Loading...
1996-08-07 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * * ** Alameda High School Cafeteria West Wing, Historic Alameda High School Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Wednesday, August 7, 1996 5:30 p.m. Alameda, California 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 Iimited 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 5, 1996. 2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Approve a Four Month No- cost Extension of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grant for the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET). 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -C. Authorization to Participate in Trip to Korea at Pan Pacific University Expense and Selection of Attendees. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -D. Preliminary report on restricted use airfield operation at NAS Alameda by Mike McClintock of PDD Engineering. 4 -E. Preliminary Report on Interim Marketing Plan and Materials by John Guillory of Guilltone Properties, Inc. and Jill Young of Miilhauser and Young. 4 -F. Status report on Science Center Feasibility Study by Jim Gollub, Bill Bennett, and Helen Birss of Information Design Associates (IDeA). 4 -G. Presentation on Education/Technology and Business Consortium by Doug .deHaan and Andrea Safir. 4 -H. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. ARRA Agenda - August 7, 1996 Page 2 4 -I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on 1. EIS /EIR Report — Status of Wildlife Refuge Discussions and Coast Guard Housing; 2. BCDC Update— Container Cargo Forecast Roundtable on September 17; 3. RFP from the City of Alameda to locate an operator for the 0' Club; 4. Renaming streets at NAS Alameda; 5. RFP for port services; 6. Status of RFQ for FISC redevelopment site; 7. Status of Public Trust appraisal; 8. Interim leasing status report; 9. Prospects for leasing Navy housing for civilian use; 10. Consultant work program update; 11. ARRA invitation to attend EURONAVAL 96. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 6. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases: One. 7. READJOURNMENT TO PUBLIC SESSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY 8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY 9. ADJOURNMENT Notes: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary, at 864 -3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. * Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. Next ARRA meeting scheduled for September 4, 1996. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, June 5, 1996 The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present: / Chair Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Brooks for Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District (arrived at 5:43 p.m.); Vice -Mayor A Charles Mannix, City of Alameda;'IAlternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember 1 Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland;kouncilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of AlamedaNAlternate Sheila Young for Mayor Ellen Corbett; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate'JGreg ALT for Councilmember T artu Lucas, -tity of AlamedNupervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Doug deHaan for Ex- officio Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and Ex- officio Ardella Dailey, Alameda Unified School District. 2 -A CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Appezzato stated that Items 2D and 2F would be pulled for discussion. Alternate Leonhardy moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.Alternate Alves seconded the motion, which carried the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 1 - Member Swanson. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of April 9, 1996, Special Meeting of May 1, 1996, and Regular Meeting of May 1, 1996. Approved. *2 -B. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Approve the Extension for Consultant Contracts with EDAW Inc. for Continued Work on the FISC Alameda Annex Community Reuse Plan and with Zander Associates for Environmental Assistance on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Consultation Process. Approved. *2 -C. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Request Immediate Funding for Base Cleanup of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center — Alameda Annex for its Early Reuse and Redevelopment and Direct Staff to Communicate the Request to the Department of Defense, U.S. Congress, and President of the United States. Approved. *2E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to Represent the ARRA and Apply for LAMBRA (Local Area Military Base Recovery Act) Designation. Adopted. Printed on recycled paper 2 -D. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Approve a Policy for the Transfer of Certain NAS Alameda Properties to Pan Pacific University for Educational Uses Through the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Process. Executive Director Miller explained that this is a an attempt to clarify the ARRA's policy on this conveyance to Pan Pacific University (PPU). PPU needed to show they will have title in order to effectively raise funds. Chair Appezzato asked if the property could be conveyed with a reversion clause to the City of Alameda, to which Ms. Miller responded "yes." Alternate Alves voiced his opinion that he preferred the previously discussed 25 -year lease with 25 -year options. A discussion followed among the governing body that included questions on whether or PPU was owned by a foreign entity, if PPU could sublease their buildings, and concern regarding the change from the intent to lease for 25 years with 25 -year options to a title transfer. Ms. Miller explained that PPU was a duly incorporated USA non - profit entity eligible through the Department of Education for a no -cost federal conveyance; however, PPU had agreed to let the ARRA take the property as an Economic Development Conveyance, which would allow the property to revert to the City of Alameda in the event that PPU was unsuccessful in obtaining funding. ARRA Planner Tuttle explained that PPU had participated in a thorough Federal Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) screening with all other federal conveyance applicants. Alternate Leonhardy stated that the title transfer was consistent with our previous intent. Speakers: Bill Garvin; Alameda Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of PPU and reminded the assembly that UCSF medical school had declined to apply for NAS property. Dr. Peter Sun, President of Pan Pacific University, clarified that PPU is an American institute and that he is an American citizen. He added that PPU had agreed to an Economic Development Conveyance in order to provide the City of Alameda with a guarantee that the property would revert to the City if PPU no longer existed. However, their original Public Benefit Conveyance request had not been withdrawn and he was asking nothing more than PPU could get through the PBC process. Neil Patrick Sweeney spoke in favor of Pan Pacific University, the computerized superhighway, and televising meetings. John Thayer Fee spoke in favor of Pan Pacific University. Member DeWitt questioned whether a Public Benefit Conveyance through the Department of Education could be granted on Public Trust Lands. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin stated that it was a hard question and it was her impression that title could not be given on the land unless there was an act of the State Legislature. Member Arnerich asked if, after PPU gets title to the lands, they can sell that title and if so, to whom? Executive Director Miller stated that the title transfer would contain a reversion clause guaranteeing an automatic reversion to the City of Alameda should PPU no longer exist. Member Arnerich stressed that the reversion clause must be included. Alternate Brooks stated that it is 2 necessary for PPU to possess the title in order to find funding and that they must given the opportunity to succeed. Alternate Alves made a motion to maintain the agreement for a 25 -year lease with a 25 -year option and that a title of transfer not be pursued at this time. Member Arnerich seconded the motion. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: 3 - Arnerich, DeWitt, Alves. Noes: 6 - Leonhardy, Young, Brooks, Appezzato, Mannix, Chan. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0. A motion was made by Member Mannix that the properties designated in the Community Reuse Plan for use by Pan Pacific University will be leased to PPU at no cost and that title to these properties will transfer to PPU when they are freed from the Public Trust. The motion was seconded by Alternate Brooks. Alternate Leonhardy added a friendly amendment that it be made explicit that the title conveyance include reversion clauses and title restrictions that limit transfers only between the City of Alameda and Pan Pacific University and no third- parties. The friendly amendment was accepted. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2 - DeWitt, Alves. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0. 2 -F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending that the ARRA Authorize the Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement with the City of AIameda's Bureau of Electricity for Reimbursement of Modification Costs to the Trunk System Extension. A motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Member DeWitt to authorize the Executive Director to sign the letter of Agreement with the Bureau of Electricity as requested. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0. ACTION ITEMS 3 -G. Report and Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Endorse a Proposal to Lease Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Berthing the Aircraft Carrier Hornet as a Private Museum and Execute a Resolution of Support. Executive Director Miller gave a short introduction, after which Chair Appezzato requested that speakers who speak in support of the USS Hornet do not cover the information that has already been presented and keep their remarks to two minutes or less. Gerald Lutz of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation(ACHF) introduced Admiral Sieberlich. Admiral Sieberlich, who was the last Commanding Officer of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet, was present at the Apollo 11 retrieval and the decommissioning of the USS Hornet. Chair Appezzato welcomed Admiral Sieberlich. Mr. Lutz stated that the main focus of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation was to provide a community resource to the City of Alameda and "a national asset of significant magnitude that will achieve national recognition and associated economic, social, and cultural benefits to the local community." Mr. Lutz presented plans for the Hornet, including the preference of ACHF that the Hornet be berthed at the Seaplane Lagoon. He stressed that the ACHF must have the support of the ARRA and that several senior federal officials felt that ACHF did not have local support; therefore, a Resolution of support was imperative. Mr. Lutz requested that the ARRA modify its proposed Resolution to include two items: 3 1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA recognize and endorse the ACHF's economic requirements outlined in the plans as presented to the BRAG and ARRA, and which is consistent with the ARRA's reuse Plan. (item #1) 2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA provide advice and support as is reasonable to ACHF and endorsements as requested by ACHF for its negotiations with Federal Agencies that have expressed interest in providing economic support for ACHF and its master plan. (item #2) Peter Knudsen of ACHF then offered to answer questions. Alternate Brooks asked for clarification on the meaning of "economic requirements" as it was very open - ended. Mr. Knudsen answered that, in order to qualify for some base closure funds, ACHF must have ARRA's endorsement that their plans are consistent with the reuse plan—ACHF is not requesting any specific monies from ARRA. Executive Director Miller made the following comments: She suggested that rather than a `BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" clause, a new "WHEREAS" clause be added that the plan for the Hornet is consistent with the Community Reuse Plan. Her concern with item #2 was that one of the sources of funding UCHF might be eligible for is EDA money. Any EDA money for base closure has to be under the ARRA, which would have to submit the application. Demands for EDA money over the next couple of years are going to be enormous. ARRA will probably get $4 million this year and a fairly large EDA grant will be applied for next year to help with infrastructure improvements, as well as money for streets and demoltion. ARRA will be hard - pressed to prioritize demands and she wanted to be clear that if the requested language is adopted, it does not automatically mean that ARRA would endorse a proposal for EDA funding for the Hornet. Alternate Alves felt the Seaplane Lagoon was unsuitable for berthing the Hornet, as it would block the views. Alternate Brooks voiced her concern that the competition for EDA money is incredible and that item #2 is a strong statement that seems to imply more than the ARRA may be able to do. Alternate Leonhardy stated that the phrase in item #2 "... support as is reasonable to ACHF" be clarified. Peter Knudsen, ACHF, stated that "to ACHF" is a typo and would be eliminated from the sentence. Alternate Leonhardy continued that the Resolution is not specific to any location. Further discussion ensued regarding berthing sites, projected visitor statistics, transportation concerns, and financial risk. Alternate Alves and Member Chan voiced their preference that an initially the lease term be limited to five years. Alternate Brooks asked that the following language be used for item #2: "That the ARRA provide advice and support and endorsements as is reasonable for negotiations between ACHF and Federal Agencies. Mr. Lutz indicated his acceptance of that language. A motion was made by Member Arnerich that the Resolution (also called Tab B) as drawn by Kay Miller be adopted with the addendas of Tab C with clarifications as stated regarding item #2. The motion was seconded by Member Mannix. Speakers: Iry Hamilton, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the Hornet, stating that it is a great historic asset. 4 Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the Hornet and that we must "think regionally." Douglas Haines, Alameda resident, voiced his total support for the carrier and the benefits it will bring to the City of Alameda. Richard Nevelyn spoke in favor of the Hornet; however, he stated that he did not support the ACHF, stating that it was a seven - member closed corporation, not a non - profit organization. Jerry Lutz, ACHF, stated that ACHF is a 501 C3 corporation that, by law, must have a Board of Directors and Bylaws. There are seven Trustees and a total of thirteen voting Board members, of which seven live in Alameda. Bill Garvine, Chamber of Commerce and School Board, spoke in favor of the Hornet and the ACHF. Norma Bishop, NAS Alameda Base Transition Coordinator clarified that Naval Sea Systems Command runs the ship donation program with stringent oversight. They closely examine the Foundation, the formation of their Board of Directors, their sense of ethics, and how they operate. She stressed that they look for a 10-15 (long -term) berthing commitment and if ARRA is serious about supporting they Foundation, the agreement must be phrased to be flexible within the regulations as they evolve to permit longer longer lease terms. Upon an inquiry from Chair Appezzato, Executive Director. Miller stated the BRAC restriction of five years may shortly be lifted. She was hearing Alternate Alves and Member Chan arguing for a limit of five years; however, NAVSEA is looking for a longer term commitment from the community. The present wording was intended to recognize there is a five -year restriction now but if that restriction is lifted, we could enter into a longer term lease. Chair Appezzato stated that we would know within five years if it was going to be successful. 'Alternate Alves stated he was thinking of a maximum term of five years only and he would like it to state that it would definitely not include the western shore of the Seaplane Lagoon. Ms. Miller stated that the lease would be for one of the NAS piers, probably pier 3. Alternate Alves asked for wording specifically ruling out the Seaplane Lagoon. Alternate Leonhardy stated that the location would be the responsibility of the land use process. Mr. Knudsen, ACHF, stated that in any reasonable business transaction, a five -year or maximum lease on the date of execution with normal provisions for renewal of that lease if certain conditions are met, are acceptable. Member DeWitt stated that he believes the use of the piers is consistent with the Community Reuse Plan and he was hoping that Alternate Alves would join together with the governing body to support the Hornet to help make an economic go of the ACHF. Executive Director Miller asked for clarification on the motion. Member Arnerich said it included the ARRA Resolution and the ACHF language contained in item #1 and item #2 with the additions and deletions presented. 5 Whereas ARRA recognizes and endorses ACHF's economic requirements outlined in the plans as presented to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), and finds it consistent with the Community Reuse Plan; and Whereas ARRA will provide advice and support and endorsements as is reasonable for negotiations between ACHF and Federal Agencies. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0. ORAL REPORTS 4 -H. Oral Report from the Executive Director on the Developer Selection Process for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). Executive Director Kay Miller presented the process and timeline for developer selection for the FISC site. An ad hoc working group is being assembled from members of the EDC, BRAG, Chamber of Commerce, and West Alameda Business Association to help in the selection process. 4 -I. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. Doug deHaan reported that the NAS Alameda weekend tours are very successful; on July 20, BRAG Appreciation Day will recognize the BRAG volunteers and solicit new members; the RV park is a concern to the BRAG and they have requested the EBRPD to present their modified plan; and he is glad ARRA accepted the Hornet, which is a business opportunity. 4 -J. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA. Executive Director Kay Miller reported there is not a quorum available for the July 3 ARRA meeting; therefore, unless there is some pressing item, there will be no meeting in July. There is an active lease proposal to continue operation of the airfield as a restricted use airfield. EBCRC has agreed to fund the consultant that conducted the original study of a commercial airport (which was found to be unfeasible) to analyze the suitability of a restricted use airport at NAS. An RFP for port services will be released in July; the recommendation for an operator will be submitted in September. Three new staff people have been hired: Brian Kalaharn (temporary) for the EIS/EIR review; Ken Bowman, Assistant Facilities Manager; and Gretchen McDonald (who could not attend the ARRA meeting) as Receptionist/ Secretary to replace Josi Jose. The redevelopment legislation introduced Barbara Lee (AB 3129) and the general bill has passed the Assembly. Status of negotiations for Rysher Studios, Carstar, and Giannotti were discussed. We now have a master or prototype lease agreement with the Navy that should accelerate the leasing process. Chair Appezzato requested that once a week a "Base Reuse Update" press release be sent to the press outlining current lease activity. Executive Director Miller then gave a "heads up" that she, Chair Appezzato, and Reuse Planner Paul Tuttle have received invitations from Pan Pacific University to travel to Korea at PPU's expense. 6 Assistant General Counsel Heather McLaughlin is looking into whether this is allowable and a recommendation will be made at the August meeting. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Neil Patrick Sweeney, an Alameda citizen, announced the new ARRA telephone number, 864 -3400 and spoke to advertising, transportation, and base cleanup issues. Bill Smith spoke about various base reuse issues. Richard Nevelyn asked that the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation incorporation documents be examined; endorsed the weekend tours of the base; and suggested that a free electric shuttlebus be sought to take visitors on base tours. Chair Appezzato suggested ARRA staff look into the matter and report back. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER: At 7:45 p.m., the meeting adjourned to closed session for Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: 1 case. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 54956.9: 1 case. READJOURNMENT TO PUBLIC SESSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY At 8:38 p.m., readjourment to public session occurred and it was announced that direction was given to staff in both matters. COMMUNICATIONS r ROM GOVERNING BODY None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, pzLd Margaret E. Ensley Secretary 7 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 31, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 2 -B SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Approve a Four Month No -cost Extension of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grant for the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET). Background: In September 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) was awarded a $400,000 grant for the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET). Discussion: Various organization and management problems have delayed ACET utilizing the EDA grant; therefore, ACET is requesting the ARRA support its request for a four month no -cost grant extension. (See attached letter from Dr. Sam Doctors, CEO of ACET.) Fiscal Impact: There should be no fiscal impacts assuming ACET's expenditures comply with the EDA grant award, and California State Hayward has provided the match as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding between the ARRA, ACET, and California State University, Hayward. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA support ACET's request for a four month no -cost extension for its EDA grant award. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment: ACET Letter Requesting Extension ' P z3'dx`1d101 Board of Directors: Cori Anthony F-anh island Inssiture Samuel L Doctors, l.D, D.B.A. ACE,, CEO C Judson raw, PhD. University of California ddtchael Lakin, Ph.D., olcr— 'hair tcl` .'er Engineers UlichLascher, Ph.D., P.E. Woodward-4%1e 4obberrt MacDonald nvAVnmenud 7zernical :orporation 'eliciaMarcus ;PA Region IX VorntaRees, Ph.D. .:alifornia State Lniversity, faywarrd Marks Shank %t} awrence Berkeley taaonalLabs 'ali}ornia F.-PA 'd".,,...z3e trig. _ Associates wme Nright-McPeak AEF Aeam €eF e t j aioveze tmea 4d _ July 26, 1996 Kay Miller, Executive Director ARRA 'NAS Postal Directory, Bldg. 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Dear Dr. Kay: We are requesting a four month no -cost extension of our EDA Grant till January 31, 1997. As you may remember, an agreement on our Memorandum of Understanding was not concluded until almost February lst. We were not permitted to spend any resources on the project until that time, nor were allowed to start the hiring process, as required by EDA, for staff defined as required to complete the work plan. We were not . able to hire our first full time "senior associate ", Ray Noel, until the middle of March. There have , of course, been numerous other delays. Some of these delays caused by our inexperience in dealing with EDA and some by delays in EDA's response to our requests for items such as the purchase of a computer to open our office in Hangar #20. We have also had to spend an extraordinary amount of time on administrative matters such as communicating to our Board the need for discretionary funds to carry on ACET business. However, we have now overcome many of these problems. Since we have been assured by John Doll, we believe we are up -to -date on all of the paper work • requirements of the Grant. We will complete the additional documentation requested by ARRA, to accompany our third Quarterly Report, as soon as possible. We are moving ahead in a timely manner on the Task Plan and are on schedule to complete the work by the end of January, a year from the time we were able to start work on the Grant. We are also well within budget for the amount of work accomplished to date, having expended less than 35% of our ,pant funds. • We have requested support from our Board for this no -cost extension and anticipate no problems in this regard, We would Iike to request that the ARRA Board consider this request at its next Board meeting so we can make a timely request to EDA in early August for this four month extension. Most Sincerely, • • Samuel L Doctors, CEO cc: Keith Carson, Sandie Swanson, A.Leonard Smith, Bill Lewis, Norma Rees, file. 1889 First Ave. NAS, Hangar 20, Room 226 Alameda, Calrjnrnia 94501 Phone: 510- 263 -9874 Fax: 263 -0261 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter-department Memorandum August 1, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Carol A. Korade General Counsel 3-C RE: Authorization to Participate in Trip to Korea at Pan Pacific University Expense and Selection of Attendees Pan Pacific University extended an invitation to certain officials to travel to Korea to support the University. The Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") has opined that any public official accepting the invitation would be receiving a gift which would create a conflict of interest. A copy of the FPPC opinion is attached. The FPPC is in the process of preparing a supplemental opinion. This opinion will analyze whether the invitation may be made to ARRA, with ARRA appointing the officials and/or employees who may receive the travel and accommodations. This supplemental FPPC opinion has not yet been received. It is possible that the FPPC will require that procedures be adopted to avoid any appearance that the appointments are pretextual or are a subterfuge to avoid the Political Reform Act or the FPPC Regulations. These procedures may require Pan Pacific to rescind the invitation and reissue the invitation so that the selection of attendees is within the sole discretion of ARRA. Alternatively, the procedures may require the appointment of a subcommittee to make the selection or to advise the Authority on appropriate attendees and their qualifications for attending. Upon receipt, the supplemental FPPC opinion will be forwarded to ARRA. arol A. Korade General Counsel Attach. vi MEHTA CHAIRMAN FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION July 8, 1996 Heather C. McLaughlin Assistant City Attorney City of Alameda East Wing, Historical Alameda High School Room 320 2250 Central Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Dear Ms. McLaughlin: RECEIVt, CITY OF ALAMEDA 96 JUL -9 10: 06 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE • Re: Your Request for Advice Our File No. A-96-199 This is in response to your request for advice regarding the ethics provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").1 OUESTION Are payments from the Pan.-Pacific University to three members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, for travel to Korea, considered gifts or income? CONCLUSION Under the facts you have provided, the payments will be considered gifts to the individual public officials, subject to the conflict-of-interest provisions in the Act. FACTS The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency (the "ARRA") is a joint powers authority formed under California law and created to direct the reuse and redevelopment of the Naval Air Station (the "Station") in Alameda. One of the proposed developers of the land at the Station is Pan-Pacific University, which proposes to develop a university at the Station. The University's title will 1 Government Code Sections 81000-91015. Commission regulations appear at Title 2, Sections 18000-18995 of the California Code of Regulations. File No. A-96-19g, Page 2 contain a reversion clause requiring the land to return to the City of Alameda, if the land ceases to be used as a university. In order to aid in financing the University, the University is proposing to sponsor the ARRA Chair, the executive director, and the planner on a trip to Korea to express the ARRA's support of the project. The invitation to the Alameda officials contains a "Tentative Schedule for September Trip to Korea", the "Goals of Trip to Korea" and "Invited Team Members of Trip to Korea." The goals of the trip are identified as: o Generate support from President of Republic of Korea and U.S. Ambassador; o Hold press conference for Pan-Pacific University; demonstrate East Bay community support of Pan-Pacific University project; o Build contacts with business community in Korea; o Make "people-to-people" contacts; announcement of "Scholarship 100." The invited team members identified in the invitation include Ralph Appezzato, Mayor of Alameda, Kay Miller of the ARRA Board, and Paul Tuttle of the ARRA Board. Several decisions regarding the University may come before the ARRA Board. These include. decisions such as authorizing execution of long term leases and approving land or personnel property transfers. ANALYSIS I. It is unlikely that the payments are income. "Income" is broadly defined in Section 82030 to include virtually any payment received where consideration of equal or greater value is provided to the source of the payment. Thus, if the ARRA officials provide consideration of equal or greater value to the University in exchange for the travel payment, the payment would be considered income rather than a gift. While we have no exact formula to determine whether consideration of equal or greater value has been provided by an official, the following general guidelines may be of assistance. The value of services rendered may be proven by evidence as to the customary rate of compensation for such services, irrespective of official status. (Tassi v. Tassi (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 680, 690- 691.) Also relevant in the determination might be the length of time spent rendering the services, or whether the services are of the type not readily available from others. Ultimately, however, the determination of whether equal consideration has been provided is necessarily a factual one. File No. A-96-195 Page 3 If an official claims that the payment or payments are income and not a gift, the official has the burden of proving that the consideration provided was of equal or greater value than the payment or payments received. (Section 82028.) Previously, we have advised that such activities as preparing reports on laboratory facilities and regularly attending board meetings to make decisions regarding substantive matters were income earning activities (Fessler Advice Letter, No. 1-93-408; Glaser Advice Letter, No. A-96-045.) In this case, it does not appear that full and adequate consideration will be received by the University in exchange for the travel. The goals of the trip as stated in the invitation do not require substantive work or participation by the public officials. Rather, the officials will take part in contact meetings with Korean officials and business leaders and largely ceremonial events such as the announcement of a scholarship program. Therefore, absent other facts, it is our conclusion that full and adequate consideration will not be received for the travel payments.2 If the travel payments are not income, they will be considered gifts under the Act. II. The payments appear to be gifts but are not subject to the statutory gift limit. Section 82028 provides: • (a) "Gift" means, except as provided in subdivision (b), any payment to the extent that consideration of equal or greater value is not received and includes a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the regular course of business to members of the public without regard to official status. Generally, free transportation, lodging, and subsistence provided to a public official are considered to be gifts. 2 The statutory definition of income in Section 82030(b)(2) exempts "reimbursement for travel expenses and per diem received from a bona fide educational, academic, or charitable organization." This exception, however, does not apply in this case where full and adequate consideration will not be received for the travel payments. File No. A-96-199: Page 4 A. Gifts to an Official Section 89503(a) provides that no elected officer of a local government agency may "accept gifts from any single source in any calendar year with a total value of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250)."3 Section 89503(c) provides: No member of a state board or commission or designated employee of a state or local government agency shall accept gifts from any single source in any calendar year with a total value of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) if the member or employee would be required to report the receipt of income or.gifts from that source on his or her statement of economic interests. B. Gifts of Travel Section 89501(e)(1) states that where a public official receives a gift of travel, Section 89506 controls. Section 89506 provides: (a) Payments, advances, or reimbursements, for travel, including actual transportation and related lodging and subsistence which is reasonably related to a legislative or governmental purpose, or to an issue of state, national, or international public policy, are not prohibited or limited by this chapter if either of the following apply: * * * (2) The travel is provided by a government, a governmental agency, a foreign government, a governmental authority, a bona fide public or private educational institution, as defined in Section 203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a nonprofit charitable or religious organization which is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or by a person domiciled outside the United States which substantially satisfies the requirements for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 3 The annual gift limit is adjusted biennially and the gift limit for all officials and candidates is currently set at $280. (Regulation 18940.1.) File No. A-96-199' , Page 5 Gifts of travel described in Section 89506(a) are not subject to the gift limits in Section 89503. (Section 89506(b).) You indicated in a telephone conversation that it is your understanding that Pan-Pacific University is domiciled outside the United States and substantially satisfies the requirements for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3). In addition, the university will probably qualify as a bona fide public or private educational institution pursuant to Section 203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. As noted above, these gifts would not be subject to the statutory gift limit. If these exceptions apply, however, the gifts would still be subject to the conflict of interest provisions of the Act as described below. C. Gifts to an Agency Under some circumstances, however, a gift is deemed to be provided to a public official's agency, and not to the official. To determine whether a gift has been made to an official's agency, and not to the official who uses it, Regulation 18944.2(a) provides that the following criteria must be satisfied: (1) The agency receives and controls the payment. (2) The payment is used for official agency . business. (3) The agency, in its sole discretion, determines the specific official or officials who shall use the payment. However, the donor may identify a specific purpose for the agency's use of the payment, so long as the donor does not designate the specific official or officials who may use the payment. (4) The agency memorializes the payment in a written public record which embodies the requirements of subdivisions (a)(1) to (a)(3) of this regulation set forth above and which: (A) Identifies the donor and the official, officials, or class of officials receiving or using the payment; (B) Describes the official agency use and the nature and amount of the payment; and (C) Is filed with the agency official who maintains the records of the agency's statements of economic interests where the agency has a specific office for the maintenance of such statements, or where no specific office exists for the maintenance of such statements, at a designated office of the File No. A-96-19 Page 6 agency, and the filing is done within 30 days of the receipt of the payment by the agency. (Regulation 18944.2 [emphasis added].) These gifts do not meet the requirements of this regulation. The materials you have submitted indicate that the donor of the gift, Pan-Pacific University, has made the gift to specific officials, rather than to an agency. The "invited team members," according to the invitation, are the mayor of Alameda and two board members of the ARRA. The University has designated not only the purpose for the agencies' use of the payment, but also the specific official or officials who may use the payment. This is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 18944.2(a)(3).) Therefore, the gifts to an agency exception will not apply. III. The payments will be subject to the conflict of interest provisions. Section 87100 prohibits any public official at any level of state or local government from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has a financial interest. (Section 87100.) Public officials are also required to disclose all economic interests that could foreseeably be affected by the exercise of the official's duties. (Sections 81002(c), 87200- 87313.) An official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on (among others) any source of gifts of $280 or more, or any source of income of $250 or more to the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. (Section 87103(c) and (e).). Consequently, if the Pan-Pacific University is a source of $280 in gifts or income of $250 or more, it would need to be disclosed on the officials' statements of economic interests and the officials would be required to disqualify themselves from any decision which would have a foreseeable and material financial effect on the UniversitY.4 The Commission has adopted a series of regulations which provide guidance concerning whether the foreseeable financial effects of a decision are material, depending on the specific circumstances of each decision. For 4 An effect is considered reasonably foreseeable if there is a substantial likelihood that it will occur. Certainty is not required. However, if an effect is only a mere possibility, it is not reasonably foreseeable. (In re Thorner (1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 198.) File No. A-96-199' Page 7 example, where the University is directly before the ARRA, such as authorizing execution of long term leases and approving land or personnel property transfers, as described in your facts, Regulation 18702.1(a) provides that the effect of the decision on a source of income or gifts is deemed material and disqualification is required.5 Where the University is not directly before the ARRA, but may be indirectly affected by a decision, either Regulation 18702.2 or 18702.5 apply depending"on whether the University is a nonprofit organization or a for-profit business entity. Please consult these regulations for decisions which do not directly involve the University. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (916) 322-5660. Sincerely, Steven G. Churchwell General Coun el By: Liane Randolph Counsel, Legal Division SGC:LR:ak 5 The University is directly before the ARRA when it initiates the proceeding by filing an application, claim, appeal, or similar request, or is a named party in, or the subject of, the proceeding. The University would be the subject of a proceeding if a decision involves the issuance, renewal, approval, denial or revocation of any license, permit, or other entitlement to, or contract with, the University. (Regulation 18702.1(b).) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 31, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 4 -G SUBJECT: Presentation on Education/Technology and Business Consortium by Doug deHaan and Andrea Safir. The Alameda Education/Technology and Business Consortium has asked the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to join the Consortium. Because the Consortium has yet to draft by -laws, they have agreed to make a presentation to the ARRA prior to requesting the ARRA to take action on the MOU. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment: Presentation outline Memorandum of Understanding ®Recycled paper ED/TECH ALAMEDA EDUCATIONAL/TECHNOLOGY and BUSINESS CONSORTIUM BACKGROUND • Four facilitated WORKSHOPS • numerous working groups meetings REUSE PLAN imminfismown • EDUCATION - AUSD - PAN PACIFIC - EAST BAY REGION PARK DISTRICT - COLLEGE OF ALAMEDA - ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM - ALAMEDA PARKS AND RECREATION - DEPT. OF INTERIOR • TECHNOLOGY - ACET - CALSTART - TECHNOLOGY CENTER PARTICIPANTS • AUSD • CAL STATE HAYWARD • PAN PACIFIC UNIVERSITY • LLNL • ACET • ALAMEDA C of C • COLLEGE OF ALAMEDA • EBRPD • EBCRC • PERALTA COLLEGE DISTRICT • ARRA • CITY of ALAMEDA • BRAG • EDAB NEED • Closure of six military facilities in Bay Area • Conversion of Alameda Naval Facilities - NASALAMEDA - NADEPALAMEDA Fl SC ANNEX ALAMEDA • Employment/Economic generation • Reuse of facilities • Establishing new industries IOW .PURPOSE • SERVE AS CLEARINGHOUSE - EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES - DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS - PROVIDE TRAINED EMPLOYEES - DESIGN FUTURE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS - ADDRESS EDUCATION CONCERNS -WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUING EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES 1 ED/TECH ORGANIZATION NEXT STEPS STRUCTURE • GOVERNING MEMBERS • ASSOCIATE MEMBER • ADVISORY MEMBER mgew=giMISIZZ=L..-.1= • ESTABLISH CONSORTIUM - ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES -ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH ORGANIZATION -REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING -SELECT BOARD of DIRECTORS DEVELOP BY- LAWS GOVERNING MEMBERS • AUSD • PAN PACIFIC UNIVERSITY • COLLEGE of ALAMEDA • PERALTA COLLEGE DISTRICT • CAL STATE HAYWARD • U.C. BERKELY • ACET • CALSTART • LLNL ASSOCIATE MEMBERS somanommzumsgsaii-z -=uf=um.ow■immo,A1= • BUSINESS • OTHER RELATED ORGANIZATIONS ADVISORY MEMBERS • ALAMEDA C of C • EBRPD • CITY of ALAMEDA • ARRA • EDAB • EBCRC 2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Introduction The impending closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station, and its occupancy by other organizations, has resulted in the need to establish a body to define and oversee the joint activities of the new associates, with the understanding that each organization will continue to pursue its own activities as well. The closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station gives these organizations the opportunity to support local economic development and provide for educational and technical training needs. This Memorandum of Understanding will establish a Consortium called the Alameda Education/Technology and Business Consortium between Alameda Unified School District, College of Alameda, Pan- Pacific University, California State University at Hayward, University of California, National Research Laboratories, ACET, CALSTART, East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission, and the East Bay Regional Park District. Purpose The Alameda Education/Technology and Business Consortium will serve the City and the region as a resource center and clearing house of information and educational training services for business tenants, prospective business clients, and the general public. It will provide for a full range of educational and training services, coordinating service delivery among the member service providers, and addressing gaps in services needed by the Consortium's clients. II. General Roles and Responsibilities Each of the members of the Consortium will provide one representative to the Consortium's governing board which will convene regularly scheduled meetings to plan and oversee the execution of agreed -upon Consortium activities. The first task of the Board will be to select officers and establish by -laws. Once these by -laws are approved by the governing boards of each participating agency, they will be delineated in Consortium by -laws. The Board will: • provide policy and advisory functions for the Consortium, • guide overall program development and implementation and recommend resource development and development strategies, including pursuing available grants through government and other bodies, • establish educational and training priorities and explore new avenues for expanding the educational and training roles of the member organizations, • establish an effective liaison with business and industry to support their activities and enhance the mission of the Consortium, and • establish connections with other service providers, including educational institutions, to coordinate resources for their mutual benefit. III. Terms and Conditions The Consortium's by -laws will reference areas where member organizations function jointly. It will not supersede or override operating principles of any of the members or limit their operational autonomy. Provisions for the addition of new Consortium members will be delineated in the by -laws. IV. Termination of Agreement Membership in the Consortium, as defined by this Memorandum of Understanding, may be terminated by giving notice in writing to the Board. 2 The Consortium can be disbanded by agreement of the Board with a 60 -day notice. Hold Harmless Clause The Consortium shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless its officers, agents and employees, and their respective organizations from any and all liabilities and claims of any nature or damages of any character whatsoever, including death, sickness, or injury to persons or property from any cause whatsoever, arising from or connected with the operations or services of the Consortium or resulting from the conduct, negligence, or otherwise, in whole or in part, of the Consortium, its officers, agents, representatives, or employees to the extent permitted by law. (Organization) Education/Technology and Business Consortium as an associate member. agrees to participate in the Alameda Signed: BRAG.MOU (Name) (Title) 3 (Date) INTERIM LEASING STATUS REPORT Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ** * Carstar (Vehicle Painting) Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair) Rysher Entertainment (Film Studio) Nelson's Marine 6,000 Portions of. 24 & 25 ow Now 200 113 Portions of 24 34,250 13.150 Now 4/96 Now 4/96 40.000 Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.) ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator) Military Storage Units 167 & finger piers 22 55,450 ow Now 6/96 10/96 10 100 Real Estate Development Co: * Richard Miller.(Photooraphy).,, Tower Aviation (Avionics) Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) * MARAD * ATS LHVAC Ducting Mfgr. * Del Gavio,(Ship EnviroRents (Water Filter Systems) UARCO FNS (Catalytic Converters) Bladium ro. erblade arena Alpha Document Storage Aviation Advisory,Group ,(Airplane Hangar). * Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfgr_) Dynamic Business Dev, (Boat Production)„ Any Location (film location company) Puglio.(Ship: Repair) :............................... ......................:.. : ::... Delphi (Exhibit Displays) PIVCO Electric Cars * Shrader Scientific :TOTAL POTENTIAL LEASES 12 (1/2 of bldg.) 750 Mini - storage units near Bldg. 530 360 ::::........................... ........................... 621 ..,.,.,.,.. 530 66,000 55,000 0 180,000 5,770 82.250 10/96 10/96 Now Complete Now ow 32 & 612 Piers 1, 2, 3;168, 21 56 640 2,700 117,000 66.000 162 23 107,000 Portions of 24& 25 ........ .............. 372 23 9 39 14 66,000 84,250 18,000 66,000 82,000 110,000 40.000 166 Portions of 24 & 25 67 40 40 66 55 000 84,250 14,000 110,000 110 000 30,900 1,883,610 *Very probable leases ** Signed lease or license ** *Employment estimates based on company's projection or industry standard 7/31/96 10/96 10/96 10/96 Now Complete Now Complete, .::.:.:.........:::.:..:. 2/97 10/96 1/97 10/96 Now Complete 9/96 10/96 4/97 . 4/97 Now Complete Now 10/96 4/97 4/97 4/97 9/96 10/96 9/96 10/96 9/96. 10/96 Now Complete 4/97 4/97 9/96 10/96 9/96 . 10/96 10/96 35 25 175 183 1.00: 25: 45 5 5Q 7.5' 2:5 140: 525: 2681: Tenant Building Number Area (square feet) Building Vacancy Date Projected FOSL Completion Date ** *Est, Employment ** r:AL RTAAT ,... ** * Carstar (Vehicle Painting) Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair) Rysher Entertainment (Film Studio) Nelson's Marine 6,000 Portions of. 24 & 25 ow Now 200 113 Portions of 24 34,250 13.150 Now 4/96 Now 4/96 40.000 Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.) ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator) Military Storage Units 167 & finger piers 22 55,450 ow Now 6/96 10/96 10 100 Real Estate Development Co: * Richard Miller.(Photooraphy).,, Tower Aviation (Avionics) Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) * MARAD * ATS LHVAC Ducting Mfgr. * Del Gavio,(Ship EnviroRents (Water Filter Systems) UARCO FNS (Catalytic Converters) Bladium ro. erblade arena Alpha Document Storage Aviation Advisory,Group ,(Airplane Hangar). * Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfgr_) Dynamic Business Dev, (Boat Production)„ Any Location (film location company) Puglio.(Ship: Repair) :............................... ......................:.. : ::... Delphi (Exhibit Displays) PIVCO Electric Cars * Shrader Scientific :TOTAL POTENTIAL LEASES 12 (1/2 of bldg.) 750 Mini - storage units near Bldg. 530 360 ::::........................... ........................... 621 ..,.,.,.,.. 530 66,000 55,000 0 180,000 5,770 82.250 10/96 10/96 Now Complete Now ow 32 & 612 Piers 1, 2, 3;168, 21 56 640 2,700 117,000 66.000 162 23 107,000 Portions of 24& 25 ........ .............. 372 23 9 39 14 66,000 84,250 18,000 66,000 82,000 110,000 40.000 166 Portions of 24 & 25 67 40 40 66 55 000 84,250 14,000 110,000 110 000 30,900 1,883,610 *Very probable leases ** Signed lease or license ** *Employment estimates based on company's projection or industry standard 7/31/96 10/96 10/96 10/96 Now Complete Now Complete, .::.:.:.........:::.:..:. 2/97 10/96 1/97 10/96 Now Complete 9/96 10/96 4/97 . 4/97 Now Complete Now 10/96 4/97 4/97 4/97 9/96 10/96 9/96 10/96 9/96. 10/96 Now Complete 4/97 4/97 9/96 10/96 9/96 . 10/96 10/96 35 25 175 183 1.00: 25: 45 5 5Q 7.5' 2:5 140: 525: 2681: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 31, 1996 To: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Kay Miller Executive Director Re: Consultant Work Program Update. 4 -I Item 10 After some delays in ARRA's grant approvals from EDA and OEA, the final contracts with the various consultant teams have been signed and are now underway. Attached is a list of the consultant work now under contract and a schedule of the work to be completed. The major work effort is to complete the ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) application to the Navy at the end of November and begin formal negotiations. All the work now underway provides the necessary detailed planning and financial analysis as the basis of ARRA's EDC application. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachments: Table 1 Planning Studies — 1995 -96 Table 2 Proposed Schedule Table 3 Consultant Studies Work Schedule —1996 cc: City Manager recycled paper Sub - Consultant Team Lead Consultant Funding Source • a 0 o to < .c ca 0 cn iii 9 co 0 1 a) (a 0 us ...: > c .4'C' o us - o .c - ci) S 1... < cz c C at o -u.G a CO = 0)Q Z '2 o as >- w p. = If 2 2 .6 0 as m .c 'En cti -, (. ........ gi 0 Li cri o> a) (,) " C .... = a) - a) C L. al _ , ....... '''. E0 CLI L. : (1) CO E --E < u) E 2 F L ' 4 3 c t . . 0 = c ) T o ' 0 0 0 o 0 >- > w 0:5 w z 't"), 2 cn < W (I) 6 o) co c a) c c O. 0. ,..... 0 C - .E c c 0 o .5, 6. c 2 2 w so a) t- To) >, CL 0 0 CD 0 c -0- --' 't7; CD 0 X X .-(3 0 (I) .0 0 c 0. 2 °45 >. >, Li 0 2 c c 0 0 .(.0 co 0 Z E "c; a. 06 t. 0 0 0 a) (6 W 0, < as .cc 1.) (L) 0 E as 0. 2 s a. 112 42._ w :=--- al - w w u) :I= >, ca- 7') < w w o _0 < 5 5' o a_ 2 " CO 0 c w w w w U) CC1 Lt al 0 a) 5 45 O +di a) >- W co t") < < < < < < < < O wwww 0 0 W as cts w 0 0 0 0 w w 0 u) 0 2> ta. « < < W 0 W W 0 w 00 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6' 6 LO 0 cc (0 CV 10 C.4 .V). 69. 69. 6 cj I0c\J cs) 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 cc cc cc o o cc o • t.6 t.6 • co (0 Lo () co 69. 69. 69 69 69. cc cc cc o o o o o 6 0 d o 69 o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o q o o 0 10 ‘0.• 10 •t 10 1.- T... 69- 69. 69. 69. 1- 0 as Tci w a) ° 0 o c 12 F2 0 c 0 D >, CO a) > > c C 0 (,) < 0 0 >, 'Fa i-- 0 ,. .- a. ca u) a) 5 I-.0-.- a := 0 (7 H ) -0 .-c.- o = 0 H .5 (I) Z‘ ›.. 2 u) c 5 °- C0 0. 0 >, LL. = 01) cn o E 2 5 co CM .- '0 06 C (1. 0 CD '0 .t., 5 1-1- ,,,U) 11) CD = >, u E = ii5 .....c o 0 (1) a) a) 0 C0 -•E' 5 o 0 .- ac _ c,a .. cc L 0 o c o -5 0 < L D a) a) a. o _ .c _ 8 E. c 2(/) - 0 a) 5 t a) 733 E as o 5 a) . _1 3 3 E - > ,- , 2 -0 0 0 .2 0 . o 0. a. 0 0 0 8- _e:a (1 ) 12 in D 0 o .n..' _ ▪ 5 w ID w u) eL cn 0) CD Tu Cla CD 1- 0 0 01 5 co .5 S'2 , , c c 0 iki a) *c. ". 3 +6 'Fa' 0 m 0 'II -o a, c szs • 0 c .- i:-) '5 CD V) :..- '6 T.5 CO -,T. a) .,_,E) 5 15 0 2 0 2 = = = = 0).0 = w 0 u) 2 ,_.5 Z (/) 2 0 w co CL. ca cC) on 2 I a. ci .,- c .-. . c-si c 4 tri cri N- cci oi .,- ('3 , r „ 0 0 0 Table 3 Consultant Studies Work Schedule 1996 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Planning Study Budget State Base Closure Grant Housing Feasibility Study Appraisal for Public Trust Lands Total Contract BRAG /ARRA Completion Start Date Update Date $45,000 July 1, 1996 $55,000 Sept 1, 1996 $100,000 EDA Base Closure Grant Street Improvement Plan $310,000 July 15, 1996 Demolition Study & $140,000 July 15, 1996 Building Improvement Study July 15, 1996 Total $450,000 OEA 1995/96 BUDGET Redevelopment Area Formation Market Analysis NAS/FISC (EDC Scope) Detailed Development Studies (EDC Scope) Economic Development Conveyance Application Mini ULI Panel Round Table Port Development Conveyance Application FISC Background Report FISC Reuse Plan FISC Detailed. Development Plans Section 7 Consultation (EIS/EIR) Section 7 Predator Management Plan OEA 94/95 Budget Amendment Interim Marketing Plan and Materials Utility Study (Total = $600,000) Science Center Feasibility Study Total Total TOTAL ALL GRANTS Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority c:\123r4\doc\sch96.wk4 $150,000 $30,000 $50,000 $50,000 $20,000 $35,000 $100,000 $60,000 $15,000 $30,000 $540,000 $50,000 $200,000 $250,000 $500,000 $1,590,000 June 15, 1996 June 15, 1996 June 15, 1996 June 15, 1996 Aug 1, 1996 June 1996 January 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 November 1995 June 1, 1996 June 1996 Sep 1996 Nov 1996 Sep 1996 Sep 1996 Sep 1996 Sep 1996 Sep 1996 Sep 1996 November 199 Sept 1996 November 199 Aug 1996 Aug 1996 Aug 1996 October 1996 Aug 1996 July 1996 Oct 30, 1996 Nov 1996 Oct 30, 1996 Oct 30, 1996 Oct 30, 1996 June 1997 Oct 30, 1996 Oct 30, 1996 Jan -Apr. 1997 Oct 30, 1996 Jan -Apr. 1997 Aug 30, 1996 Oct 30, 1996 Oct 30, 1996 April 1997 November 1996 Oct 1996 co SPONDENCE Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 30, 1996 To: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Kay Miller Executive Director Re: Pan Pacific University Funding Requirements The following memo from the Alameda City Manager is provided for your information regarding the funding requirements for Pan Pacific University for its reuse of property at NAS Alameda. The memo outlines the required minimum funding commitment by the University. To provide further clarification, there is no "requirement" in the conveyance agreement as outlined in the Community Reuse Plan for spending of resources on specific buildings. The development expenditures outlined in the City. Manager's memo are the proposed improvements in the University's business plan. Building reuse may vary depending on the level of success of the University's fundraising efforts, enrollment, or exact building conditions. Priorities in building reuse could change over time. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachments: 7/23/96 Memo to Karen Lucas from William C. Norton. 7/5/95 letter from Kay Miller to Peter Sun, Ph.D. w/PPU's Major Projects list cc: William C. Norton, Alameda City Manager Dr. Peter Sun, President, Pan Pacific University L, recycled paper CITY OF ALAMEDA Inter-Department Memorandum Date: July 23, 1996 To: Karin Lucas Councilmember From: William C. Norton City Manager Re: Pan Pacific University Rc ITIEroCF 4Et • I4Viv:DAD JUL 2 4 1996 _- ARRA You called today to ask about the requirements of Pan Pacific University. You were concerned about inadequate investment in the project. The attached letter from the Executive Director, Kay Miller, to Dr. Peter Sun dated July 5, 1995, spells out the requirements of $7 Million to be raised by December 31, 1996 and an addition $7 Million to be raised by December 31, 1997 and $4 Million by December 31, 1998. This alsorequires-that the funds be expended as shown on the attached proposal from Pan Pacific University: $6,759,000 in 1997 for buildings #17 and #2; $7,618,000 on Buildings #3 and #4 in 1998; and, $1,356,000 on Buildings #60, #525, #585 and #1 during 1999. If the monies are not raised and expended as proposed, the property reverts back to the Reuse Authority or the City of Alameda. If you have any additional questions regarding this, please so notify. William C. No ton City Manager WCN:jc xc: Mayor and Council Kay Miller attachment' JUL 22 '96 02 :16PM BASE CONVERSION OFFICES Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Naval Air Station Postal Directory, Bldg, 90 Alameda, California 94501-5012 510 - 263 -2370 FAX 510 - 521.3764 - July 5, 1995 Peter Sun, PhD Executive Director Pan Pacific University 330 Ellis Street, Rm. 508 San Francisco, California 94102 Re: Pan Pacific University Public Benefit Conveyance Request, NAS Alameda Dear Dr. Sun, P.1 I am pleased to inform you that your application for the Pan Pacific University public benefit conveyance at NAS Alameda was endorsed in concept by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) at their special meeting of June 28, 1995. The ARRA's action, approving the Pan Pacific University in concept, is a clear indication of the community's acceptance of the University concept as part of NAS Alameda reuse planning. Furthermore, this approval is a clear direction to the staff to work with you to make Pan Pacific University a reality. Pan Pacific University was approved in concept subject to the University demonstrating its ability to finance the project. The amount of space and costs of rehabilitation of existing buildings for University use is a major undertaking. In this regard, the ARRA has required that Pan Pacific University provide proof of its funding sources, (availability of funds, bonding, or other securities) in the amount of $7 million dollars, by December 31, 1996. We also understand additional securities need to raised in the amounts of $7 million dollars by December 31, 1997 and another $4 million dollars by December 31, 1998. We strongly believe that Pan Pacific University will be a great asset to the community of Alameda, the base. reuse effort and the entire San Francisco Bay-Area. Pan Pacific University success could be the center piece of our redevelopment efforts, and will contribute greatly to the ultimate success of Alameda West. We look forward to our continued close working relationship. Sincerely, y Miller Executive Director cc: William C. Norton, Alameda City Manager Wordt 'crfcctiwpdocAlcttcnAltr7.5.93 Post.1r Fax Note 7671 • ' DV_ .y, ..�, ► Ta X71 l From ,sr . 1J, 7` i ge^`? p -.+ CoJCept. Co Phone* Phone r . Fax to l=ax i 8 � i _ s3 r6 I l!A-u( 119 ft4— 0111; It] ilg r $ 1 gli Ali lidai WI fAil i 71 , r. YY 11 1;i1141.1 11111;2 gin! tli AN 21 11 du ililiti litgii! f4t Wu, 14. 1 1 11 zwi X111 3 T114 ; IA 12/fal 1 I 11 IT ; *Di h341 i e ! i� Hihii ip u � $ flsh 4”.• „ 11 �1=1 HflIlillliIi Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 30, 1996 To: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Kay Miller Executive Director Re: Pan Pacific University Funding Requirements The following memo from the Alameda City Manager is provided for your information regarding the funding requirements for Pan Pacific University for its reuse of property at NAS Alameda. The memo outlines the required minimum funding commitment by the University. To provide further clarification, there is no "requirement" in the conveyance agreement as outlined in the Community Reuse Plan for spending of resources on specific buildings. The development expenditures outlined in the City Manager's memo are the proposed improvements in the University's business plan. Building reuse may vary depending on the level of success of the University's fundraising efforts, enrollment, or exact building conditions. Priorities in building reuse could change over time. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachments: 7/23/96 Memo to Karen Lucas from William C. Norton 7/5/95 letter from Kay Miller to Peter Sun, Ph.D. w/PPU's Major Projects list cc: William C. Norton, Alameda City Manager Dr. Peter Sun, President, Pan Pacific University recycled paper CITY OF ALAMEDA Inter-Department Memorandum Date: To: From: Re: July 23, 1996 Karin Lucas Councilmember William C. Norton City Manager Pan Pacific University RECEIVED JUL 2 4 1996 4RRA Y OF ALAMEDA You called today to ask about the requirements of Pan Pacific University. You were concerned about inadequate investment in the project. The attached letter from the Executive Director, Kay Miller, to Dr. Peter Sun dated July 5, 1995, spells out the requirements of $7 Million to be raised by December 31, 1996 and an addition $7 Million to be raised by December 31, 1997 and $4 Million by December 31, 1998. This also.requires-that the funds be expended as shown on the attached proposal from Pan Pacific University: $6,759,000 in 1997 for buildings #17 and #2; $7,618,000 on Buildings #3 and #4 in 1998; and, $1,356,000 on Buildings #60, #525, #585 and #1 during 1999. If the monies are not raised and expended as proposed, the property reverts back to the Reuse Authority or the City of Alameda. If you have any additional questions regarding this, please so notify. William C. No ton City Manager WCN:jc xc: Mayor and Council Kay Miller attachment Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda • Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich Councilmember ::ity of Alameda Wilma Chan upervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board )f Supervisors fenny Chang, Jr. )akland Councilmember erving for :Iihu Harris rlayor, City of Oakland :lien M. Corbett layor :ity of San Leandro ,ibert H. DeWitt 'ouncilmember ity of Alameda :arin Lucas ouncilmember ity of Alameda haries M. Mannix ice -Mayor ity of Alameda ay Miller cecutive Director Stec }•cled paper July 23, 1996 The Honorable Barbara Lee State Capitol Room 5150 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Assemblywoman Lee: • (510) 364 -3400 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 On behalf of the ARRA and the City of Alameda, I would like to express my sincere and profound appreciation for your sponsorship and leadership on AB 3129, the special redevelopment legislation for Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. You are to be congratulated for reading the political climate and advising us well on when to hold `em and when to fold `em and helping to build support for the bill and eliminate opposition. Simply stated, you were a wonderful bill sponsor and we are indebted to you for your willingness and adeptness at carrying the NAS bill. We would also especially like to thank two members of your staff, Clyde McDonald and Yolanda Stevens, who were extremely helpful and professional in working with the ARRA and City staff on the details of the legislation. They kept us informed and their strategic advice was invaluable to us. You and your staff are to be applauded. Well done! I would also like to thank you again for your willingness to assist in making the civilian use a reality. Sincerely, C Ralph Appe77ato Chair, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Mayor, City of Alameda cc: ARRA Governing Body Clyde McDonald Yolanda Stevens kLEGIS\96LEGIS.DOC Current Legislation Concerning Military Base Closures 07/12/96 REDEVELOPMENT AB 2736 (Weggeland). This bill would establish special optional provisions for creating a redevelopment area on a former military base. It would modify blight findings, eliminate negotiated pass-through agreements, specify the same tax allocation formula used for standard redevelopment projects, permit deferral of contributions to the low- and moderate-income housing fund, and permit deferral of CEQA and general plan compliance until after a base reuse plan is completed. Location: Governor's desk. AB 3129 (Lee). This bill would authorize the adoption of a redevelopment plan covering all or a part of the Alameda Naval Air Station and Fleet Industrial Supply Center, establishing special housing provisions. It would fit into the generic base redevelopment provisions of AB 2736. Location: Governor's desk. AB 1089 (Olberg). This bill would allow the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority to establish an alternate base year for the redevelopment plan for George Air Force Base. Location: Senate Appropriations Committee. SB 1861 (Johnson). This bill would authorize the adoption of a redevelopment plan covering all or a part of the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. It would fit into the generic base redevelopment provisions of AB 2736. Location: Governor's desk. REGULATORY RELIEF SB 1640 (Marks). This bill would change the January 1, 1997 sunset for the provisions of SB 81, enacted in 1995, to January 1, 2000. SB 81 authorizes a local government to adopt an alternative building code for structures on base closure properties, permitting graduated compliance over a period of up to 10 years (reduced to 3 years by SB 1640), so long as use of the structure is not hazardous to life safety, fire safety, health, or sanitation. Such an ordinance is limited to property leased from the federal government. Location: Assembly floor. AB 1621 (Alby). This bill would permit a county board of supervisors, by 4/5 vote, to enter into a contract to sell, lease, or manage property acquired from the federal government as a result of a base closure without following the procedures otherwise required by law. Location: Senate Local Government Committee. FUNDING & INCENTIVES AB 2421 (Baca). This bill would add "assistance to communities experiencing military base downsizing and closures" to the missions of the California Community Colleges Economic Development Program. Location: Assembly floor, for concurrence in Senate amendments. AB 3002 (Granlund). This bill would modify the LAMBRA program by increasing the number of areas to 10, permitting the 5 additional areas to be selected on a statewide basis. It would also make a number of technical changes to the tax benefits accruing to a LAMBRA designation. Location: Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee. AB 3352 (Weggeland, Aguiar, et al). This bill would enact the Local Infrastructure Bond Act of 1996 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize sale of $100 million of state general obligation bonds, the proceeds of which would be deposited with the State Infrastructure Bank in the Trade & Commerce Agency. Legislation establishing the Bank specifically includes former military base infrastructure needs as an allowable Bank expenditure. The Bank is authorized to operate grant, loan, loan guarantee, credit enhancement, and other programs to assist with infrastructure development. Location: Assembly floor. DISTRICT BILLS AB 37 (Pringle). This bill, which is a carry-over from the 1995 Session, would designate the local redevelopment authority recognized by the Department of Defense as the single local authority for reuse of MCAS El Toro, rather than the El Toro Reuse Authority, as specified in current law. Location: Senate floor. AB 1240 (Bordonaro). This bill would exempt from regulation by the State Air Resources Board and regional air pollution control districts any facility that manufactures launch vehicles or satellites for purposes of space launch for commercial purposes. Location: Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 1820 (McPherson). This bill would exempt the City of Marina and its redevelopment agency from the replacement housing requirements and relocation requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law with regard to the housing units located on the former Fort Ord. Location: Senate Appropriations Committee. Nimitz Field Project August 1, 1996 Dear ARRA Member: As you know, the ARRA is funding a study to determine the feasibility and benefits of a limited use airfield at NAS Alameda. We will know more about the findings of that study after the August 7 meeting, however the preliminary presentation at the BRAG meeting was positive. The John Gillory marketing study, which is being funded by Congressman Dellum's office, indicates a resounding pro - airfield stance. Undoubtedly, we are at a point where a limited use airfield is a very real possibility. As the primary proponent of the Nimitz Field Project, I am concerned about our leasing policy. The current policy is to lease the hangars, like all other structures, to the first qualified lessee who comes along. This made sense when we thought there would never be an airfield, however, I am concerned that when an airfield plan is adopted, all of the hangars will already be leased for non- aviation uses. I would like to see a moratorium on long term leasing of the hangars until the airfield issue is settled. This does not, of course, pertain to temporary leases to the movie companies, and other very short term situations that will bring instant revenues into the City. So what is wrong with leasing the hangars to non - aviation users? What is wrong is that when the hangars go for non-aviation uses there will be little or no cash flow into the City coffers for two or three years, or more. Whereas, leasing the hangars to aviation related businesses will produce a cash flow by the end of the first year. And, there is potential for higher lease rates. The reason the hangars will produce a quicker cash flow from aircraft is that the hangars were built for airplane storage and they can be ready for occupancy almost immediately for this use, which means quicker revenue for Alameda. If used for other purposes, the hangars will have to be modified, as was the case with CalStart, who spent nearly $400,000 preparing Hangar 20 for their manufacturing business. As I understand the leasing policy, all monies spent to modify or repair the structures for occupancy comes off the top before the Cite receives any lease payments. Airplanes do not necessarily require a heating system, and the currently installed fire sprinkler systems will not have to be modified for aircraft, therefore, the capital expenditures for this use could be considerably less than for other applications. Keep in mind, if Hangar 20, the CalStart building, ever again becomes available for aviation uses, the deluge sprinkler system for aircraft will have to be re- installed at considerable expense. Since all money spent modifying the structures comes out of City revenues, it is a big, big issue which should be addressed. It is becoming more apparent that the airfield will add value to all of the real estate at NAS, not only the hangars. In other words, having an operating airfield will make all of the structures, including office buildings, shops and warehouses, more attractive to potential lessees. Even the president of the university which will occupy the center portion of the base has said that the airfield is a tremendous asset to his school, and certainly more compatible than an industrial park. Mr Levine, of ARRA, has said that many of the non - aviation businesses which have inquired about NAS have expressed a very strong interest in keeping the airfield open on a limited basis. Aviation related businesses, such as aircraft instrument companies, aircraft engine rebuilders, aviation insurance companies, a very large aviation technical school and many others have expressed a strong interest in NAS, and even though they do not need to be in hangars, they would like to be located on an active airfield. I can guarantee that as soon as the first press release is printed regarding the airfield being re- opened, there will be more serious inquiries for leases than we can deal with. It all gets back to the fact that the airfield adds value to the facility. Given proper marketing, the hangars, especially those overlooking San Francisco, could lease for much more than the .17 to .20 rates we are getting from light industry. The three most important things in real estate are location - location - location, and with the west side of the office portion of Hangars 20 to 23 facing the Bay, these structures could become very upscale hangar/office complexes which would be suitable for corporate offices for major aviation enterprises. The view from these west facing offices is something that no amount of money can buy, and we are giving it away. Also, the more hangars we turn into light industry, the less ambience we'll have. In order to have an airfield,.there haq to be hangars, and a hangar is only a hangar if airplanes can be kept in it. If we modify all of the structures such that the cost of retrofitting them for aviation use is prohibative, then by default, they are no longer hangars. It will only be a few months before we know one way or the other about the airfield issue, so why don't we wait and see what happens before we dispose of all the hangars. It is a gamble, but it is a small one, and the payoff will be large if we win. Because of the Least terns there is legally no other economy boosting use for the runway portion of the property, except an airfield. The land in question will either remain the property of the Navy or ultimately become the property of the Department of Interior, and either will sanction an airfield if the City is STRONGLY behind it. An airfield will provide as many as a thousand aviation related jobs for Alameda with it's a large aviation trained job pool, and the Federal Government will find it very difficult to justify not allowing an airfield under these circumstances. We may have to fight for it, but we can get it, if we are committed to keeping the airfield open and to providing those jobs. In summary, my points are: We need to halt the leasing of hangars until we know for sure about the airfield; The City, ARRA and the BRAG need to jump on the bandwagon and begin overtly supporting the airfield. Those that don't want an airfield can sit on their: hands, but the rest need to stand up and be counted, and very soon, because the window of opportunity is quickly closing. For a full understanding of the financial repercussions of closing an airfield, all someone has to do is call the City managers of communities near Hamilton Air Force Base and ask them if we should close the airfield. I will be attending the August 7 meeting and will be available to answer any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Joseph Davis CEO, Nimitz Field Project Nimitz Field Project, 3705 W. Beechwood Ave., Fresno, California 93711 (209) 392 -8264 Nimitz Field Fact Sheet 1. Because of the least terns, the ONLY legal use of the runways and taxiways which will produce any financial value for the City, is an airfield. This is a plain and simple fact. In actuality, the only other use of any kind that has been proposed is a refuge, which in itself is very noble, but not income producing. Actually, the refuge has coexisted with the airfield for years, and it could be expanded and enhanced. It is not a matter of using the land for an airport, or something else; It is a matter of using it for an airport, or NOTHING ELSE. The point is that the airport is not competing with other potential uses for the land, because there are none. I guess you could say: "An airfield is better than nothing!" 2. At many of the town meetings, and in many of the base closure brochures, we are made aware of the concern for putting the NADEP workers back to work. Well, it will take an airfield in Alameda to put them back to work doing what they do best, and at the highest wages. Sure, they can get a job at CarStar painting cars and trucks, but they will make a heck of a lot more money in an aviation shop that installs new high -tech radar in P -3 Orion aircraft for foreign militaries, which is a potential tenant. 3. Evidence points to the fact that a better cash flow and higher square foot rates can be gleaned from. aviation related companies versus non - aviation. This means more money for the City. °I-. Many non-aviation tenants would prefer to have an active airfield, versus not having an airfield, which means the airfield adds value to even the non - aviation structures. Existing tenants, such as the university, CalStart and the museum are, for example, hoping the airfield re- opens. 5. The concerns that the community originally had about a full blown public airport in Alameda were justified, as we don't need another Oakland or Hayward airport in the Bay Area, especially right next to Alameda. A low-use private airfield is an entirely different issue and should to be evaluated as such. 6. The airport will work very well with the contemplated golf course and/or park. Many who have played golf at the Monterey Course can attest to the fact that it is directly off the end of the runway at the municipal airport, which has jet airline service. 7. Obtaining permits for a private airport from the FAA and CalTrans, and obtaining approval from the Alameda County Airport Lands Commission is not a big deal, as long as the City supports the idea. 8. A low -use private airfield will not produce a lot of noise, especially compared to the Navy fighter aircraft the locals are used to hearing., The fighters were built for high performance combat missions, and have no noise restrictions. Yes, the price we will pay for a private airport is a little noise once in a while; But, on the other hand, if all the hangars are used for industry and warehousing there will be the presence of more large trucks, with the attendant diesel smoke, engine noise, road wear and in -town traffic. So, unfortunately there are no alternatives without a few glitches. 9. A limited use airfield opens up opportunities for the future, many of which we have no clue about now. If we let the airfield go, it is gone for good: We will never have an air show; The planned aviation museum will not be world class; Tourism will not be an option; Fleet Week will either not happen, or the Blue Angles will not participate; NADEP workers will find few local aviation jobs; The California Department of Forestry aircraft will have no local base for operations during fires such as in the Oakland Hills. Alameda 'tense and Redevelopment ituthorl tY Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 }overning Body lalph Appezzato :hair Mayor, City of Alameda andre R. Swanson rice -Chair )istrict Director for :onald V. Dellums th Congressional District .nthony J. "Lil" Arnerich 'ouneilmember ity of Alameda Vilma Chan 3r, District 3 Ian, .. _ County Board ['Supervisors :enry Chang, Jr. akland Councilmember Irving for lihu Harris [ayor, City of Oakland lien M. Corbett [ayor ity of San Leandro Ibert H. DeWitt ouneilmember ity of Alameda :arin Lucas ouncilmember ity of Alameda harles M. Manrriu ice -Mayor ity of Alameda ay Miller cry' ""'7e Director Recycled paper July 5, 1996 Mr. Peter Wang Encinal Terminals 1521 Buena Vista Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 -0251 Dear Mr. Wang: (510) 864 -3400 _ Fax: (5I0) 521-3764 You have expressed concerns to me about the commitment the ARRA has made to make property available to Pan Pacific University at NAS Alameda. On the August 7 ARRA agenda, there will be an agenda item relating to Pan Pacific University. You are welcome to raise your concerns about Pan Pacific University during the Public Comment period on this item. The ARRA meeting convenes at 5:30 p.m. on August 7. The meeting will be held in the cafeteria at Alameda High School. Very truly yours, Ral p Ape pP Mayor of Alameda Chairperson, ARRA RA/KM: gdm C ::WPDOCS \WONG.DOC