The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-06-04 ARRA PacketJuly 2 ARRA meeting cancelled. Since there are no items requiring immediate. Board action, the regular meeting of the ARRA on Wednesday, July 2 has been CANCELLED. Have a nice July 4th weekend! The ARRA will meet next at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, July 28 at the HAHS Cafeteria for an Airfield Workshop. AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** Alameda High School Cafeteria West Wing, Historic Alameda High School Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Alameda, CA 94501 Wednesday, June 4, 1997 5:30 p.m. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY: (1) Please file a speaker's slip with the secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to three minutes per item. (2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. (3) Applause or demonstrations are prohibited during ARRA meetings. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Report from the Executive Director recommending approval of the recommended priorities for the ARRA's 1998 grant application to the Economic Development Administration. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -B. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director for changes and clarifications to applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to add 17 acres to the City of Alameda's Public Benefit Conveyance request for a Sports Complex, and other changes and clarifications to Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy. 3 -C. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft and sign a letter to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Ships Donation Program, requesting that NAVSEA establish August 15, 1997 as the deadline for a final donation application for the U.S.S. Hornet and that NAVSEA make its decision no later than September 30, 1997. 3 -D. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director requesting the governing body to authorize ARRA staff to prepare and issue an RFP for a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage all or part of the available units in West housing. ARRA Agenda - June 4, 1997 Page 2 3 -E. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for signature by the ARRA Chair and Vice -Chair stating the ARRA's opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening methodology in which the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal -EPA)/ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 9 will not concur. One letter will be sent to RADM David J. Nash, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters and the second letter will be sent to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, att: Sherri Goodman. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -F. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. 4 -G. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: 1. Coast Guard Housing 2. Airfield Workshop 3. Public Trust Appraisal 4. BCDC Port Priority Designation. 4 -H. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary, at 864 -3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. This meeting will be videotaped for broadcast on cable channel 22 on the following evening, Thursday, June 5, at 7:30 p.m. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 2, 1997. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, May 7, 1997 The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District (arrived at 5:37 p.m.) Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr. /Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:39 p.m.) Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:40 p.m.) Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Ardella Dailey, Ex- officio member, Alameda Unified School District Absent: Lee Perez, Ex- officio member, Base Reuse Advisory Group Chair Appezzato introduced Jim Flint, Alameda's new City Manager. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular and special meetings of March 5, 1997. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of March 15, 1997. 2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 1, 1997. 2 -D. Recommending the appointment of Ardella Dailey to serve as the AUSD representative to the BRAG and Chair of the Education Work Group. 2 -E. Report from the Executive Director recommending the adoption of a resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to represent the ARRA and submit the application for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. Alternate Leonhardy moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Daysog seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Absent: 2 - DeWitt and Lucas. ®recycled paper 1 C: \MWARD\MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997\5- 7- 97.MIN 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -F. Report and recommendation by the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelop- ment Authority (ARRA) for the proposed 1997 budget for ARRA lease revenue. Executive Director Miller stated that the significant lease revenues being generated will allow the ARRA fund implementation activities that OEA and the State will not fund, pay for maintenance and upkeep of leased buildings, and provide the match money for the $3 million EDA grant for structural upgrades to eight buildings which can then generate revenue. Member Daysog announced that he would recuse himself from this discussion and vote. Member DeWitt requested that staff prepare future budgets using the City's budget format. Member Kerr stated that the Navy had been paid for the deconstruction of some buildings on base and asked if staff had put out bids for people to pay ARRA to deconstruct buildings. Executive Director Miller replied that one of the budget items is for a deconstruction/demolition demonstration project for $24,000. This model project is being sponsored by the EBCRC as a model for base closures around the country. Member Swanson added that the objective of the EBCRC in this project is to prove to the federal government that it can be done for a specific cost to try and entice the federal government to become a partner with LRAs to share some of the cost in deconstruction. This investment may provide a return if these projects are successful. Mr. Swanson stated for the record that when we the conversion effort began it was forecast that the activities of the base could cost the City treasury up to $10 million. It became clear that planning and strategies would have to be formulated that would lead to revenue - generating activities at the base. Now, when the base is just in the preliminary stage of being turned over, the fact that a budget has been submitted for approval that is based on lease revenues is very impressive. It requires some pause and consideration that the plan is working and we are on the right track. Lease revenues will grow and although there are hurdles to be overcome it represents a plan that is coming together and represents a job well done. Chair Appezzato stated that it is miraculous what this community has accomplished in the four years (this summer) since base closure was announced. With minimal staff and despite major impediments, we have been succeeding. The goal was not to tap the general fund for base conversion and it has not been necessary to do so to. Many Naval officials he has spoken to say that Alameda, if not number one in the base conversion process, is definitely tied for that position with almost any other base conversion in the country. A preliminary budget based on lease revenues is exciting. He closed with a "well done" to all involved. Member DeWitt commented that he is very pleased with the budget and the number of leases we have but is still nervous because the budget still falls approximately $2 million short of what we will need once the Navy stops helping us. He added that we must be diligent to market and use the property wisely. Member DeWitt moved to accept the budget as presented by the Executive Director. Member Kerr seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Recused: 1 - Daysog. Absent: 0. 3 -G. Report and recommendation that the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to enter into an MOU with the CIC— subject to ratification by both CIC and ARRA —to conduct an RFP process to select a developer to purchase the East housing for development. ®recycled paper 2 C:\MWARD \MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997\5- 7- 97.MIN Executive Director Miller stated that the March 15 workshop on cash flow analysis indicated that the best mechanism to maximize early revenues to the ARRA for East Housing would be to sell the property to a developer for redevelopment. Sitting as the CIC, Councilmember Kerr had asked the CIC staff to look at the possibility of issuing a Phase 2 RFP to the FISC developers to also redevelop the East housing. As the property in East Housing would come through the Economic Development Conveyance to the ARRA (since it is not a part of an existing City redevelopment project area), the only way the CIC could move forward was if they were requested to do so by the ARRA. That is the action being requested this evening. Ms. Miller continued that by adopting the budget earlier, the ARRA authorized $75,000 of lease revenue proceeds to be transferred to the Community Development staff to develop an RFP and begin a developer selection process for the East Housing. Member Daysog stated his preference that East Housing be integrated with the FISC development and limited to the three FISC developers for efficiency in the perspective of both the developer in matching East Housing to the FISC development to ensure appropriateness and efficiency in administering the development process. A thorough discussion followed of the pros and cons of limiting the RFP to the three FISC developers versus opening it up to other residential developers to provide the broadest field of concepts and proposals. Member Daysog moved to accept the recommendation with an addendum to limit the RFP for East Housing to the three FISC groups: Martin, Catellus, and Lincoln Properties. Member Kerr seconded the motion. Chair Appezzato asked the General Counsel if this motion would require the vote of three councilmembers or a simple majority of the ARRA. General Counsel Carol Korade answered that a simple majority of ARRA would carry the motion. The motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 3 - Daysog, Kerr, Lucas. Nays: 4 - Appezzato, DeWitt, Ornelas, Swanson. Abstain: 2 - Chan, Leonhardy. Member DeWitt made a motion to accept the recommendation with the change that the RFP should be available to all qualified developers, not just residential developers. Alternate Ornelas seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6 - Appezzato, Chan, Daysog, DeWitt, Ornelas, Swanson. Chan. Noes: 2 - Kerr, Lucas. Abstain: 1 - Leonhardy. 3 -H. Report from the Executive Director on the background and current status of the Pan Pacific University (PPU) use proposed for a 65 -acre site at NAS Alameda and recommendation that the PPU use proposal be terminated and an alternative use be found for the 65 -acre site. After a short introduction from Executive Director Miller, Member Lucas stated that she was glad this had finally come to the ARRA board. She further stated that PPU was not financially qualified and was proposing a non - accredited school which would have been second -rate. She agreed with the staff report recommendations and proposed to expand recommendation #2 to insure that In the campaign to find other users, the following parameters should be followed: (1) Financial qualifications should be required at the outset to ensure there is financial stability; (2) Ensure the plan submitted by the applicant is for a first -rate accredited school. (3) The idea of a school is good —look at nationally accredited schools and open it up for a national bid. Member Chan asked where we are in the issue of the Tidelands Trust. Executive Director Miller replied that the Tidelands Trust was not only a problem for PPU but would be for any user in that ®recycled paper 3 C:\MWARD \MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997 \5- 7- 97.MIN area. If we have another university we will be faced with the same issue of having to free it from the trust. Many other users would have the same kind of restriction. ARRA staff and State Lands have jointly selected an appraiser to look at properties that we would propose to trade into the trust as well as properties to be freed from the trust. Once the appraisal is completed there will be an idea of the cost to other users to free the property from the trust for non -trust uses. Member Chan asked if a scaled -down request had been received from PPU. Ms. Miller referred to a letter from PPU's attorney expressing interest in a scaled -down campus to lease the BEQ, the kitchen, the BEQ 2 and BEQ 4, beginning with about 800 students in undergraduate programs. They have not yet submitted a proposal but they have been advised that financial viability, programs, and accreditation questions would still apply to the scaled -down campus. Member Chan clarified that the recommendation would not preclude PPU from pursuing a scaled - down proposal and Ms. Miller agreed that their proposal would be entertained along with any other user. In response to a question from Member Swanson, Executive Director Miller explained that PPU originally came through the Public Benefit Conveyance process, similar to the museum and the school district. When the delineation of the Tidelands Trust area and its implications became clear there were two PBCs —the museum and PPU— that were impacted. Given that information, the Department of Education determined that they could not convey Tidelands Trust property through a PBC process to PPU. Now that PPU has proven non - viable, the property can be leased and will produce revenue. The Community Reuse Plan designates the area as mixed -use, therefore a change is not required except to delete the references to Pan Pacific University as a lessee under no -cost conditions. Alternate Leonhardy respectfully requested that the item be tabled for one month to give Pan Pacific University time to respond and submit an alternative plan for their finances. Member Lucas pointed out that two of PPU's sponsors withdrew their support, they had not met their fundraising deadline, and apart from the promise of the $3.5 million, there is no evidence that it exists. Member Swanson stated that although he originally supported the project, the ability to perform has not been demonstrated. The ARRA has been fair and has a fiduciary responsibility and so it is time to move on. If PPU comes forward with a credible, fully- financed proposal, it will be discussed. Member Daysog moved that the Pan Pacific use proposed for a 65 -acre site at NAS Alameda be terminated and an alternative use be found for the 65 -acre site, with the Member Chan's proviso that they can resubmit a scaled -down proposal without prejudice. Chair Appezzato clarified that the motion included all the recommendations, with Supervisor Chan's proviso plus the additional financial scrutiny proposed by Member Lucas. The motion was seconded by Member Lucas and passed by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -I. Briefing by Raj appan & Meyer on transportation access limitations and impacts on development potential. D. Paul Tuttle stated that the financial workshop included a discussion of the limitation in development of the site due to the traffic conditions through the tubes. In response to a request by the ARRA governing body for a presentation by the traffic engineering firm, Keith Meyer of Raj appan & Meyer, would present the results of the detailed street improvement plan they had been ®recycled paper 4 C:\MWARD \MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997\5- 7- 97.MIN developing for the entire site. Mr. Meyer stated that Alameda Point is a unique site with immense recreational and commute possibilities. He presented a brief background of their study and an overview of the transportation constraints and possibilities. Their comprehensive transportation plan includes transit, bikeways, roadways, and the need and potential alignment for a new estuary crossing. It also considered transportation alternatives such as auto, bus, bike, transit ferry /water taxi, amphibious bus, electric shuttle, and light rail. Member DeWitt moved to accept the report. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. 4 -J. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. Doug deHaan, representing Chair Lee Perez, recognized the outstanding efforts of Diane Lichtenstein and her Community Involvement Work Group and other BRAG members for all their work on the decommissioning ceremony for NAS Alameda. He reported that the Airfield Task Force is in the process of finalizing their recommendation and the Recreation Task Force is finishing their work on the Sports Complex. BRAG has had an initial meeting with East Bay Regional Parks. A recommendation on the museum is being worked on. The Environmental Work Group has been concerned about the refuge during the transition period between the Navy's decommissioning and before Fish & Wildlife takes over; the BRAG group is actively pursuing their questions. Docent training for the wildlife refuge will be held this Saturday, May 9. The Educational, Technology and Business Consortium is now in place; they have their temporary officers and their second meeting will take place on Friday. He added that this is an important step in marrying the businesses coming to the base with the education and technology sectors. 4 -K. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: (1) Airfield workshop on June 4; (2) BCDC Port Priority designation; (3) Alameda Naval Air Museum application; (4) ARRA move to Building #1; (5) Housing lay -up; (6) Leaseback of housing to Coast Guard; (7) MARAD /Trident contracts consummated; (8) EDA grant funding; (9) Economic Development Conveyance negotiations; (10) Update on the Hornet Foundation; (11) NAS Commissary closing July 26; (12) Refuge management plan; and, (13) NAS Alameda post closure gate access and security plans. Chair Appezzato stated that copies of the written report were available and he invited comments /questions by exception. Executive Director Miller clarified that on item 1— Airfield Workshop, the June 4 date is not viable. Therefore, the regular meeting of the ARRA will be held on June 4. She asked that the ARRA governing body hold June 19 as a possible alternate date for the workshop. Also, item 12 Refuge Management Plan stated that the plan would be forthcoming soon. Fish & Wildlife, however, is now projecting mid -June as the earliest they can have the draft plan available. 4 -L. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, stated how proud he was that Ardella Dailey had been appointed that night as the Alameda Unified School District representative to the BRAG and Chair ®recycled paper 5 C:\MWARD\MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997 \5- 7- 97.MIN of the Education Work Group, as she has worked hard since day one with the NAS Alameda conversion. He added that yesterday, May 6, was National Teacher's Day and Ardella Dailey along with all teachers, deserve support and we must show them that we appreciate their help. Merry Bates , Island Cats Rescue Association, spoke against the trapping/killing of feral cats on base, urging a nonlethal solution such as trap /test /alter to reduce the feral and stray cat population. Terry Walters read a letter from Mimi Cary, chair of the Berkeley Humane Commission urging the ARRA and Navy to meet with the many private groups such as CC4C (Community Concern 4 Cats) that trap, test, vaccinate, alter, and adopt/relocate cats, to explore a less antiquated method of solving the abandoned cat problem. Karolyn May Lount, an Alameda citizen and owner of 18 cats, stated that it is time that we, as a community, take a stand and enforce existing laws against [relocating military families] abandoning pets. Bill Smith, interested citizen, discussed a two -way monorail and electric water taxis. He suggested that East Housing is an excellent place for people on welfare and discussed the merits of employee ownership of businesses. Richard Neveln, a concerned citizen, shared his vision of a limited use airfield hosting international air shows that would return a half - million dollars or more for a few days of discomfort. He suggested that ARRA research/contact communities that have hosted successful air shows. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Member Kerr stated that she wanted to make a brief comment for Vice -Chair Swanson's benefit. An overriding concern is that cats that are trapped are able to be brought into City shelters so that adoptable animals can be identified and not killed before the determination is made. The Alameda Humane Society has a fine shelter and a dedicated group of people and Island Cat Rescue is spending their own time and money on spaying and neutering. Member Swanson stated that Fish & Wildlife is going to have to provide a specific explanation of what they plan to do with strays in their management plan . In response to a request by Member DeWitt, Member Daysog motioned to reopen 4K.5— Housing lay -up. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by unanimous voice vote: 9. Member DeWitt requested that the Executive Director proceed with the feasibility study for leasing of West Housing, which includes the `Big Whites" and the single - family homes aboard the base. Member Kerr stated that during a redevelopment conference she had attended in Monterey, they had discussed the concept of a Project Area Committee —which is now required under certain circumstances where people live in a redevelopment area. If the timing of the redevelopment area formation is right, the people living within the redevelopment area have a say in electing people to the Project Area Committee. There might be a liability there because people who have only a temporary interest in the City might become the people who elect representatives to the Project Area Committee. The Project Area Committee opinions stand unless they are overridden by a 2 /3rds vote of the redevelopment authority —the CIC in this case. The power would be very real and could even make the BRAG somewhat superfluous. She suggested that in planning for any temporary leasing of housing that be considered. A motion to accept the report [4K.5] was made by Member Daysog, seconded by Member Kerr, and passed unanimously: 9. ®recycled paper 6 C:\MWARD\MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997\5- 7- 97.MIN Member Daysog stated that he wants to emphasize that East Housing must be developed to highest and best use and that will be his Holy Grail for the following months. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret E. Ensley ARRA Secretary /mee ®recycled paper 7 C:\MWARD\MENSLEY\ARRA \MINUTES \1997 \5- 7- 97.MIN Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 28, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Kay Miller, Executive Director Report from the Executive Director recommending approval of the recommended priorities for the ARRA's 1998 grant application to the Economic Development Administration. Background: Currently, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has a pending $3 million final grant application with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the 1997 Federal Fiscal funding cycle to do building upgrades at the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS). The source of the funding is EDA Title IX Base Conversion funding. In June of this year, the EDA regional office requested the ARRA submit a pre- application for the 199.8 EDA Title IX grant funding cycle. Regional representatives of EDA have indicated the ARRA could be eligible to apply for between $3.5 and $4.5 million from the Title IX fund. As in the recent past, EDA officials also asked the ARRA and the City of Alameda to meet together to set priorities for Alameda's EDA grant application. In 1996, the ARRA received a $450,000 planning grant from EDA for a building upgrade and street improvement plan. Also in 1996, the City of Alameda received a $3 million EDA Title IX Grant for Main Street road and flood improvements immediately outside the base. Discussion: ARRA and City staff met and established the following priority list for 1998 EDA funding based on four criteria: (1) eligibility for EDA Title IX funding; (2) availability of required local match; (3) job creation —a priority for EDA grant funding; and (4) immediate need. ACET (Alameda Center for Environmental Technology) $325,000 Last year the ARRA approved applying to EDA for an implementation grant for the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) to create an incubator at NAS. ACET has nearly completed all the planning work from its original EDA grant. In early 1998, it is anticipated ACET will be ready to proceed with implementation of the environmental incubator -- similar to the .advanced transportation incubator CALSTART. NAS Electrical Trunk Feeder Improvements $515,000 The Navy's existing trunk feeder system is not flexible or adequate to serve base reuses. There are longer outages for NAS reuse customers, it is potentially unsafe to operate, and it lacks proper protection for electrical equipment. To improve the system, the ARRA's utility study recommended interim and long -range trunk feeder modification project improvements. In general, the developer of a new project provides the cost of trunk feeder extension. Alameda's existing ratepayers do not subsidize the cost of trunk feeder extensions in any new development. For Alameda Point, the ARRA is the developer and would normally modify trunk feeders by the Bureau of Electricity's rules Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 2 and regulations. The Alameda Bureau of Electricity will manage this grant. This is a phased project to be completed over five years at a total cost of approximately $2 million. These improvements are needed to provide adequate service to attract businesses to NAS. Tinker -Tynan Extension $1.1 million Currently there is no direct access to the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) area of NAS. This was not a problem for the Navy, which wanted to limit access, but negatively impacts the development opportunities for the NAS FISC site — which, other than the transportation constraints, has the earliest redevelopment potential. The development of Tinker -Tynan will also alleviate the traffic problems projected by providing direct access from the tube west to the central core of the base. If only Atlantic Avenue is used (which is the only existing access), Atlantic becomes overloaded. An additional east/west connection is essential. Also, the development of Tinker -Tynan opens up the whole area and will provide direct access from NAS residential neighborhoods east to the rest of Alameda — including the commercial and shopping center areas east of the base. The $1.1 million will pay for design, engineering, and environmental work. It is anticipated that when the City of Alameda planning for this road complete, the developer of the FISC site will assume responsibility for actual development of the road. This grant will be managed by the City of Alameda Public Works Department. NAS Building Upgrades $2.515 million Originally in 1997, the ARRA had requested $5 million for the first phase of NAS building upgrades; however, EDA reduced the ARRA's grant request to $3 million. The buildings to be upgraded were included in the Building Upgrade Study funded by EDA. Improved buildings are an immediate job generator that will provide revenue to the ARRA for infrastructure and other building upgrades. Alameda Waterfront Improvement Study $45,000 The City's goal is to make the northern waterfront more attractive and usable as a valuable recreational and open space resource for the community's use and to establish a BCDC approvable master plan and design standards for the 100' wide band at the waterfront. BCDC approval of a plan is necessary for the waterfront dedication. Also, to make it a more integral part of the City's existing pattern of streets and blocks, this study would evaluate the feasibility of extending up to three streets northward to the waterfront. This study will be matched and managed by the Alameda Community Development Department. Should EDA determine any of these new proposals are ineligible for funding, it is recommended that the funds be reallocated to the next phase of NAS building upgrades -- which as a job generator is a very high priority for EDA. Fiscal Impact: EDA requires a $1.5 million cash match (25 %) for a $4.5 million EDA grant. ACET will be responsible for its share of the match, the City Public Works Department anticipates it will have the match for the Tinker -Tynan project, the Alameda Bureau of Electricity has the match for the trunk Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 3 feeder, the ARRA will use lease revenue to match the building upgrade funding, and the Community Development Department has local match for its grant request. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA support the proposed list of priorities developed by the ARRA and City of Alameda staffs, and authorize the ARRA's Executive Director to work with the various entities to submit two pre- applications to EDA in June —one for the proposed construction priorities and one for the proposed planning activities. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee C:\MARGARET\ARRA\STAFF REPIPRIORITY. EDA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 3 SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Executive Director for changes and clarifications to applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to add 17 acres to the City of Alameda's Public Benefit Conveyance request for a Sports Complex, and other changes and clarifications to Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy. Background: ARRA staff has received one recommendation that requires minor changes in the Community Reuse Plan (Plan). This is a request from the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department for 17 additional acres to be added to its Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) request for a Sports Complex. This recommendation was considered by a special BRAG Recreation Task Force, which recommended its approval to the BRAG (Attachment 1). The BRAG considered the recommendation at its May 21, 1997 meeting and voted unanimously to accept the recommendation and forward it to the ARRA. ARRA staff concurs in this recommendation. The first recommended set of changes to the Plan would reflect this change. The second recommended change to the Property Disposal Strategy, Chapter 8 reflects the governing body's recent decision regarding Pan Pacific University (PPU) and direction to staff to eliminate all specific references to the university. Finally, at the March 15 Economic Development Conveyance Workshop, the EPS consultants described the financial implications of several different conveyance strategies. Staff has concluded that we should come to closure on two of these alternatives: (1) to include the Marina area as part of our EDC application and not pursue a Port Development Conveyance, and (2) to affirm our decision to include the Northwest Territories as part of our EDC application. Discussion on Proposed Changes 1-4: Changes and clarifications to the Community Reuse Plan fall into four categories, all related to the ARRA's disposition strategy: 1. Parks and Recreation Request (PBC) 2. Pan Pacific University Request (PBC) 3. Port Development Conveyance Request (PDC) 4. Northwest Territories golf course (part of EDC request) Following is a summary of recommended plan text and plan map changes. Wording to be added is underlined and wording to be deleted is indicated by strikeout. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 2 Proposed Change #1 - Parks and Recreation (PBC) Request The Community Reuse Plan speaks to future park and recreation needs in numerous sections throughout the document, including the Land Use Element (Section 2.0), the Open Space and Conservation Element (Section 5.0), the Parks and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and Cultural Facilities Element (Section 6.0), and the Property Disposal Strategy (Section 8.0). Within each section the Plan discusses a sports and recreation facility developed around the existing swimming pool and gymnasium without specifying the exact size of site requested through the PBC process. Plan maps indicate the location of the PBC request from the City's Recreation and Park Department. Discussion — Proposed Change #1: After considerable study and further planning, design, and financial analysis, the City's Recreation and Park Department has requested a modification in the size and scope of the City's PBC request for park uses. This recommended change would add properties to the City's PBC request for the development of a community -wide Sports Complex. The additional property requested is approxi- mately 17 acres located in the Northwest Territories and 20 acres north of Building 20. Both parcels are west of the Main Gate adjacent to the pool (Building 76) and gymnasium (Building 134). (See Attachment 2 for a map indicating the location of this property.) The existing Plan retained these portions of sites to be requested through an EDC application to allow greater flexibility in reuse of the property. With the finalization of the City's Sport Complex plan, the enlarged PBC would allow the property to be transferred to the City at no cost. If the financing of the Sports Complex is not accomplished in the near -term. (a City parks bond would be required for implementation), the land would be held in perpetuity for future parks use and future development. Recommendation — Proposed Change #1: While the land use classifications and definitions in the Community Reuse Plan are general and flexible enough to cover a minor shift or modification in the City of Alameda Recreation and Parks PBC request, formally adopting the following modifications will make the ARRA governing body's intent more clear and direct to the Navy in the final review and adoption of the ARRA's EDC application and in the processing of the City's PBC applications. Staff recommends that the appropriate sections of the NAS Community Reuse Plan be amended as shown below to include the additional request by the City's Recreation and Park Department. Specific Modifications: Section 2.0 Land Use Element and Land Use Plan Map (pages 2 -1 through Change in Land Use Map: Extend the parks and recreation land use classification color code west to cover the requested by the City of Alameda for redevelopment as a regional sports recreation 9). Changes in Plan Text (page 2 -13) Civic Core 2 -28) additional lands facility (page 2- Pacific University, an institution foeusscd on international tradc and commerce in the Pacific Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 3 between the Alameda Parks and Rccrcation Department and Pan Pacific University. Approximately 740,000 square feet of existing structures have bcn requested by Pan Pacific thc Pars and Rccrcation Department. The northern portion of the Civic Core is intended for reuse as a mixed -use office and institutional center allowing for a wide range of employment, educational, and commercial uses. Existing recreational buildings and facilities along the northern edge of the Civic Core., including the existing gym, pool, and Officers' Club are intended to be redeveloped for parks and recreational uses by the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department. Section 5.0 Open Space and Conservation Element (pages 5 -1 through 5 -16) Changes to Plan Map (page 5 -2) Extend the parks and recreation land use designation west of Taxiway Echo to include 17 additional acres in the Northwest Territories for parks and recreational purposes. Section 6.0 Parks and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and Cultural Facilities Changes to Plan Map (page 6 -4) Add the Parks and Recreation land use designation to the northern site of the Civic Core area extending west to include 17 additional acres of land in the Northwest Territories. Changes to Plan Text (page 6 -5) Gampus-Relat-ed Civic Core Recreation Area The existing Navy recreation area framing the northern edge of the parade ground will be conveyed to the Alameda Recreation and Park Department for reuse. The proximity to the campus arca Central Administrative Core makes these facilities ideally situated for joint use between thc university and public recreation department public recreational use. The City's Recreation and Parks Department will study the feasibility of reusing existing recreation buildings including the Officers' Club, gymnasium, and swimming pool to create a community- wide Sports Complex. Existing outdoor facilities — including soccer fields, a tennis court, and ballfields —will be used and additional sports fields and active recreational facilities will be developed. Parks and Recreation Policies (page 6 -6) 66 -77 Explore the potential to develop a community Sports Complex in and around the existing Main Gate, gymnasium, and swimming pool for a variety of active recreational needs for the City and region, including a major swimming complex, baseball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, and other sports activities. Section 8.0 Property Disposal Strategy (pages 8 -1 through 8 -18) Community Reuse Plan (page 8 -9) 2) City of Alameda Parks and Recreation Department Through the Department of the Interior, the City will receive title to a number of recreation facilities, including the gym, pool, and Officers' Club to manage for general public use. As part Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 4 of this recommended conveyance, the City would also receive property it can develop for additional sports fields. Changes to Table: (page 8 -8) Table 8 -5 Recommended Public Benefit Conveyances (a) Agency /Organization Proposed Use Navy Building Number City of Alameda Recreation Pool, gym, 76, 134, and Park Department recreation 60 areas, open space Navy Parcel Number 92,93,94 95,96,97 101,37,38, 60, portions of parcel 23 and 61 Property to be Transferred landlbuildings Change to Plan Map: (page 8 -18) . Extend the size of the Public Benefit Conveyance designated areas to encompass areas west of the swimming pool and gymnasium, including 17 acres in the Northwest Territories on runway 7 -25. Proposed Change #2 — Pan Pacific University (PBC) Request. The ARRA has taken action to no longer consider Pan Pacific University as viable Public Benefit Conveyance use. Pan Pacific University's request for a public benefit conveyance is covered in Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy (pages 8 -12 to 8 -15). "...the ARRA will maintain long -term control over all buildings occupied by public or quasi - public users. Should these uses provide to be non - viable over some period of time, the ARRA can move quickly to replace the user, without the property having to go back through the federal property disposal process. (EDC 's Public and Quasi - Public Users: page 8 -13)" "...ARRA proposes to include the PPU property as part of its EDC application. These facilities will be leased to PPU at a nominal cost as required. This will allow the ARRA to lease buildings to other job generating users until they are required by PPU, or to immediately find other job generating tenants should PPU not succeed (8 -14 Pan Pacific University)." Discussion — Proposed Change #2: At the last meeting of the ARRA, the governing body took action to omit Pan Pacific University from its Community Reuse Plan for failure to perform the requirement to provide proof of financial capability to perform. The PBC process and the Community Reuse Plan require PBC applicants such as PPU, the Hornet Foundation, the Alameda Naval Air Museum, and any other conveyance request, provide proof of financial ability to carry out the proposed project and provide a detailed business plan. These requirements, in the form of a business plan and letter of credit, performance Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 5 bond, or other proof of credit to carry out the proposed project, were not provided by Pan Pacific University within the time limit agreed upon by PPU and the ARRA. While a change in the Plan is not required, further clarification of a PBC's failure to perform would help clarify the recent changes in ARRA's commitment to Pan Pacific University through the PBC process. Recommendation — Proposed Change #2: Staff recommends that the ARRA governing body add the following language as an addendum to the Community Reuse Plan to clarify findings regarding Pan Pacific University. Specific Modifications: Section 8.0 Property Disposal Strategy (pages 8 -14 to 8 -15) Changes to Plan Text: EDC's Public and Quasi - Public Users: 3) Pan Pacific University After review of the PBC proposal and detailed plans for Pan Pacific University (PPU) the ARRA finds that PPU has failed to provide a sufficient and adequate business plan or proof of financial ability to carry out the intended project (performance bond, financial letter of credit, cash) in the time agreed upon between the ARRA and PPU. The ARRA has determined that Pan Pacific University not be granted lands through the base closure process (either a no -cost leaseback or a Public Benefit Conveyance) and that all requests for such property through the base closure process be denied. In the event that Pan Pacific University provides sufficient proof of financial viability and an acceptable business plan, the ARRA retains the right to lease properties to PPU through the normal ARRA leasing process. Change to Plan Map (page 8 -18) The map will be modified to eliminate portions of the administrative campus area in Civic Core as an EDC for Public or Quasi- Public Uses (Attachment 3). Proposed Change #3 — Port Development Conveyance Application The ARRA is asked to reconsider the strategy of requesting the Marina area of Alameda Point through a Port Development Conveyance. NAS Community Reuse Plan (page 8 -12, Port Conveyance) The Community Reuse Plan addresses the mechanism of a Port Development Conveyance (PDC) in Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy, where it states: "An early determination of the appropriateness of the Port Conveyance mechanism will be necessary for the ARRA to proceed with its business plan required a part of the EDC application." Discussion — Proposed Change #3: Upon completion of the detailed EDC economic analysis (cash flow model), its has been determined that the development value of the Marina areas would be greater for the ARRA (and the Navy) if the Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 6 land is not taken through a Port Development Conveyance (PDC) application but through the EDC process. As a mixed -use Marina, the financial cash flow model predicts the PDC would not produce a "break even" project. The redevelopment costs of the area are too high to be self - sustaining within the Marina project area alone. The PDC process may also require the City hold portions of the property, making sites available for development only through a long -term lease arrangement with developers. The EDC process would allow the ARRA more flexibility to sell the Marina area property and thus provide greater cash flow in the early years of redevelopment when the City faces a greater financial burden for paying for redevelopment expenses. In addition, some of these lands may be needed for trade -out of the Public Trust to allow for a Marina housing development. A PDC process could confuse the Public Trust process, which does not permit housing to occur in a mixed -use Marina. Recommendation — Proposed Change #3: Staff recommends that the property in the Marina area not be requested through a Port Development Conveyance but as an Economic Development Conveyance and the appropriate section of the Plan - be modified to reflect this change. Specific Modifications: Section 8.0 Property Disposal Strategy Changes to Plan Text (page 8 -12) After further analysis its has been determined that the Port Conveyance mechanism is not as appropriate or financially feasible, and that this area should be developed as a mixed -use Marina development and all properties included in the ARRA's EDC request. Corrections to Property Disposal Map (page 8 -18). The Property Disposal Map will be modified to eliminate the Port Development Conveyance from the Marina area (Attachment 4). Proposed Change #4 — Include Northwest Territories Golf Course Site in EDC Request A portion of the Northwest Territories can only be developed as open space and recreation uses because of the restrictions placed on the site by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The ARRA has discussed the potential of requesting this property from the Navy through the Public Benefit Conveyance process (a no -cost transfer). Community Reuse Plan The Community Reuse Plan presently designates the Northwest Territories site as a mixed -use development site for light industrial, R &D and parks, recreation and open space uses (golf course) to be requested for transfer through an Economic Development Conveyance application. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 7 Discussion — Proposed Change #4: A minor change in the Plan would clarify that 17 acres in the eastern portion of the site would be requested for transfer for a City Sports Complex. In addition, an explicit policy statement by the ARRA governing body would clarify the ARRA's intent to request the transfer of the remaining portion of the site as part of the ARRA's EDC request. Additional language in the Plan could also specify that the site could be used as a dredge spoils disposal site, allowing open space and a golf course constructed on top of the fill. If the Northwest Territories are conveyed as a PBC to the City for parks and recreation purposes, the site would remain in perpetuity for park uses. PBC rules restricts any revenue generated from sites designated for parks and recreation uses. It is anticipated that any potential revenues derived from this site (dredge spoils revenue, lease revenues from golf course development, etc.) will be needed to help offset overall infrastructure cost for the rest of Alameda Point. Additionally, PBC rules restrict the range of potential uses for the site to recreational uses only and some concessions that would be associated with parks and recreational uses. Potentially, the existing bunkers in the area could be leased for commercial uses (e.g., wine storage, mushroom farm) that may not be allowed under the PBC process. Recommendation — Proposed Change #4: Staff recommends that the ARRA adopt the additional Planning Policy as part of the Community Reuse Plan. The new policy statement would clarify that the park lands along the waters edge and the 17 acres for the City Sports Complex would be part of the City of Alameda's PBC and that the remaining lands in the Northwest Territories will be included as part of the ARRA's EDC application. Specific Modifications: Section 2.0 Land Use Element Changes to Plan Text: Northwest Territories (see page 2 -25) A portion of the northern edge of the existing airfield is designated mixed -use for a future development site as an international trade and commerce zone, including light industrial uses, R &D development, warehousing, trade showrooms, and other similar uses. This area may include a site for the Alameda Science & Technology Center, an institution dedicated to marrying scientific research and commerce. The easternmost portion of the Northwest Territories adjacent to the NAS pool and gymnasium is intended to be developed as part of the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department Sports Complex at Alameda Point. This 17 -acre portion will be incorporated into the City of Alameda PBC Public Benefit Conveyance application. The remainder of the Northwest Territories will be devoted to recreation and open space uses. Recreational uses will include a Bay Trail and shoreline park, with Point Alameda Regional Park at the far northwestern end of the island. The Bay Trail will be the main feature of a 100 -200 foot -wide linear shoreline park that will run the length of the Oakland- Alameda Estuary and the perimeter of the Northwest Territories, allowing for full public access to the shoreline. Point Alameda, the tip of the island with panoramic views of San Francisco, the San Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 8 Francisco Bay, and the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges will be preserved as regional park, allowing fishing and other recreational uses. The open space areas could include developed recreation uses such as ballfields, soccer fields, or a Scottish "links" style or "roughs" golf course. A public facility with multiple uses could be developed to jointly serve as a golf clubhouse, environmental education center, parks and recreation multi -use center, or retreat and conference center. This area provides recreation opportunities and acts a transitional zone between more intensive human uses and wildlife habitat preserved to the south. In addition, the site provides the opportunity for use as an upland dredge soils disposal site that can be configured with open spaces, recreation and golf course uses on top of fill. Northwest Territories Policies: 2 -57 The Northwest Territories will be included in the ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance request to allow the flexibility for a range of potential economic development uses on the site both in the near term and potential long term. Fiscal Impact: There is a fiscal impact attached to each of these recommendations. The addition of 17 acres to the Sports Complex PBC will proportionately reduce the property available for economic development. The Pan Pacific decision could result in substantial additional revenue to the ARRA —EPS projected as much as $16 million. Changing the conveyance mechanism for the Marina district will add the cost of the infrastructure associated with that area to our EDC cashflow. However, it would allow us to sell the property rather than being restricted to leasing. Finally, the inclusion of the Northwest Territories in the EDC maximizes the flexibility in use of revenues produced by that property. Recommendation: The staff recommends that the changes described herein in Recommendation for Proposed Change #1, #2, #3, and #4 be incorporated into the Community Reuse Plan. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Att: #1 - BRAG Recreation Task Force Memo with recommendation on ARPD Sports Complex #2 - Map showing additional acreage requested by ARPD #3 - Map showing proposed area where quasi - public use designation would be removed #4 - Map showing area where it is proposed that PDC would be changed to EDC C: \M A RG ARMARRA\STA F FREP\P LA N -C HN. G ES City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum May 7, 1997 Attachment 1 TO: Chairperson Perez Base Reuse Advisory Group DRAFT FROM: Chairperson Chavez BRAG Recreation Subcommittee RE: Recommendation for BRAG Action to: Recommend to ARRA to Increase Acreage through Public Benefit Conveyance to Recreation and Parks Department for the Alameda Point Sports Complex Background: _In November, 1993, the Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD), Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) began working to develop a conceptual plan at NAS Alameda for community use. Their plan identified sites for potential parks, recreation, education, open space areas and a myriad of activities to provide quality leisure opportunities and programs for residents of Alameda and the surrounding communities after base closure in May, 1997. This plan was developed with the understanding that the land and facilities would be obtained at no cost through Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) application. After holding a number of community meetings for input, a conceptual plan was developed and presented to the following committees and boards where it received support and approval: BRAG Recreation Subcommittee and Education Subcommittee (February 1994), BRAG Environment Subcommittee and AUSD Board of Education (March 1994). On June 8, 1994, BRAG unanimously endorsed the proposal followed by the Alameda City Council a week later. During their September, 1994 meeting, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) approved the conceptual plan. Discussion: In the Fall, 1996, ARPD received funding through the ARRA to hire a consultant to develop a Sports Complex Master Plan at NAS Alameda (aka Alameda Point). The firm, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc, (MIG) was retained to prepare a Master Plan for the Sports Complex based on a review of recreation and park needs of Alameda and the surrounding areas which this facility will serve. The scope of work for this project included the following tasks: MIG conducted meetings with City staff to finalize a work plan, schedule and logistical requirements to ensure an understanding of priorities for the Sports Complex and a review of the work that has been Chairperson Chavez Base Reuse Advisory Group May 7, 1997 Page 2 accomplished to date. During the second phase of the project, MIG interviewed staff from other agencies and special interest groups from the City to explore partnership opportunities, facility development, recreation programming, scheduling, volunteerism, and fund raising. Four BRAG Recreation Task Force meetings were scheduled to moderate and identify primary issues facing the City, and implications for future facility programs, maintenance, organizational development, management and interagency coordination. Based on their research, MIG developed recommendations for the Sports Complex that included economic feasibility, demographic characteristics of the market area, site location and access and the likely demand that will be generated within the City of Alameda. This information has been incorporated into the final Master Plan and Schematic Design for City approval. The MIG team proceeded with due diligence to complete the Sports Complex Master Plan. They have indicated that, in order to incorporate all of the previously approved amenities into the Sports Complex, it will be necessary to recommend an additional seventeen.(LZ)_acres of land (57 total acres) throu•,h PBC. This recommendation will require an amendment to the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan by the ARRA. Budget Consideration/Financial Impact: There will be no cost to the City if ARRA approves the MIG recommendation to obtain an additional 17 acres to build a 57 acre Sports Complex through PBC. Design, construction, operation and maintenance costs for this complex will be reviewed by the Alameda Recreation and Park Commission later this year. Recommendation: It is recommended that the BRAG, by motion, adopt this request and recommend to ARRA to amend the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to acquire an additional 17 acres through PBC for the Alameda Point Sports Complex. This addition will enlarge the Sports Complex to 57 acres total. Respectfully submitted, Toby Chavez, Chair BRAG Recreation Task Force C:\ OFFICE \W P WIN\WPDOCS\PROPERTY\NAS \CHAV EZ.MEM cc: Members, BRAG Recreation Task Force BRAG RECREATIONAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION On Tuesday, May 14, 1997, the BRAG Recreation Task Force held their final meeting to review the Alameda Point Sports Complex Master Plan which will be presented to the BRAG Commission on Wednesday, May 21, 1997. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Task Force made the following recommendations: • Recommend approval of the ARPD Sports Complex Report based on the premise that: ARPD will explore shared usage to reduce capital and maintenance costs. BRAG's approval includes the goal of the ARPD to achieve a financially self - sustaining maintenance program. • Recommend that the BRAG work with ARPD to develop a strategy for integrating the Sports Complex with other needed Alameda Point recreational uses including: Conference Center Golf Course Marina Uses - Shoreline Trail - Network of Neighborhood Parks Use of Estuary Park and Other Existing Recreational Areas on NAS This requires further evaluation and consideration of the issues such as: Consideration of appropriate entities to develop /manage the other recreational uses. Analyze viability and financial requirements of other components. Ensure coordination of economic/recreational opportunities in both the FISC and NAS areas. - Develop timeline for construction of the other recreational uses. Explore shared use of fields within the Depaituient of Interior for the Fish and Wildlife Refuge. • Recommend that BRAG and ARPD develop a response to the East Bay Regional Park's proposal as to its role in the Regional Recreational Program. • Recommend that the BRAG commend the work of the ARPD Committee and it's commitment and efforts to date to serve the community's recreational needs. • Recommend that the BRAG consider either constituting a new task force or continuing the present task force to address the issues identified above. _1, •tj f Iii' 111111 r 1, 3v �,� J II..J►% • h1 0 k • • b ti S • 6 a a t� :ntiol Structure u 2 1j1 A. R a X z NAVAL AIR STATION / PORTIONS OF ALAMEDA, 'I "14IX lull a 1 I t j1III., 6 NAVAL AIR STATION / PORTIONS OF ALAMEOA, CA 1 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 28, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Kay Miller, Executive Director 3 -C Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft and sign a letter to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Ships Donation Program, requesting that NAVSEA establish August 15, 1997 as the deadline for a final donation application for the U.S.S. Hornet and that NAVSEA make its decision no later than September 30, 1997. Background: The U.S.S. Hornet, CV -12, a World War II, Essex Class aircraft carrier with an outstanding record of valor during World War II, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to its outstanding war record, the Hornet also retrieved the first men to walk on the Moon, crewmen of the Apollo 11 and 12 missions. Since March 1995, the Hornet has been berthed at Naval Air Station Alameda while the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, a not - for - profit, 501(c)(3) California corporation, has engaged in fund- raising efforts to save the ship from salvage and establish her as a museum at Alameda Point, a project approved in concept by ARRA as part of the community reuse plan. The Foundation began its effort in late 1995 when the ship was already scheduled for salvage. In December 1995, the Foundation won a reprieve for the ship when NAVSEA agreed to afford the Foundation an opportunity to fundraise and submit a donation application package. NAVSEA originally gave the Foundation until January 1997 to prove it had the funds and technical expertise to establish the Hornet as a museum. In late 1996, the Foundation submitted an application package. After review in January 1997, NAVSEA requested additional information and proof of financial commitments. To date, the Foundation has not responded fully to NAVSEA's request. In essence, the January 1997 deadline for the Foundation to submit a complete donation application has been unofficially extended with no mention of a date certain when NAVSEA will cut short the process and make a decision. Throughout this time, the Hornet, under NAVSEA's authority and control, has been berthed at a pier at the Naval Air Station, first under an agreement with Commanding Officer, Captain Jim Dodge, and presently, by permission of Engineering Field Activity West, the caretaker command. In April, ARRA finalized a lease for the piers after months of negotiations with its port services provider, Trident Corporation, and with EFA West. Throughout these negotiations, ARRA expected to lease all three piers; however, NAVSEA requested that EFA hold out the pier space where the Hornet is berthed, opining that the Navy should not have to pay to berth the Hornet at a "Navy pier" while the donation decision is pending. Also, NAVSEA pointed out that if the donation could not be made, the process to finalize scrapping and salvage of the ship could run until the year 2001, so it requested that the pier space be made available until that date. ARRA's position has been that its lease with EFA West should include all piers and that the Navy should pay, as the Maritime Administration does, to berth a ship there. The Hornet Foundation plans to pay ARRA a competitive berthing rate for the ship. Therefore, ARRA has been eager to learn when the donation decision will be made. The sooner the Foundation receives the ship, the sooner ARRA may begin to collect berthing fees. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 2 If the donation application fails, ARRA must aggressively press its case with the Navy to receive all piers under lease and recover berthing fees while the salvage contracting process is followed. Discussion: After numerous phone calls between the Base Transition Coordinator, NAVSEA, and the Hornet Foundation over the past two weeks, the Foundation has informed NAVSEA that it will either have funding commitments sufficient for the donation by August 15 or it will withdraw its application. In a meeting with the Base Transition Coordinator, the Foundation Treasurer, Mr. Ralph Johnson, was very positive about attaining their financial objectives. The Foundation is in the middle of substantive talks with major corporations, and Mr. Gerry Lutz, Foundation President, predicts a 97 percent certainty of success. The Foundation was very positive in an informal update to the BRAG on May 21. The Executive Director and Base Transition Coordinator spoke with Captain Gordon Peterson of NAVSEA's Ships Donation Program on May 20 to confirm the process and dates. Captain Peterson explained that if the Foundation submits its final application on August 15, it would take NAVSEA approximately six weeks to review and approve the package. Then, finalizing formal contracts may take an additional two or three months. This time frame is consistent with the schedule staff thought was reasonable — resolution by the end of the calendar year. Fiscal Impact: The Hornet Foundation has agreed in principle to pay a berthing fee equivalent to that paid by MARAD. If the Foundation's application is approved by NAVSEA, the ARRA will finalize a berthing services agreement that incorporates the MARAD fee structure. If the Foundation's application is not approved, ARRA. will enter into negotiations with NAVSEA to obtain a comparable berthing fee from the Navy or, failing that, to have the ship relocated at the earliest possible date. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft and sign a letter to NAVSEA requesting that NAVSEA formalize the August 15 deadline for the Foundation's final application in the following terms: a) If the Foundation submits an application by August 15, 1997, NAVSEA. will review it and make a decision by September 30, 1997; b) If the Foundation does not submit a final application by August 15, 1997, NAVSEA will take immediate action to formally end the donation application window and proceed with the salvage contract process. If the Foundation is successful, ARRA staff will negotiate with the Foundation to finalize berthing arrangements for the Hornet. If the Foundation does not submit its final application or is unsuccessful, ARRA staff will pursue all options with the Navy to obtain a fair berthing fee for the ship or force its relocation. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director C: \MARGARET\ARRA \STAFFREP \NA V SEA. HOR Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 3 -D FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the governing body authorize ARRA staff to prepare and issue an RFP for a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage all or part of the available units in West housing. Background: The ARRA governing body and staff have been deliberating how to ultimately dispose of housing at NAS Alameda (NAS) and what to do with existing units until ultimate disposition can occur. Most of the discussion has focused on the East housing at NAS. At its May meeting, the ARRA governing body directed staff to prepare an MOU with the City Community Improvement Commission (CIC) for them to act as ARRA's agent in issuing an RFP and selecting a developer to redevelop the East housing area. Now that the decision has been made on how to proceed with the disposition of East housing, this recommendation addresses the interim use of West housing. Discussion: There are 341 units of housing in the West housing area. According to Navy records, housing units in the West housing area are broken into three categories: 1. Big Whites. There are 19 Big Whites, 18 three - bedroom units and 1 four - bedroom unit, all constructed', in 1941. These are two -story units with wood frame construction, a stucco exterior, combination single and tar and gravel roof, and a single, attached garage with additional on- street parking available. Grounds associated with these quarters average fifty feet on the front, rear, and side, up to one - quarter acre. 2. CPO Quarters. The 30 two- bedroom CPO units were constructed in 1941 and 1942. These units are single -story units with wood frame construction, stucco exterior, with tar and gravel roofs. Only on -street parking is available for these units. Grounds associated with these quarters average fifty feet on the front, side, and rear. 3. Other Quarters. Of the 292 units that were constructed between 1964 -1966, there are: • 32 single -story ranch -style homes (19 four - bedroom units & 13 three - bedroom units) • 18 townhouses (8 four - bedroom units & 10 three - bedroom units) • 242 apartments (32 four - bedroom units, 190 three - bedroom units, & 20 two- bedroom units) These units are all wood frame construction with stucco exteriors and a mixture of composition shingle and tar and gravel roofs. Parking is available in carports, open parking stalls, and on the street. Grounds associated with single units extend up to fifty feet on the front, side, and rear. The grounds area associated with townhouse units includes front and rear for interior units and front, rear, and side for end units. Grounds associated with apartment units are considered common areas. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 2 Tidelands Trust Restrictions. All of the Big Whites and a number of the single - family units are in the Tidelands Trust. Housing is a use that is inconsistent with the maritime uses allowed on Trust lands. However, we know from discussions and correspondence from the State Lands Commission staff that it is their intent to allow some inconsistent uses on military bases to be "grandfathered in" for a period of time. That period is likely to be defined as the remaining useful life of the structure. Also, properties within the Trust may be leased in the interim for uses inconsistent with the Trust so long as any structural changes to the property do not render it incompatible for future Trust - allowable maritime uses. Simply stated, it appears likely that State Lands will allow the use of housing in the Tidelands Trust area for some period of time. The specific length of an allowable leasing period needs to be clearly defined with the State Lands Commission. Homeless Accommodation. Providers from the Alameda Homeless Collaborative have been promised 89 units in West housing. This includes: U.A. Housing RCD Dignity West United Indian Nations San Leandro Women's Shelter 15 CPO units 20 apartment units and 12 CPO units 30 apartment units 8 apartment units, 3 CPO units, and 1 single - family home Navy Lodge with 72 units that will be reconfigured to 54 units Fourteen of the CPO units slated for the homeless are in the Tidelands Trust and the term of their lease must also be approved by the State Lands Commission. Historic Designation. All of the Big Whites and the two- bedroom CPO single - family units are in the historic district, which has been determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Navy will submit the National Register nomination for the NAS Alameda Historic District as part of its base disposal/closure action. Until transfer of the property by deed to the City of Alameda, the Navy has proposed treating the historic property under the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement to be signed by the Navy, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City of Alameda. During any period of interim leasing, the MOA would provide for maintenance and repair of historic structures. Repairs must be with in -kind materials and historic appearances, both interior and exterior, must be retained when possible. Terms and conditions of this MOA would be design and cost factors for consideration when planning renovation and routine maintenance under the terms of a property management contract. The proposed MOA also provides for long -term preservation planning of the historic properties by providing that the City designate the NAS Alameda Historic District a Historical Monument and afford it all the protection and privileges provided such properties pursuant to the City's historic preservation ordinance. When the property is conveyed by deed, the district will be administered exclusively in accordance with City codes and ordinances. West Housing in Interim Leasing Program Area. The attached memo from the City of Alameda's Planning Department indicates that the West housing could be leased as part of the City's adopted interim leasing program without a change in zoning As with any interim lease at NAS, the housing area would require the appropriate use permits and building permits from the City prior to occupancy. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 3 Timeline for Redevelopment of West Housing Area. The EPS marketing and phasing study indicates that the West housing area will not develop as a new residential neighborhood until after the FISC and East housing areas are developed perhaps as late as 2009. If not used in the interim, the West housing area will be boarded up, some units will be occupied after the ROD (Record of Decision) by homeless providers, and the area could experience blight, deterioration, and vandalism. The Navy will not demolish or deconstruct the units, nor does ARRA staff know of any immediately available source of funding for this purpose. For all of these reasons, staff has concluded that the appropriate interim action would be to lease all or part of the available West housing units and to have the units leased and managed by a professional residential property manager. Preliminary discussions with the BRAG, the Alameda Board of Realtors' Executive and Government Relations Committee, and several other groups indicate there is support for the interim leasing of the Big Whites and single - family homes, a total of 50 units (of the 32 single - family homes, one is committed to the Homeless Collaborative). The matter of whether to lease the other available townhouse and/or apartment units or ask the Navy to board them up is more questionable. Recommendation on RFP and Selection Process. I recommend that the governing body authorize ARRA staff to develop and issue an RFP to find a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage all or part of the available units in West housing. The recommended RFP would call for an initial proposal pertaining to the Big Whites and single - family units only. An optional "add -on" would allow managers to make a proposal on the townhouses and/or apartment units as well. The RFP would clearly state that it is at the ARRA's option to (1) select a manager for all or some housing areas, (2) select different managers for each of the areas, or (3) reject all proposals. The anticipated timeline for accomplishing this process is as follows: June 4 Governing body authorizes the issuance of an RFP June ARRA. staff develops and issues the RFP July Bidders conference and proposal development August 6 Proposal selection and recommendation to the ARRA governing body While this is an ambitious schedule, it would allow a property manager to be selected, immediately undertake necessary renovations, and begin leasing to families in the fall. Selection Process. Staff recommends that the selection of the property management firm be made by a selection committee consisting of members of the BRAG Housing Work Group, the City Manager or his designee, and ARRA staff. This selection committee would make a recommendation to the ARRA governing body on both the property manager selection and the area to be renovated, leased, and managed. Fiscal Impact: Part of the intent of the recommendation to lease all or part of the housing units in West housing is to produce revenue for the ARRA. The amount of revenue generated will depend on: • the number of units leased, • the amount of renovation the property manager must finance prior to leasing, Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority • the length of the leasing/property management contract, and • the skill of the management company in executing the business plan. May 28, 1997 Page 4 Rather than attempt to speculate on the revenue picture, ARRA staff suggests that the proposals submitted in response to the RFP will reflect the market economics and potential revenue generation from various property management scenarios. The selection of the property management firm would be based in part on the projected net revenue generated for the ARRA. (ARRA staff will come to the June meeting with low and high potential revenue projections based on assumptions regarding fix -up costs and rent.) ARRA staff has the internal resources to develop the RFP in consultation with the City Manager and appropriate City staff. Consultant assistance might be sought in developing certain aspects or criteria for the RFP. Any consultant assistance could be paid for under an allowable lease revenue budget category with prior approval of the City Manager. Recommendation: The majority of the BRAG (7 -6) voted to endorse the staff recommendation; however, they requested their reservations be transmitted to the ARRA. They are concerned that if the townhouse and apartment units at NAS are leased in the interim, the replacement housing requirement of the redevelopment plan would or could be triggered. They suggested that this staff report be reviewed by the City Attorney's office regarding the Kl requirement and its implications for this housing. ARRA staff will request that this be done prior to the June 4 meeting. Staff recommends that the ARRA governing body authorize staff to develop and issue an RFP to find a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage all or part of the available units in West housing. The recommended RFP would call for an initial proposal to renovate, manage, and lease the Big Whites and single - family units only. An optional "add -on" would allow property managers to make a proposal on the townhouses and/or apartment units as well. The RFP would clearly state that it is at the ARRA' s option to (1) select a manager for all or some of the housing areas, (2) select different managers for each of the areas, or (3) reject all proposals. Staff further recommends that a selection committee be formed of members from the BRAG Housing Work Group, the City Manager or his designee, and ARRA staff to make a recommendation to the ARRA governing body on both the property manager selection and the areas to be renovated, leased, or managed. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Attachment: 2/13/97 Planning Department memo C:\MARGARET\ARRA \STAFFREP \W -HOU S.ING City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum TO: FROM: RE: Colette Meunier Planning Director Cynthia Eliason Associate Planner ce Interim Leasing of the Big Whites February 13, 1997 You have requested I review the interim leasing program adopted for the Naval Air Station to determine whether or not it is possible to lease the housing units known as "Big Whites." These housing units are located on base on the west side of Main Street. The Interim Leasing Program covers the entire Naval Air Station west of Main Street. The only areas which were excluded were the facilities on the east side of Main Street which are primarily housing units and that portion of the base in the southwest corner which is located in the City and County of San Francisco. The Initial Study prepared for the Interim Leasing Program did not anticipate the housing being leased. At that time, it was anticipated that following Navy use, the housing would be disposed of through rezoning that portion of the base. With the delays on the environmental review on the disposal and reuse of the base, the Record of Decision is now anticipated to occur in May of 1998, . more than a year after operational closure of the base. The Use Permit will need to address this change in circumstances. The uses permitted by the Interim Leasing Program include a modified listing of uses permitted in the M -2 district. Uses excluded were those which consume large quantities of water (food processing, the slaughter of animals, canning operations, and dairy product manufacturing), because of limitations of the water supply system at NAS. Housing requires a Use Permit in the M -2 Zoning District. A.M.C. Subsection 30 -4.11c permits: "Repair, rehabilitation, or modification of an existing dwelling unit where continued use of the dwelling unit would not inhibit attainment of General Plan industrial land use designations in the vicinity." An interim use permit could be processed for the lease of the Big White housing units. An additional finding would need to be made, in addition to the interim use permit findings, which finds that the continued use of the Big Whites would not inhibit attainment of General Plan industrial land use designations in the vicinity. The closest industrial property is Alameda Gateway. Since NAS is designated Federal Facilities, not Industrial, on the General Plan Diagram, we should be able to be make this finding. g: \specproj \nas \bigwhite.mem file: NAS - West Housing - Interim Leasing 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 3 -E SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for signature by the ARRA Chair and Vice -Chair stating the ARRA's opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening methodology in which the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal -EPA)/ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 9 will not concur. One letter will be sent to RADM David J. Nash, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters and the second letter will be sent to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, att: Sherri Goodman. Background: The Base Realignment and Closure Cleanup Team (BCT) at Naval Air Station Alameda consists of Navy environmental staff and representatives of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal- EPA)/Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The U.S. Navy is the lead agency for purposes of managing the BRAC cleanup process but, as stated in the Navy's BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP), seeks a consensus on decisions with Federal and California State regulators. The BCP also states, "The environmental programs will comply with existing statutes and regulations, and all installation restoration program activities will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] of 1980 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA] of 1986." Initially, the most critical objective of the BCT is to identify potentially contaminated areas. CERCLA prevents the federal government from transferring property until all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous substance remaining on the property has been taken. A "covenant" that such remedial action has been taken must be included in the deed. This covenant is interpreted to mean that the remediation action is complete or a remedial technology is in place, operating, and proven to be effective in its application. (There was an amendment passed last year which permits early transfer of contaminated property under certain conditions; to date, no community we are aware of has taken advantage of this amendment.) For most of the past year, the Navy, Cal -EPA, and U.S. EPA have disagreed over the methodology proposed to screen the property for potential contamination. The Navy developed and proposed to use a methodology unique to NAS Alameda referred to as the Tiered Screening Methodology; Cal - EPA/DTSC has insisted that the standard in California is the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA). In several meetings with ARRA staff, all BCT members counseled patience, stating that they "would resolve the issue within a few weeks." The conflict has not been resolved, and recently there have been oblique references to Cal -EPA issuing a cleanup order to force the Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 2 issue. In a meeting with ARRA staff on May 20, Cal -EPA personnel would neither confirm nor deny that a cleanup order was being considered. On February 21, 1997, U.S. EPA, Region IX, sent a letter to the Navy (EFA West Environmental Program Center) to clarify its position on the "informal dispute at Alameda regarding the tier 2 screening risk assessment methodology..." U.S. EPA stated, "... we can not [sic] concur with the Navy's proposal to depart significantly from the risk assessment methodology that we have consistently required under CERCLA in Region 9. In addition, for any property found suitable for transfer based entirely on the tier 2 risk assessment calculations in question, EPA will comment on the Finding of Suitability for Transfer that the Navy can not [sicJ make the covenant under CERCLA... that all necessary remedial action has been taken with respect to contamination on property." [Emphasis added.] On April 18, 1997, the Navy responded in a letter to U.S. EPA, Region IX, stating that the Navy would finalize the Tiered Screening Methodology and complete screening of the property. Accordingly, at the May 6, 1997 meeting of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), the citizens' advisory to the BCT, Mr. Steve Edde, the Navy BRAC Environmental Coordinator, informed members that the Navy would proceed with its Tiered Screening process. Mr. Tom Lanphar of Cal - EPA then told RAB members that neither Cal -EPA nor U.S. EPA would concur in the Navy's process. The RAB members voted unanimously to send a letter (attached) in support of the position taken by Cal -EPA and U.S. EPA. Discussion: The ARRA staff has had separate meetings with the Navy on May 15 and with Cal -EPA and U.S. EPA on May 21, asking each agency to candidly present the basis for its position. As a result of these meetings, we have determined the following: • Cal -EPA's PEA methodology is the standard for property in California. Alameda Point property must be able to compete in the marketplace. If there is the slightest perception that the screening methodology was not protective of human health and the environment, value of the property will be diminished, regardless of the actual environmental condition..... • In the Navy's own briefing, it informed ARRA that if the Navy followed Tiered Screening methodology, Cal -EPA could issue a cleanup order to ARRA or the City of Alameda after it accepted ownership of the property. This is not acceptable; on this basis alone, the ARRA should reject the Navy's position. • The Navy has proposed including deed restrictions for certain parcels of contaminated property without the regulatory oversight and public comment afforded by the CERCLA process. A U.S. EPA legal opinion issued in 1996 states, "Institutional controls, such as deed restrictions, are classified as remedial action." If the Navy uses such "unilateral deed restrictions," the CERCLA process, which considers alternative remedies, would be circumvented. ARRA and the City of Alameda may be pressured to take property with unnecessarily restrictive conditions on use. • The Navy cites increased cost and time as reasons to follow the Tiered Screening methodology. Its estimate to conduct the PEA is an additional $8 to $34 million and 6 to 12 additional years. After speaking with all the BCT members, ARRA staff feels these estimates are greatly inflated. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 3 -F FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Executive Director to authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for signature by the ARRA Chair and Vice -Chair stating the ARRA's opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening methodology in which the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal -EPA)/ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 9 will not concur. One letter will be sent to RADM David J. Nash, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters and the second letter will be sent to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, att: Sherri Goodman. Background: The Base Realignment and Closure Cleanup Team (BCT) at Naval Air Station Alameda consists of Navy environmental staff and representatives of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal - EPA)/Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The U.S. Navy is the lead agency for purposes of managing the BRAC cleanup process but, as stated in the Navy's BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP), seeks a consensus on decisions with Federal and California State regulators. The BCP also states, "The environmental programs will comply with existing statutes and regulations, and all installation restoration program activities will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] of 1980 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA] of 1986." Initially, the most critical objective of the BCT is to identify potentially contaminated areas. CERCLA prevents the federal government from transferring property until all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous substance remaining on the property has been taken. A "covenant" that such remedial action has been taken must be included in the deed. This covenant is interpreted to mean that the remediation action is complete or a remedial technology is in place, operating, and proven to be effective in its application. (There was an amendment passed last year which permits early transfer of contaminated property under certain conditions; to date, no community we are aware of has taken advantage of this amendment.) For most of the past year, the Navy, Cal -EPA, and U.S. EPA have disagreed over the methodology proposed to screen the property for potential contamination. The Navy developed and proposed to use a methodology unique to NAS Alameda referred to as the Tiered Screening Methodology; Cal - EPA/DTSC has insisted that the standard in California is the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA). In several meetings with ARRA staff, all BCT members counseled patience, stating that they "would resolve the issue within a few weeks." The conflict has not been resolved, and recently there have been oblique references to Cal -EPA issuing a cleanup order to force the Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 2 issue. In a meeting with ARRA. staff on May 20, Cal -EPA personnel would neither confirm nor deny that a cleanup order was being considered. On February 21, 1997, U.S. EPA, Region IX, sent a letter to the Navy (EFA West Environmental Program Center) to clarify its position on the "informal dispute at Alameda regarding the tier 2 screening risk assessment methodology..." U.S. EPA stated, "... we can not [sic] concur with the Navy's proposal to depart significantly from the risk assessment methodology that we have consistently required under CERCLA in Region 9. In addition, for any property found suitable for transfer based entirely on the tier 2 risk assessment calculations in question, EPA will comment on the Finding of Suitability for Transfer that the Navy can not [sic.] make the covenant under CERCLA... that all necessary remedial action has been taken with respect to contamination on property." [Emphasis added.] On April 18, 1997, the Navy responded in a letter to U.S. EPA, Region IX, stating that the Navy would finalize the Tiered Screening Methodology and complete screening of the property. Accordingly, at the May 6, 1997 meeting of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), the citizens' advisory to the BCT, Mr. Steve Edde, the Navy BRAC Environmental Coordinator, informed members that the Navy would proceed with its Tiered Screening process. Mr. Tom Lanphar of Cal - EPA then told RAB members that neither Cal -EPA nor U.S. EPA would concur in the Navy's process. The RAB members voted unanimously to send a letter (attached) in support of the position taken by Cal -EPA and U.S. EPA. Discussion: The ARRA staff has had separate meetings with the Navy on May 15 and with Cal -EPA and U.S. EPA on May 21, asking each agency to candidly present the basis for its position. As a result of these meetings, we have determined the following: • Cal -EPA's PEA methodology is the standard for property in California. Alameda Point property must be able to compete in the marketplace. If there is the slightest perception that the screening methodology was not protective of human health and the environment, value of the property will be diminished, regardless of the actual environmental condition.. • In the Navy's own briefing, it informed ARRA that if the Navy followed Tiered Screening methodology, Cal -EPA could issue a cleanup order to ARRA or the City of Alameda after it accepted ownership of the property. This is not acceptable; on this basis alone, the ARRA should reject the Navy's position. • The Navy has proposed including deed restrictions for certain parcels of contaminated property without the regulatory oversight and public comment afforded by the CERCLA process. A U.S. EPA legal opinion issued in 1996 states, "Institutional controls, such as deed restrictions, are classified as remedial action." If the Navy uses such "unilateral deed restrictions," the CERCLA process, which considers alternative remedies, would be circumvented. ARRA and the City of Alameda may be pressured to take property with unnecessarily restrictive conditions on use. The Navy cites increased cost and time as reasons to follow the Tiered Screening methodology. Its estimate to conduct the PEA is an additional $8 to $34 million and 6 to 12 additional years. After speaking with all the BCT members, ARRA staff feels these estimates are greatly inflated. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 28, 1997 Page 3 The Navy's current estimate of the cleanup from October 1, 1997 to completion is $126 million. An additional 8 to 10 percent expenditure to ensure the Navy conveys title to safe, marketable property is certainly reasonable. • The Navy's Tiered Screening methodology sets dangerous precedent for other BRAC properties in the State of California. (The FISC annex property could be similarly affected by the Navy's Tiered Screening methodology.) ARRA and the City of Alameda should receive wide support if they insist that the Navy follow the environmental laws, regulations, and policy set by the State of California. Fiscal Impact: This recommendation will not have an immediate fiscal impact on the ARRA. However, the long- term consequences could be dramatic. The lack of early agreement on these environmental cleanup issues could result in lengthy delays in the ultimate transfer of property to the ARRA and other entities, delaying needed revenue to the ARRA and the City of Alameda. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for the signature of the ARRA Chair and Vice -Chair to be sent to RADM Nash at NAVFAC Headquarters and to the Office of Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, stating the ARRA's opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening methodology in which California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal- EPA)/Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 9 will not concur. The letters must clearly indicate that the City of Alameda will not accept conveyance of property that does not meet the standards of Cal -EPA and U.S. EPA for this region. The Navy is ill - advised to pursue its present course of action. It is not in the interest of either the ARRA or the Navy to accept the possibility of a State enforcement action or to delay the proper screening, cleanup, and conveyance of the property at Alameda Point and the FISC annex site. In addition, the letters must clearly state that further delay is unacceptable. The policy of the Department of Defense on "fast -track cleanup at closing installations" requires immediate agreement by the Navy to follow the methodologies standard in the State of California and in region 9 of the U.S. EPA. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Attachment: May 20, 1997 letter from the RAB to EFA West and DTSC C:\ MARGARET \ARRA \STAFFREP \DTSC -LTR.S YI�L i LCeh May 20, 1997 Mr. Vincent F. Clementi Director, Environmental Programs Center EFA -West, NAVFACENGCOM 900 Commodore Drive San Bruno, CA 94066 -2402 Subject: References: Gentlemen: Mr. Tony Landis, Chief Northern California Operations DTSC, Office of Military Facilities 10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3 Sacramento, CA 95827 -2106 Request for Resolution of Tiered Screening Methodology at Naval Air Station, Alameda (1) Letter from Anthony J. Landis, September 2, 1996 (2) Letter from Vincent F. Clementi, September 3, 1996 (3) Letter from Clementi and Landis, September 27, 1996 (4) Letter from .Clementi and Landis, October 31, 1996 (5) Letter from Ken O'Donoghue, Alameda RAB, August 16, 1996 Your joint failure, after more than two years of negotiations to reach agreement on methodology for establishing cleanup levels for properties located at the former Naval Air Station/Alameda, threatens to delay reuse and transfer of the properties to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and to the community. In late 1996, as documented in the references above, the Navy and the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) repeatedly assured the community that resolution of the disputed issues was imminent. Then, at the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting on May 6, the Navy announced that it was unilaterally proceeding with its own methodology. The DTSC then stated that the Navy was proceeding despite objections from both DTSC and the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA). The Navy's action is likely to slow the entire cleanup process, even for sites not directly affected by the disagreement. This is of great concern to the community for the following reasons: • Navy's challenge to and disregard for DTSC's regulatory authority; this sets an extremely bad and dangerous precedent for cleanup at Alameda. • Navy's assertion that they can act alone and proceed without concurrence from federal and state regulators and in violation of environmental regulations. • Navy's abandonment of its own partnering process and lack of good faith in trying to reach resolution. May 20, 1996 P.3. We appreciate the staff and resources that both of your agencies have invested in this dispute to date and regret that you were unable to resolve this issue at the local level. The RAB looks forward to assisting you in reaching a resolution that is agreeable to all parties involved. Sincerely, Ardella Dailey, Com pity Co -chair Restoration Advisory oard 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 337 -7063 AD:bt Encs. (5) - see references, p. 1. cc: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Congressman Ron Dellums Senator Barbara Lee Assemblyman Don Perata John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy Capt. Robert Hocker, EFA West Mayor Ralph Appezzato, Chair, ARRA Members, ARRA Felicia Marcus, Regional Admin., EPA Region 9 Jesse Huff, Director, DTSC Ben Williams, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Jim Flint, City Manager, Alameda Kay Miller, Exec. Director, ARRA Robert Woods, Chair, Alameda Economic Development Commission Gary Thomas, Chair, City of Alameda Planning Commission Lee Perez, Chair, Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group Tom Lanphar, James Ricks, Steve Edde, Base Closure Team (BCT), NAS /Alameda RAB Members October 31, 1996 Mr. Ken O'Donoghue Community Co -Chair NAS Alameda RAB 2000 Buena- Vista Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Dear Mr. O'Donoghue: This letter is to update you on the progress we have made since our last letter of September 27, 1996. All issues have been resolved, except for one outstanding item. This item is related to transfer of property with a deed restriction and is expected to be resolved by November 27, 1996. An update of the unresolved issues noted in our September 1996 Letter is also attached for your information. All items will also be updated by the BCT at your next RAB meeting on November 5, 1996. Again, it is also important to note that leasing and eventual transfer processes and their associated timelines are of paramount importance to us and, to date, these items have not been delayed as a result of these deliberations. If you need further assistance, please contact Mr. Steve Edde, NAS Alameda BRAC Environmental Coordinator, at (510) 263 -3706, or Mr. Tom Lanphar, DTSC Remedial Project Manager, at (510) 540 -3809. Vincent F. Clementi Director, Environmental Programs Center Engineering Field Activity West Naval Facilities Engineering Command Enclosure cc: Ms. Kay Miller Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Mr. Ben Williams Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 10th Street Sacramento, California 95814 g Anthony J. Landis, P.E. Chief, Northern California Operations Office of Military Facilities Department of Toxic Substances Control September 27, 1996 Mr. Ken O'Donoghue Community Co- Chair NAS Alameda RAB 2000 Buena Vista Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Dear Mr. O'Donoghue: In our last letters to you, we indicated that the State of California (State) and the U. S. Navy are working together to resolve differences in issues related to cleanup determinations and property transfer at the Alameda Naval Air Station. During the last three weeks, we have met two times and the BRAC Cleanup Team has met several additional times. We have made significant progress in resolving all the issues. Our BRAC Cleanup Team will provide an update to you at the next Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting on October 1, 1996, but, in order to keep you informed, we have provided an update of the issues with this letter. As a result of our discussions, we are developing a single streamlined process that meets the needs of both the regulatory agencies and the Navy for property cleanup determinations and transfer. It is also important to note that leasing and eventual transfer processes and their associated timelines are of paramount importance to us and, to date, these items have not been delayed as a result of these deliberations. We appreciate your interest in these matters and will continue to keep you and the RAB informed as we progress towards final resolution of the remaining issues. We estimate that all issues will be resolved by November 1, 1996. If you need further assistance, please contact Mr. Steve Edde, NAS Alameda BRAC Environmental Coordinator, at (510) 264 -3706, or Mr. Tom Lanphar, DTSC Remedial Project Manager, at (510) 540 -3816. Vincent F. Clementi Director, Environmental Programs Center Engineering Field Activity West Naval Facilities Engineering Command Enclosure cc: See next page. Anthony J. Landis, P.E. Chief, Northern California Operations Office of Military Facilities Department of Toxic Substances Control M: \OMF- EXEC\LANDISWLAMEDA NAS Statement of Agreements and Outstanding Issues at NAS Alameda Agreements, as of September 26, 1996: 1. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed that the EBS Phase II Tiered Screening process meets the RFI, and "equivalent PEA" process. 2. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed that Phase II A & B Data Summary Reports will include conclusions and recommendations based only on data collected in the Phase II A & B investigations. The conclusions that can be made are limited to the scope of the investigations. Parcels will not be re- classified (BRAC Categories 1 -7) in this report. 3. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed that information from other programs may be necessary prior to making a decision as to whether a hazardous substance release has occurred at a parcel. For example, information from the Installation Restoration, RCRA Closure, Petroleum, and Lead Based Paint Programs. Information from various programs will be assimilated in the Base Wide Environmental Baseline Survey. For example, groundwater from an IR site may affect an adjacent parcel. 4. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed that a Parcel Reclassification Memorandum will document the classification of parcels into the appropriate BRAC Categories. 5. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed that No Action letters from the agencies will follow the Parcel Reclassification Memorandum for BRAC Categories 1 and 2, and Categories 3 meeting the Tier 1 screen (unrestrictive /residential). Additional Agreements, as of October 30, 1996: 6. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed on the criteria to make a determination as to whether a hazardous substance release has occurred or not, using the Tiered Screening Methodology. 7. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed on a consistent application of "anthropogenic/ambient background" conditions at NAS Alameda by the EBS program. The team is now proceeding with implementation on specific details. 8. The Navy and regulatory agencies have agreed that background includes both inorganic and organic chemicals. We are currently working on the specific details for implementing this information in the IRP and EBS Program. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ENOINEERINO F ELO ACTIVITY, WEST NAVAL FACILIT1US ENOINILERINO COMMAND SOO COMMODORE DRIVE SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 1140604004 Mr. Ken O'Donoghue Community Co- chair, NAS Alameda RAB 2000 Buena Vista Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mr. O'Donoghue: P4 REPLY REFER TO; 5090 Ser 183/L6360 3 Sep 1996 We are in receipt of your August 16, 1996, letter regarding background determination and other issues related to cleanup and transfer of property at NAS Alameda. The Navy and the State have been in protracted discussions because there are fundamental differences in each party's position; and, each party is concerned about doing the right thing. As the Navy has lead agency authority for making cleanup decisions similar to the EPA on Superfund sites, we have an obligation to ensure the cleanup is protective of human health and the environment, consistent with applicable federal and state regulations and guidance, and is based on prudent risk management decisions, We believe these basic differences have far-reaching regional impacts that potentially affect cleanup levels at many other DoD facilities (as well as other public and private sites). These differences include the treatment of created land masses for which, currently, there is not a consensus among the regulatory community. While these issues are taking time to resolve, we have come to some agreement on the process of determining background levels, but need to resolve the following issues: • Application of existing statutes and guidance with respect to engineered fill • Determination of appropriate background data information to ensure that all site releases are properly identified • Evaluation of property for transfer via use of Environmental Baseline Survey Tiered Screening Process or use of Preliminary Endangerment Assessments The Navy and the regulatory agencies had hoped to have a meeting to resolve these issues prior to the September 3rd RAB Meeting so that the total picture could be presented. Because of scheduling difficulties, we have tentatively scheduled a working meeting in the next two weeks to fully discuss and hopefully resolve the remaining issues. We expect to present results of these diszt s.:ions at the next scheduled RA.13 meeting. Sincerely, ‘S/4-4-4— a. VINCENT F. CLElvfatTI Director, Environmental Programs Center By direction of the Commanding Officer 7allEPA )epartment of roxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue Suite 200 3erkeley, CA '4710-2737 September 2, 1996 Ken O'Donoghue, Community Co-Chair NAS Alameda, Restoration Advisory Board 2000 Buena Vista Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mr. O'Donoghue: BACKGROUND DETERMINATION, NAVAL AIR STATION, ALAMEDA Thank you for your August 16, 1996, letter expressing concern by community members of the NAS Alameda Restoration Advisory Board regarding the informal dispute between the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the United States Navy. We share the Restoration Advisory Board's concern that a lack of agreement is delaying the Environmental Baseline Survey. This in turn may be delaying the identification of any additional contaminated sites, and the identification of clean property that is suitable for civilian reuse. The Department and the Navy are working diligently to resolve this disagreement. Our mutual goal is to resolve this issue in order to advance the cleanup and timely transfer of the base. I will be meeting with Mr. Vince Clementi in the next two weeks, with the intention of resolving this issue at that time. We further understand that this issue will be discussed at the RAB meeting to be held this on September 3. We anticipate that much useful discussion will take place at the RAB meeting, and that useful information may be exchanged. After the RAB meeting and my meeting with Mr. Clementi, I will write to you with additional details on this issue. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 255-3565, or Mr. Daniel E. Murphy at (510) 540-3772. Sincerely, thony J. Landi P.E., Chief Northern California Operations Office of Military Facilities Pete Wilson Governor James M. Strock Secretary for Environmental Protection Ken O'Donoghue Community Co- Chair, NAS Alameda RAB 2000 Buena Vista Avenue Alameda, Ca. 9451. August 16, 1996 Mr. Tony Landis, Chief Office of Military Facilities, DTSC 10151 Croydon Way, Ste. 3 Sacramento, Ca. 95827 -2106 Dear Mr. Landis; This letter is to convey to you a serious concern by a consensus of community members of the NAS Alameda Restoration Advisory Board. Our concern is the apparent stalemate in the informal dispute process between California DTSC and the Navy regarding the determination of background levels of various heavy metals and chemicals of concern at NAS Alameda. This lack of agreement on background levels is holding up the Environmental Baseline Survey and Risk Assessments for various sites and parcels and thus delaying the implementation of the Community Reuse Plan. The community requires a swift resolution to this problem which directly impedes cleanup and reuse of the. base. Until now the greater community has, in general, been favorably impressed with the cooperative efforts of the regulators and the regulated and of the progress that's been made so far. However, the inability to establish a focal point for the cleanup process, whether called background, ambient or some other definition, effects community confidence in the entire cleanup effort. The NAS Alameda RAB will discuss this issue at its next meeting on September 2, 1996 to determine what further action might be appropriate to break this stalemate. We look foreward to a timely response to our concerns, a resolution of the background question, and the continued good faith efforts of all concerned to make this installation a model for base cleanup and conversion. Sincerely, Ken O'Donoghue, Community Co -Chair cc: Mr. V. Clementi, EFA West. NAS Alameda RAB distribution. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority F ROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Status report on current activities. 1. Coast Guard Housing. Alice Vilardi of the City Attorneys Office and I have met twice with the Coast Guard real estate and housing personnel to discuss the leaseback arrangement for the housing. At our last meeting the Coast Guard presented an idea to privatize the Coast Guard housing under new authorizing legislation passed last year. While there are many details to be worked out, it could be a real "win -win" situation for both the Coast Guard and the ARRA. The Coast Guard would get out from under the management of the housing —a business they do not wish to be in. The City and other taxing jurisdictions would receive property taxes if the property were in private ownership. As the idea evolves, we will keep you posted. We would hope to be able to present a conceptual proposal in July or August. 2. Airfield Workshop. The Thursday, June 19 date is being held for the Airfield Workshop, however, it is likely that the meeting will have to be rescheduled. We have received a formal response from USFWS on what airfield activities they will entertain on the refuge (attached as 4 -G, Item 2), which will require review and clarification. Therefore, we will be polling members again regarding your availability later in June or early in July for a workshop. Also, under the Correspondence section in this mailing, you will find a recommendation from the BRAG Airfield Task Force. This recommendation will be considered at the workshop. 3. Public Trust Appraisal. ARRA staff and legal counsel have met with State Lands Commission staff and agreed upon the base property to be appraised and the instructions for the appraiser, Bailey & Associates of San Francisco. Paul Tuttle, who is managing this project for ARRA, made a presentation to the BRAG at its May 21 meeting. Paul is scheduled to make a presentation to ARRA at its August 6 meeting. 4. BCDC Port Priority Designation. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission met on May 15 and adopted a notice reflecting the proposed amendment to the Seaport Plan regarding changes to the Alameda NAS port priority designation. A public hearing on the matter will be held on July 17 and the earliest the Commission could vote on the matter is at its August 21 meeting. Respectfully submitted, /i/tc. :de j%) Kay Miller Executive Director United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex P.O. Box 524 Newark, California 94560 -0524 (510) 792-0222 Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: RECEIVED MAY 2 2 1997 AHRA CITY OF ALAMEDA May 19, 1997 At our meeting on May 6, 1997, concerning the potential limited use airfield at the former NAS Alameda, you requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) list the restrictions that would be placed on any airfield operations once the area is included in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service has proposed to acquire the lands at Alameda under the authority of Public Law 80 -537 which provides that excess Federal property may be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if it has particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird program. The reason for acquiring lands at Alameda would be to protect and enhance habitat for migratory birds, including endangered California least terns, endangered brown pelicans, and Caspian terns. Our highest management priority for the site would be to protect and enhance wildlife populations and their habitats. However, as stated in the November 18, 1996, letter from Deputy Secretary of the Interior John Garamendi to you, "...the Service will consider restricted airport use and use of the bunkers at the site, provided we can assure the California least terns are not jeopardized and the proposed uses are found to be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established." To make both the non jeopardy and compatibility determinations, the Service must follow certain procedures, including development of a specific plan for the site and compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures. Because our planning and compliance are not yet complete, we cannot give you a definitive list of restrictions to be placed on airfield operations at this time. However, for general planning purposes, the following types of restrictions are presently being considered. Please keep in mind that the restrictions are based on the intent to acquire this land for wildlife protection and enhancement; any other uses of the land, for recreation or economic uses, would be considered as secondary to this primary use. (1) Limiting airfield activities, other than security operations, to specific daylight hours (9:00 am to 5:00 pm) . (2) Requiring flight schedules to be flexible enough to allow periodic tern use of the runways. Affected time period could include April to August, although late June to early August is more likely. Occasional limited sweeps of the runway to allow an in- flight plane to land will be considered during the endangered species consultation process (see further information below). (3) Restricting aircraft parking, maintenance activities and refueling facilities to off - refuge sites. (4) Requiring "follow -me" vehicles and specifically defined taxiways defined by the Service. Taxiways may be changed depending on bird use. Restricting ground crew activities to specific locations determined during annual pre - breeding season meetings. (5) (6) Prohibiting certain type of operations or aircraft, such as "touch and go's," low level approaches, or helicopters (during breeding season), and limitations on the number of takeoffs /landings per day. (7) Limiting the number of "air events /festivals" allowed between September 1 and March 31. No events /festivals would be allowed during the breeding season. At the May 6, 1997, meeting, questions were raised about "sweeping" the runway of terns prior to takeoffs or landings, since this practice occurred during Navy air operations. As explained at the meeting, the primary reason for acquiring these lands would be to protect and enhance wildlife, particularly the California least tern. Therefore, any secondary use of the refuge would need to be compatible with this purpose. In addition, the California least tern and the California brown pelican are fully protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Section 9 of the Act, and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species without special exemption. "Take" is defined by law as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harass" is defined by regulation as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Harm" is defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Incidental take" is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with other requirements within the Act and Federal regulations. A limited level of "take" incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized during the formal consultation process pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The Service will prepare documentation under NEPA and section 7 of the Act during its decisionmaking process to determine whether to allow an airfield on national wildlife refuge lands. As part of the process for proposed disposal and community reuse of NAS Alameda, the Navy will also consult with the Service pursuant to the section 7 of the Act. Since part of the reuse proposal may be dependent on the use of the airfield, then this formal endangered species consultation will include the anticipated effects of all proposed disposal and community reuse activities at NAS Alameda, including the airfield. Any incidental take authorized in this biological opinion would be based upon an evaluation of all aspects of the Navy's proposed disposal and community reuse of NAS Alameda, including, but not limited to, any airfield use proposal. The Service may require the implementation of reasonable and prudent measures to minimize any incidental take authorized within the biological opinion. Again, the above information is intended for general planning purposes. The Service has not made formal de cisions on whether an airfield would be compatible with the refuge or whether or not an airfield would jeopardize the continued existence of the California least tern. However, I hope this provides you with sufficient information to proceed with the base reuse planning process. Please contact me at 510/792 -0222 or Jim Browning at 916/979 -2725 if you have questions. Sincerely, 4;11-I Margaret T. Kolar Refuge Complex Manager cc: FWS, Sacramento ES (J. Browning) Navy (D. Pomeroy) Correspondence BRAG Airfield Task Force Recommendation to the BRAG on the Proposed Limited Use Airfield The BRAG Airfield Task Force finds that: • The concept of reusing the NAS Airfield as a limited use airfield is compatible with the goals and objectives of the Community Reuse Plans as an interim use based on the information made available to date; and • A limited use airfield would provide opportunities for attracting other compatible airfield maintenance uses for the reuse of existing hangars and aircraft maintenance buildings at Alameda Point. The Airfield Task Force recommends that the BRAG advise the ARRA to proceed - with the necessary feasibility analysis to determine the suitability of an interim reuse of the existing NAS airfield as a limited use airfield and that evaluation and actions should include: (1) Development of an appropriate business plan, lease arrangements, and joint use agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Navy to allow for a limited use airfield at Alameda Point; and, (2) Obtaining and evaluating the information identified for decision making on the attached matrix; and (3) Seeking appropriate airfield users through a marketing strategy for and lease of appropriate facilities; and (4) Successfully completing these tasks before the ARRA issues an RFP to select an operator of the airfield; and (5) (6) Requesting the appropriate City and regional committees and agencies review the proposal and participate in the proposal; and Adoption by the BRAG and forwarding these recommendations to the ARRA Board. Some Concerns and Comments on Limited Airfield Proposal Considered by Task Force • May be difficult to end airfield uses once the field is established. • The lease period is assumed to be 10 - 15 years to permit amortization of improvements. • the field may increase air traffic over Alameda. There already is a serious potential problem with Oakland Airport expansion. These issues are subject to management. • Alameda will need to evaluate its responsibility for air field maintenance, insurance, fire, etc., as well as the management plan for fish and wildlife in order to avoid incurring unforseen liabilities. •. Evaluation of legal, operational, and financial liabilities needs to be completed. • To make it economically feasible, some threshold level of buildings will have to be devoted to airfield related activities. • The necessary Runway Accident Protection Zone would inhibit adjacent uses. • Compatibility with other uses and the Community Reuse Plan needs further evaluation (see attached matrix). • Environmental impacts have not been reported out for consideration. • Proposal requires further public input. May 5, 1997 a cc= w -o tr; E E a) >'• :3 -ow 00' 0. 2 Land Use Compatibility Criteria Airfield Business -4= as -0 E co o ±- 0 '5 E c' (U� o * = a) 2 0 Z (X -4( 11- Museum Tourist Attractions .Z. li ..«.-- as 0. 0) o ±- 0 u) u) -6 c a ) c 2 -o o r6 4-• -a--) 72 4= .- 0 L. -o 0 = zc- cL, a 1-- < • Z ...5 E *ifs c 0. .- CD 0 0 rn 2 }— . 0 ..o c a. : - 2-6— = as CI- -0 E 0's o - i0 ou (1 ' a) ) - E to .t 7 .E a. a) .2 o 10 2 c 0 "5 o L- a) Iv Adjoining University (...-..2.. E z... a = ip- ...6 o I--; 2 a E 0) 0 ± 0 Adjoining Business Uses C 0 C _. c .Z•' .15 :3 E a) 0 • BCDC Port ° *"5 cz o_ .E :5 o Z0 0 2 a c tE 0o. co 0 ..t. a> E '5 o z 0 ' NW Territory (2) Ez. c = '5 :5 o -....:,- 2 a E cr) 0 ± 0 ›... -.6 1.-z. as a. -c E en o ± 0 Golf Course Z = :6 0. 0) o ± 0 o c 0 0 • c '-c". -a 0 0) .Z. 0 a) al 0 0 CD Z 75 ...= a. 0) 0 10 . ■ Marina b = :5 ...7.-., E as c a. 6E '1)0 2 0 • C a) E >-- .5 ) = a ca I- O. t E o o _c 0 CO . Z"' 1-1 tc. as 0. -c E ) 0o ±- 0 Wildlife Refuge 7.6 o... E .0) o 10 o 0 :-. (I) Eili = 0 cr 0 > a) a) 04 EY --I LI. >-. •-•.- .0 fs a. -c E 00 o -± 0 Jevelopment options: a o a> .- 0 5.. -..a.' a) *c E LE o c *GT C.) 2 o a> *a -7- n n • 1 a> .0 0. E 0 0 z z .0 a- E 0 0 0 .0 a_ E 0 c 2 .(t 0. E E o o) -cco a.) 0 as c 0 o (.0 (a 0 o E > "C. a) E a) Tri -a a) c a) .-c ff o 'Ea ._ c (t-5 a. •c: E 2 o 0 - o 8 -o -to a) a) -cs o c E •-6 c E o .0 <3. 3. H -5 shed in a creditable manner. a) .5 a) (1) > .:: 2 • o. .0 E a) a) o z • Secondary impacts, Additional Business Medium Medium Market Attraction Unknown Medium Employment Potential Unknown Medium Financial Impact Crii Market Demand Unknown Medium Reuse Potential Bldg. 5A Higher Aircraft Reuse Potential 0 —I Revenue Potential tO . Scheduled Improvement Costs (4) • Same Costs Same Costs r - tlf :,.. , • 1 1 - Development Options: A. Limited Use Airfield Option B. No Airfield Development Option shed in a creditable manner. a) .5 a) (1) > .:: 2 • o. .0 E a) a) o z • 0 •w C) > E E —j 2 0 Type of aircraft Hours of operation Number of Landings Specify NS runway usage only Not a training field use co E co c tJ .0 U)(0 co ca .0 7.. C 0 "•- S. ..- 0 co >.,0 to 0 8 E 10 a a) 0 o 0 .- _-,.: 0 ,•••• o to x 0 12) 0- 0 0 a. °2 — c r 2 0 0 0 E E a) o cu 0 0) a .`n `&) a G., a 0 0 E co or) a) ± CM . CC4) Z -0 .c • "6 .v) 2 a) 0 ..0 a. -o tg) .a F) a 0 c J.. (0 0) 0 x co ...: E w 0 to a) al a, g ,,... , <V ,a:i `) 2 co 3,2 lo 0 . co o on co -0 c 2 j m (-1 co m o Lt , ..-..- Q) at w -E a. 0 E t•- c .4( to z 0) R c--.: l'.* ;E: t i ' Length of runway Helicopter use has not been considered • iblic Safety Impacts 3 0 ...! 0 ....i 'ransportation Impacts 0 -J ...-. J Operational Requirements Development Timing i...-...--. Air Space Restrictions None Air Space Permit from FAA Noise Impacts. Ei Low ,..' A. Limited Use Airfield Option -1 Dptio 'Cr ii ‘.& 1 c4 Type of aircraft Hours of operation Number of Landings Specify NS runway usage only Not a training field use co E co c tJ .0 U)(0 co ca .0 7.. C 0 "•- S. ..- 0 co >.,0 to 0 8 E 10 a a) 0 o 0 .- _-,.: 0 ,•••• o to x 0 12) 0- 0 0 a. °2 — c r 2 0 0 0 E E a) o cu 0 0) a .`n `&) a G., a 0 0 E co or) a) ± CM . CC4) Z -0 .c • "6 .v) 2 a) 0 ..0 a. -o tg) .a F) a 0 c J.. (0 0) 0 x co ...: E w 0 to a) al a, g ,,... , <V ,a:i `) 2 co 3,2 lo 0 . co o on co -0 c 2 j m (-1 co m o Lt , ..-..- Q) at w -E a. 0 E t•- c .4( to z 0) R c--.: l'.* ;E: t i ' Length of runway Helicopter use has not been considered • -# »Jo 2 w 0- E tu 1 200 0 ,- 1 1 1 20 0 c) 11") ce) ' 0 •ct 0 0) 2001 0 o .,-- 100 451 501 109 I4 ,,-- n r-- ..-- 0 o ,- ■ Area (Sq. Ft.) { 66,000 34,250 c> 0 0 N: , 16,000 22,000 c) 10 c- C 84,250 67,000 ■ c) c) 0 C5 C \I 0 0 0 N: Y- 0 0 0 r: . 0 0 0 0 55,4501 . CD CD 0 6 22,000 Building Number o Portions of 24 & 25 r•-• cb CO Adjacent to Bldg. 360 1.0 •zr (NI (NI CO Y- y- Portions of 24 & 25 400A portion of taxiway < 0 0 ('I Y-- y- Piers 1, 2; Bldg. 1681 400A portion of taxiway 167 & finger piers portion of roadway C/) CO C\1 •Ct- CV at FISCf *Employment estimates based on company's projection or industry standard Term of Occupancy long term long term long term long term 77 77 (1) Q) CL) CI) 71 7i EE 00 00 long term 77 73 03 0.) CI) CD 7i 7i E E 0 0 0 0 77 CD a) 7i E 0 0 9 months long term 77 73 CD CI) a) a) 7i li EE 00 00 long term long term completed long term long term 77 m a. E 0 0 long term[ Tenant ICALSTART (Electric Vehicle Consortium) Carstar (Vehicle Painting) City of Alameda (Records Storage) City of Alameda (Soccer Field) Clubhouse Pictures (Film Co.) Disney Studios (Film Co.) Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair) Great Benefit Productions (Film Co.) Industrial Light and Magic (Film Co.) Industrial Light and Magic (Film Co.) Interscope Communications (Film Co.) MARAD (Ready Reserve Fleet) Microsoft (Software Co.) Nadel Productions (Film Co.) Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfgr.) Nelson's Marine (Boat Repair) Off Duty Productions (Film Co.) Polyethylene Products (Plastics Recycling) Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.) Rysher Entertainment (Film Co.) Storage yard (Bureau of Electricity) Y- CV CY) NIt In CO t■ CO CS) 0 s-. 't- y-- 04 e- 01 4.4' r r 147 r CO r r`-.. r 00 r CS) r C3 C \ I •r- CJ Probable Leases Interim Use Permits Approved X X X X X X Est. Employ. * cv) CO e- LC) r LO it) Lt) ..cr. 0 CV 0 LO LO r 1"-- CO 0 CO 03 0 `cr r to N.- ca N 101, o 0 r tr) r LO CV r-- c) r 00Z LO CV 0 C. ' 0 0 0 CS) 0 0 0 0 0 0 i L C ) 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 00 r-- c) r— 0 0) LO r 0 0) 0 <- CC; 6 cg 0) CO 16 (0 0 6 v., c\i' a =t 6 4 8 1- 6 CO (C) T." 5 2 1 CV) 2 V-. 1-.' 8 6 r "t.... 04 CO .4. 0) 0) CO CO (0 ..Zr CO (0 N. C) ',"' CO CV 0) (0 CO CV N (0 T. V. CO CO CO CV CV Building Numt (0 r 10 1200 Mini- storage ur near Bldg. 5 portion of taxies 2 3 1 r r 5 r (0 5 Pie Tenant ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator) Admiral Marine (Marine Hardware) Airweld of Kentucky (Aircraft Sales & Parts) Alameda Point Storage (formerly Military Storage) ,Alpha Document Storage Area 51 Productions (two -day Car Show) Aviation Advisory Group (Airplane Hangar) Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) Cable Moore, Inc. (Cable Rigging) City of Alameda (EV Expo) City of Alameda (Gymnasium) Corbin (Electric Vehicles) Delaco Builders (Cabinetry) Delphi (Exhibit Displays) Dynamic Business Dev. (Boat Production) Forem Metal Mfg. (Sheet Metal Contractor) Haviside & Heastings (Ship Repair) Integrated Technology Group (Computer Rebuild) Northshore, Inc. (Bowling Alley) Puglia (Ship Repair) Quadrantek (Electric Motor Works) Richard Miller (Photography) Tower Aviation (Avionics) USS Hornet Zebra Motors, Inc. (Electric Vehicles) *Employment estimates based on company's projection or industry standard 1— CV CO ":1- LO (0 h- CO Cr) 0 r CV CO V" 10 CO t•-• (00) 0 r CV CO "zt LO r r r r r r r r r r N CV (‚4 04 CV CV