Loading...
1995-09-06 ARRA PacketREVISED AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda High School Cafeteria West Wing Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Alameda, CA Wednesday, September 6, 1995 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 (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. I ROLL CALL I CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of August 16, 1995 III ACTION ITEMS A. Oral Presentation and Discussion of the BRAG Composite Land Use Plan for the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Public Benefit Conveyance Review Criteria. C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Amendment to the Office of Economic Adjustment Through January 1995— Completion of the Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) and the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement Between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) and the California State University Hayward Foundation. (CSUHF). E. Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the NAS Alameda Sewer Improvement Project. F. Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for a Port /Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study for Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. G. Report from the Executive Director Recommending that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Adopt an Open Listing Policy Allowing Payment of Commissions to Real Estate Brokers Representing Interim Tenants. H. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter Proposing to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal and Authorization to Communicate this Determination to the Port of Oakland and Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. I. Appointment of a Chairperson for the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. IV ORAL REPORTS A. Legal Briefing on the Tidelands Trust Doctrine by Kenneth Taymor from the law firm of Cassidy & Verges. B. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities. C. Oral Report from the Executive Director on Current ARRA Matters. V. 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.) VI COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY VII. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER: Real Estate Negotiations on building numbers 11, 12, 400A, 20, and 24. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, 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 MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 16, 1995 The meeting convened at 5:32 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice - Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District; Vice Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:35 p.m.); Alternate Gary Loeffler for Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:35 p.m.); Alternate Greg Alves for Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Alternate Mark Friedman for Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Ex-officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG); Alternate Ardella Dailey for Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District Absent: Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of August 2, 1995. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Mannix to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Alternate Mark Friedman. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Absent: 1. II. AGENDA ITEMS A. Report From the Executive Director Recommending Approval to Endorse the California State University Hayward Foundation (CSUHF) as a Co Applicant with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) for a Grant Application to the Economic Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce. After a short presentation by the Executive Director and discussion by the Authority, a motion was made by Alternate Friedman and seconded by Alternate Brooks to endorse CSUHF as a Co- Applicant with the ARRA and ACET for a Grant Application to the EDA. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Absent: 1. B. Report From the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team (BADCAT) Position Paper on Improving the Base Conversion Process. The Executive Director stated that this letter was crafted as a lobbying tool to raise the level of consciousness in the Congress, to frame the issues that are impediments to the base closure process, and to recommend action steps to remove those obstacles. The BRAG has endorsed the letter with the following caveats: (1) rewrite the paper to stress the opportunity of base closure to address the entire affected local community rather than primarily focusing on special needs such as low - income and homeless; (2) recraft the paper to reflect that the primary goal of base conversion should be job replacement and not special interests; (3) present the paper with a strong emphasis on the need to return revenues gained from base reconversion for reinvestment into the properties. After discussion and questions from the Authority on the critical importance of the incorporation of the BRAG's suggestions, it was moved by Alternate Roberta Brooks that approval of the document be contingent on incorporation of the articles that the BRAG had articulated. The motion was seconded by Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix. Speakers: Mr. Neil Patrick Sweeney, a citizen of Alameda, suggested (1) ways to declare war on the NAS Alameda environmental toxic cleanup; (2) that proposals from all base conversions should be computerized on the information superhighway; and (3) that all information should be sent to every ethnic language media. Councilmember DeWitt stated that the BADCAT position paper had been in process while the ARRA was in the transition of fording a new Executive Director. He voiced the hope that the warm relationship between BADCAT and the City of Alameda continues. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: None. Abstentions: 1- Alternate Tony Daysog. Absent: 1. C. Presentation/Workshop on the Analysis of Alternatives and Development of a Preferred Land Use Plan. D. Paul Tuttle, Planner for the ARRA, stated that the workshop was being held at the request of the ARRA to brief them on the planning process and the critical decisions being faced in the near future. Jonathan Stern, Assistant Project Manager for EDAW, then made a slide presentation titled, Phase 4: Long Range Alternative Analysis. The Presentation of Findings included (1) the status of the planning effort; (2) goals and objectives; (3) the urban design framework; (4) alternative description; (5) comparative analysis of five alternatives; and (6) recommendations and next steps. In response to a query by Mayor Appezzato on flexibility in the final plan, the Executive Director stated that our Final Reuse Plan is the document that the Navy will use as the basis of their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We must make sure that it is intentionally flexible enough that as market conditions change and as we change our minds about what we would like, the plan stands the test of the EIS. Ex-officio Perez stated that the Navy will do their toxic cleanup at a level with the stated use of each parcel of land. If we want to change it later to a use that requires a higher level of toxic cleanup, there could be a problem. Mayor Appezzato stated that flexibility is the key. Kay Miller stated that there is an August 23rd meeting with EDAW, the staff, and the BRAG where the BRAG can give input into the plan that is presented to the public on September 9. She then solicited early general direction from the ARRA members. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he is interested in a choice that would provide for wildlife, a golf course, and an infrastructure that is adequate. He would like to see pieces from each plan combined for a sixth alternative. 2 Alternate Brooks asked whether Fish and Wildlife and EBRPD have leverage in their land requests or does ARRA make the decision? The Executive Director stated that the final decision is the Navy's at the Record of Decision. The Navy is anxious for all land request issues be resolved before it gets to them. If the community does not support the Fish & Wildlife request for 970 acres and a way to mitigate the effect on the endangered species is presented, the Navy will look at the plan the ARRA proposes. Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney (1) urged the public to get out to the town meeting at the Officer's Club on September 9; (2) suggested the possibility of using active duty and reserve military personnel already trained in environmental cleanup; (3) proposed walking paths and light rail to eliminate gridlock; and (4) stated that the Medical Clinic was upgraded not too long ago and should be retained for the use of any future educational consortium. Dave Ryan, EFA West, U.S. Navy, stated that the reuse authority has great weight in any decisions that are made on the Final Reuse Plan. He also stated that the Final Reuse Plan will affect the level of toxic cleanup. For instance, if an area presently used as an industrial site is slated for a child care center, it would impact both cleanup costs and the cleanup schedule. III. ORAL REPORTS: None. 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.) Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney spoke further on toxic cleanup. IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY None. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, et E. Ensley Secretary 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 1, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Public Benefit Conveyance Review Criteria. Background: The public benefit conveyance process is one of the major legal mechanisms for the transfer of federal property to local agencies and certified non - profit organizations. Public benefit conveyances can be made to local governmental agencies such as the City of Alameda Parks and Recreation Department, the East Bay Regional Parks District, or the Alameda Unified School District. Authorized non - profit agencies could include health organizations, private schools and universities, and research institutes with approved non - profit (201 - C3) status. Each authorized agency or non - profit applicant must also have approval of a sponsoring federal agency (Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Interior, etc.). The final decision on public benefit conveyances will be made by the Secretary of the Navy based upon the local reuse authority's approved Community Reuse Plan. Discussion: ARRA staff has developed a process for screening public benefit conveyance applications and making recommendations to the ARRA for approval. The screening process is based upon the enclosed set of review criteria. The screening criteria are based upon six major factors: project viability, preferred transfer mechanism (PBC vs. EDC), public benefit, location compatibility, and conflict resolution potential. ARRA previously considered public conveyances and approved them in concept subject to the following conditions: 1. Property Reversion Clause. The ARRA needs assurance that if a project fails, is unable to perform, goes into bankruptcy, or otherwise goes out of existence the property would revert to the ARRA. This could take the form of a first right of refusal or other properly reversion mechanism. Details of a reversion clause may need special legislation and/or further legal clarification from the Department of Defense. Honorable Members of the September 1, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 2. Demonstrate Financial Feasibility. Each public benefit proposal should provide assurances and demonstrate to the ARRA its financial feasibility to successfully complete the proposed project within a specified time period. This could include a financial feasibility analysis, a business plan (including detailed building and site improvement costs), a pro -forma analysis for ongoing operation and management, identified funding sources, and proof of funding commitment. This could also include provisions for securing an initial funding amount by a set deadline. 3. In -lieu Public Service Fee Payments. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair share" of public service costs to cover police, fire, and other public services to their specific site or building. 4. Fair Share oflnfrastructure /Utility Costs. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair share" of on -site and off -site infrastructure /utility improvements. This would include streets and circulation improvements, water, gas, 'sewer, electrical services, etc. 5. Site Development /Rehab Plans. Each public benefit applicant should be responsible for development costs. A detailed site development and building rehab plans should be submitted for approval. These plans form the basis of rehab costs and are a commitment to make necessary building code and site improvements at an acceptable level within a specified time period. Screening of each public benefit conveyance application will be made by a review team of ARRA staff, the consultant team, and two members of BRAG. The review criteria were endorsed by the BRAG at their special meeting of August 30, 1995. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the adoption of the screening criteria. Ultimately, approval of each public benefit conveyance for inclusion in the Community Reuse Plan could have a very large impact on the community. Public benefit conveyances remove land from the City tax base and potentially give, property to uses which might otherwise provide economic development. However, public benefit/ /conveyances provide essential public services (parks, schools, etc.) and other uses which contribute to the overall quality of life in the community. Environmental Review: Endorsement of the public benefit conveyance screening criteria does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Approval of the screening criteria does not: constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other land entitlement; and is not an activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing or grading of land, improvements to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans or elements of plans. In addition, screening criteria is part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse of NAS Alameda Honorable Members of the September 1, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 for possible future actions, and is therefore "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262). Recommendation: Staff recommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopt by motion the Public Benefit Screening Criteria. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachments: Public Benefit Review Criteria PBC Review Criteria Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority I. Project Viability What is the overall project viability in terms of finances, experience, and ability to succeed? • Ability to Perform "Due Diligence" Development Analysis - Does the proponent have the financial and/or technical capability to perform the necessary due diligence assessment of the buildings requested and prepare the necessary financial analysis. • Current Assets - What are the current assets of the proponent (cash, property, bonds or other securities) and are these assets enough to cover the project costs and project overruns (Financial Statement). • Operating Track Record - What is the success of the proponent in fund raising, developing, and operating a project of the proposed size and type. • Fund Raising Plan - Does the proponent have funding sources, a schedule for fund raising, including milestones for securing funding, and what is the probability of success. • Public Agency/Non Profit Status - Is the proponent eligible for PBC as a public agency or non profit organization. (Evidence of status must be provided.) • Development Phasing - Does the proponent have the financial ability to pay for carrying costs of the project (including debt service on loans and maintenance on buildings not being used). • Sponsoring Agency - Has the PBC secured the required Federal Sponsoring Agency (Department of Interior, Department of Education, HUD, etc.). II. EDC Versus PBC Transfer Would the proposed project be more successful as a EDC or PBC? An Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) allows for greater flexibility by the ARRA in implementation of the overall plan and allows for greater control over project sites. • Long -Term Viability (Potential for Long -Term Success) - Based upon the above information, what is the potential success or failure of the proposed project, and the potential for land reverting back to the federal government. • Potential Need for Flexibility and Phasing - Could the proposed project site potentially be reused for an alternative use in the interim or in the future. • Effect on Overall Project Success - Would the proposed PBC status limit the overall project success due to government regulatory constraints. • Effect on Overall Reuse Plan Success - Would the proposed PBC status limit the success of the Reuse Plan. 9/1/95 PBC Review Criteria Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority III. Contribution to the Public Good What contribution does the proposed public benefit conveyance make to the public good? • Provision of Essential Public Service - Does the proposed project provide an essential public service to the community as a whole? • Public Access - What level of pubic access is provided to the public? What fees to the public are charged? • Public Served - What is the public being served by the proposed use (number of people, number of local residents, age, etc.). IV. Building, Site, and Location Compatibility Is the proposed project compatible with the surrounding uses, potential reuse of the base, the building requested, and the market potential of the building? • Land Use Compatibility - Is the proposed project compatible with areas and neighborhoods surrounding the site, both existing or planned? • Reuse Plan Compatibility - Is the proposed project compatible with the proposed reuse plan? • Potential Market Use Competition - Does the proposed building have a higher market rate use? • Appropriate Use of Building Requested - Is the proposed use appropriate for the building requested? • Demolition Compatibility - Is the proposed use compatible with future demolition plans? • Cleanup Compatibility - Is the proposed reuse compatible with required cleanup plans? V. Conflicting Use Resolution What is the potential for resolving conflicting uses for buildings and sites? • Highest and Best Use - Which use is the highest and best use for the site? 1. Site and building potential for market rate lease /sale. 2. Greatest compatibility with reuse plan. 3. Greatest compatibility with building design. 4. Greatest compatibility with surrounding or adjacent uses both existing and planned. • Potential For Joint Use - Who should manage a site if joint use is proposed? 1. Who has highest management skills, experience, and capabilities? 2. Who has the greatest financial resources to carry out the proposed project? 3. Will public access be provided to facility? 9/1 /95 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 1, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Amendment to the Office of Economic Adjustment Through January 1995- Completion of the Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) and the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). Background: At its meeting of August 2, 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) authorized the Executive Director to submit to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) a draft budget amendment to coordinate reuse planning expenses for FISC with reuse planning for NAS Alameda, and to extend the current ARRA grant/fiscal year from October 31, 1995 through January 31, 1996. At that time, the ARRA will submit the completed Community Reuse Plan for NAS to the Navy. In February 1996 the ARRA will begin the implementation and financial planning phase and additional OEA funding will be sought for these activities. Discussion/Analysis: The proposed ARRA budget amendment to OEA totals $553,648. The ARRA budget amendment includes funding for ARRA personnel and office expenses, continued EDAW planning work on NAS for November 1995 through January 1996, budget amendments to the existing NAS 1994/95 fiscal year grant, funding for FISC reuse planning, and additional NAS consultant activity from September through January. In addition, $200,000 was requested for a detailed utility study. The following is a synopsis of the items included in the attached budget amendment for the ARRA through January 1996: ARRA Personnel and Office Expenses: The majority of office /staff expenditures are the same as previous expenditures approved by OEA with two significant changes. First, as recommended by OEA, the Administrative Management Analyst and the Receptionist/Secretary have been included, with benefits, in the ARRA budget rather than in the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) budget. Second, with the Honorable Members of the Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 additional workload generated by the new reuse planning area (FISC) and the additional ARRA workload, a full -time additional Departmental Secretary is requested in lieu of the temporary clerical funding previously provided by OEA. EDAW Planning for November, December and Now January 1996: In the previous grant submittal, OEA approved $68,000 for the entire scope of work for the ARRA's reuse planning budget through December of the 1995/96 fiscal year. The planning process has now been extended one additional month from December 1995 through January 1996. The funding level for November and December previously approved by OEA remains the same, but an additional $19,000 has been requested for the month of January to cover the consultant's additional expenses for public meetings and subsequent work products. Budget Amendments to Existing NAS 1994/95 Fiscal Year Grant: Several budget items were not anticipated when the ARRA prepared its grant submittal to OEA last fall. At the request of OEA, these items have been incorporated in this budget amendment rather than submitting a separate budget amendment. These items include $6,617 for ARRA insurance separate from the City of Alameda and IRS filing expenses. Last fall when the ARRA's budget was submitted, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 had not been adopted, and the new law required the ARRA to publish legal notices in local newspapers advertising the process and dates for the homeless screening and public benefit conveyances. The legal notices cost $987. Funding in the amount of $3,500 has been requested to cover the ARRA's meeting expenses at Alameda High School, and an additional $2,000 has been requested to cover the increased number of BRAG Town Meetings. The ARRA has exceeded the number of copies under the standard copier service agreement due to the massive local and regional public participation requirements of the East Bay; therefore, an additional $1,000 has been requested for an expanded copier service agreement. Shortly after OEA approved last year's reuse planning grant, OEA authorized the ARRA's Executive Director to conduct a detailed analysis of real estate potential. The analysis included a survey of 45 preselected buildings at NAS/NADEP to determine each building's marketability. The analysis provided a determination of each building's greatest interim reuse potential and potential lease rates. The cost of the consultant work was $40,000. An adjustment is requested to last year's grant to cover the cost of that additional consultant study. Finally, the budget amendment also requests the restoration of funds resulting from an OEA miscalculation in the budget approval ($4,000), and approval for the ARRA to move savings from consultant work completed in the last fiscal year to cover the costs from the BRAG "Charette." Honorable Members of the Page 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 FISC Reuse Planning Consultant Budget (September 1995 through January 1996): In order to coordinate reuse planning for FISC with NAS, work on FISC must begin immediately. Since the reuse planning for NAS and FISC will have a tremendous impact on each other and need to be developed concurrently, OEA will allow the ARRA to utilize its existing NAS consultant team. Since FISC may need to complete the federal screening process, the final plan for FISC may not be completed until later next year; however, work can proceed now on the reconnaissance phase, the conditions and trends report, development of an interim reuse strategy, alternative analysis, and selection of a preferred alternative. Detailed utility analysis for FISC will be incorporated in the proposed utility study. Total cost of consultant activity from September 1995 through January 1996 is $100,000. Additional NAS Consultant Activity through January 1996: Environmental Consultant - The OEA budget submittal includes a request for additional consultant activity that the ARRA staff recommends be undertaken immediately. First, $15,000 has been requested for an environmental consultant. All the environmental parties interested in securing the entire 950 acres at NAS for the Least Tern have their attorneys and technical experts in meetings and negotiations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. The ARRA staff also requires its own technical experts to evaluate arguments and protect the ARRA's interest in these negotiations. Time constraints and the high level of expertise of the existing consultants, led OEA permit the ARRA to utilize its existing consultant team. This is necessary for the ARRA to complete the Community Reuse Plan by the end of January 1996. Port Marina Study - The Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) will make Port Priority determination in December 1995. The ARRA needs information on the feasibility of a port to utilize in negotiations with BCDC on Port Priority designation. Also, a major opportunity exists for the development of a marina in the NAS Alameda Seaplane Lagoon. This study will help determine the market, size, and program for a new marina at the NAS Alameda and FISC sites. Therefore, the budget amendment requests $25,000 for a Port/Marina Market Study. In the interest of time and because of the level of expertise of the existing consultants, OEA has agreed to permit the ARRA to utilize the ARRA's existing consultant team. This is necessary for the ARRA to begin the work this month. Marketing- The marketing of NAS and FISC to interim users is a significant challenge. The OEA budget amendment requests $50,000 to develop a detailed interim marketing plan and marketing materials. The ARRA will develop a Request for Proposal to go out to bid for much of the proposed work. Honorable Members of the Page 4 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 Detailed Utility Study: Funding is needed for an in -depth utility study to detail immediate solutions to meet the utility needs of interim users and provide detailed information on improvements needed for long -term tenants envisioned in the final reuse plan. The total proposed cost for the detailed utility study is $600,000. The OEA budget amendment requests $200,000 from OEA for the ARRA's portion of the study. The City of Alameda would provide $200,000 and the utility companies would be asked to contribute $200,000 cash and in kind. Additional Planning Requests Through January 1996: Since the ARRA approved the draft budget amendment at its August meeting, two additional budget items have been included for OEA funding. First, OEA will now share in the cost of an Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Panel. The purpose of a ULI Advisory Panel is to provide a reality check of the base closure community reuse plan being developed by local reuse authorities prior to the plan's completion. ULI convenes a panel of experts to determine the most marketable proposals for the short term and realistic phasing of the plan for the best returns given real world market conditions. In the past, OEA would not fund this program; however, now OEA will fund 50% of the service up to $45,000. It is estimated that the ULI Advisory Panel will cost approximately $84,000. Under OEA's formula the ARRA would be eligible to apply for $42,000, and staff will seek to secure the remaining funds from local foundations that support these programs. Second, ARRA's negotiations of an interim lease with AEG for approximately 280,000 sq. ft. in Buildings 11, 12 and 400A has been delayed by the discovery of serious structural deficiencies in these buildings. In order to progress with the negotiations, an engineering analysis is needed to determine the extent of the problems, recommended building upgrades, and construction cost estimates. The problems include substantial subsidence of the buildings' structural slabs following the Loma Prieta earthquake - up to 8 inches in some places, and possible seismic deficiencies in the building's structural frame. These improvements would ordinarily be the responsibility of the landlord, and are not associated with any tenant leasehold improvements. Once costs are determined, the ARRA would consider AEG making the structural improvements to be deducted from AEG's rent to the ARRA. At the end of the lease, the ARRA would have structurally sound/improved buildings. The cost of the analysis is $12,000. Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact: As with previous OEA grants, the City of Alameda will provide the 25% OEA matching requirement for this budget amendment through continued City staff and monetary contributions to the base conversion and reuse planning effort. Also, funding provided by the utility companies can be counted toward the local match requirement. Honorable Members of the Page 5 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 The Executive Director of the ARRA will be responsible for the administration of this budget amendment, and only substantive changes to the budget will require further action or reconsideration by the ARRA. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA, by motion, approve the budget amendment to OEA, and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate the final agreement with OEA. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM:jm Attachment: OEA Budget Amendment Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Proposed Budget Amendment Through January 1996 August 31, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Postal Directory, Building 90 Naval Air Station Alameda Alameda, CA 94501 Tel: (510) 263 -2870 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Proposed Budget Amendment Table of Contents ARRA Personnel and Office Expenses 1,1617 , EDAW Planning for November, December and January 1996 2 • Phase 5 - Community Reuse Plan (November/December 1995) ♦ Phase 5 - Extension/Budget Addition (January 1996) 2 Budget Amendments to Existing NAS 1994 /95 Grant ♦ CB Commercial 4 • ARRA Insurance 4 • ARRA IRS Filing 4 • Homeless Legal Notices 5 • Copier Repair Service Contract 5 • ARRA Meeting Expenses 5 • Additional BRAG Town Meeting Expense 5 • Restoration of OEA Miscalculation 6 • Approval of Reprogramming Savings for "Design Charette" 6 FISC Reuse Planning Consultant Budget (September 1995 through January 1996) Additional NAS Consultant Activity through January 1996 • Environmental Consultant 9 • Development of Interim Marketing Plan/Materials 10 • Port/Marina Market Study 11 • Detailed Utility Study 12 Additional Planning Request Through January 1996 • Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services • Engineering Analysis of Structural Deficiences 14 15 4 8 14 Budget Summary 16 Budget Narrative 17 Attachment A 18 (OEA Approved Consultant Budget from Previous OEA Grant Award) ii ARRA PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT THROUGH JANUARY 1996 The City of Alameda endorsed inclusion of the Fleet Supply Industrial Center (FISC), Alameda Facility /Annex on the BRAC 95 base closure list. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) also endorsed reuse planning for FISC to come under the jurisdiction and control of the ARRA. It is the ARRA's desire to coordinate reuse planning for FISC with the reuse planning for the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS). In addition, the Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda was scheduled to be completed by December of 1995; however, due to the imposition of the homeless screening process as required by the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, the schedule for completion of the NAS Community Reuse Plan has been revised to January 1996. The ARRA requests that the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) consider this proposed budget amendment to incorporate reuse planning expenses for FISC with reuse planning for NAS Alameda, and to extend the current ARRA grant /fiscal year from October 31, 1995, through January 31, 1996. The ARRA intends to complete the Community Reuse Plan for NAS by January 1996 for submission to the Navy. In February 1996, the ARRA will begin the implementation and detailed .planning phases for NAS. Thus, this proposed budget amendment provides for a logical break from land use planning to implementation planning. As with previous OEA grants, the City of Alameda will provide the 25 % OEA matching requirements for this budget amendment through continued City staff and monetary contributions to the base conversion and reuse planning effort. If the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant program is funded in the State budget, the ARRA will apply for a $100,000 matching grant to contribute toward the OEA matching grant requirement. The following are the proposed grant items to be included in the budget amendment to the ARRA through January 1996, and to incorporate reuse planning activity for FISC. ARRA PERSONNEL AND OFFICE EXPENSES NOVEMBER 1995 TO JANUARY 1996: ▪ Staff Salaries and Benefits (Including Administrative Management Analyst, Secretary/Receptionist, and Depai huental Secretary) ▪ Office Expenses • Travel C Administrative Services (Accounting) Q Public Participation Expenses for FISC through January 1996 The budget summary and budget narrative for this are presented on pages 16 and 17. The majority of the monthly expenditures are the same as the previous monthly expenditures approved by OEA with two significant changes. First, as recommended by OEA, the Administrative Management Analyst and the Receptionist /Secretary have been included in the ARRA budget rather than in the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) budget. Second, with the additional workload generated by the new reuse planning area (FISC) and the additional ARRA workload, the ARRA requests that OEA provide salary and benefits for a Departmental Secretary. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 EDAW PLANNING FOR NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AND JANUARY 1996: • Scope of Work and Budget for November and December previously approved by OEA last year, (Phase 5). • Additional expense of public meetings and subsequent work products for January 1996, (Phase 5 Extension/Budget Addition). Phase 5 - Community Reuse Plan (November /December 1995) $68,000 In the previous grant submittal, OEA approved the entire scope of work for the ARRA's reuse planning consultant budget for FY 1993/94, 1994/95, and November and December of FY 1995/96. The scope of work and amount budgeted for the scope of work previously authorized by OEA is this $68,000. (See Attachment A) Deliverables: The funding is for completion of Phase 5 - Long Term Community Reuse Plan. The previously approved scope of work included: (1) the Final Long -Term Community Reuse Plan, and Executive Summary; and (2) GIS model of NAS Alameda, the plan, and implementation programs. The plan will be presented at a series of public workshops, and presented for approval to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, with input from the agencies. Meetings: One (1) BRAG workshop on the Reuse Plan, two (2) Reuse Authority Hearings on the Reuse Plan. Budget: $68,000 Phase 5 Extension /Budget Addition (January 1996) $19,000 The planning process has been extended for one additional month from December through January 1996. This extension of the work program was brought about by several events. First, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 was enacted by Congress requiring establishment of a homeless screening process. The ARRA could not legally begin the screening process until the Secretary of Defense had published in the Federal Register, and in a local newspaper, information on the base and the ARRA. The ARRA approved the three month screening process in early February, but the ARRA was delayed over two months waiting for the Secretary of Defense to publish in the Federal Register and the local newspapers. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 The Homeless Assistance Act also requires additional planning tasks to be included in the Final Community Reuse Plan at a level not included in the original scope of work and consultant contract. This includes incorporation of a homeless element /strategy that integrates specific homeless programs and properties into the Community Reuse Plan. Secondly, additional effort was undertaken by the local community advisory group (BRAG - Base Reuse Advisory Group) to develop an urban design framework to be included in the Community Reuse Plan. The BRAG held a special "Design Charette" to identify the urban design framework and the five land use alternatives. This process also required special ARRA meetings and adjustments to the scope of work and the planning schedule. The addition of one month in the planning schedule will involve additional tasks and costs to the consultant team scope of work. The additional tasks include: • Planning Meetings: Three additional meetings have been scheduled, two (2) with the BRAG and one (1) additional meeting with the ARRA to coordinate the homeless and public benefit process into the analysis of alternatives and development of a Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is the basis of the Community Reuse Plan. (NOTE: These additional meetings were requested by the ARRA when it approved the January delay in completion of the Community Reuse Plan. The meetings are intended to help facilitate the development of the Preferred Land Use Alternative. These meetings will also be used to incorporate discussions, review and decisions related to the reuse planning of the FISC property.) • Project Management: The schedule changes and the addition of the homeless element involves additional management costs by the consultant team to coordinate the work effort, negotiate and incorporate the completed homeless element/strategy and the Public Benefit Conveyances (PBC) into the Final Community Reuse Plan. This includes establishing criteria and identifying sites for the PBC's. (The actual homeless • strategy will be drafted by the ARRA's homeless consultant being paid through the EBCRC; however, that contract does not include how the strategy will be integrated into the final reuse planning documents.) Deliverables: Three (3) additional meetings facilitated by EDAW, two (2) BRAG meetings and one (1) additional ARRA meeting; and, work associated with incorporation of the completed homeless strategy and Public Benefit Conveyances into the Final Community Reuse Plan - i.e. establishing criteria, identifying sites, negotiating locations, etc. Budget: Total budget for January: $19, 000 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING NAS 1994/95 FISCAL YEAR GRANT: 000000000 CB Commercial ARRA Insurance ARRA's IRS Filing Homeless Legal Notices Copier Repair Service Contract ARRA Meeting Expenses Additional BRAG Town Meeting Expenses Restoration of OEA Miscalculation EDAW • Moving money from one task and budget category to another as previously approved by OEA for the BRAG "Design Charette." CB Commercial - Building Marketability Analysis $40,000 Shortly after OEA approved last year's reuse planning grant for FY 1994/95, OEA authorized the ARRA's Executive Director to spend up to $64,000 for a detailed analysis of the real estate reuse potential. This analysis included a survey of 45 preselected buildings at NAS /NADEP to determine each building's marketability. In addition, this analysis provided a determination of each building's greatest interim reuse potential, and the potential lease rates. The actual expenditure for this work was $40,000. Deliverable: Report "Alameda Naval Air Station Base Reuse Evaluation Project" ARRA Property /Liability Insurance $6,152 When the ARRA incorporated it was unaware that the Joint Powers Authority must have its own property /liability insurance. (Prior to formation of the ARRA, the base conversion office was covered by the City of Alameda's insurance.) The ARRA is requesting this as a budget augmentation to the FY 1994/95 OEA planning grant. The unanticipated cost for insurance from November 1994 through November 1995 is $5,252. In addition, the ARRA is requesting an additional $900 to insure the ARRA for December 1995 and January 1996. ARRA IRS Filing $465 When the ARRA incorporated, staff was also unaware of the Internal Revenue Service filing fee charged to Joint Powers Authorities. The ARRA is requesting this as a budget augmentation to the FY 1994/95 OEA planning grant. The unanticipated cost is $465. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 Homeless Legal Notices $987 The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 had not been adopted when the ARRA submitted its reuse planning grant application to OEA last year. The new law required local reuse authorities to publish legal notices in local newspapers advertising the process and dates for the homeless screening and public benefit conveyances. The ARRA is requesting a budget augmentation to the FY 1994/95 OEA planning grant for these costs. The unanticipated cost was $987 to advertise in local and regional newspapers. Copier Repair Service Contract $1,000 The ARRA has exceeded the number of copies under the standard copier service agreement. This is primarily due to the massive public participation requirements of the East Bay. The original OEA grant budgeted $2,208, but actual services will cost $3,145. ARRA Meeting Expenses $3,500 When the ARRA was first fowled, it was able to meet in the Alameda City Hall; however, as of January 1995 the City Hall does not have adequate access per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The City will make the ADA improvements during seismic renovation of City Hall over the next two years; therefore, public meetings must be held elsewhere. The City Council and the ARRA have been utilizing the theater and cafeteria at the Alameda High School. The Alameda Unified School District must cover the cost of these facilities being used after regular business hours. This was an unanticipated cost when the ARRA budget was submitted to OEA last year. Fortunately, the ARRA receives donated office space and has not had to secure funding for overheard expenses. However, an adequate, convenient, local public meeting facility is essential for the ARRA to function in the community. To date, the ARRA has held approximately 8 meetings at a cost of $1,335. The ARRA has scheduled two meetings in August, and anticipates additional monthly meetings. Additional BRAG Town Meeting Expenses $2,000 In order to achieve community consensus on the activities of the ARRA and the various stages of the Community Reuse Plan, the BRAG has hosted a series of Town Meetings. This fiscal year the BRAG has hosted four meetings, and anticipates at least two more. The schedule for completion of the Community Reuse Plan has precipitated the increase in meetings this year versus last year. Fewer meetings were held last year because the Community Reuse Plan was not as far along. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 6 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 Included in these BRAG meetings, was a special Town Presentation on the homeless "Standards of Reasonableness" and the Public Benefit Conveyances to provide the community with current and correct information on these politically charged issues. The BRAG Housing Subcommittee and the ARRA even hosted an all day tour and briefing on all NAS housing requested by the Homeless Collaborative members upon adoption of the "Standards of Reasonableness." The funding is used to rent special facilities (i.e. the Officers Club at NAS), for special meeting arrangements (i.e. electrician for audio taping and microphones), and meeting supplies (i.e. several hundred dollars each meeting for meeting notices for the Alameda Unified School District, EBCRC, etc.). In this year's budget only $1,500 was provided for the BRAG Town Meetings; however, to date the BRAG has spent close to $4,500. OEA provided $2,500 for bus tours, but this year the BRAG has had more Town Meetings and fewer tours. Transferring the remaining balance of the bus tour funding, $2,000 to BRAG meetings, will not provide sufficient funding to cover the current expenditures or the next two BRAG meetings. An additional $2,000 is requested. Restoration of OEA Miscalculation $4,000 In last year's OEA grant award, the OEA did not agree to fund the ARRA's homeless consultant requested in the grant proposal. The ARRA's budget request for the homeless consultant was $24,000, but in its grant approval, the OEA deducted $28,000 - not $24,000 - for the homeless consultant from the ARRA's grant request. Therefore, the ARRA requests restoration of the $4,000. EDAW Design Charette Reprogram $10,000 OEA authorized the ARRA moving $10,000 from the Phase 2, Existing Conditions Report to pay for part of the cost for a two day BRAG requested "Design Charette." The City of Alameda also contributed $4,000 to this effort. Savings came from consultant work completed during the FY 1993/94 that was scheduled to be completed in FY 1994/95. The ARRA submits this shift of funds as an amendment to the existing FY 1994/95 OEA reuse planning grant. FISC REUSE PLANNING CONSULTANT BUDGET (September 1995 through January 1996): Q Conditions and Trends Report • Social and Economic Analysis • Physical and Infrastructure Systems (Building Survey) • Environmental and Regulatory Analysis Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 7 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 Q FISC Interim Reuse Strategy Q FISC Alternative Analysis Q Selection of Preferred Alternative FISC Reuse Planning $100,000 It is the ARRA's desire to coordinate as much as possible reuse planning for FISC with reuse planning for NAS Alameda which will be completed in January 1996. In order to coordinate reuse planning for FISC with NAS, work on FISC must begin immediately. Since the reuse planning for NAS and FISC will have a tremendous impact on each other and need to be developed in conjunction, the ARRA would utilize its existing NAS consultant team. Therefore, the coordination of the two plans does not permit a delay which would result from a competitive solicitation. Since FISC may still need to complete the federal screening process, the final plan for FISC will not be completed until later next year; however, work can proceed now on the reconnaissance phase, the conditions and trends report, development of an interim reuse strategy and further alternative analysis. Detailed utility analysis for FISC will be incorporated in the proposed utility study. Components of the FISC planning process include the following: Phase 1. Reconnaissance Phase for FISC: This phase of the FISC planning process will be integrated into the Conditions and Trends Report for the FISC site. Phase 2. Conditions and Trends Report: This phase of the FISC planning process involves the collection and analysis of existing conditions and trends for the FISC site. Components of this analysis include: a social and economic analysis; physical and infrastructure systems analysis; and an environmental and regulatory analysis. The social and economic analysis will utilize much of the existing conditions data compiled for NAS Alameda planning process. The bulk of the physical and infrastructure analysis phase of the study includes an inventory and analysis of the transportation systems, a building conditions survey, equipment and personal property review, conditions of the waterfront facilities and dredging, and a summary of the general condition and location of the utility systems. The environmental and regulatory analysis shall consists of a summary of the environmental cleanup conditions, geotechnical, hydrological, air quality, biological resources, and historic resources of the FISC site. Much of the environmental cleanup conditions have been summarized by the Navy in the FISC Baseline Survey Report. The consultant activity will draw upon existing data wherever possible. Complicating FISC reuse planning is that part of the site is currently located in a City redevelopment area. This will include analysis of redevelopment implementation strategies. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 8 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 The existing conditions report forms the basis of planning and decision making for FISC and further environmental baseline reports as required by NEPA and CEQA processes. Phase 3. Development of an Interim Reuse Strategy: This phase of the work will focus on the vital goal of achieving optimum, near -term replacement of jobs and economic activity. Phase 4. Alternatives Analysis: Part of this phase of the FISC site was already incorporated into the NAS Alameda planning study at no additional cost. It was necessary to anticipate the redevelopment of the FISC site to fully analyze the impacts of redevelopment at the West end of Alameda island. This analysis was also needed to incorporate the cumulative impacts of development in Alameda for planning and environmental review. Additional anaylsis will be needed for the FISC plan depending on reconnaissance, conditions and trends, and the federal screening. Deliverables: Existing Conditions Report for FISC; Base Maps of FISC Site and Revised NAS Alameda Base Maps; Interim Reuse Strategy for FISC; and, Alternative Anaylsis. Meetings (Dealing with FISC): Two (2) additional planning meetings with BRAG; Two (2) additional planning meetings with ARRA; and One (1) additional planning meeting with the EBCRC Consultant Budget: $100,000 ADDITIONAL NAS CONSULTANT ACTIVITY THROUGH JANUARY 1996: Q Environmental Consultant • All the environmental parties interested in securing the entire 950 acres for the Least Tern have their attorneys and technical experts in meetings and negotiations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife regarding NAS Alameda. The ARRA staff also requires its own technical experts to evaluate arguments and protect the ARRA's interest in these discussions. • Development of Interim of Marketing Plan and Development of Interim Marketing Materials Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 9 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 • Port/Marina Market Study • BCDC (Bay Conservation Development Commission) will make Port Priority determination in December 1995. The ARRA requires this information on the feasibility of a port to utilize in negotiations with BCDC on Port Priority designation. • A major opportunity exists for the development of a marina in the NAS Alameda Seaplane Lagoon. This study will help determine the market, the size, and program for a new marina at the NAS Alameda and FISC sites. Such a study will explore the opportunities for both public and public /private partnership operations and uses for the marina. Q Detailed Utility Study • Funding is needed for an indepth condition survey and system anaylsis of NAS utilities. Work on the first phase of the study must commence as soon as possible for the information to be useful for the interim reuse strategy. Each of these proposed projects components is detailed below: Environmental Consultant -- Fish and Wildlife Section 7 Consultation $15,000 Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Permit Division) Service on any project that could result in harm to federally - listed endangered species. Here at NAS Alameda, the Least Tern is listed as an endangered species. This process involves the review of all projects and biological assessments, and negotiations on ways to eliminate or minimize effects on the listed species. This process culminates in the Service issuing a Biological Opinion based upon the design of the project ( "Non jeopardy Opinion "). Such an opinion is, in effect, a permit to proceed with the proposed project. This task involves participation of the planning team environmental consultant in a series of meetings with Fish and Wildlife to determine if the proposed Community Reuse Plan and the proposed measures to minimize effects on the endangered species meets with the Fish and Wildlife Service review. These meetings are critical to obtaining the necessary "Non jeopardy Opinion" from the Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed Community Reuse Plan. These initial informal consultation meetings will involve fish and wildlife experts and biologists knowledgeable of the endangered species of this area. The consultants' representation at these meetings is necessary to assist the ARRA staff in presenting technical and biological information and to discuss proposed management and design solutions to minimize impacts to these species while protecting 'the economic redevelopment of NAS. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 10 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 Deliverables: The wildlife consultant will be retained on a time and materials basis to attend meetings with representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of the Nay, the East Bay Regional Parks District and other special interest groups. The goal of this task is to assist the Navy, the ARRA, and the Service to produce a biological assessment and craft a Non jeopardy Biological Opinion that adequately considers future reuse without imposing an unrealistic burden on economic redevelopment of NAS Alameda. Meetings: Attendance at a minimum of 6 meetings, and participation in discussion and presentations of potential mitigation measures for the preferred Community Reuse Plan. Budget (September 1995- January 1996): $15, 000. The consultant will bill on a time and materials basis for attendance at and preparation for the necessary meetings through January 1996, to assist in Fish and Wildlife Service review process. Following adoption of the Final Community Reuse Plan, the formal Section 7 application and review process would be initiated by the Navy. These additional tasks would be covered in next year's implementation planning budget for NAS Alameda. Development of a Detailed Interim Marketing Plan and Marketing Materials $50,000 Task 1. Marketing Plan for Interim Users: The marketing of NAS and FISC is a significant challenge. The marketing of the property will require the development and implementation of creative strategies to attract investors to the property. The marketing must also pay specific attention to the need to generate tax revenue from development at NAS and FISC to support municipal services costs and support ARRA activities. Task 2. Prototype Marketing Materials: This is an additional expenditure to pay for the design and production of a standard developer marketing package for industrial /business park projects. The funds will be used to develop the prototype of a "glossy" information/promotional package which would provide general information regarding base facilities and leasing criteria, and allow for inserts of sheets providing information regarding specific buildings. Specific materials will be developed on highly marketable buildings; customized packets will be developed for individual client groups for certain properties; and information on leasing procedures, City permits and taxes will be outlined. Prototype marketing materials could also include trade show displays. The ARRA will develop a Request for Proposal and scope of work to go out to bid for much of the proposed work. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 11 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 Deliverables: Coordinated marketing plan to attract interim users to the site, and how it should be marketed to particular businesses and the real estate brokerage community; and, preparation of detailed cost estimates for design and implementation of a marketing plan to include long range uses. Prototype marketing materials (i. e., brochures, print advertisement copy, trade show displays, slides, etc.). Total Marketing Plan /Materials Budget: $50,000 Port /Marina Market and Feasibility Study $25,000 This tasks involves the preparation of a market and feasibility study to determine the market demand and project feasibility for the development of port and marina activities at NAS Alameda and the FISC site, and will utilize the ARRA's existing consultant team. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will be making its decision on the San Francisco Bay Port Plan in December 1995. This study is essential for making a reasoned recommendation both on the BCDC Port Plan and the NAS Community Reuse Plan. In addition, a number of public (East Bay Regional Parks District, etc.) and private developers have expressed interest in the development of a marina at the NAS Alameda Seaplane Lagoon. Thus the major tasks for this study would include an analysis of the market demand for port and marina activities, an order of magnitude costs analysis to help determine the development feasibility for port and marina activities, as well as a site planning component to determine the size, extent, and type of port and marina activities that could be located at NAS Alameda and the FISC site. A key component of this study is a determination of the type, appropriate size, location, and possible site configuration of public marina activities vs. private marina developments. This study will be prepared in cooperation with the East Bay Regional Parks District, who will provide matching funds and /or portions of the work utilizing its consultant. Deliverables: Port /Marina Market Feasibility Study Report. Meetings: Staff meetings with the East Bay Regional Parks District. Planning meetings and presentations will be incorporated with existing scheduled consultant planning meetings. Budget: $25,000 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 12 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 Detailed Utility Study $200,000 Funding is needed for an indepth utility study that details immediate solutions to meet the utility needs of interim users, and provides detailed information on improvements needed for long -term tenants envisioned in the final reuse plan. This study will include a very detailed condition survey of the current utility systems and anaylsis of alternatives for the ultimate utility service requirements of NAS. Work on this study must commence as soon as possible for the infounation to be useful for the interim users. The information on the long term needs of the systems is required by the utilities in anticipation of their taking over the utility services at NAS Alameda. During the preliminary anaylsis completed by the ARRA's consultant, the ARRA was provided with a general plan level analysis of the existing NAS Alameda utility systems and a brief analysis of the systems ability to meet future development given the environmental constraints. While this information was very useful in the preparation of the Community Reuse Plan, it is not adequate for the utility providers to agree to take over operation of the systems. The utilities need a detailed anaylsis of the systems including a detailed conditions survey, field verification, and mapping. This focus of the study is twofold. First, how to provide utility services to interim users prior to conveyance of the property, and second the long range needs for long term users after conveyance. The study will be confined to gas, electric, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. Preliminary analysis of the telephone and cable systems indicate they appear to be in good shape and up to current utility standards. The total proposed cost for the detailed utility study is $600,000. The ARRA is requesting $200,000 from OEA for the ARRA's portion of the study, the City of Alameda would provide $200,000, and the utilities would be asked to contribute $200,000 in cash and inkind. Any inkind contributions would be tied to a specific deliverable, and must be in combination with a cash contribution to integrate the work into one study. The utilities need to know now the total budget and preliminary scope of work for the proposed study to ensure their financial participation. If this OEA funding request is approved, the ARRA will proceed to negotiate terms with the individual utilities. The study would commence as soon as the ARRA and the utilities reach agreement. Then the ARRA will go out to competitive bid to select the consultant. The study should be completed by next spring. The ARRA will utilize utility company representatives to select the consultant and monitor the consultant activity. These utility representatives would also serve on a special panel as the oversight committee for the ensuing studies. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 13 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 This proposed utility study consists of the following tasks: Task 1. Project Initiation. A. Identification of Existing Data. This task involves the initiation of the project, identification of key points of contact for each utility provider, assembly of existing base maps, environmental data and engineering data related to all utility systems. B. Identify Utility Requirements. This task involves meetings and interviews with the key utility service providers to determine the requirements for each system, to identify necessary conversions prior to transfer, and to identify assumptions for service provisions. C. Environmental Conditions Summary. This task involves the analysis of existing documented investigations of environmental conditions and concerns which may affect the providing of utility services to existing buildings, installing service to future buildings and sites, maintaining, improving and or demolishing existing utility systems with the Naval Air Station. Task 2. Site Survey and System Verification. This task involves a detailed physical site survey of each utility system to verify and update each system's maps and construction drawings with actual field information such as sizes of lines, lateral locations and sizes, metering location and type, directions of flow, flow lines, valve locations, and system conditions, etc. Task 3. Condition Surveys. A. System Survey. This task will be conducted in conjunction with the site survey system verification. This tasks involves a survey of each systems condition, improvements needed to meet operation and code requirements, California General Order violations and their locations, estimate of the remaining service life, and any other specific information required by each utility as identified in the Sub -task above. B. Sub - station Survey. This task involves a site and condition survey of all system sub- stations, pump stations, switching stations, etc., to determine their physical condition, capacity, location, and potential for reuse and /or expansion. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 15 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 Deliverable: ULI Advisory Panel Report. Budget: $42,000 Engineering Analysis of Structural Deficiencies in AEG Lease Premises $12,000 ARRA's negotiations of an interim lease with AEG for approximately 280,000 sq. ft. in Buildings 11, 12 and 400A has been delayed by the discovery of serious structural deficiencies in these buildings. In order to progress with the negotiations, the ARRA requires an engineering analysis as to the extent of the problems, recommended building upgrades, and construction cost estimates. The problems include substantial subsidence of the buildings' structural slabs following the Loma Prieta earthquake - up to 8 inches in some places, and possible seismic deficiencies in the building's structural frame. These improvements would ordinarily be the responsibility of the landlord, and are not associated with any tenant leasehold improvements. Once costs are determined, the ARRA would consider AEG making the structural improvements to be deducted from AEG's rent to the ARRA. At the end of the lease, the ARRA would have structurally sound /improved buildings. If lease negotiations are to continue, this analysis must be done as soon as possible; therefore, time does not permit a delay which would result from a competitive solicitation. The ARRA would utilize AEG's engineers. Deliverable: Engineering analysis of Buildings 11, 12 and 400A. Budget: $12, 000 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 14 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 C. Metering Survey. This task involves a site and engineering analysis to determine the appropriate location for all required meters at buildings, and if the building is metered, determine if it is in compliance with state and local codes. Provide a cost estimate to bring metering into compliance, or if absent, provide cost estimates to install new meters according to state and local code. Task 4. System Improvements Analysis. A. Improvements to Interim Reuse Buildings. This task involves an analysis of existing systems to determine the type, general cost estimates, and locations of all necessary improvement and or repairs required to support the interim reuse plan. B. Long Range System Improvements. This task involves the planning and a general cost estimate for system improvements and upgrades to meet the need of the long term land use plan. This involves identification of detailed system upgrades or improvements, replacements, and extensions to existing systems, and the timing and phasing of improvements involved. ADDITIONAL PLANNING REQUESTS THOUGH JANUARY 1996: D Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services C Engineering Analysis of Structural Deficiencies in AEG Lease Premises Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services $42,000 In order to determine the market viability of the base closure community reuse plan currently being developed by the ARRA, the ARRA requests funding for an Urban Land Institute (ULI) review panel. The purpose of a ULI Advisory Panel is to provide a reality check of the plan being developed by the local reuse authority before it has been completed. The ULI Advisory Panel reviews the proposed reuse plans to help the local reuse authority determine the most marketable proposals for the short term and realistic phasing of the plan for the best returns given real world market conditions. According to information provided by OEA, OEA will allow the use of Community Planning Assistance funds to partially offset the expense for providing professional advisory services for closure communities. The estimated cost of a ULI Advisory Panel is $84,000. The ARRA is requesting $42,000 from OEA which will fund up to 50% of the cost of such services up to $45,000. The remaining funds will be secured from local foundations.