The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-05-03 ARRA PacketAGENDA Special Joint Meeting of the Governing Bodies of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the Alameda City Council Alameda High School Little Theater, West Wing Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Alameda, CA Wednesday, May 3, 1995 5 :30 p.m. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY OR THE COUNCIL: 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 (3) minutes per item. 2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority and City Council meetings. ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEMS A. Presentation /Public Hearing Recommending Acceptance of the Proposed Alternatives and Directing the Consultant Team to Proceed with Phase V of the Scope of Work Assessment of Land Use Alternatives. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the Governing Bodies in regard to any mattfr over which the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) IV. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODIES ADJOURNMENT 0 / 101. /41 rAiLikiiiTda Ralph J. • s to, f 1 o 4111F ty of Alameda Ralph J. Al). - ato, Chair Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Elizabeth Brydon, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 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 upon request. * * * ** MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, April 5, 1995 5:30 p.m. The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. with Chair Ralph Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilman "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda; (Note: Alternate Daysog only alternate to Councilman Arnerich as an Authority Member - Council Members do not have alternates); Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Mark Friedman, Alternate for Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group. (Summary: 9 ARRA Members, 4 Alameda City Council Members were present) Absent: Ex- officio Member Gail Greeley, Alameda Unified School District. II. AGENDA ITEMS: A. Presentation /Public Hearing Regarding Approval and /or Further Direction from the Authority Regarding the NAS Alameda Interim Reuse Strategy. EDAW Consultant, Mr. John Petrovsky gave a presentation on the results of the NAS Alameda Interim Reuse Strategy. This Strategy is Phase III of the Five Phase Program for the Community Reuse Plan. Also, Ms. Dena Belzer of Bay Area Economics presented the economic and fiscal analysis portion of the presentation. This presentation was also given at a Town Forum held previously on Saturday, March 25, 1995. The Interim Reuse Strategy focuses on the buildings /facilities available for near- term reuse at NAS Alameda. The buildings at the installation, including the equipment within them, represent the major asset which the ARRA can use to generate new jobs and economic activity, and meet other community needs. Mr. Petrovsky stated that he had met previously with the BRAG on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, and has taken into consideration additions /corrections which the BRAG feels need to be made. He added that all of these comments and /or additions the consultant will be able to respond to. These comments were as follows: 1) A better description "or a blueprint for action" extracted from the report including more detail on what needs to occur from the interim lease standpoint, a time schedule, what is the negotiation process, and what are the key issues to be resolved? 2) Development incentives - a detailed discussion of development incentives to attract business. 3) Equipment retention - an outline of a process to review and retain usable equipment. 4) Marketing process - additional details on the program, time schedule, and how to carry it out. 5) Demolition of facilities - additional details on demolition recommendations. 6) Housing - additional details on use of housing. Mr. Petrovsky reported that the intention of the consultant is to have the entire report "Interim Reuse Strategy" incorporated into the final plan. This report will not be re- published, but will consolidate information from the BRAG action list into a table which shows action, who's responsible, when should it occur, etc. Therefore, a revision of the "Interim Reuse Strategy "report will not be forthcoming; however, all revisions will be incorporated into the Final Reuse Plan. After discussion, Mark Friedman moved and Henry Chang, Jr., seconded a motion to accept the recommendation of staff to approve, in concept, the "Interim Reuse Strategy" subject to the final requests for changes by the BRAG. The motion was passed by a unanimous voice vote. Speakers: Mr. Bill Smith, of Bases Commercialization Bureau, spoke regarding fire training services at Treasure Island, the Presidio, funding, and disaster preparedness. Mr. Tom Okey, resident of Alameda representing the Conservation Science Institute, RAB, and BRAG, spoke regarding the relevance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Proposal on interim and long -term reuse. Mr. Tim Little, of the Rose Foundation, commended EDAW for the very professional report. He cautioned the Authority on balancing the City's very real need for money to pay for essential public services, and added that he hoped that as more buildings become vacant, there is value in getting good tenants whose work benefits the community -- irregardless of their ability to pay. 2 Mr. Lee Perez, Chair of the BRAG, stated that the BRAG was very happy to take the action which they did at their last meeting regarding the "Interim Reuse Strategy ", and that the Town Meeting held on March 25, 1995, went very well. III. ORAL REPORTS: A. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Updating Members on the Purpose of a Special Joint Meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and City Council on Wednesday, April 19, 1995, at 5:30 p. m. to Consider and Act Upon: 1) Final approval (if necessary) of the NAS Alameda Interim Reuse Strategy; 2) Approval of long -range land use alternatives for NAS Alameda reuse; 3) Authorization to proceed to analyze the Land Use Alternatives (Phase IV of the Community Reuse Planning Process). Dave Louk reported that at the special meeting to be held on April 19, 1995, there will be identification of the long range land use alternatives and authorization to proceed to analyze these alternatives. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY: Mayor Ellen Corbett thanked the ARRA Planner, Mr. Paul Tuttle, for placing the ad in the San Leandro Times regarding the community meeting as well as calendar events. VI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elisabeth Brydon Secretary 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, April 5, 1995 6:00 p.m. The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. with Chair Ralph Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilman "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda; Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Mark Friedman, Alternate for Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group. Absent: Ex- officio Member Gail Greeley, Alameda Unified School District; Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 1, 1995. Alternate Tony Daysog requested that a point he had raised was not reflected in the minutes regarding advertising in local papers letting the residents of the region know of the Homeless Collaborative Process for citizen input. A motion was made by Mark Friedman to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix and passed by a unanimous voice vote. B. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of March 15, 1995. A motion was made by Councilmember Lucas to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix and passed by a unanimous voice vote. II. AGENDA ITEMS: There were no agenda items for this meeting. III. ORAL REPORTS: A. Oral Report from Master Chief Bishop, Assistant Base Closure Officer for Alameda Naval Air Station, Regarding the Status of the Historical Preservation Program "Preserving the Legacy ". Master Chief Bishop reported that the Historical Preservation Program at NAS Alameda and NADEP is alive and well. The naval historical documentation team was at the base last week and will be completing their work in another week. They were very pleased with the groundwork that has been completed to date and have given excellent guidance on how to continue the program. Flyers were distributed regarding a kick off event for the "Preserving the Legacy" Program. She reported that it will be a marvelous opportunity for the community to come on board. The potential for the event is growing day by day by leaps and bounds with two live bands, vintage aircraft, trolley, shuttles, Maritime Day at Jack London Square, etc. Master Chief Bishop also reported that the Navy is looking at a draft agreement concerning the historic buildings. This agreement will take place between the Naval Air Station and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The buildings will be protected according to the guidance set forth by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officer who will carry out those guidelines. The Navy is concerned that interim leasing provides every opportunity to the community to do quick turnovers and speed the reuse process along. To accomplish those objectives, the draft agreement will accommodate interim leasing. This will eliminate the need for SHPO approval of each individual lease of a historic building. Councilmember Lucas thanked Master Chief Bishop for being so involved. She asked whether this will protect buildings in the interim? Master Chief Bishop stated that the historic buildings are protected even now and have been ever since a 1992 architectural resources survey was done. The buildings were identified as meeting criteria that makes them eligible for inclusion in the National Register. That means, that because they are eligible for inclusion, they are protected. All of the guidelines of the State Historic Preservation Office have to be followed by the Navy, i.e. , painting, interior, exterior, maintenance, replacement of windows, plumbing, etc. This has been a fact all along. Councilmember Lucas then asked if the buildings were protected for the long term plan. Master Chief Bishop stated that when EFA transfers any property interest to the ARRA, there will have to be a Section 106 review. None of this can take place unless the buildings are appropriately planned and cared for in the future. Chair Appezzato complemented Master Chief Bishop on her presentation and continued support. 2 B. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding the Selection of an Executive Director. Interim Executive Director Dave Louk reported that an Executive Director had been selected: Kay Miller, coming to the Reuse Authority with some outstanding qualifications having previously been involved in this process as the Executive Director of the local reuse authority for Lowry Air Force Base in Colorado. She will be on board on May 15, 1995. C. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding Equipment and Personal Property at NAS Alameda. Dave Louk reported that personal property at any of the closing bases affected by the BRAC 93 closure has rules and regulations regarding the disposal /retention of personal property as part of Pryor Amendment. The final rules on how DoD will be implementing the Pryor Amendment have not been issued at this time, after nearly a year. Both NAS and NADEP have bent over backwards to help out the ARRA regarding personal property. They completed an inventory of all of the personal property with a replacement value of over $300. This was completed by June or July of 1994. The computer printout for NADEP containing this inventory is approximately 5 inches thick. These reports are available for viewing at the ARRA Office. Regarding Mr. Daysog's request for information, Mr. Louk reported that there is a whole list of things on what they can do with personal property. If the Navy needs it for a realigning unit or defense unit somewhere else, or a mission essential item, they can take it with them. What the Navy is supposed to leave, or offer up to the community are things which are not mission essential or for realigning units. A procedure has been formed whereby when the Navy wants to take something to DMRO, they inform the ARRA asking if the ARRA has a use for it their reuse plan? If the ARRA says no, they take it to DMRO. Things which could be useful in reuse such as the equipment that was in Building 530 when vacated, the ARRA requests to retain it until the Reuse Plan is completed in December, 1995. D. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding ARRA Member Meeting Time for Office of Economic Adjustment Grant Match. Dave Louk reported that the ARRA Members will be receiving a form to sign which indicates how many hours were spent by Members and Alternates at ARRA Meetings and a value placed on each hour worked. This information will be utilized as part of the City of Alameda Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) 25 % grant match requirement and forms will be mailed to the Members and Alternates at a later date. E. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director (and action, if necessary) Regarding the Status of the Computer Distribution Subcommittee.' 3 Mr. Tim Little, Chairman of the Computer Subcommittee, reported that the Computer Sub - committee had met and prepared some draft materials including an application for interested parties. Mr. Little reported that there would be up to 1500 surplus computers available, unfortunately, most of them relatively old. The subcommittee plans to get the currently available computers out to the schools and other programs. The Executive Order from the President has a strong preference towards getting the computers out for educational use in public or private schools or other educational programs targeting K -12, however; there is some leeway after that preference is exhausted. The mailing list will include the school districts and non - profit organizations within Alameda County as well as any previous requests the Navy or the ARRA has received for computers. He added that the Navy has been very cooperative and will assist with the distribution and delivery. The distribution will be hopefully completed this spring. He then thanked Elizabeth and Emily for their assistance with the preparation and completion of paperwork involving the computer distribution. A motion was made by Mark Friedman to accept the application format for the distribution of computers. The motion was seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix and passed by a unanimous voice vote. F. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on the Status of the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. Interim Executive Director Dave Louk reported that at a previous meeting, the ARRA Members approved and authorized the screening period for the homeless and beneficial conveyances as a three -month period. Before this period can kick- off, the Navy was required to publish the property in the Federal Register and in a local newspaper. This has been completed and the ARRA now is required to publish the same information in a local newspaper. The screening date for the property will be from April 14 to July 14, 1995. This period is the time in which the requests for homeless needs will be coming in through the Homeless Collaborative as well as public beneficial requests for property, such as Pan Pacific University or East Bay Regional Park District, Alameda Unified School District, etc. The Homeless Collaborative and Congressman Dellum's office, the BRAG, and the ARRA have all been working together to establish the "Standards of Reasonableness" for the homeless needs. These "Standards of Reasonableness" will be presented to the Members for approval at the next meeting (May 3, 1995) giving the guidelines on what will be occurring with regard to percentages and /or numbers of buildings, and generally how uses and needs will be accommodated at the Naval Air Station, Alameda for the homeless. Prior to this, the "Standards of Reasonableness" will be presented to the BRAG for consideration. 4 G. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on Reuse Authority Staff Activities. Alternate Tony Daysog asked Mr. Louk what the status of Amerigon was. Mr. Louk reported that the ARRA staff is working with the Navy to negotiate the interim lease for buildings that would be utilized by both AEG and CALSTART. He added that ARRA staff is also working with OEA and EDA to obtain funding for the CALSTART project. H. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Louk reported that the following items would be included on the next regular agenda of the ARRA: Standards of Reasonableness for the Homeless Collaborative, a marketing Request for Proposals, and changing the ARRA meeting schedule from one to two regular meetings per month in order to accommodate the number of items on the agendas. I. Oral Report from Chairman of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities. Lee Perez, Chair of the BRAG, reported that comments regarding the Interim Reuse Strategy were read previously by Consultant, John Petrovsky. Additionally, he reported that the BRAG has been putting a tremendous amount of volunteer effort to work on this, and that the BRAG should be congratulated for the work that they have done. He added that the BRAG Members continue to discuss among themselves how they could be more effective in terms of their role of being the ARRA's and the City Council's eyes and ears of the community in terms of what they see, what they would like, what they would not like, and reasons for those. Also, how the BRAG could work more effectively in this period of transition and be prepared to go into the new phase with the new Executive Director. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bill Smith, of Bases Commercialization Bureau spoke about micro - utilities, windmills and job creation. Barbara Baack, representing the Historic Preservation volunteer group reported that they had had a meeting with Captain Dodge of the Alameda Naval Air Station to initiate arrangements to save the artifacts and to start a museum at the air station. She reported that he was very supportive of the community's interest. He gave several ideas of how to create a very professional museum, and introduced them to the other volunteers who will assist. He suggested some buildings as possible locations which will be studied in the future. He also wondered whether the City had any interest in having an old carrier like the Midway brought into dock and utilized as a tourist attraction. She stated that Captain Dodge had indicated that eventually a letter of understanding between 5 the Navy and the City of Alameda would be required indicating a serious interest in this museum if he created it, and that Seabee labor could be utilized to assist the historic effort. Master Chief Bishop thanked Marilyn and Barbara for their help and is looking forward to working with other people who are volunteering their help to collect and preserve these items. She reported that Captain Dodge is going to do everything he can to make certain that historic artifacts are on station and well - preserved, but stated that she needed to clarify that the Navy is not going to create a museum. The Navy will make available and will provide all of the guidance that is available to facilitate a museum, if in fact, the community decides and makes a request through the BRAG and ARRA to do so. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY: VI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Brydon Secretary 6 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inner - Office Memorandum April 26, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David J. Louk Interim Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority SUBJ: Background: Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Acceptance of the Proposed Alternatives and Directing the Consultant Team to Proceed with Phase 5 of the Scope of Work Assessment of Land Use Alternatives Work has been completed on Phase 4 - the Interim Reuse Strategy as required by the Consultant's contract and scope of work. The Consultant's report was approved by the ARRA subject to the Consultant responding to six concerns as identified by the BRAG. The response to these concerns will be made by the Consultant team and presented to the ARRA for final approval. As part of this phase of the planning process, the Consultant has prepared five recommended Alternative Land Use plans for the ARRA's review and approval, prior to commencement of the next phase of the process. The land use alternatives are based upon the early land use concepts presented at the end of Phase 2 - Conditions and Trends, input from the BRAG, and the input from a subcommittee of the BRAG's special urban planning and design Charette held April 7 and 8, 1995. At the time of the writing of this staff report, the full BRAG has not had the opportunity to complete their review of the proposed alternatives. The BRAG had recommended that the early Land Use Concepts not be considered alternatives until a special "visioning" exercise was completed to help the BRAG clarify the BRAG's recommended overall design goals. The "visioning" Charette was intended to provide the BRAG with an urban design and planning "framework" that would apply to all alternatives. This urban design "vision" and "framework" consist of the overall organizational structure of the land use plans and includes three major systems: the street pattern; the organization of activity "nodes" or centers; and the organization of open space systems. The land use alternatives are not the final plan for the future of Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS). The alternatives provide a means of assessing the impacts of a number of reasonable potential future outcome. This process is intended as a tool in the difficult decision making process still to come -- the selection of a preferred land use plan. As a decision making tool, the land use alternatives are intended to be broad and general in nature, with enough detail to assess the impacts of the various major land use types. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page 2 The assessment of alternatives will include the areas of: circulation and traffic, economic and fiscal impacts (revenue and costs implications), land use compatibility, job generation potential, environmental implications (habitat protection, wetlands' protection, air quality, noise, etc.), historic resources, land utilization (sq.ft. of development), quality -of -life and community design implications, recreation, water conservation, utility consumption, and each alternatives consistency with the range of goals and objectives for the planning on NAS. The assessment of alternatives will be an "order -of- magnitude" level of analysis consisting of enough detail for planning and decision making. A more detailed impact assessment will be prepared as part of the EIR/EIS process. The assessment of alternatives is intended to provide a level of technical analysis necessary for the development of a preferred alternative. The process is not intended to select one of the alternatives presented here as the final preferred plan. Rather, the alternatives and analysis is intended to help select the best attributes of various proposals to formulate a preferred plan. The assessment is one way of exploring a range of options, assessing trade -offs, and generating additional uses and planning solutions that meet the communities goals for the future of NAS. The alternatives are also intended to provide the basis of the necessary assessment of alternatives in the EIR/EIS process. As such, the alternatives must be "reasonable alternatives" to the proposed action (NEPA Section 1502.14). Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint, utilizing common sense. When there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of alternatives must be analyzed and compared in the EIS; including the "no action" alternative. However, the "no action" alternative will not be covered in this phase of the planning effort. The EIR/EIS process will cover the "no action" alternative. A "full spectrum" of planning alternatives generally includes a range of development intensities (density and Floor Area Ratio FAR) from the very intense to the least intense. In addition, any planning analysis of alternatives must also consider the "full spectrum" of land use request. The full spectrum of land use requests must include all federal transfer requests, public benefit requests (including homeless), and economic benefit requests. The range of alternatives covers both the full spectrum of intensities and includes all land use transfer requests. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page 3 Public Benefit Request. Because of the new federal law covering public beneficial conveyance requests a detailed description of the homeless providers request and other public beneficial conveyance requests, (school district, parks and recreation, etc.) will not be available until July 14, 1995. In order to properly include these proposals in the analysis of alternatives, a two step process has been developed with the Consultant team. This two step process was developed to continue the work of the consultants and meet the planning deadline of December 31, 1995. Because of the tight schedule and the amount of work required, it is not possible to delay the identification of alternatives nor the assessment of alternatives to wait for the completion of the screening process. Phase 1 Initial Assessment: An initial assessment of alternatives will be conducted. This assessment will include all known property requests; federal request (Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife); and all known public beneficial requests (homeless providers, school district, parks and recreation, etc.), and will also include all known interim development interest (AEG, CALSTART, etc.). Land use "place holders" will be utilized for known land use requests, including the type of land use activity, the known size of the request, buildings requested (if any), and other details. This initial alternatives analysis will be completed by July 15, 1995. Phase 2 Refinement of Alternatives Assessment: Once the homeless screening process is completed, a second level analysis will occur. This second level analysis will refine any assumption of the assessment of alternatives, and provide you, the decision makers, with any additional and relevant information necessary to make those decisions on a preferred alternative. The implications of this schedule change is significant. The process must move forward to provide the Community Reuse Plan in a timely manner. Additional delays, or changes will significantly hamper the staff and Consultants ability to meet the schedule and conditions of the approved contract. Reasonable Alternatives. Reasonable alternatives must cover the full spectrum or range of development types that meet the proposal objectives to some large degree to be considered "reasonable." Within the EIR process, if an alternative is not covered in the detailed analysis, the ARRA would have to provide the reasons for their having been eliminated (i.e. not economically feasible, or a sub -set of one or another alternative, etc.). Discussion/Analysis: The five land use plans are based upon a reasonable range of major land use activities proposed for the base. The proposed alternatives incorporates the BRAG's "Vision" and "design framework" as articulated by the BRAG at the April 7 and 8, 1995, Charette. And the recommend alternatives includes all the known federal, public, private, and economic beneficial conveyance request as of April 10, 1995. The range of alternatives covers a full spectrum of land use intensities from very intense to the least intense and a reasonable number of intensities in between. The range of alternatives includes a full spectrum of use types including: work places, residential, open space and parks, environmental protection areas, transportation and circulation systems, and public uses. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page 4 While the exact locations, shape and organization may not meet every individual or interest groups desire or "vision ", the proposed range does include aspects of all known interest groups in sufficient detail and quantity to identify the land use and public policy trade -offs, assess the planning implications, and provide details for the ARRA's decision making. A brief description of the alternatives is provided below. 1. Mixed Use/Regional Open Space Emphasis: This alternative would look to NAS Alameda as a major source of regional open space for preservation and recreational purposes. The entire airfield area would remain as open space to provide for the preservation of wetlands, sensitive species (especially Least and Caspian Terns) and for regional open space /recreational uses. The Southeast portion of the Base is a continuation of the West End residential neighborhood. The main focal point of activity in this alternative is the existing core area of the Base. It is envisioned that the core area will develop as a "flex- zone" to accommodate a mixture of uses based on the interim (near term) reuse of existing facilities with redevelopment and in -fill changes, additions, demolition occurring over time. The development of the mixed use core has an emphasis on office /light industry and commercial uses. The roadway system on the Base is a continuation of the Alameda City grid system. The mixed use core would utilize existing NAS roadways whenever possible with changes in the circulation system to accommodate development. The Naval Supply Center is assumed to develop as mixed use light industry/workplace. 2. Mixed Use/Regional Open Space with Seaport Industrial Emphasis - Mixed Use Core: This alternative would look to NAS Alameda as a major source of new jobs and industry for Alameda and the region as well as a preservation of regional open space resources. Its emphasis is the development of a regional seaport facility on the north edge of the island utilizing the Oakland Inner Harbor. The northern edge of the airfield area is developed as a regional seaport facility with a buffer of a golf course to the south. The southern portion of the airfield remains open to provide for the preservation of wetlands, sensitive species (especially Least and Caspian Terns) and for regional open space /recreational uses. The Southeast portion of the Base is a continuation of the West End residential neighborhood. The main focal point of activity in this alternative is the existing core area of the Base. It is envisioned that the core area will develop as a "flex- zone" to accommodate a mixture of uses based on the interim (near term) reuse of existing facilities with redevelopment and in -fill changes, additions, demolition occurring over time. The development of the mixed use core has an emphasis on office /light industry and commercial uses. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April26, 1995 Page 5 The roadway system on the Base is a continuation of the Alameda City grid system and would utilize existing NAS roadways wherever possible with changes in the circulation system to accommodate development. This roadway system would continue out into the northern edge of the airfield area with a larger block size to accommodate seaport land use patterns and heavy vehicle /freight traffic. The Naval Supply Center is assumed to develop as mixed use housing and commercial. 3 Seaport Industrial Emphasis -Mixed Use Core: This alternative would look to NAS Alameda as a major source of new jobs and industry for Alameda and the region. Its emphasis is the development of a regional seaport facility on the north edge of the island utilizing the Oakland Inner Harbor. The northern edge of the airfield area is developed as a regional seaport facility with a buffer of light industry to the south. The southern portion of the airfield remains open providing for the preservation of wetlands, sensitive species (especially Least and Caspian Terns) and for regional open space /recreational uses. The Southeast portion of the Base is a continuation of the West End residential neighborhood. The main focal point of activity in this alternative is the existing core area of the Base. It is envisioned that the core area will develop as a "flex- zone" to accommodate a mixture of uses based on the interim (near term) reuse of existing facilities with redevelopment and in -fill changes, additions, demolition occurring over time. The development of the mixed use core has an emphasis on civic, education and residential uses. The roadway system on the Base is a continuation of the Alameda City grid system and would utilize existing NAS roadways wherever possible with changes in the circulation system to accommodate development. This roadway system would continue out into the airfield area with a larger block size to accommodate light industrial and seaport land use patterns and heavy vehicle /freight traffic. A transit/bicycle/pedestrian corridor is established to connect the airfield and core areas to the existing City of Alameda. The Naval Supply Center is assumed to develop as mixed use housing and commercial. 4. Residential/Mixed Use Emphasis - Mixed Use Core: This alternative shows NAS Alameda developing primarily as residential neighborhoods with cluster centers of mixed uses capable of providing services and workplace uses. Its emphasis would be development of a mixed use core and residential /mixed use in the northern portion of the airfield area. The southern portion of the airfield would remain open to provide for the preservation of wetlands, sensitive species (especially Least and Caspian Terns) and for regional open space /recreational uses. The Southeast portion of the Base is a continuation of the West End residential neighborhood. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page 6 The main focal point of activity in this alternative is the existing core area of the Base. It is envisioned that the core area will develop as a "flex- zone" to accommodate a mixture of uses based on the interim (near teuc') reuse of existing facilities with redevelopment and in -fill changes, additions, demolition occurring over time. The development of the mixed use core has an emphasis on civic, education and recreational uses. The roadway system on the Base is a continuation of the Alameda City grid system and would utilize existing NAS roadways wherever possible with changes in the circulation system to accommodate development. This roadway system would continue out into the airfield area. A transit/bicycle /pedestrian corridor is established to connect the airfield and core areas to the existing City of Alameda. Secondary centers of mixed use activity are focused along the dedicated pedestrian/cycling /transit corridors. The Naval Supply Center is assumed to develop as mixed use light industry/workplace. 5. Residential/Mixed Use Emphasis - Dispersed Centers: This alternative shows NAS Alameda developing primarily as residential neighborhood with other uses scattered throughout the Base. There is a development of dispersed centers focusing on other uses including the existing core area of the Base with a commercial, residential and education emphasis. The Lease Tern colony would be moved to the southern edge of the island to accommodate the extension of Alameda's residential grid system. A golf course would be incorporated into the southern edge of the airfield area as a buffer between residential neighborhoods and the colony. The Southeast portion of the Base is a continuation of the West End residential neighborhood with a mixed use center at the Atlantic Avenue gateway. The roadway system on the Base is a continuation of the Alameda City grid system. The existing core would utilize existing NAS roadways whenever possible with changes in the circulation system to accommodate development of parks and other dispersed uses. This roadway system is continued out into the airfield area. The Naval Supply Center is assumed to develop as mixed use light industry/workplace. Land Use Assumptions: A number of assumptions were made to develop the full range of reasonable alternatives for assessment. Many of the assumptions are similar conditions in all alternatives. In each case, one major difference is presented as the driving development activity for reuse and redevelopment. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page 7 1. Mixed Use 'flex zone." Every alternative provided for centrally focused, mixed use, "flex- zone" at the center of the base. This flex -zone allows for all use types (industrial, commercial, office, residential, parks and recreation, marina uses, schools and education facilities, public and private), utilizing existing facilities and buildings, allowing for in -fill, changes, additions and demolition over time. This mixed use core is the central focus of near and mid -term development taking advantage of the immediate reuse potential and allowing for growth and intensification. 2. Open Space. All alternatives provide for a range of open space types (public, habitat protection, parks and recreation spaces, formal and informal) in varying degrees and shape and locations. Some alternatives provide more open space, others provide less. All alternatives provide for shoreline access and a trail system where possible. A number of alternatives provide for the development of a major (18 hole) golf course, a major marina development, and a community center (recreation building, performing arts complex, meeting and conference facilities, and a museum). 3. Science City/High Tech Incubator Research and Development Uses. Each alternative provides for science city type uses in varying degrees and locations. Least Tern Habitat. Each alternative provides for the preservation of the Least Tern habitat in varying degrees. 5. Wetlands Preservation. Each alternative provides for wetland preservation in varying degrees. 6. State Land Jurisdiction. Each alternative considers the need for state lands interest in varying degrees. 7. Incidental Commercial Development. Each alternative assumes some minor commercial activity will be permitted in every major land use area. This would allow for incidental neighborhood commercial uses within the center of residential neighborhoods (coffee shop, restaurant, neighborhood convenience shopping store, gas station, beauty shop, washer mat, etc.), and incidental commercial activity within work areas (cafes, snack bar, coffee shop, office supplies, etc.). 8. Major Commercial Development. Major commercial development is assumed to be limited in each alternative, except for the high intensity, work place alternative where it is assumed that a major retail commercial center is encouraged that includes regional serving entertainment and visitor serving industry development connected to the marina, the museum and a performing arts center. 9. Adjoining Development. Each alternative includes assumptions about the development of City lands out to and including use of the Naval Supply Center Annex, and the revitalization of Webster Street, and the preservation of the existing north end residential neighborhood. These assumptions are intended to provide a full spectrum of reasonable alternatives that could be considered practical or feasible. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Additional Alternatives: April 26, 1995 Page 8 Additional alternatives beyond these present could be included in the analysis as sub -sets of the above five major alternatives. These variations on the basic five could include minor changes in the land use patterns, shifting sizes and locations, minor changes in the land use types and intensities, and minor changes in design aspects (shapes, sizes and locations of parks). These minor variations would be reasonable to assess on a qualitative level if the overall technical levels of impacts remain the same (i.e. same traffic generation, same relative area development and relative intensities overall). This additional discussion would be particularly useful in exploring trade -offs for options of sub -areas on the base, exploring design opportunities and in the process of creating the final "preferred alternative." Any additional major alternative land use plan differences from the proposed alternatives, (i.e. development of a major airport), would require modifications to the Consultant contract and work program, changes to the schedule, or deletion of one or more of the proposed alternatives, or all of the above. CEQA Compliance: Acceptance of these range of alternatives for the next phase of the planning process is a decision which is not considered a project under CEQA requirements. No additional CEQA review nor action is required by acceptance of the land use alternatives for further analysis. Fiscal Impact: There are no fiscal implications for selecting the range of land use alternatives as proposed. The existing scope of work in the approved contract covers the costs of preparing this Phase 4 of the Consultant's work effort. The alternatives as recommended cover a "reasonable" array of land use scenarios that meet the objectives of base closure and reuse. If one of these "reasonable" alternatives is not analyzed, the ARRA may be asked to consider that alternative at a later date requiring additional funds, time and effort to provide additional analysis and consideration. If the ARRA determines an additional alternative needs to be analyzed, this study would cost additional sums beyond the scope of the approved contract and require additional delays. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Redcommendation: April 26, 1995 Page 9 It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority accept the recommended alternatives and direct the ARRA staff and the Consultant team to commence work on Phase 5 the Assessment of Alternatives in accordance with the approved consultant contract. Respectfully submitted, lAi1 G f0 �• 6y ti David J. ouk, Interim Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority DJL /dpt /erb ** *REVISED * ** AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda High School Little Theater West Wing Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Alameda, CA Wednesday, May 3, 1995 6 :00 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 (3) minutes per item. 2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings. ROLL CALL A. Approval of Minutes - Special Joint Meeting of April 5, 1995. B. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 5, 1995 II. AGENDA ITEMS A. Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Request for Proposal for a Commercial Market Broker for Facilities Located on the Naval Air Station, Alameda. B. Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Approval of the "Standards of Reasonableness" Developed with the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in Compliance with the Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. III. ORAL REPORTS A. Oral Report from Master Chief Bishop, Assistant Base Closure Officer for Alameda Naval Air Station, Regarding the Status of the Historical Preservation Program "Preserving the Legacy "and Fleet Week Activities. * * * * * * * ** B. Oral Report from Mr. Robert Hrubes Representing the Golden Gate Audubon Society ADDED Regarding Potential Economic Benefits of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. C. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on Reuse Authority Staff Activities and Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. D. Oral Report from Chairman of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities. IV. 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.) V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY VI. ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Elizabeth Brydon, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 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 upon request. * * * * * Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum April 26, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Dave Louk, Interim Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority SUBJ: Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Approval of the "Standards of Reasonableness" Developed with the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in Compliance with the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 Background: Under the new Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Homeless Assistance Act), homeless providers are still entitled to facilities at closing military bases; however, homeless providers no longer make requests directly to the federal government for the facilities. Instead, the Homeless Assistance Act requires that homeless providers be included in the local Community Reuse Planning process. The law further requires that reasonable accommodation be made for homeless providers, and that local reuse plans balance the community's economic development need with homeless needs. The primary objective of the new law has been to establish a cooperative planning process involving the community and the homeless providers. The advantages of such a cooperative process were recognized early by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and local homeless providers. Even prior to adoption of the new legislation, 'a joint letter was sent by the ARRA and the local homeless providers to the Secretary of the Navy asking for a delay in implementing the old Title V of the McKinney Act to provide an opportunity to incorporate homeless interests into the Community Reuse Planning process. The new law requires that the ARRA submit its Final Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda to both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Defense (DoD) for review and approval. The law also mandates that the Final Community Reuse Plan: document outreach efforts with homeless providers, identify the representatives of the homeless that the ARRA consulted with in preparing the Final Community Reuse Plan, include a copy of each homeless expression of interest at NAS together with a description of the manner in which the Final Community Reuse Plan addressed the homeless interest expressed or an explanation of why the Final Community Reuse Plan does not, and how the Final Community Reuse Plan addresses and /or takes into consideration the size and nature of the homeless population in the communities in the vicinity of the closing base. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page Two The "Standards of Reasonableness" were approved by the entire Collaborative on April 21, 1995. The "Standards of Reasonableness" were unanimously approved by the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Housing and Economic Development Subcommittees on April 20, 1995, and will be reviewed by the full BRAG on April 26, 1995. Discussion/Analysis: Since the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 requires the ARRA consult with representatives of the homeless, conduct and document outreach to homeless providers, include a summary of outreach and list of homeless providers contacted in the Final Community Reuse Plan, the ARRA at its meeting of February 1, 1995, recognized the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative (the Collaborative) as the entity that the ARRA will work with during the homeless screening process for NAS Alameda. During discussions with the Collaborative, it was decided that some mutually acceptable quantitative levels of accommodation for homeless programs be established for the reuse planning process. These levels or standards were established through a negotiation process which included representatives of the ARRA, the Homeless Collaborative, Congressman Dellums' Office, the County Housing and Community Development Department, and the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission. The result of these negotiations is the attached "Standards of Reasonableness. " Representing the ARRA during the negotiations was Alice Garvin (BRAG Housing Subcommittee Chair), Tom Matthews (Alameda City Housing Manager), and Dena Belzar (the ARRA' s consultant for the homeless issue). The Collaborative was represented by members of the Collaborative's Steering Committee, the Collaborative's consultant /staff, and a representative from the Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department. The negotiations were facilitated by Roberta Brooks from Congressman Dellums' office, and took approximately three months to complete. All entities worked in good faith to complete the "Standards of Reasonableness" in a timely fashion, understanding the necessity of completing the Final Base Reuse Plan by December 1995. The attached "Standards of Reasonableness" include firm numbers of family housing units, barracks units /rooms, buildings for homeless economic development use, as well as job creation and financing goals. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page Three The new legislation required the ARRA to establish a period for accepting notices of interest in facilities at the base from homeless providers. At its meeting February 1, 1995, the ARRA approved a three month homeless screening process to begin as soon as legally possible. The ARRA could not legally begin the screening process for homeless and beneficial conveyances until the Secretary of Defense had published in the Federal Register, and in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the closing base, information on the base and the local redevelopment authority (ARRA). On March 13, 1995, the Secretary of the Navy published information on NAS and the ARRA in the Federal Register, and from April 4 to April 7, 1995, the Secretary of the Navy published this information in local newspapers. The ARRA, also legally required to publish the dates of its screening process in a local newspaper, advertised in the Alameda Times Star April 10 and 14, 1995, and the Oakland Tribune April 9 and 16, 1995. The three month screening process for the ARRA to receive expressions of interest began April 14 and will continue to July 14, 1995. Expressions of interest received by the ARRA will be referred to the Collaborative as the entity that the ARRA recognized to work with during the homeless screening process. In response to the period for expressions of interest, the Collaborative will submit by July 14, 1995, its General Homeless Accommodation Plan to the ARRA. The plan will not exceed the parameters of the "Standards of Reasonableness." The ARRA staff will incorporate the plan submitted by the Collaborative, along with other beneficial conveyances received during the screening period, into the Preferred Community Reuse Plan Land Use Alternative to be presented to the ARRA for approval. The Collaborative will then identify the best opportunities for development based on the Preferred Community Reuse Plan Land Use Alternative adopted by the ARRA. This detailed homeless plan will identify which agency(ies) will operate programs at selected locations. The ARRA staff and consultants will then work with the Collaborative to resolve any conflicts with other uses or any programmatic concerns. As required by the Homeless Assistance Act, the ARRA will then develop "legally binding" agreements with the homeless agency(ies) for each site at NAS, and these agreements must be incorporated into the Final Community Reuse Plan to be adopted by the ARRA and submitted to HUD and DoD. Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact: The law requires that properties be made available for homeless programs; therefore, no rent or transfer costs can be assessed. Homeless providers will pay for any needed improvements to their own properties, and any costs associated with providing utilities for those properties. In addition, homeless providers will, if necessary, pay a public service fee to cover the cost of City services (i.e. police, fire, sewer, etc.). ARRA staff time will be required to help monitor the employment goals incorporated in the "Standards of Reasonableness "; however, it is anticipated that the cost will be minimal. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 26, 1995 Page Four The Homeless Assistance Act required that the ARRA publish in a local newspaper the dates of the screening process. Even though the ARRA was only required to do this once in one local newspaper, the ARRA staff elected to make the same good faith effort as the Navy and published the dates four times - twice in the Alameda Times Star and twice in the Sunday Oakland Tribune (which has an area wide circulation). When the ARRA submitted its budget to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) last fall, the Homeless Assistance Act had not been adopted; therefore, the expense of publishing a legal notice as required by the legislation was not included in the OEA budget proposal /grant. OEA has subsequently indicated that this "reasonable" amount of advertising ($1,000) to comply with the Homeless Assistance Act is an allowable OEA reimbursable expense and will be covered by the grant. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA approve the "Standards of Reasonableness" developed with the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative in compliance with the Base Closure Community Redevelopment Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. Respectfully submitted, Attachment: "Standards of Reasonableness" DL /jm Lo 4d Interim Executive Director meda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS FOR HOMELESS USES AT ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 requires closing military bases to make reasonable accommodations to meet the needs of the homeless. It indicates that homeless service .providers may submit notices of interest requesting a public benefit conveyance for these purposes. This law requires a homeless element to be part of the Base Reuse Plan, indicating the reasonable accommodations in the reuse effort. The Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative was formed in 1994 to enable homeless providers to work in concert to access foimer federal military property in the East Bay. In February, 1995, the Alameda Base Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) recognized the Homeless Collaborative as the entity representing -Homeless Providers in the reuse process. The ARRA and the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative recognize the great degree of uncertainty facing. the City of Alameda, displaced, workers at the installation, and the East Bay community in general, as a result of the closure of the Naval Air Station. But while base closures significantly impact local economies such as the City of Ala.meda. they also provide a unique opportunity to utilize base resources to create new economic and housing opportunities to help stem the tide of homelessness in our community. The ARRA and The Homeless Providers Collaborative are committed to being a part of those immediate and long term strategies which make the regional economy healthier and environmentally stable, while involving all parts of the community in the planning process and which improve our local quality of life. In order to cooperatively carry out this vision, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative, in conjunction with Congressmember Ronald V. Dellums' staff, and East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission staff, developed and negotiated Standards of Reasonableness to delineate reasonable standards of homeless uses at the Naval Air Station with respect to housing, jobs, economic development activity and occupancy & capital improvements. In developing these standards it is recognized that current base workers must have priority for base reuse, and that nothing in this agreement is intended to conflict with collective bargaining agreements. These standards were developed with the understanding that all activity must be in compliance with local, state, and federal law. Both the ARRA and the Homeless Pro-viders Collaborative understand the necessity of completing the Base Reuse Plan by December, 1995. Both entities will work in good faith to complete each step in the process in a timely fashion. STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS L HOUSING a) Family Rousing Twenty percent of the base "family housing" units available for reuse or an equivalent number of like units in the community sheiald will be made available to homeless providers for permanent and transitional housing. Assuming that the Coast Guard will receive 582 units of family lousing, 20 percent of the re.•• - ' • 4- nits - - . able fo reuse ual 186 _ 'ts avail. • - for homele -n the Base. rovide Thes - • rovisi • a Family units are multi- bedroom units in either single family or multi -unit buildings. "Available for reuse" means those units that have not been reserved by the Coast Guard or other federal agencies and are directly under the units discretionary authority of the focal R ndition as those units on the bas of approximately the same size, type, and condition "Community" means throughout Alameda County. b) Barracks Housing 200 rooms of service - enriched transitional, permanent, or emergency housing, or an equivalent number of lake units in the community. Rooms are defined as spaces that can be occupied by 1 -2 people. Emergency housing service providers will provide 24 hour housing and support services. No space will be utilized for overnight emergency shelters that operate for only limited hours. II. JOBS a) ARRA Hiring To the extent that the ARRA hires staff to do grounds and /or building maintenance, as opposed to contracting with independent companies to perfa.au these functions, the Reuse Authority will have as a goal to hire 15% of these workers from the ranks of the homeless. The ARRA will also have a goal to award 15 percent of the dollar value of general qualified c Sgr ss tot eeneral contracting ag ni s who employ homeless workers execute the necessary work. b) Ho=peless Siring Goals for Private Employers Agreements between the ARRA and individual private employers will in, :lude a goal to hire 15 %. of new jobs created, from the ranks of the homeless. Er ker ysers will l v year asked to Section II l report ARRA on their efforts to hire homeless c) One Stop Hiring Center A "one- stop" hiring entity established and operated by homeless service providers will be designed to refer bona -fide homeless applicants to employers seeking to hire new employees. This entity will ensure that all applicants are eligible; that these applicants have appropriate skills and /or are eligible for appropriate training relative to the job openings; and that the applicants are "job ready." Pre - notification of jobs for the homeless will be provided by the employer to the hiring center. d) Service Contracts Any employer subject to the 15 % hiring goal, including the ARRA, may use contractors who hire the homeless to perform certain functions. The use of such contractors will count in meeting the employer's homeless employment goals. e) Joint Ventures For profit businesses and government agencies (such as school districts, parks and recreation districts, etc.) will be encouraged to enter into joint venture contracts with non -profit agencies serving the homeless with the goal of creating job training and employment opportunities for homeless people, as well as generating an income stream for the joint venture partners. Groups entering into joint venture agreements with homeless provider service organizations will be exempted from the 15% monitoring & reporting requirements as described under Economic Development, Section h below. fl ongoing Collaboration In order to create incentives for employer participation, The Homeless Element in the Final Community Reuse Plan should include language that calls for an ongoing collaboration between the ARRA and the Homeless Collaborative or its successor. g) Non - profit Job Developers The entity responsible for matching homeless job applicants with job openings shall also maintain a list of service organizations that hire homeless workers. This list shall serve as a further resource to companies located at the former NAS Alameda who may wish to contract for certain services including construction, grounds and building maintenance etc. h) Compliance The ARRA will conduct an annual evaluation /monitoring of employers at the former NAS Alameda to determine how well they are meeting the 15% homeless hiring goal. If little success is being achieved in this area, the ARRA will work with the Homeless Collaborative or its successor to improve mechanisms for providing hiring opportunities for the homeless. III ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT a) Business and Office Development Space Opportunities for economic development activities to provide jobs for the homeless have been divided into categories based on the type of building under consideration. S ... - for ec • .. rnic de • . ment ... be rn - . vailable at the base, or in equivalent space in the community. Homeless providers using b ildin • s • r econo c devel • • ment • u 'poses wil l not ua rat ARRA "rent•„ however. these providers will .e res • •nsible •r _ • - im.r• -ments neces s to .11: e the .uildin• - ha.itab will be s •onsib. - for o. wo ne building mainte . • e and o • -ra. • •sts• an! will .a - •ublic - -rvice fee a necessary (see Sections IV and V below). Space to be utilized by homeless providers is as follows: 1. OFFICE /CLASSROOM SPACE - 25,000 sq. ft. 2. SPECIAL.. PURPOSE /INDUSTRIAL SPACE -2 opportunities 3. INSTITUTIONAL SPACE -2 opportunities 4. RECREATIONAL/RETAIL SPACE-2 opportunities 5. WAREHOUSE/GENERAL PURPOSE SPACE-150.000 sq. ft if the Alameda County Food Bank is part of this request. Otherwise, the maximum square footage is 75,000. IV. OCCUPANCY AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS a) All buildings will be transferred as a public benefit conveyance or leased to homeless providers for a period of time sufficient to obtain any necessary financing. No rent will be charged by the ARRA. If the program holding the building -lease wishes to charge rent to clients, those rent revenues can be used by the program for its own purposes. including funding program operations. b) The ARRA will provide assistance to homeless programs to finance capital improvements to buildings if necessary as a part of any debt financing program the ARRA undertakes. Debt financing could include floating bonds, or accessing some type of revolving loan fund that the federal government may set up. However, the programs would be required to pay back their portion of the debt c) Programs will have one year from the time they take possession of the buildings to begin operating on the Base. If after the one year time period, the original provider can not perform, Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development will have six months to find an alternate program. Once identified. that program will have one year to begin operating. If after one year, the second program cannot perform, the building will revert back to the ARRA. If substantial rehabilitation is involved, then homeless providers will have up to 1 additional year to become operational. What constitutes substantial rehabilitation and additional construction time will be negotiated on a case by case basis and then incorporated into the legally binding agreements. V. PUBLIC SERVICE FEE Homeless providers, as well as other recipients of public benefit conveyances, will sheekt43e-ask-eel-te pay a "public service fee" in lieu of property taxes to off- set the costs of providing basic municipal services to these buildings, including police, fire, public works, etc. s is dee a neces the ARRA to -ist in offselki • the fis 1111 s acts a f the Co • m Reuse on the Ci s f Alameda. W. PROGRAM FINANCING The ARRA will work with providers to jointly seek funding opportunities to assist the homeless providers in operating programs at NAS Alameda on an ongoing basis. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum April26, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 1+ 12.0M: Dave Louk Interim Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Request for Proposal for a Commercial Market Broker for Facilities Located on the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Background: The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has now reached a point where it is prudent to retain a commercial broker to market the facilities located at NAS Alameda for the ARRA. Accordingly, the attached Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Commercial Market Broker has been prepared for approval by the ARRA. This RFP was presented to the BRAG on April 26, 1995 for their review. Financial Impact /Budget Considerations: There will be no immediate budget impacts associated with this RFP as it is structured as a self - financing proposal. All RFP's being submitted to the ARRA must contain a section describing how compensation will be generated from tenant revenues. If successful, this will alleviate the need for up -front payments by the ARRA for broker services which is important as both the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) have stated that their grant funds cannot be used for real estate broker services. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve the attached Request For Proposal for a Commercial Market Broker to facilitate the reuse of buildings and facilities at NAS Alameda. Respectfull subm D: e Louk Interim Executive Director DL /eb Attachment: Request for Proposals REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL COMMERCIAL MARKET BROKER FOR FACILITIES LOCATED ON NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA INTRODUCTION The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is seeking qualified consulting firms to represent the ARRA in marketing the facilities located at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and at the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), (referred to jointly herein as NAS). The decommissioned base consists of 1,734 acres of land and 958 acres of water. All of the base, except for approximately 38 acres, is within the City of Alameda. The area outside of Alameda is within the City and County of San Francisco and is largely made up of wetlands. The City of Alameda has full land use and zoning jurisdiction over the entire site. A Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Alameda and the County of Alameda has been formed that is the basis of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). The ARRA is composed of nine members: five City Of Alameda Council Members, the Mayors of Oakland and San Leandro, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors member representing the Third District, and the United States House of Representatives member representing the Ninth District (currently Congressman Ron Dellums). The ARRA is the legal entity that will be receiving property at NAS from the Federal Government as the base closes. Complete operational closure for Navy activities at NAS Alameda is scheduled to occur in April 1997. The ARRA has retained EDAW as the lead consultant to produce an interim reuse plan and a final reuse plan for property and facilities at NAS. This plan is scheduled to be completed in December 1995. EDAW has completed the first three phases of their scope of work that includes: (1) a review of the infoiuiation available on facilities at NAS and issues concerning their reuse; (2) a Conditions and Trends Report which focuses on understanding existing facilities, socioeconomic, environmental and regulatory conditions present at or affecting the installation, exploring how these conditions may influence reuse planning, and suggested approaches for addressing important concerns; and (3) a Short -Term Interim Reuse Strategy which presents analysis of and recommendations for an Interim Reuse Strategy. Copies of these reports are available for interested parties to review prior to submission of RFP's. 1 SCOPE OF WORK The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is submitting this Request For Proposal (RFP) in order to receive qualified proposals to retain a commercial brokerage firm to provide brokerage services to facilitate reuse of buildings and facilities for the ARRA at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. The film selected will be given a one year exclusive contract to act as the ARRA's agent in reuse negotiations with prospective tenants for buildings at NAS, with an option for follow on years. This firm should have extensive experience marketing real estate comparable to the buildings available at NAS; knowledge of leasing opportunities at NAS compared with leasing opportunities in the private marketplace, including tax implications, utilities, transportation issues, building improvements, overall cost structures etc.; and should have a complete understanding of brokerage law, custom, and practice. This film's responsibilities will include compiling basic information for the buildings under consideration; developing market information materials for individual buildings; soliciting interest in the buildings, answering informational inquiries, conducting building tours, arranging for other professional services on an "as needed" basis to develop additional information regarding building conditions; and represent the ARRA in lease negotiations. This firm would be responsible for assigning staff to the marketing activities, and would function in the way that a broker does for any private owner. The consultant will have available existing studies and work by others in addressing this issue. Finns submitting an RFP should be familiar with issues concerning Military Base Closures and how they affect marketing and marketing strategies. Some of these issues are: the process by which property and facilities are released to other agencies and the public such as other Depaitanent of Defense Agencies, other federal agencies, Homeless Providers, Public Beneficial Conveyances, and release of property to local reuse authorities i.e., the ARRA. Additional significant concerns relating to facilities at NAS which fhnis should be familiar with are the Base Closure environmental clean up procedures and the California State Lands Commission authority and jurisdiction over this property. Additional information concerning these issues is available for review at the ARRA office located in building 90 at NAS Alameda. Buildings being turned over by the Navy to the ARRA are in an "as is" condition. The ARRA will be leasing these buildings in the same condition as they are received from the Navy. All tenant improvements will be the responsibility of the lessee. A review of building conditions is available for review, and is contained in the EDAW Phase II Conditions and Trends Report. The ARRA is currently funded by the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), a Department of Defense Agency. OEA will not allow any of their grant funding to be used for marketing efforts. Therefore, the RFP should contain a creative method of compensation for the brokerage firm. It is anticipated that compensation would be received from revenue generated by the lessee. 2 Firms should consider the following as part of their proposals: • Description of marketing materials to be provided for individual buildings including both general and special purpose industrial facilities. • Proposed logistical arrangements for answering building inquiries, conducting tours, and arranging for any other professional services that may be required to support the leasing effort. • Proposed process for conducting lease negotiations given the fact that the "property owner" is a public entity. • Description of an overall marketing plan for both general purpose buildings as well as the special purpose industrial facilities. • Suggested options for assisting prospective tenants in securing funds for tenant improvements to buildings. • An approach for the ARRA to compensate the brokerage film for services rendered without paying up -front commissions, i.e., compensation through revenues paid by the lessee, or other methods. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Proposal should be single spaced and organized as follows: ( "Boilerplate" materials are not encouraged; if submitted, they must be bound separately from the proposal itself.) • Executive Summary - Demonstrate grasp of RFP; summarize the proposal. • Scope of Work - Identify services to be delivered. This should include a description of the approach to marketing the buildings; a discussion of how to address some of the problem issues such as a potential lack of money for tenant improvements; and a description of how the overall marketing strategy will be executed. • Work Program and Schedule - Give details on how work will be perfoimed. ■ Organization and Personnel - Identify responsible parties and explain how work would be managed; resumes of key people. ■ Cost Proposal - Describe how compensation for commercial brokerage will be provided through tenant revenues. 3 • Qualifications - Describe and indicate the relevance of background experience and capabilities; include client references with phone and fax numbers for relevant work and cost of services delivered. This should include firm qualifications as well as the qualifications of individuals who will be representing the property; and a description of recently completed transactions for buildings comparable to those at NAS Alameda. PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND DELIVERY Ten complete copies of the proposal will be received at the following address no later than 4:00 p.m., June 2, 1995.. Proposals will not be accepted after this time. Proposals shall be addressed as follows: Dave Louk Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Building 90, NAS Alameda Alameda, CA 94501 Hand carried proposals will be accepted in Building 90, Naval Air Station Alameda, California. LIST OF AVAILABLE EXHIBITS The following list of exhibits is available for review at the ARRA office located at Building 90, NAS Alameda. A. Description of buildings at NAS which contain building dimensions, utilities and floor plan. B. Utility infou nation. C. Digitized base map description. D. Technical information and studies including reports completed by EDAW as part of the overall interim reuse plan and final reuse plan. E. Sample Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Consultant Contract Foim. 4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT General Qualification: 1. Non - Discrimination Consistent with the ARRA's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, the Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, an ARRA employee or a citizen by the Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis or race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of the Agreement. Consultant shall also comply with all federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination of any type. Such laws include, but are not limited to, laws prohibiting discrimination in employment or accommodation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please be advised that we encourage participation of Local Business Enterprises, Minority Business Enterprises, Women's Business Enterprises, Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises, and Small Business Enterprises in the award of federally assisted contracts. 2. Hold Harmless Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Reuse Authority, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, regardless of the merits of outcome of any such claim or suit arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent perfolivance of services or work conducted or perfoniied pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Reuse Authority, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, equipment or supplies arising from or in any manner connected to the consultant's negligent performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. 5 3. Insurance On or before the commencement of the term of an Agreement, the Consultant shall furnish the Reuse 'Authority with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with this paragraph. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority c/o City of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to the Risk Manager and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the Reuse Authority, City and County as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. •a) Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,00 - each occurrence $1,000,00 - aggregate - all other Property Damage: $100,000 - each occurrence $250,00 - aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amount of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: Property Damage: or $500,000 - each occurrence $100,000 - each occurrence Combined Single Limit: $500,000 - each occurrence 6 b) Subrogation Waiver: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, that Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to the Reuse Authority, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant of Reuse Authority with respect to the services of. Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the Reuse Authority by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. c) Failure to Secure: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the Reuse Authority shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant, and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. d) Additional Insured: The Reuse Authority, officers, and employees shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or an extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss of expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. e) Sufficiency of Insurance: The insurance limits required by the Agreement are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. Permits and Licenses: Consultant, and all sub - consultants, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the teiin of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License that may be required in connection with the performance of 7 services hereunder. Reports: Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, computer reports /file and other documents, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report" reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of the Reuse Authority. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of the Reuse Authority, and all publication rights are reserved to the Reuse Authority. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by the Reuse Authority in execution or implementation of: a) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; b) Completion of the original Project by others; c) Subsequent additional to the original project; and /or d) Other Reuse Authority projects as appropriate. No report, infoimation nor other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any government entity, individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by the executive Director of the Reuse Authority. Consultant shall, at such time and in such foiiii as the Reuse Authority may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. Records: Consultant Shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the Reuse Authority that relate to the perfoiuiance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of the Reuse Authority or its designees at all proper times to such books and records, and gives the Reuse Authority the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. 8 Restriction on Lobbying: The Agreement will be subject to 24 CFR 87 which prohibits the payment of Federal funds to any person for influencing or attempting to influence, any public officer or employee in connection with the award, making, entering into, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or agreement. Community Redevelopment Law California Community Redevelopment law requires that contracts for work performed in connection with any redevelopment project shall be awarded, to the greatest extent feasible, to business concerns that are located in, or owned in substantial part, by persons residing in the redevelopment area. There is also an employment preference for people residing in the redevelopment area. Subsequent to the formation of a redevelopment area which includes the Project Area, the consultant shall be required to abide by these provisions for any subcontracts awarded or contract amendments. Subcontractor Approval Unless prior written consent from the Reuse Authority is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are approved, in writing, by the Reuse Authority shall be used in the performance of the Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, professional and automobile liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontract hereunder shall be subject to each provision of the Agreement. CONDITIONS OF REQUEST The Reuse Authority also reserves the right to cancel or reject all or a portion or portions of the request without notice. Further, the Reuse Authority makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded to any film submitting a proposal. The Reuse Authority reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted in response to this request or any addenda thereto. The Reuse Authority also reserves the right to reject any sub - consultant or individual working for a consultant team and to replace the sub- consultant or individual with a mutually acceptable replacement. 9 Any changes to the proposal requirements will be made by written addendum. The Reuse Authority shall not be liable for any costs incurred in response to this request for proposals. All costs shall be borne by the person or organization responding to the request. The person or organization responding to the request shall hold the Reuse Authority harmless from any and all liability, claim or expense whatsoever incurred by or on behalf of that person or organization. No prior, current or post -award verbal agreements(s) with any officer, agency of employee of the Reuse Authority shall affect or modify any terms or obligations of this request for proposals or any contract or option resulting from this process. All proposals must be valid for at least 90 days. The selected lead consultant will be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they possess them within their organization. The selected lead consultant will be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. 10