling station, and East Brother Light Station, an 1870s National-Register-listed lighthouse that is now a B&B. Beneath Point Molate are remains of four Chinese shrimp camps from the 1870s and prehistoric Indian middens.
But under a plan being spearheaded by a local park district, much of the Point Molate area around Winehaven would turn into open space.
Richmond, a city of 102,000 residents across the bay from San Francisco, has 32 miles of shoreline—more than any other city in the Bay Area. Though Richmond isn't a tourist attraction, most of its neighborhoods are well kept, and some are historic. It is also home to Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Park, which recognizes Richmond's importance as a wartime shipbuilding center.
After the 1906 Earthquake destroyed its San Francisco plant, the California Wine Association moved to Richmond, attracted by deep water and easy rail connections to San Joaquin Valley growers. The following year it built the castle, with its medieval turrets and crenellated battlements, a superb example of post-San Francisco Earthquake reinforced concrete construction. Several other buildings, including a steam plant, follow the Gothic theme.
Workers lived in bungalows that were built between 1908 and 1917; some workers lived on a large ferry. A quarry was in business nearby, fishing boats came through, and herders grazed goats on the hillsides. Tourists came by ferry to swim, picnic, and dance at a Craftsman-style hotel, demolished in the 1960s after a fire.
"There was the fishy, salty odor of the bay, the smells of the oil refinery, the pleasant odors of wine and vinegar and ripe grapes that were brought in on gondola cars," said Allene Gordon Stearns, who lived in Winehaven as a girl from 1912-1917, in a 1959 interview on file at the Richmond Museum of History. Her mother, Stearns said, was the only person in town to vote for Prohibition, when Winehaven hung on producing sacramental wine. Production dried up by the mid-1930s.
Although the Navy occupied the site for more than 60 years, its tenure left few visible traces—but very expensive invisible ones. Dozens of buried tanks stored bunker and jet fuel. The Navy will pay for the cleanup even after ownership changes.
The cost of maintaining the site almost convinced the city council to let the Navy keep it. But last month, the council told the Navy it would accept Point Molate, pending negotiations and council approval. Butt expects the transfer to be approved by the end of July.
In 1997, a citizens' committee envisioned tourists browsing through shops, bed-and-breakfasters staying in the cottages, conferences, restaurants, perhaps one or more wineries moving into the castle. One alternative called for 500 homes. The plan still serves as the city's vision, Butt says.
Some members of the council are dismayed by the Navy's environmental report, which suggested that the area is too close to the refinery to allow housing, says Tom Butt, who helped get Point Molate and East Brother Light Station on the National Register.
High-end waterfront homes on a non-historic part of the site would be the best use Winehaven and would bring in enough money to make the rest of it fly, says Don Gosney, co-chair of the Navy's Point Molate Restoration Advisory Board. Gosney, who worked as a refinery steamfitter and foreman for 33 years and serves as a technical advisor with the county's Hazardous Materials Program, says the 500-foot ridge separating the refinery from Point Molate would ensure residents' safety in case of a chemical leak.
Butt points out that many Richmonders already live near the refinery. "Places that are highly inhabited, including where I live in Point Richmond, would be more affected by an ammonia leak" than Point Molate, he says.
Butt remains undeterred by Chevron's opposition to developing the site. The next step for the city council, he says, is to reach an agreement with the Navy about site cleanup. He says that the council could prepare an amended environmental report showing that people could indeed live at Winehaven.
"Chevron will fight any use but industry—even recreation," Butt says. "It remains to be seen whether the city council wants to stand up to them."

Guided Tour of Point Molate

August 5, 2003 Point Molate (former Navy Fuel Depot about to be conveyed to the City of Richmond) is big news lately. Now is your chance to see for yourself. Take advantage of a unique opportunity for a guided tour of Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot from 10 AM to noon this Saturday morning, August 9 by calling MR. WYNN YIN at 1-925-210-2453 NO LATER THAN Wednesday, AUGUST 6 to reserve space.  Five miles of planned San Francisco Bay Trail will run from the Richmond/San Rafael bridge through Winehaven around Point San Pablo to the Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor.

Navy Overwhelmed by Interest in Point Molate
August 7, 2003
The Navy was overwhelmed initially by the number of telephone requests to join the tour of historic Point Molate this Saturday from 10 AM to noon.  By yesterday's deadline, over 120 people had called.  
As a result, some who telephoned a reservation request may have been told that there wouldn't be space for you.
The Navy now has assured us that everyone who telephoned Wynn Yin by yesterday (Wednesday) will be accommodated, although things may be a bit impromptu.  However, please do not show up if you have not telephoned.
ChevronTexaco Continues to Whine about Point Molate
August 31, 2003  
ChevronTexaco continues its lobbying effort to foil the development of Point Molate to its highest and best use for the benefit of the citizens of Richmond. Gary Fisher, General Manager of External Affairs at the Richmond Refinery first wrote the City of Richmond on July 9, 2003, with a request for severe limitations on future uses:
“Chevron Richmond Refinery has concluded that the only land uses that are compatible with the long-term safe and secure operation of the Refinery are industrial, manufacturing or restricted open space. We cannot conceive of a scenario in which residential, recreational, commercial or other similar land use activities would be compatible with the long-term, safe and secure operation of the Refinery.”
Chevron has a 100-year history of ownership of the Richmond City Council, so when the City Council didn’t immediately pull the plug on Point Molate, Chevron must have panicked. Marshalling the big guns, the next round was fired by ChevronTexaco Chairman David J. O’Reilly in a letter to no less than Hansford T. Johnson, Acting Secretary of the Navy. Again invoking “the tragedy of September 11,” O’Reilly whined that the proposed uses of Point Molate:
 “… fail to take into account the serious and immediate security risks development of the point Molate property presents to the Bay Area, the local economy and the Richmond Refinery.”
 Not only is ChevronTexaco concerned about their security, they want someone else to take care of it:
 “… ChevronTexaco believes that any use of Point Molate must be compatible with the secure and safe continues operation of the Richmond refinery, and requests the Navy to take all appropriate steps to ensure the security and operation of our refinery are not compromised in any respect.”
Letters from both Fisher and O’Reilly are attached below as PDF files.
September 11 is the best thing that ever happened to Chevron when it came to finagling a way to control land without doing it the old-fashioned way – buying it. This invocation of security is a red herring of the highest order. Chevron’s 2,900 acres is not exactly otherwise isolated with Point Molate poised like a dagger at the refinery’s throat. About six miles of the refinery boundary is the largely unfenced shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The property is bisected by I-580, an interstate highway traveled by tens of thousands of people daily. Another couple miles are bordered by the Richmond Parkway and various city streets traveled by additional tens of thousands of people. Here and there, Chevron shares boundaries with residences, a yacht harbor, a garbage dump, a sewage treatment plant, parts of the existing Bay Trail and an abandoned city marine terminal (Terminal 4). Currently, fishermen, hikers, boaters and others freely come and go across refinery property. There is even a large recreation facility inside the refinery less than half a mile from its industrial heart that is available for use by anyone who has some connection with a Chevron employee or retiree.
It taxes the imagination to picture how a few hundred Bay Trail walkers, conference participants, office workers or restaurant patrons at a future Point Molate village could tip the balance on Chevron’s security.
A similar property near the shoreline on the Richmond Parkway, but only a fraction the size of Point Molate and lacking the stunning views, is reportedly under contract to Signature Properties for $100 million. That makes Point Molate worth at least about $500 million. If ChevronTexaco really wants to control point Molate, I challenge the $100 billion company to quit whining and step up to the plate like a man and buy it for its true value.
chevron_letter_point_molate.pdf
chevron_letter_to_navy.pdf

Navy Rebuffs ChevronTexaco's Plea to Impose Restrictions on Richmond's Acquisition of Point Molate
September 11, 2003  
It appears the Navy selected a card from ChevronTexaco’s Chairman and CEO Dave O’Reilly’s deck of tricks. Instead of responding personally to O’Reilly’s letter of August 25, 2003, the Secretary of the Navy forwarded it to a subordinate, who informed O’Reilly: “The Navy does not have a role in establishing security restrictions on future use of the property related to the Richmond Refinery.” The entire letter is attached as a PDF file.
Perhaps I was a little overzealous in my previous conclusions about the coziness of the relationship between ChevronTexaco and the Navy. I hope so.
As Richmond moves toward a conveyance date of September 16, there are reports that O’Reilly is growing increasingly hysterical, making demands that the transfer not take place and threatening to go to the mattresses to prevent it. ChevronTexaco appears to be moving into a new heavy-handed persuasion mode, bringing in top secret agencies to intimidate Richmond into submission.
I would reveal more, but I would probably wind up in a cell at Guantanamo Bay for violating some provision of the Patriot Act.
NAVY_LETTER_TO_CHEVRON.pdf

Fog Over Point Molate Clears But Muck Remains
September 21, 2003  
According to published agendas, the City Council will meet in the City Council Chamber at 1:15 PM, Tuesday, September 23, to vote in open session whether or not to accept a quitclaim deed from the Navy. This vote was supposed to have taken place on September 16, but it was held over one week at the request of ChevronTexaco.
There must be a high level of confidence in the outcome of the September 23 vote, because a Transfer and Conveyance Commemoration Ceremony is scheduled for 2:30 PM at Winehaven (Point Molate). The public is invited, and I urge you to come because that may be the last time the public has access to the property.
At 5:00 PM, again on September 23, the City Council reconvenes in executive session to consider a potential lease of Pt. Molate to ChevronTexaco. It seems that ChevronTexaco has continued to meet secretly with selected City Council members and City officials to explore leasing the property. Despite my disdain and suspicion of ChevronTexaco’s actions relating to Point Molate going back more than eight years, there may, in fact, be some advantages to the City. If ChevronTexaco is willing to secure, maintain and protect Point Molate until a developer is selected and under contract, the City could not only save a bundle of money, it also stands to collect substantial rent during the process.
The devil, however, is in the details. This could also be the slippery slope to losing Point Molate forever. ChevronTexaco appears to see the process as the beginning of negotiations for an eventual purchase of the property or some other arrangement to control the ultimate use. Any lease or other contract with ChevronTexaco will eventually have to be voted on in public.

Will Richmond Fire Sale Point Molate to Chevron to Balance the Budget?
November 2, 2003  
Since accepting transfer of Point Molate from the Navy on September 23, City of Richmond officials have apparently contacted only one suitor – Chevron Texaco.
Anticipating the transfer, the City earlier this year released a Request for Proposals to potential developers. Several responses were received from qualified development teams. None has been contacted about interim use of the facility, nor has any move been made toward selecting a developer.
Instead, City officials have been conducting secret meetings with ChevronTexaco to discuss a rental of the property for a year or so for perhaps millions of dollars. The terms “slippery slope” and “foot in the door” come to mind. Allegedly, Chevron’s motive is concern for its security. This is a pretty transparent pretense coming from a company whose level of concern about its western flank is so high that it allows a construction camp and homeless encampments on its property and fails to deter dumpers (see West County Times October 26, 2003, “Refinery seeks Point Molate Security buffer – ChevronTexaco officials say Richmond site is secure, but they are asking city to halt plans to develop closed fuel depot”).
The City of Richmond is broke to the tune of a $10 million deficit, but Chevron Texaco is flush with money. Just yesterday, the Contra Costa Times noted: “San Ramon oil giant ChevronTexaco Corp., the second-largest U.S. oil producer, reported its biggest profit since the 2001 merger that created the company. Earnings exceeded analyst expectations as prices rose and refining margins widened.”
There are hints that Richmond would be willing to “trade its birthright” (Point Molate) for a few shekels to balance its budget. What would ChevronTexaco do with Point Molate? Until now, the thought was that they would simply close it off to prevent development. Now, a more sinister plot has come to light. On October 30, ChevronTexaco announced plans to construct a $650 million offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving and regasification terminal, to be located approximately 8 miles off the coast of Baja California, Mexico.  
Where would the LNG exported from Mexico end up? John Gass, President of ChevronTexaco Global Gas, said, "Growing demand for natural gas in North America is widely projected to outstrip current supply capabilities. We believe ChevronTexaco's proposed Baja California offshore LNG project will help fuel the development of a sustainable, future energy plan for Mexico and the United States and play an important part in meeting this demand."

ChevronTexaco went on to say that “additional LNG terminal projects are also under consideration for potential installation in California.” There are indications that Chevron’s ultimate plan for Point Molate is to develop it as a LNG terminal for Mexican gas.
The City of Richmond is paying approximately $20,000 a month for a 24-hour security presence at Point Molate – which is a good thing. If ChevronTexaco is really concerned about security on their western flank, the first thing they would do is step up to the plate and pick up the tab.
The City of Richmond needs to get with the program of contacting potential developers of Point Molate and selecting one. This slow dance with ChevronTexaco appears to be heading nowhere the City of Richmond should be going.

Point Molate Developer Chosen by City Staff
December 14, 2003  
After months of seeming inaction on the future development of Point Molate, Richmond Redevelopment Agency staff surprised City Council members with a request for a joint meeting of the Local Reuse Authority/Richmond City Council ON DECEMBER 16, 2003, to approve a six month Exclusive Right to negotiate (ERN) with a development team made up of two previous proposers, Lowe Enterprises, which included Shell Global Solutions and Henry Kelso, and Upstream Investments, LLC., which included Cherokee Investment Partners, Legacy Partners, the Odermatt Group, LFR Levine-Fricke and International Risk Group.
The various members of the proposed combo development team include real estate developers (Lowe and Legacy), environmental remediation experts (Shell and LFR Levine-Fricke), financiers (Cherokee), planning consultants (The Odermatt Group) and underwriters (International Risk Group). Upstream Investments, LLC, appears to be an organization formed for this particular project that originally included all of the players except Lowe and Shell. I have no idea who Henry Kelso is. The rest are all major players that bring money, experience, and technical expertise.
Interestingly, staff reports that, “We have not come to terms with ChevronTexaco in regard to a lease for Point Molate.” However, the shadow of ChevronTexaco continues to loom large as staff concludes, “ Since the Navy and ChevronTexaco need to be a part of the solution for what is developed at point Molate, it is not optimistic to think that the ERN can be finalized in six months, however, that is ample time to determine that the developer is negotiating in good faith and if so, the City Manager would have the discretion to extend the term.”  
I know the Navy is a critical player, because they still own the best 15% of Point Molate not yet transferred to the City. However, I can’t figure out why ChevronTexaco has a vote in all this, unless they have purchased one. 
Previous estimates of the “as is“ value by the two proposers varied from $4 million to $5 million. Other proposers not recommended by staff had suggested values ranging as high as $100 million. 
While I am gratified to see some long overdue movement on Point Molate, and I am relieved that it apparently has not yet been stolen by ChevronTexaco, I am disappointed that the City Council did not have a more active role in reviewing, interviewing and selecting the development team. This is just one more example of a passive City Council being spoon fed pre-digested public policy initiatives by staff.
Secret Moves Toward Gambling at Point Molate
April 15, 2004  
According to a letter to Mayor Anderson and City Council Members, dated April 4, 2004, from Daniel E. Boatwright of Sacramento Advocates, the City of Richmond’s paid lobbyist, discussions were held with Steve Duran, Jay Corey and Mayor Anderson in March about locating a tribal casino at Point Molate.  Boatwright “recommended an expert in Native American Affairs to advise the City of Richmond relative to siting and obtaining a tribal casino at point Molate.” As a result of the discussions, Sacramento Advocates apparently received direction to assist in preparing special urgency legislation in the California legislature to facilitate a tribal casino at Point Molate. According to the letter, Sacramento Associates subsequently prepared the proposed legislation and delivered it to Assemblywoman Loni Hancock as well as contacting Senator Don Perata’s office “with a view of soliciting the Senator’s co-sponsoring the legislation.” The bill was expected to be in print in mid-April.
Without commenting on the issue of a tribal casino at Point Molate or anywhere else in Richmond, I am disturbed that a substantial public policy initiative involving a request on the City’s behalf for special and urgent state legislation apparently was decided by one member of the City Council (the mayor) and two executive staff members, one of whom is no longer the interim city manager. This matter has never been considered by the entire City Council, and certainly not by even a majority.
The referenced letter may or may not reflect the actual facts, but if it is accurate, both the City Council and the people of Richmond should have been involved in the policy decision that prompted the actions described therein.
Casinos and Legislation Clarified – or Maybe Not
April 16, 2004  
Earlier Today, in an E-Forum entitled “SECRET MOVES TOWARD GAMBLING AT POINT MOLATE,” I reported an apparent effort to secure special legislation related to a tribal casino at Point Molate. 
Although the letter on which the piece was based, was not clearly written, it apparently referred to two separate subjects. The first paragraph described efforts of the City’s lobbyist to hook the City up with an expert to advise the City on “siting and obtaining a tribal casino.” The entire paragraph follows:
“Early in the month of March, after telephone conversations with Steve Duran, I recommended an expert in Native American Affairs to advise the City of Richmond relative to siting and obtaining a tribal casino at point Malotte (sic). The point would be an excellent location for such a venture for a variety of reasons. As called upon, I will continue to assist in the casino venture.” 
The second paragraph began a discussion of the budget crisis and the need for special legislation, as follows: 
“Also, in March I worked with Mayor Irma Anderson and City Manager Jay Corey, with a view to helping reduce the impact of Richmond’s revenue shortfall and budget crisis. The Mayor and City Manager decided legislation was needed and after they discussed the matter with Assembly Member Loni Hancock, they forwarded the proposed legislation to me.” 
I have since found out from Sacramento Advocates that the legislation referred to is that which would allow the City to issue a Tax Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAN) to solve a short term cash flow problem. It apparently had no relationship with a casino at Point Molate. 
I have also talked with Jim Levine of Upstream Investments, the prospective developer of Point Molate, and he has assured me that any legislation or other activities by the City related to a casino at Point Molate are premature and unwarranted at this time. 
It appears however, that Richmond City Officials and the City’s lobbyist are still in the thick of casino planning for Point Molate, with or without the knowledge of the City Council and the prospective developer.
Casinos and Legislation - Corrections, Retractions and Apologies
April 16, 2004  
I have received requests and demands for corrections, retractions and apologies from several people regarding this morning’s E-Forum “SECRET MOVES TOWARD GAMBLING AT POINT MOLATE,” and the follow-up “CASINOS AND LEGISLATION CLARIFIED – OR MAYBE NOT.”
In order to eliminate any further confusion, I am attaching the Sacramento Associates letter in its entirety as a PDF file. Reach your own conclusions.
More specifically, I want to be clear that, to the best of my knowledge and based on the subject letter, neither Mayor Anderson nor Jay Corey participated in discussions with Sacramento Advocates about a casino at Point Molate. According to the letter, Steve Duran was the only City of Richmond employee who did.
Further, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock and her staff were involved in no casino-related legislation, only legislation required for Richmond to issue a Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAN) to address a cash flow problem. The City Council, including me, as well as the public, was made aware of this strategy as a part of the budget deficit Action Plan.
To anyone who was deceived, fooled, offended or disappointed, particularly Loni Hancock (and her staff) and Mayor Anderson, I offer my apologies for any misunderstanding. Before sending the E-Forum piece this morning, I did try to contact both Steve Duran and Mayor Anderson for verification, but neither was available. I really work hard to be accurate, but sometimes my enthusiasm for exposing governmental errors and secret activities while something can still be done about correcting them simply overtakes caution.
sacramento_associates_letter.pdf
Vote on Point Molate Sale Postponed
August 11, 2004  
Although not official, I have it on credible authority that the Richmond City Council vote on sale of Point Molate to Upstream Investments scheduled for August 17 has been postponed at least until sometime in the following week because the complex negotiations and drafting of the agreement will not have been completed in time for the August 17 meeting.
The Focus is on Point Molate
August 12, 2004  
The future of Point Molate has hit center stage with some of the largest corporate interests in American jockeying for critical advantages with the help of unlikely allies. 
Let’s back up to 1997 when the City Council adopted a Reuse Plan endorsed by a broadly based Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee that called for 84 acres of mixed use residential, commercial and light industrial development and 191 acres of open space, for a total of 275 acres of land. 
In 1997, the California economy was still in the red hot dot com boom, and this extraordinary Bay front property looked like a gold mine. Inexplicably, it took the Navy until 2002 to complete the EIS, and by that time the dot com boom had toileted, but residential development was still soaring. ChevronTexaco managed, however, to douse the prospect of residential development at Point Molate by compiling and filing a Risk Management Plan that very conveniently encompassed the bulk of Point Molate in the Alternate Release Scenario for the refinery’s ammonia storage tanks. 
The EIS concluded that residential development would be incompatible with the risks posed by Chevron’s neighborly ammonia storage. With the commercial development market oversaturated and residential prospects suffocated by Chevron, the future of Point Molate began to look grim, indeed. To make matters worse, the Navy was projecting a cleanup schedule that extended years into the future with uncertain funding. 
In early 2003, the Navy was ready to begin transferring the property to Richmond, but City staff and some City Council members were balking, believing the once promising gold mine had become a pig in a poke and a potential liability. Chevron made an informal “generous” offer to take it off the City’s hands for a few hundred thousand dollars a year, citing the twin goals of securing its post-9/11 western flank and dropping a few coins into City coffers for what had apparently become a white elephant. City hall was inclined to let Chevron walk away with it for a pittance. 
Fortunately, clearer minds prevailed, and the City moved ahead by issuing an RFP for prospective developers and consummating turnover of 85 percent of the property. Ultimately, a group headed by Upstream Development was selected by the City Council and awarded an Exclusive Right to Negotiate for purchase of the property. 
Fast forward to mid-2004. Upstream Development is ready to purchase the property. What they have in mind is ambitious by any measure. Based on information published in the media, including the Berkeley Daily Planet, the Contra Costa Times and the Richmond Globe, the project is a destination resort that includes four hotels with 1,100 rooms, a 300,000 square foot retail mall with 85 stores and 15 restaurants, a 3,000 seat auditorium and a five-star casino. The existing historic buildings would be rehabilitated, and a shoreline park, similar to San Francisco’s Marina Green, incorporating the Bay Trail, would be provided.  
The anticipated construction cost would be between $500 million and $1 billion, providing 1,000 union construction jobs, 3,000 permanent on-site jobs and 2,500 to 3,500 indirect jobs.  
The Upstrean proposal would develop about 70 acres of Point Molate, including the existing historic Winehaven Village, and leave the remaining approximately 205 acres in open space. This ratio is substantially the same as the 1997 Reuse Plan recommended by the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee and adopted by the City Council. 
The proposed sales price for the property is $50 million, paid through a combination of cash and notes, and additional payments to the City would be in the range of $15 to $20 million per year. 
So, what’s the problem? Well, mainly ChevronTexaco. America’s second largest oil company, it seems, doesn’t like neighbors. ChevronTexaco owns the land surrounding Point Molate, and in fact, as a part of the 3,000 acre refinery, they own most of the rest of the San Pablo peninsula with the exception of about 50 acres owned by the City and 10 acres owned by Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor. 
ChevronTexaco has raised the “homeland security” flag and gone on record as opposing any use for Point Molate except industrial and restricted open space. Chevron’s security based objection is, however, a first class red herring. The real reason is that Chevron does not want even a single additional person in proximity to a refinery that will, inevitably, spawn a release, fire, explosion or odor. Also, ChevronTexaco is planning an expansion of the refinery in the future and does not want to increase the possibility of objections, particularly from well financed interests that contrast with the resource-challenged citizens that normally show up to protest the company’s actions. 
The current situation with a lucrative offer from Upstream that will be difficult to refuse has poor Chevron climbing the walls. After over 100 years of investing untold dollars in Richmond City Councils that it could control like puppets, Chevron finds itself bidding for the first time against professionals who offer not peanuts and crackerjacks for a few local non-profits and a few tens of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions but tens of millions for the Richmond General Fund and the citizens of Richmond. 
In an 11th hour desperate initiative, Chevron has assembled the most unlikely alliance of all for a 10:00 AM press conference at Point Molate tomorrow, August 13. Teaming with the Sierra Club, Save the Bay, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Citizens for Eastshore State Park and the East Bay Regional Park District, ChevronTexaco will make a “historic offer” to preserve the Point Molate Shoreline and “prevent Indian casino development.” For more information, contact Marcus Young at Singer Associates, 415/227-9700, cell 415/595-4341. 
The reality is that the designated open space on the Point San Pablo peninsula consists of over 1,000 acres, about 800 of which is owned by Chevron and the remaining 200 or so is within the Point Molate property. The Upstream proposal would convert none of the existing open space or native habitat into development. The proposed development is limited to that already included by the historic Winehaven Village and to areas that are already developed and/or are “brownfields” that are undergoing extensive cleanup of Navy contamination. 
What you are seeing here is a clash of titans, the likes of which has never before been witnessed in Richmond. The City Council vote on the contract with Upstream, originally anticipated for August 14, has been rolled back to perhaps August 17 or 24 due to delays in drafting the final documents. 
Meanwhile, using environmental organizations as a front, Chevron (perhaps aided by Nevada gambling interests and card rooms) is blatantly greenwashing its adversarial role. Phone banks have been paid to apprise Richmond residents of the evils of the deal, after which they are offered an opportunity to connect directly to City Hall to express their outrage. After fielding a flurry of phone calls today, City Hall workers were astounded to note that the caller ID showed the calls were all coming from the same phone number. Similarly, City Council members have been recipients of identical mass produced emails. 
The City Council should not fall over itself to sign onto this deal, particularly when the contract has not been completed and has not been made public. The devil is in the details, and we should thoroughly understand the agreement and make sure the interests of the citizens are thoroughly covered. There are those who oppose gambling for moral, ethical or religious reasons, many of which are based on real facts, and these should be considered. Casinos are known to have adverse impacts on certain individuals and certain segments of the existing business community, and these must be mitigated. 
This is, however, an extraordinary opportunity for the citizens of Richmond, particularly when Richmond controls ownership of the property, has the discretion of selling it and can therefore enter into lucrative contractual arrangements with an Indian tribe that would otherwise have sovereign immunity. 
I am neither advocating nor condemning the Upstream proposal, but the games that are being played and the misrepresentations that are being made by those opposed are cynical indeed. Maybe this is the best thing that ever happened to Richmond, or maybe it’s a bad idea. In either case, we should make a decisions based on facts and not on ChevronTexaco’s propaganda machine.