The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-10-02 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, October 2, 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 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 4, 1996. 2 -B. Report From the Executive Director Recommending Support of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority's Membership in the California Defense Facilities Marketing Association. 2 -C. Recommendation From the Executive Director that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Agreement with the City of Alameda Community Development (CDD) to Implement the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) Grant to Establish a Redevelopment Project Area for the Alameda Naval Air Station. 2 -D Recommendation From the BRAG That No Action Be Taken on the Leasing of NAS Housing Until the ARRA Housing Consultant Completes the Housing Feasibility Study and the Report Is Reviewed and a Recommendation Formulated by the BRAG. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Detailing the Proposed Package of Local Incentives for the ARRA's Application to California Trade and Commerce Agency for a LAMBRA (Local Area Military Base Recovery Act) Designation. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -F. Report From Jim Musbach of Economic Planning Systems (EPS) on Results of the Market Study and Framework/Methodology for the EDC Application. ARRA Agenda - October 2, 1996 Page 2 4 -G. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. 4 -H. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on the Following Items: 1. Results of September 17 Container Cargo Forecast Roundtable —next steps; 2. Report on meetings in Washington, DC on September 13, 1996 regarding the Wildlife Refuge; 3. BRAG Town Meeting scheduled for November 13 at 7:00 p.m. at the Historic Alameda High School Cafeteria; 4. Developer Panel scheduled for November 21 -22, 1996; 5. Amendment to the OEA budget. 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. RECONVENE 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 November 6, 1996. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY- Wednesday, September 4, 1996 The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 2 -A ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Alternate Beverly Folrath- Johnson for Charles Mannix, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony Daysog for "Lil "Arnerich, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro (arrived at 5:46 p.m., departed at 7:26p.m.); Alternate Pattianne Parker for Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors (replaced by Alternate Mark Friedman at 7:29 p.m.), District 3; Alternate Helen Sause for Ex- officio Lee Perez, Base Reuse Advisory Group. Absent: Henry Chang, Jr., Councilmember, City of Oakland and Ex- officio Barbara Rasmussen, Alameda Unified School District. CONSENT CALENDAR At the request of Alternate Alves, item 2B was pulled for questions. Alternate Alves moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Alternate Folrath- Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 2 - Chang and Corbett. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 7, 1996. Approved. *2 -C Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Authorize the Executive Director to Work with the State Lands Commission to Secure an Appraiser and Sign a Contract to Conduct Land Appraisals of NAS Alameda Property for Potential State Lands Trades. Authorized. 2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Approve the Selection of Trident Management, Inc. to Provide Port Management and Maintenance Services at Piers 1, 2, and 3 and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract. Alternate Alves questioned (1) whether Trident's personnel are current or retired Navy personnel; (2) if it is a conflict of interest for Trident Management, Inc. to bid on the contract since they currently run the port; (3) who had the lowest bid; and (4) if they have other contracts. Executive Director Miller answered that (1) the principals in Trident are both retired and active duty Navy personnel eligible for early reitrement, (2) there is no conflict of interest; indeed, Trident employees' experience in running this port would smooth the transition, (3) they submitted the lowest bid, and (4) this is their sole business. ($Printed on recycled paper Alternate Brooks moved to approve the selection of Trident Management, Inc. to provide port management and maintenance services at piers 1, 2, and 3 and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a contract. Alternate Parker seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 1 - Chang. ACTION ITEMS 3 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of "Alameda Point" as the New Name for the NAS Alameda Area. Speakers: Mary Rudge, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the name Alameda Point, also asking that the historical significance and contribution of the Navy be recognized by naming an area Navy History Park or Navy History Center and that the accomplishments of Alameda citizens be recognized in the naming of streets. Malcolm Mooney, retired Naval officer and 20 -year Alameda resident, spoke in opposition to the the name Alameda Point. He stated that it is not only geologically and historically inaccurate but Alameda would lose the opportunity to acknowledge and memorialize a key element in the history of Alameda and Alameda's contribution to U.S. history. Mr. Mooney suggested the name Navy Point Alameda met all of the selection criteria. Don Roberts, Alameda resident, spoke in opposition to Alameda Point, stating that Alameda Shores would be an appropriate designation for a water- oriented area and Alameda Naval Shores would also acknowledge the Navy's. contribution. Diane Lichtenstein, representing the BRAG, stated that the process in choosing a name included the community's submission of over 200 possible names. Based on the criteria suggested by the marketing consultant, the one name that seemed to be acceptable to everyone was Alameda Point. She further stated that historical names would be used within the development. Alternate Parker moved to endorse the selection of Alameda Point as the new name for the NAS Alameda area. Alternate Follrath- Johnson seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 1 - Chang. 3 -E. Recommendation from the Executive Director for the ARRA to Approve the Proposed Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern for the Wildlife Refuge as Part of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. Executive Director Miller framed the issue and consultant Leslie Zander presented the highlights of the plan, summarized the comments to the plan by environmental groups, and gave her responses to the comments she had received. Paul Tuttle discussed the finance and fiscal aspects of the plan. Chair Appezzato stated the intent of the governing body of the ARRA was to reflect the wishes of the community to have a 390 acre refuge. In order to move the matter forward, ARRA modified the 390 acres to state no less than 390 and no more than 525 acres. Because there has been no decision by the federal government on the size of the refuge, ARRA took the initiative to put together a management plan to support a 390 acre refuge and ARRA would do to support this refuge. If approved, this plan will be sent back to Washington for them to review to see if it is adequate to OPrinted on recycled paper 2 support a wildlife refuge of 390 acres. If it is not, they will hopefully present a plan to support a 525 acre refuge and give ARRA the same chance to review it. Alternate Daysog stated that he does not recall that 390 acres was the intent but that a biological assessment would be conducted to assess the acreage necessary. Speakers: Anne Richter, BRAG Enviornmental Working Group, spoke in opposition to the plan, stating that a minimum 525 acre refuge was needed. Janice Delfino, Ohlone Audubon Society, spoke in opposition to the plan, stating that they should review the final report before it is sent to Washington D.C. Arthur Feinstein, Golden Gate Audubon Society, spoke in opposition to the issue, stating that he does not believe the community's preferred alternative is a 390 acre refuge. He outlined the Society's objections to the conceptual management plan and stated that the management plan that has been functioning for the last 17 years has worked quite well. Don Roberts, Alameda citizen, spoke on homeless issues, the fact that a smaller refuge would put the Least Terns at risk, and his preference for a 700 acre wildlife refuge. Eve Bach, ARC Ecology, spoke criticized the report and questioned the financing assumptions used. Richard Nevelyn, BRAG Environment and Reuse Working Groups, stated that an airfield operation, which could help finance the refuge and provide security, was not included in the report. Phil Graff, Sebastopol, asked questions ranging from whether people have to use the name Alameda Point to the number of Least Terns and costs involved in protecting them, to the cost of developing an airfield. Heidi Schmierer, Paden School 4th grader, endorsed a 525 acre refuge and offered the assistance of her fourth grade class to help with the refuge. Alternate Brooks moved to approve the Management Plan as a working paper, incorporating some of the comments that have been made and recognizing that there are major flaws, to be forwarded for evaluation and response by Fish and Wildlife and the Navy. Discussion followed. Alternate Daysog offered an amendment to the motion that all letters received critiquing the Plan be submitted as an appendix to the Plan. Alternate Brooks indicated her acceptance and support of that amendment. Alternate Daysog seconded the original motion with the addition of the amendment. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 1 - Chang ORAL REPORTS 4 -F. Overview and Timetable for Housing Feasibility Study by Janet Smith - Heimer, Bay Area Economics (BAE). Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that only 44% of Alameda residents own their own homes and that ARRA and BRAG should promote home buyer seminars to help raise that percentage to 100 %. 4 -G. Presentation on Status of Cooperative Services Agreement and Master Lease Discussions by Dave Ryan, EFA West and Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director. Printed on recycled paper 3 In response to a request by Alternate Friedman and Chair Appezzato, Mr. Ryan agreed to provide paper copies of the overhead transparencies from the presentation to the ARRA. 4 -H. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. Helen Sause, BRAG Vice - Chair, updated the ARRA on BRAG activities, including their intention to work with Bay Area Economics on the Housing Feasibility Study, ongoing work on parks and recreation issues, the potential impact of an airfield on the Reuse Plan, and participation in the review of proposals for a FISC site developer. She encouraged the ARRA to provide suggestions for issues that might be addressed by the BRAG. Alternate Alves strongly suggested a Town Hall meeting be held on housing issues. 4 -J. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA. Executive Director Miller stated that the BRAG had decided to table the issue of the airfield pending a decision on the size of the wildlife refuge; questions regarding the report on lease status /projected revenues can be referred to Ed Levine, Facilities Manager; the Coast Guard is forwarding the August 20 letter from Kay Miller to CAPT Good outlining the proposed lease /leaseback arrangement to their headquarters recommending its approval; and, a request from the Alameda Recreation and Park Department for an additional ten acres for the sports complex is being reviewed by the BRAG Recreation Working Group. Speakers: Phil Graf, Sebastapol, suggested that ARRA staff be instructed to redo the Proposed Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern for the Wildlife Refuge to work the birds into an airfield plan as opposed to working the airfield into the Least Tern Wildlife Refuge Plan. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Curt Bohan, Kaylor Energy Products in NAS hanger 20, endorsed the airfield to benefit the Least Tern, generate capital, and promote the growing community of transportation pioneers at NAS. Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda citizen, suggested that the BRAG televise their meetings and be agendized on City Council meetings, that ARRA use the internet for marketing, and ask our elected officials to place the UCSF Research Hospital expansion campus at NAS Alameda. Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing, endorsed the airfield concept to help promote tourism. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 17 Margaret E. Ensley Secretary ®Pruricd on recycled paper 4 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 25, 1996 TO: The Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 2 -B 1 SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Support of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority's Membership in the California Defense Facilities Marketing Association. Background: To help California communities impacted by the closing and downsizing of military facilities, the California Trade and Commerce Agency supported the formation of the California Defense Facilities Marketing Association (DFMA). The purpose of the California DFMA is to provide Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRA) an opportunity to reach investment and business targets normally beyond local capabilities, but does not replace local marketing efforts. California Defense Facilities Marketing Association members will continue to operate their own local and regional marketing programs. Discussion/Analysis: This fiscal year, in addition to staff time from the California Trade and Commerce Agency, the State of California contributed $114,400 in cash, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has provided a $120,000 grant, and the Association has received $5,000 each from SoCal Edison and PG &E to develop a statewide marketing strategy for closing military bases to reach national and international markets that small local communities like Alameda could not reach alone. The statewide marketing strategy includes creating a marketing/promotional plan, developing response materials, and assisting LRAs with business attraction. Fiscal Impact: The California Defense Marketing Association requires a one -time $500 initiation fee, and the ARRA has allocated $500 in savings from the ARRA's previous City fiscal year. The purpose of the fee is to determine which LRAs are serious and have the right to participate in the benefits of this effort. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA support its membership in the California Defense Adjustment Marketing Association, and authorize the ARRA's representative to sign the final Bylaws. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 25, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 2 -C SUBJ: Recommendation From the Executive Director that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Agreement with the City of Alameda Community Development (CDD) to Implement the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) Grant to Establish a Redevelopment Project Area for the Alameda Naval Air Station. Background: The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) received a $150,000 grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) this fiscal year to complete the planning studies necessary for the formation of a redevelopment area. The City's Community Development Department (CDD) is managing the redevelopment plan adoption process. The City's CDD has requested a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding administration of the grant and the formation of the Redevelopment Project Study. Discussion: The City of Alameda's Community Improvement Commission (CIC) has entered into a contract with the consulting firm to provide consulting services to help with the establishment of a redevelopment project area at NAS Alameda. The consultant services include redevelopment, economic /financial, and engineering services as required by state law to establish the Redevelopment Project Area. The attached MOU defines the working relationship between the Community Development Department staff of the City of Alameda and the ARRA staff with respect to tasks related to establishing a redevelopment project area at NAS Alameda. CDD will be responsible for the project, including competitive selection and supervision of the outside contractor /consultant, preparation of staff reports to the City Council and CIC, and other technical aspects of project completion. The ARRA will assume responsibility to obtain budget funding for this project from OEA and act as a liaison with Federal agencies as required to complete the project. Fiscal Impact: None. Honorable Members of the September 2, 1996 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to enter into an MOU with the City's Community Development Director regarding administration of the OEA grant and the formation of the Redevelopment Project Area at NAS Alameda. Respectfully submitted, 2119 N�Li .�Pit� Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment: MOU CITY OF ALAMEDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ALAMEDA REDEVELOPMENT AND REUSE AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING — FISCAL YEAR 1996 -97 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda established the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) of the City of Alameda as the City's redevelopment agency; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law, the CIC will serve as the redevelopment agency in the establishment of the proposed redevelopment project area on portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS) and Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC); and WHEREAS, The Community Development Department serves as staff to the Community Improvement Commission; and WHEREAS, The Financing Element of the NAS Alameda Community Base Reuse Plan recommended that a redevelopment area be established for NAS and FISC properties; and WHEREAS, The Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority (ARRA), a Joint Powers Authority responsible for preparing and implementing a Community Reuse Plan, has expressed support for working toward establishment of a redevelopment area; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 1996, the City of Alameda adopted a resolution designating a redevelopment project Survey Area at the NAS and FISC, as authorized under California Health and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, ARRA has budgeted $1 50,000 for fiscal year 1996 -97 for establishment of a redevelopment project area at NAS and FISC; and WHEREAS, the CIC, after public comment and review, has budgeted an additional $124,630 in Fiscal Year 1996 -97 CIC funds for establishment of a redevelopment project area at NAS and FISC. NOW THEREFORE, the City of Alameda Community Development Department (CDD) and the ARRA staff does hereby agree as follows: A. OVERVIEW This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) defines the working relationship between the CDD Staff and the ARRA Staff with respect to tasks related to establishing a redevelopment project area at Alameda NAS and the FISC. That relationship is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this MOU and to the project - specific attachments to this MOU. 1 Memorandum of Understanding Page 2 B. ATTACHMENTS Attachments will consist of a Project Description, Responsibilities, Project Designee, Schedule, Funding, Cost Estimates, and any other conditions applying specifically to the project. Attachments must be approved by both parties. Attachments may be added or modified from time to time to reflect reprogramming of funds by the CIC or ARRA, or to describe other projects felt by both CDD staff and ARRA staff appropriate for implementation and completion under this MOU. C. REPORTING On a quarterly and cumulative -to -date basis, CDD shall prepare a performance report on each project subject to this MOU. The report shall include, but not be limited to, status of implementation as compared to the agreed -upon attachment schedules, cost estimates, and funding. Such reports shall be submitted to the ARRA designee by the following dates during the program year: October 15, January 15, April 15, and July 15. D. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES CDD shall ensure that all State and City compliance obligations are met. These are described in detail in Exhibit A of this MOU. The ARRA designee shall ensure that all Federal compliance obligations are met. These are detailed in Exhibit B, the ARRA's Grant Agreement with the Office of Economic Adjustment. For each project, both the CDD designee and the ARRA designee shall identify in the attachment any administrative obligations that may require the assistance of the other party. E. PURCHASE & PAYMENT PROCEDURES As necessary to implement the project, CDD shall identify materials, vendors, consultants and contractors in accordance with appropriate CIC and ARRA procurement guidelines (see Exhibits A and B) and with local purchasing policies as outlined in City ordinances and administrative instructions. The most stringent standards will apply. CDD shall discuss appropriate procurement procedures with the ARRA designee before procurement of any items and shall retain documentation of procurement activities in its files. Consultant/contractor invoices shall be approved for payment by CDD upon presentation of said invoices from those consultants /contractors. Pay requests shall be forwarded to the ARRA designee, with any supporting documentation, on the "Request for Reimbursement of Project Costs" form to be provided by CDD. An accompanying Journal Entry Request for the transfer of funds from ARRA to CIC accounts also will be submitted by the CDD designee to the ARRA designee at that time. Memorandum of Understanding Page 3 The ARRA designee has ten calendar days from receipt of invoices and Journal Entry requests to review or reject the invoice and Journal Entry. The ARRA designee will forward any invoices and Journal Entry requests to the Finance Department that the ARRA designee determines complies with the OEA grant, and will reject and return to CDD any invoices or Journal Entry requests that are not in compliance. Therefore, the CDD /CIC assumes any and all financial liability for any consultant invoice paid prior to the ARRA designee's review for compliance with the OEA grant. However, in the event the ARRA designee has not taken action on the invoice within ten calendar days, the CDD designee may contact the ARRA Executive Director to request action. To assist CDD in tracking invoices, the ARRA designee shall inform the CDD designee by E -mail or by sending CDD a signed copy of the approved invoice and Journal Entry Request that is forwarded to Finance or shall return the denied invoice and Journal Entry request to CDD with an explanation of why the request does not comply with the OEA grant. All requests for payment shall be made according to the Accounts Payable schedule and year -end closing deadline as stipulated by the Finance Department. Under no circumstances shall the ARRA designee prepare purchase orders or authorize payments using CDD account numbers without first obtaining prior approval and an authorized signature from CDD. Similarly, under no circumstances shall the CDD designee prepare purchase orders or authorize payments using funds administered by ARRA, or using ARRA account numbers, without first obtaining prior approval and an authorized signature from the ARRA designee. Payment requests shall be honored by the ARRA designee up to the total amount of ARRA funding available and as specified in the budget adopted by the ARRA. The CIC assumes financial responsibility for all fully- executed contracts, and shall be responsible for funding additional costs. Any remaining OEA funds not required for an activity subject to this agreement may be used at the discretion of the ARRA for other OEA- approved base conversion activities. CDD or ARRA, however, shall not propose revised budgets or reprogram funding identified in the attachments without 60 days' notice and written approval of the other party. F. PROJECT DESIGNEES Responsibility for implementation of the projects and programs subject to this MOU rests with the designees of the ARRA and CDD as listed on the appropriate attachments to this MOU. G. CHANGES If the ARRA designee or the CIC designee should propose any changes to this MOU or its attachments, they must notify the other party to this MOU in writing and obtain written approval from the other party of the proposed changes. Memorandum of Understanding Page 4 H. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUIREMENTS As a public agency, all CIC activities are subject to the Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6253). Thus, all ARRA and CDD public records must be open for inspection to the public at all times during office hours. The ARRA may adopt procedures for the public to inspect its records (e.g., it may charge for reproduction costs). Exceptions to the requirements are real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates, and evaluations made for the CIC concerning acquisition of property. This exception does not affect the law of eminent domain (Government Code Section 6254[h]). An exception also applies to the disclosure of records that are exempt by Federal or State law including the provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege (Government Code Section 6254[i]). I. BROWN ACT REQUIREMENTS The CIC is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act Open Meetings Law (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). Any meeting of the City Council, the CIC, ARRA or of their boards, commissions and committees are subject to public notice and public access requirements. AGREED: By: By: Kay Miller Date ARRA Executive Director Dona Hoard Date Community Development Director Revised 9/25/96 CITY OF ALAMEDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ALAMEDA REDEVELOPMENT AND REUSE AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING -- FISCAL YEAR 1996 -97 Attachment 1: Adoption of a Redevelopment Project Area at. Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project will engage consultant services to help the City of Alameda's Community Improvement Commission (CIC) establish a redevelopment project area at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). The consultant services include redevelopment, economic /financial, and engineering services as required by State law to establish the redevelopment project area. Project Designees: CDD: Jeff Bond, Development Specialist ARRA: Paul Tuttle, Planner B. PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Alameda Community Development Department (CDD), working as staff to the CIC, will be responsible for the project, including competitive selection and supervision of the outside contractor /consultant, preparation of staff reports to the City Council and CIC, and other technical aspects of project completion. The CDD will solicit appropriate input from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Executive Director or designee in accordance with this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This work must also be responsive to other local, State, and Federal requirements which may apply. The ARRA designee will assume responsibility to obtain budget funding for this project from the United States Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) and act as a liaison with Federal agencies as required to complete the project. The ARRA designee shall advise the CDD designee in writing of any conditions, requirements, or other obligations related to use of funds for this project. The CDD designee will assume responsibility for preparation and presentation of reports to the ARRA Governing Body, the BRAG, EBCRC, or other base closure related entities. The ARRA staff will work with CDD to schedule meetings with the understanding that only a reasonable number of convenient meetings will be scheduled. Attachment 1 Page 2 C. PROJECT ACTIVITY SCHEDULE ACTIVITY Assembly of Property Survey Preliminary Forecast of Market Demand Complete Tax Increment Projections Draft Preliminary Plan to ARRA Staff CIC Action on Preliminary Plan Draft Preliminary Report to ARRA Staff CIC Action on Preliminary Report CIC Action on Redevelopment Plan to the BRAG Consultation with BRAG on Redevelopment Plan Draft Report to Council to ARRA Staff CIC /City Council action on Report to Council, Redevelopment Plan, etc. CIC /City Council Action on Redevelopment Plan City Council Action on Second Reading CDD — Community Development Dept. SA — Seifel Associates Navy — Navy or Navy Contractors D. PROJECT FUNDING AND COST ESTIMATES DATE RESPONSIBILITY 9/20/96 CDD /SA/Navy 10/30/96 ARRA /EPS 11/30/96. CDD /SA 12/10/96 CDD /SA 1/07/97 CDD /SA 2/18/97 CDD /SA 3/18/97 CDD /SA 4/01/97 CDD /SA 4/16/97 CDD /ARRA 4/08/97 CDD /SA 5/06/97 CDD /SA 6/17/97 CDD /SA 7/01/97 CDD ARRA — ARRA Designee EPS — Economic Planning Systems The ARRA's grant with OEA ends January 31, 1997. The ARRA staff agrees to submit to OEA a budget amendment request to continue the grant through November 30, 1997. In the event that the redevelopment plan adoption process, including preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report, is not completed by November 30, 1997, the ARRA staff agrees to submit an additional grant amendment request as necessary to fund the complete the process. I. CONSULTANT SERVICES Projected Revenues OEA Funds $150,000 Attachment 1 Page 3 Cost Estimate Seifel Associates $74,949 Contingency for: - Property Survey Description $50,000 - Consultations with County Assessor /Board of Equalization $10,000 - Special Legislation Blight Documentation $5,000 - Changes in Redevelopment Plan due to ROD or EIS /EIR $5,000 Other Misc. Contingency $5,000 Total $149,949 IL OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES Projected Revenues Loan from the City Estimated Costs $20,000 Redevelopment Legal Services $10,000 Special Legislation Technical Assistance $10,000 Total Estimated Costs $20,000 Because Other Contract Services are funded exclusively from non -ARRA funds, the expenditure of these funds would not be subject to Section E "Purchase and Payment Procedures" of the MOU. AGREED: By: By: Kay Miller Date ARRA Executive Director Dona Hoard Date Community Development Director Revised 9/25/96 EXHIBIT A SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS CIC administrative requirements for these projects include: • CONTRACTOR BIDDING REQUIREMENTS — Any work of grading, clearing, demolition, or construction undertaken by the CIC and with a cost in excess of $5,000 must be done by contract and after competitive bidding (Public Contract Code Sections 20688.2 and 20162). Successful bidders are required to provide labor and material bonds in connection with their performance of the contract (Public Contract Code Section 20688.4). To the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment arising from any contract for work to be performed shall be given to the lower- income residents of the project area (Public contract Code Section 20688.3). • PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS — Where the CIC or the ARRA contracts directly with a construction contractor, the CRL requires the contractor and any subcontractor to pay the prevailing rate of wages to all workers employed in the execution of the contract (Health and Safety Code Section 33424). The contract is required to include provisions for a $10 per day penalty to be paid by the contractor for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates (Health and Safety Code Section 33425). Each contractor and subcontractor is also required to keep and submit accurate records showing the name, occupation and actual per diem wages paid to each worker (Health and Safety Code Section 33426). • PROJECT AREA BUSINESS PREFERENCE REQUIREMENT — Health and Safety Code Section 33422.1 provides that, to the greatest extent feasible, contracts for work to be performed in connection with any CIC project shall be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by, persons residing in the project area. • PROJECT AREA RESIDENT PREFERENCE REQUIREMENT — Health and Safety Code Section 33422 states that the CIC may specify in the call for bids for any contract over $100,000 that project area residents, if available, shall be employed for a specified percentage of each craft or type of worker needed to execute the contract. This requirement may be met with standard bid language currently in use by the City. • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) COMPLIANCE — All discretionary projects are subject to environmental review prior to approval by the CIC or the City Council. "Approval of a project" is defined to include the earliest commitment by a public agency to issuance of a discretionary contract related to a project. A "Project" does not pertain to studies or alternatives analysis. In the event there is insufficient time to conduct meaningful environmental review prior to adoption of a discretionary project, approval of the project must be conditioned on subsequent environmental review that reserves to the CIC complete discretion to approve or disapprove the project if an environmental review identifies significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to the CIC or City Council's satisfaction. Exhibit A Page 2 • CONFLICT OF INTEREST — Public officials are disqualified from participating in a decision if the decision will have a foreseeable material financial effect on the official's interests (California Government Code Section 87100). An official owning property within 300 feet of a project must be disqualified from decisions regarding that project. If the project is more than 300 feet, an official could participate as long as the decision would not affect the value of his or her property by more than $10,000 or more than $1,000 per year in rental income. If more than 2,500 feet, a public official may participate where the effect of the decision on the official's property will be substantially the same as the effect on at least 25 percent of the properties within a 2,500 foot radius of the official's property. In the event a public official has a leasehold interest, that official is disqualified if a decision will change the allowable use if the official is permitted to sublease the property or if it is foreseeable that the official will change the use of the leased property. In addition, an official is disqualified if a decision will change the use or enjoyment of the official's leasehold or impact the annual rent by 5% or $250. Public officials could not participate in decisions to enter into agreements or contracts with entities or individuals in which the official holds an investment that exceeds the specified level or which is a source of income. • PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUIREMENTS — As a public agency, all CIC activities are subject to the Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6253). Thus, all PWD and CDD public records must be open for inspection to the public at all times during the office hours. The PWD may adopt procedures for the public to inspect its records (e.g., it may charge for reproduction costs). Exceptions to the requirements are real estate appraisals , engineering or feasibility estimates, and evaluations made for the CIC relative to acquisition of property. This exception does not affect the law of eminent domain (Government Code Section 6254[h]). An exception also applies to the disclosure of records that are exempt by Federal or State law including the provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege (Government Code Section 6254[i]). • BROWN ACT REQUIREMENTS — The CIC is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act Open Meetings Law (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). Any meeting of the City Council, the CIC, or of its commissions and committees are subject to public notice and public access requirements. • RELOCATION PROCEDURES AND BENEFITS — All CIC projects are subject to the relocation process and the provision of relocation benefits (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33410 -33418 and Government Code Section 7260 et seq.). Persons entitled to relocation benefits include those persons who move as a result of CIC acquisition of property, Exhibit A Page 3 persons who move after the CIC initiates negotiations for acquisition of property, or persons who move as a result of acquisition of property by a private person or entity if that acquisition is carried out pursuant to an agreement with the CIC. Any persons who occupy a property after acquisition by the CIC will only be allowed to occupy the property if they waive relocation benefits in writing. If it is established that a person is eligible for relocation benefits, the CIC then must determine the amount and type of benefits to which the person is eligible. California relocation law sets forth requirements for relocation benefits, depending upon whether the displacement property is a business or a dwelling unit, whether the person owns the dwelling unit or rents, and the length of time the person has occupied the property (Government Code Section 7260). ECONOMIC SECURITY EXHIBIT B OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 3300 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301 -3300 Federal Identifier Number MAY 9 1996 CL9426 -96 -02 Ms. Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Bldg. #90 Base Conversion Office Alameda, CA .94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: RECEIVED MAY 4 1996 u aii OF COIrYE RSIC'I CITY OF AL CICF. AMEUA I am pleased to info you that I have approved the request for $1,030,339 of Department of Defense Economic Adjustment Assistance Funds for planning the reuse of NAS /NADEP Alameda. If the provisions of the enclosed grant agreement are acceptable, please sign both originals. Return one for our records, and retain one for your file. Enclosed are copies of the required SF 424 "Non- Construction Assurances, and Certification forms for Drug -Free Workplace, Lobbying, and Debarment and Suspension. The Certifications need to be completed and returned to us in order to comply with item 1D of the grant agreement. Enclosed also are copies of the SF 270, "Request for Advance or Reimbursement." This form is used to request grant funds. The first SF 270 may be submitted.with the signed grant agreement. Subsequent SF 270's will be approved for disbursement upon acceptance of the quarterly performance reports. The SF 270's, quarterly and final performance reports should be submitted to Mark Braly, OEA, DOD, 1325 J Street, Suite 1500, Sacramento, California 95814. This grant has been assigned the Federal Identifier Number CL9426- 96 -02. Please use this number on all correspondence. We look forward to working with you. Enclosures: Grant Agreement 32 CFR Part 33 OMB Circulars A -87 & A -128 Standard Form 270 (4) Certifications Forms (3) Sincerely, r,. Helene M. O'Connor Acting Director Office of Economic Adjustment Grant Agreement for Naval Air Station /Naval Air Depot Alameda Alameda, California CL9426 -96 -02 This agreement is between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Grantee, and the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), the Grantor, on behalf of the Department of Defense. The Grantee will undertake community economic adjustment activities as described in the Application for Federal Assistance, at the estimated cost of $1,373,785. The $1,373,785 consists of $1,030,339 from the Grantor and $343,446 from local and State contributions. Grantee assures that $343,446 shall be contributed as a cash /in -kind non - Federal contribution. The grant period is from February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997. Eligible costs incurred between February 1 and the date of this grant agreement are allowable and reimbursable. Any grant funds actually advanced and not needed for grant purposes shall be returned immediately to the Grantor. The Grantor may terminate the grant in whole, or in part, at any time before the date of completion, for the convenience of the Government or whenever it is determined that the Grantee has failed to comply with the conditions of the grant. 1. Compliance by the Grantee A. Overall Compliance: The Grantee and any consultant /contractor operating under the terms of this grant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws applicable to its activities, 32 CFR Part 33, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments;" OMB Circulars A -87, "Cost Principles for State and Local Governments," and A -128, "Audit Requirements of State and Local Governments;" 32 CFR Part 25, "Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace;" and 32 CFR Part 28, New Restrictions on Lobbying (Grants)." B. Hatch Act: The Grantee is advised that its employees may be subject to the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501 - 1508). If doubt exists in particular cases, the Grantee should seek legal counsel. C. Grant Terms and Conditions: The Grantee and any consultant /contractor employed under this grant shall comply with the terms of this Grant Agreement. The decision of the Grantor in interpreting the Terms and Conditions of this grant shall be final. D. Special Condition: The Grantee shall sign and return the required SF 424B, "Assurances -- Non - Construction Programs," and the Debarment and Suspension, Lobbying and Drug -Free Workplace Certifications before OEA will disburse funds for this grant. 2. Activities Prohibited A. Duplication of Work: The purpose and scope of work for which this grant is made shall not duplicate programs for which monies have been received, are committed, or are applied for from other sources, public or private. Upon request of the Grantor, the Grantee shall submit full information about related programs that will be initiated within the grant period. B. Other Funding Sources: Grantor's funds budgeted or granted for this program shall not be used to replace any financial support previously provided or assured from any other source. C. Funds for Attorney /Consultant Fees: The Grantee hereby agrees that no funds made available from this grant shall be used, directly or indirectly, for paying attorneys' or consultants' fees in connection with securing grants or other services provided by the Grantor, for example, preparing the application for this assistance. However, attorneys' and consultants' fees incurred for meeting grant requirements may be eligible project costs and may be paid out of funds made available from this grant provided such costs are otherwise eligible. 3. Personnel Approvals The Grantor reserves the right to approve or disapprove the selection of professional -level employees of the Grantee. If requested by the Grantor, resumes, in sufficient detail to reveal the experience, education, and other general and special qualifications for the position, must be submitted to the Grantor for consent prior to employment of a candidate. 4. Use of Consultants /Contractors A. Procurement of consultant or contractor services shall be in accordance with all standards and procedures set forth in 32 CFR Part 33. The following tetras, which are drawn from the Common Rule, are intended merely to highlight some of these standards and are, therefore, not inclusive. B. The standards set forth in the Common Rule, as applicable, do not relieve the Grantee of the contractual responsibilities arising under its contracts. The Grantee is the responsible authority, without recourse to the Grantor regarding the settlement and satisfaction of all contractual and administrative issues arising out of procurements entered into, in support of the grant. C. All procurement transactions, regardless of whether negotiated or advertised and without regard to dollar value, shall be conducted in a manner that provides maximum open and free competition. D. Formal advertising, shall not be required for small purchase procurements, under $100,000 in the aggregate unless otherwise required by State or local law or regulations. E. The Grantee shall maintain a code or standards of conduct which shall govern the performance of its officers, employees, or agents in contracting with and expending Federal grant funds. Grantee's officers, employees, or agents shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractor or potential contractors. To the extent permissible by State or local law, rules, or regulations, such standards shall provide for penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by either the Grantee's officers, employees, or agents, or by contractors or their guests 5. Separate Bank /Fund Accounts A. The Grantee is not required to establish a separate bank account but may do so. The Grantee, however, must maintain accounting records to adequately identify the source and application of grant funds. Other considerations, such as FDIC coverage, shall be in accordance with the provisions of 32 CFR Part 33. B. Interest earned on Federal funds shall be reported to the Grantor and used to reduce the Federal share of this grant. 6. Grant Payments A. Grant payments will be made by Treasury checks. B. Grantee's payments to contractors /consultants shall be contingent upon the Grantee's acceptance of deliverables. C. Requests for Federal funds (Standard FoLius 270) for payment of consultant /contractor deliverables should be submitted to the Grantor after Grantee's acceptance of the deliverables. D. When grant payments are cash advances, they shall be quarterly or as needed. The amount requested will be limited to that actually required. E. An SF 270, "Request for Advance or Reimbursement," shall be submitted when requesting funds. F. All financial information on the SF 270 shall be shown as: Column (a) -- Salaries and Benefits; Column (b)-- Operating Expenses; Column (c)-- Contracts. G. Grantor will withhold ten percent of the Federal share of the contractual amount of the grant subject to receipt of all required deliverables. 7. Reimbursement for Travel Reimbursement for travel (transportation, food, and lodging) in the performance of official grant activities shall be consistent with those normally allowed in like circumstances in the non - Federally sponsored activities of the Grantee. Grantees may follow their own established rate but any travel allowance policies in excess of Federal limits must receive prior approval from OEA. 8. Office Equipment All requests to purchase equipment (including software) with an estimated acquisition cost of more than $5,000, shall be submitted to the Grantor for prior approval. (This applies to equipment not included in the approved application.) 9. Expenses and Purchases Excluded A. Funds budgeted under this grant may not be used for marketing or entertainment expenses. B. Funds budgeted under this grant may not be used for capital assets, such as the purchase of vehicles, improvements and renovation of space, and repair and maintenance of privately' owned. vehicles. 10. Grantee Contributions Contributions by the Grantee, whether in cash or in -kind, are expected to be paid out at the same general rate as Federal funds. In any event, one -half of the Grantee's share of costs shall be available, incurred, or expended by the time one -half of the Federal share has been disbursed. 11. Grantee Reporting A. Performance Reports: Three quarterly reports are required for this 12 -month grant. The first report is due on May 31, 1996, and subsequent reports are due: August 31 and November 30, 1996. The performance reports will contain info nation on the following: (1) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period. (2) The reasons for slippage if established objectives were not met. (3) Additional pertinent information when appropriate. B. Budget: Grantee shall submit an accounting of actual and projected quarterly expenditures by the budget line items approved in the grant. C. Final Reports: (1) A final SF 269A, "Financial Status Report," shall be submitted to the Grantor within 90 days after the end date of the grant. (2) A final performance report is due within 90 days after the end date (no later than April 30, 1997) of the grant and will cover grant activities for November 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997 and will contain a summary of the grantee's progress for the total grant period. 12. Contractor Deliverables A. A disclaimer statement will appear on the title page of any study prepared under this grant. It will read: "This study was prepared under contract with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority with financial support from the Office. of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment." B. The contractor identification will appear on the title page of the analysis funded by this grant. C. Any final study will be submitted in one unbound, reproducible original and four bound copies. The document will be dated the month and year that it is submitted to the Grantor. 13. Audits A. Grantee shall furnish a sufficient number of copies as defined in OMB Circular A -128 of the audit report to the designated cognizant Federal Audit Agency. B. If the Grantee has not been designated a cognizant Federal Audit Agency, the audit report should be forwarded to: Mr. Donald E. Davis Assistant Inspector General for Audit Policy & Oversight Department of Defense 400 ALmy Navy Drive Arlington, VA 22202 C. The Grantee shall advise the Grantor in writing when the audit report is furnished to the cognizant Federal Audit Agency or the Department of Defense. D. The Department of Defense reserves the right to conduct an independent follow -up audit. THE TERMS OF THIS GRANT ARE AGREED TO BY: Helene M. O'Connor Acting Director Office of Economic Adjustment Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority �-' Date rApulvig6 Da�e Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 25, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 2 -D SUB.': Recommendation From the BRAG That No Action Be Taken on the Leasing of NAS Housing Until the ARRA Housing Consultant Completes the housing Feasibility Study and the Report Is Reviewed and a Recommendation Formulated by the BRAG. Background: One of the major studies now undertaken by the ARRA is a Housing Feasibility Study of the housing supply available at NAS Alameda. This study is looking at the market conditions for housing in Alameda, analyzing the existing NAS housing conditions, and analyzing alternatives for potential reuse and redevelopment of the housing units. This study, being done by Bay Area Economics (BAE), will be completed by early November 1996. BAE made a presentation to the ARRA at the September 4, 1996 meeting. We expect that BAE will be prepared to present its final report to the ARRA in November. The Navy had planned that all the housing units would be filled with Bay Area military personnel until base closure. However, these units have not been leased out as anticipated. Approximately 25- 30% of the housing units at NAS are presently vacant. In East Housing, the vacancy rate is more than 50 %. The number of vacancies will continue to rise as the Navy drawdown continues into the next year. The Navy has pledged to keep NAS Alameda housing open to Navy families through July 1997. The Coast Guard is still requesting the use of North Housing and the newer Marina Village Housing units. Discussion: ARRA staff has investigated the potential of leasing vacant Navy housing prior to base closure in April 1997, in order to increase cashflow to the ARRA and increase neighborhood safety by having more families on -site. ARRA staff has also discussed the possibility of joint use of the housing with the Navy prior to base closure and the possibility of the ARRA leasing some housing to Navy personnel who do not want to move off -base after the Navy discontinues operating the housing. Leasing existing housing for an interim period is potentially one of the major sources of revenue for. the ARRA for ongoing operating expenses. In addition, lease revenues could be capitalized to secure bonds for need infrastructure improvements. The Housing Feasibility Study is looking into these potential options. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority The leasing process for housing is complex and cumbersome. To lease existing housing for an interim period we would need to obtain a signed lease between the ARRA and the Navy; gain environmental clearance (FOSL and CAD -X); rezone the site to remove the City of Alameda "G- Government" overlay district; decide on a management strategy for the rental property; develop lease management rules and regulations; and enter into lease agreements with prospective tenants. This process would take at least three to six months to complete. The BRAG has established a special Housing Working Group to discuss issues related to the reuse and redevelopment of NAS housing. This Working Group and the BRAG discussed housing issues at their regular meeting of September 18, 1996 and passed a motion' recommending that the ARRA governing body take no action on the leasing of NAS housing until the Housing Feasibility Study has been completed and the Housing Working Group and BRAG have reviewed the study and made a recommendation to the ARRA. September 25, 1996 Page 2 Fiscal Impact: Delay of any decisions on the disposition of existing housing at NAS Alameda until the Housing Feasibility Study is completed will have no fiscal impact on the ARRA or the City of Alameda. The Housing Feasibility Study will be completed by November 1996. All the requirements to make housing available for lease or sale cannot be completed until April 1997. A potential impact on the City is the danger of increased vandalism to the many vacant units in East Housing and the negative image to surrounding neighborhoods. Recommendation: The Executive Director recommends that the ARRA Governing Body accept the BRAG's recommendation under advisement. No action is necessary. Staff will provide a report to the ARRA Governing Body and the BRAG once the Housing Feasibility Study is completed. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director cc: Rob Wonder, Interim City Manager Dena Belzer, BAE Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 25, 1996 TO: The Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Background: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Detailing the Proposed Package of Local Incentives for the ARRA's Application to California Trade and Commerce Agency for a LAMBRA (Local Area Military Base Recovery Act) Designation. At its. June 5, 1996, meeting the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) adopted a Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to represent the ARRA and apply for LAMBRA (Local Area Military Base Recovery Act) designation. The LAMBRA program was established by the California Legislature in an effort to stimulate business attraction and private investment in communities that experience base closures. The LAMBRA legislation creates tax credits and directs the creation of local incentives to benefit employers locating their businesses on closed military bases. LAMBRA designations are similar to Enterprise Zones. A competitive application process is used to award LAMBRA designation; bases slated for closure vie with others in their own geographic region. The California Trade and Commerce Agency only designates one LAMBRA per region. The ARRA successfully completed the preapplication and was invited to compete for the LAMBRA designation for Region 2. The only other closing military base in Region 2 eligible to compete for the single Region 2 LAMBRA designation is Hunters Point. One very important component of the LAMBRA application is the requirement that the City and Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) develop a package of local incentives. The attached Resolution and accompanying Exhibits 1 and 2 outline the proposed package of local incentives for the ARRA and the City of Alameda. The City of Alameda must consider a similar Resolution and the same accompanying exhibits for adoption at its October 15, 1996 meeting. The completed LAMBRA application is due in Sacramento on November 5, 1996. Discussion /Analysis: In making its selection, California Trade and Commerce Agency will evaluate the local incentives developed by the jurisdictions, the plans for marketing the LAMBRA to employers, and the degree of service commitment made by the local economic development partners. The local incentive package is a very significant requirement of the LAMBRA application, and LAMBRA applicants will be scored based on the following list of possible incentives: plans for the reduction and /or postponement of fees and other charges for services, including those for development, licensing, Honorable Members of the September 25, 1996 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 permitting, special uses, utilities, etc.; methods used for streamlining and fast tracking plan review, permit applications, etc.; and other incentives to reduce costs, provide technical assistance, etc. The proposed package of local incentives is needed for the LAMBRA application, but will also serve as the basis for the ARRA's long -term economic development and marketing strategy for NAS Alameda. The infonnation from the Business Incentive Plan will be summarized as inserts that will be included in the interim marketing materials as well as used in long-term marketing. Even if NAS Alameda is not awarded the LAMBRA designation, this package of local incentives is a valuable tool to assist in attracting private sector investment to NAS Alameda. Exhibit 1 outlines the proposed incentives to be provided by the ARRA and Exhibit 2 outlines the proposed City of Alameda incentives in support of the LAMBRA application. Both the ARRA and City incentives were developed by a team of ARRA and City staff including the Finance Department, Community Development Department, Bureau of Electricity, Public Works, and City Attorney. Some of the incentives are identical to the ones that were adopted for AEG when it considered establishing its BART car refurbishment program at NAS Alameda. Fiscal Impact: The LAMBRA application, like Enterprise Zone applications, is very specialized and requires a specific background and understanding of this issue area. California Trade and Commerce Agency explained that the three successful bases in the other regions that received LAMBRA designation had expert consultants either prepare all or a significant portion of the application. The State provided the names of the three very qualified consultants who have written successful LAMBRA and Enterprise Zone applications. One of the three consultants recommended by the State resides in Alameda. Using savings from the ARRA's previous City fiscal year, $5,000 from the County Economic Development Advisory Board and Office of Economic Adjustment funding, the Alameda consultant was retained to prepare the LAMBRA application and the Business Incentive Plan. (The OEA funds will only be used for the Business Incentive Plan.) Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA adopt the Resolution agreeing to complete all actions stated within the LAMBRA application area to be designated, including the proposed local incentive program for the ARRA and the City of Alameda. Sincerely, .�� yrti�. Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment: LAMBRA Resolution Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 18 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A LOCAL AGENCY MILITARY BASE RECOVERY AREA (LAMBRA) FROM THE CALIFORNIA TRADE & COMMERCE AGENCY WHEREAS, the Alameda Naval Air Station and the Fleet Industrial Supply. Center, Alameda Annex (hereafter referred to as NAS) are closing pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 100 -150), and recommendations of the Defense Secretary's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in July 1993 and confirmed by Congress in October 1993; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), a joint powers authority composed of the Mayor of Alameda and four council members from the City of Alameda, the Mayor of San Leandro, the Mayor of Oakland, the County of Alameda Supervisor from the Third District, and Ronald V. Dellums, U.S. Congressional Representative from California's Ninth District, is empowered to plan and redevelop NAS Alameda; and WHEREAS, designation as a Local Agency Military Base Recovery Area ( LAMBRA) is necessary to: 1. Facilitate and accelerate the economic recovery from the economic impact associated with the closure of NAS Alameda, and 2. Attract private sector investment to the application area, and 3. Create job opportunities for JTPA and GAIN eligible participants and other displaced and dislocated workers directly or indirectly affected by base closure; and WHEREAS, no portion of the application area is included within an Enterprise Zone or Economic Incentive Area; and WHEREAS, the ARRA agrees to complete all actions stated within the application, including the provision of the program incentives under its jurisdiction as contemplated by the LAMBRA application and attached to this resolution as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, the ARRA supports the commitment by the City of Alameda and the Navy to have a joint EIR/EIS prepared on the Reuse Plan pursuant to CEQA (Public Resource Code sections 21000 et seq.) and associated guidelines (14 C.C.C. sections 15000 et seq.). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority does hereby authorize the ARRA Executive Director to formally submit this LAMBRA application to the California Trade and Commerce Agency. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18 was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in a meeting assembled on the 2nd day of October, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Margaret E. Ensley Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority • Date: October 3, 1996 EXHIBIT 1 Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Description of ARRA Incentives in support of the Local Agency Military Base Recovery Area (LAMBRA) Application DESCRIPTION OF ARRA LAMBRA INCENTIVES LAMBRA Team: The ARRA and its supporting partners will establish a "LAMBRA Team" to facilitate LAMBRA projects. This Team will consist of the LAMBRA Manager, and key City of Alameda Department staff from the City Manger's Office, Planning, Engineering, Building Inspections, Central Permits Office, Police, Fire, Community Development, Bureau of Electricity, City Attorney's Office, and additional members as needed (PIC Director, EDAB Director, state or federal agency representatives, local lenders, etc.). Kay Miller, ARRA's Executive Director and Ed Levine, ARRA's LAMBRA Manager will be the key ARRA staff to support the LAMBRA Team. The Team will coordinate and track LAMBRA projects, provide guidance and direction, and ensure the smooth relocation and expansion of businesses within the LAMBRA. Below Market Lease Rates: The ARRA will offer very attractive below market lease rates to LAMBRA industrial and commercial businesses. Lease rate discounts ranging between 5% and 15% below market will be offered to LAMBRA businesses. In addition, in accordance with the ARRA's "Interim Leasing Principles, Policies, and Procedures" priority will be given to businesses (including potential LAMBRA businesses) with economic development potential and with functions or needs conducive to the reemployment of displaced base workers. Fee Sharing: Building Permit Fees: The ARRA will provide LAMBRA businesses a 100% reimbursement (up to $20,000) on City imposed Filing Fees, Building Permit Fees and Plan Check Fees for LAMBRA projects that require upgrade of a building for code compliance. The reimbursement will be in the form of a rental rebate, amortized over the length of the lease between ARRA and the LAMBRA business. Personal Property Appraisal: The ARRA will pay 50% of an appraisal of personal property within ARRA's inventory for the LAMBRA business requesting the property. The cost for such appraisals typically average $1,500. Building Improvement Credit: The ARRA will refund the cost of building improvements required to comply with state and city building codes. The improvement costs will be paid for up -front by the LAMBRA businesses. The improvement costs will be amortized over the length of the lease and credited monthly. The building improvement credit does not include tenant improvements. Access to Surplus Personal Property & Equipment: The ARRA currently has an inventory of surplus Navy machinery and equipment. This inventory includes: grinders, milling machines, lathes, drill presses, lifts, brake machines, forklifts, cranes, desks, chairs, tables, computers, printers, photocopiers, telephones, etc. A complete inventory of all surplus personal property is currently 9/25/96 Page 1 of 3 being prepared by the Navy. Ken Bowman, ARRA's Assistant Facility Manager (and Assistant LAMBRA Manager, if ARRA is designated) works very closely with the Navy to identify property items with reuse potential that the ARRA wants to remain on -site. ARRA currently offers equipment financing to NAS tenants. Prospective tenants can choose and tag equipment that they want. The equipment is appraised (at liquidation value), and payments amortized over the life of the lease (not to exceed seven years). The ARRA will consider offering LAMBRA tenants (on a case -by -case basis) access to surplus military property at even more attractive rates or through an equipment loan program for a specified period of time during their initial start -up phase. Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) and Air Permits: The ARRA is working with the Navy to secure Emission Reduction Credits and Air Permits. If successful, the ARRA may offer these ERCs to LAMBRA businesses who need to acquire air pollution offsets. Master Lease Agreement: The ARRA is currently negotiating with the Navy to obtain a Master Lease Agreement. Once approved, the Master Lease will give the ARRA a very expedited leasing process. This Agreement will obviate the need for approval of individual leases by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and will thereby significantly shorten the leasing time line for LAMBRA businesses. ARRA plans to have the Master Lease Agreement in place by April 1997. Master Use Permit: The ARRA is currently working with the City of Alameda to develop a Master Use Permit for NAS Alameda. With this Master Use Permit in place, individual LAMBRA applications that are consistent with the guidelines of the Master Permit can be approved with a minimum of additional processing, in most cases by City staff action. The ARRA plans to have the Master Use Permit with the City in place by April 1997. Public Infrastructure Improvements: The ARRA has planned a series of improvements to upgrade the access and service systems available for development and reuse of the base. The improvement of the base will provide a safer, more efficient and attractive business location for LAMBRA businesses. The ARRA is committed to a plan of continuous physical improvement of the base. Some improvements are underway. Others are in the planning phase. The planning budget alone for these studies represents a $1.79 million investment. These planning studies include: Utility Field Survey & Master Plan Science Center Feasibility Study Marina Market /Development Study Interim Marketing Plan & Materials Street Improvement Plans Market Study Detailed Development Plans EDC Business Plan Port/Marina Business Plan Building Demolition Study Building Upgrade Study Redevelopment District Formation Housing Revitalization Feasibility Study Public Trust Land Assessment 9/25/96 Page 2 of 3 Infrastructure improvements currently underway include: Sewer Main Replacement Project: This project involves the replacement of the wastewater trunk line connecting the base with the Oakland Naval Supply Center in Oakland. This 16 -inch pipe is being replaced as part of a dredging contract being undertaken by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Port of Oakland. The replacement pipe will be of adequate size to handle development of the site as envisioned in the Community Reuse Plan. Main Street Improvement Project: This project includes a $5.0 million improvement to Main Street. Scheduled improvements include a new linear park along the former railroad alignment, under - grounding of utilities, boulevard landscaping, and improved drainage. This project will greatly enhance the visual image of the area as one approaches the base. The majority of the project financing is from EDA with a City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission, and ARRA match. The City is the project manager and currently going out to bid. The ARRA, working with the City will continue to research financing mechanisms to fund necessary infrastructure improvements. Potential funding sources include: Lease Revenue Bonds, Revenue Anticipation Notes, Tax Allocation Bonds (tax increment financing), Special Assessment Bonds, Asset Sales, Federal & State Grants, Federal Loan and Loan Guarantee Programs, State Revolving Loan and Infrastructure Bank Program, and Caretaker Agreement with the Navy. Financial Facilitation: The ARRA's LAMBRA Manager will work with each business and outside agencies to facilitate funding opportunities for LAMBRA businesses including, but not limited to, Industrial Development Bonds, Small Business Administration and private lenders. 9125/96 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 2 City of Alameda Description of City of Alameda Incentives in Support of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority's Local Agency Military Base Recovery Area (LAMBRA) Application DESCRIPTION OF CITY OF ALAMEDA LAMBRA INCENTIVES Expedited Application Processing The City will reduce the application processing time by 50% for LAMBRA businesses. The application processing time frame for LAMBRA projects will range from 8 to 16 weeks compared to the City's current time frame of 14 to 38 weeks. This reduction will be accomplished through the following changes to the City's administrative procedures: Establishment of LAMBRA Project Review Committee: The City will form a LAMBRA Project Review Committee (LPRC), consisting of designated responsible staff from the City Manger's Office, Planning, Engineering, Building Inspections, Central Permits Office, Police, Fire, Community Development, Bureau of Electricity, City Attorney's Office, and the ARRA LAMBRA Manager. The LPRC will meet regularly to conduct pre - application review, check applications for completeness, and recommend changes and conditions for approval for LAMBRA projects. Master Discretionary & Environmental Review: The City will prepare a Master Use Permit for interim uses and a Master Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda NAS Reuse Plan, to be approved by the ARRA and the Planning Commission. Individual applications that are consistent with these master approvals can be approved with a minimum of additional processing, in most cases by staff action. Concurrent Review: When the LAMBRA applicant provides multiple sets of plans, City departments will review them concurrently, rather than sequentially. Following are the basic steps the City will take to review LAMBRA projects. The time estimates do not include the time required by applicants to prepare materials, nor do they include the time required in the event that a project requires an Environmental Impact Report. They also do not include the time required for review by government agencies other than the City of Alameda. Identify Project as Within the LAMBRA: Planning and Central Permit Office staff will be trained to identify quickly project locations within the LAMBRA. Staff will provide a LAMBRA brochure and other pertinent information to potential LAMBRA applicants. 9/25/96 Page 1 of 6 Pre - Application Conference: The LPRC will discuss the potential project at its regular meeting, to provide the LAMBRA business with early information about potential prospects and problems with the proposed project. For LAMBRA Business: 1 week For Non - LAMBRA Development: No Equivalent Procedure Review of Application for Completeness: Once the application has been received, the LPRC will review it for completeness, and inform the LAMBRA business what additional information is required to complete the application. For LAMBRA Business: 2 weeks 1 For Non - LAMBRA Business: 4 weeks Review of Application for Merits: Staff of the departments listed above will review the LAMBRA project to determine what changes should be made and what conditions should be imposed. The LPRC will meet to discuss and sign off on staff recommendations. IFor LAMBRA Business: 2 weeks 1 For Non - LAMBRA Business: 4 weeks I Action on Application: Staff Action: Relatively simple projects which are consistent with the Master Use Permit (for interim uses) or the Reuse Plan/Master EIR (for permanent uses) can be acted on by staff. If action on a LAMBRA project is appealed to the Planning Board, more time will be required. If no public notice is required: IFor LAMBRA Business: 1 week 1 For Non - LAMBRA Business: 2 weeks If public notice is required: For LAMBRA Business: 2 weeks 1 Non - LAMBRA Business: 3 weeks Action by the Planning Board: Projects which are more complex, which differ from the Master Use Permit (for interim uses) or the Reuse Plan (for permanent uses), or which require a Negative Declaration for environmental review require action by the Planning Board. If Planning Board action on a LAMBRA project is appealed to the City Council, or if an Environmental Impact Report is necessary, more time will be required. 9/25/96 Page 2 of 6 If the project is categorically exempt: 1 For LAMBRA Business: 4 weeks 1 Non - LAMBRA Business: 12 weeks If the project requires a Negative Declaration: 1 For LAMBRA Business: 8 weeks 1 For Non - LAMBRA Business: 12 -24 weeks 1 Building Permit Review: The Central Permits Office (CPO) will administer expedited, concurrent review of building permits by the City departments for LAMBRA businesses. For Tenant Improvements: For projects which require changes in an existing building for a specific use. IFor LAMBRA Business: 1 week 1 For Non-LAMBRA Business: 2 weeks For New Construction: 1 For LAMBRA Business: 2 weeks 1 For Non - LAMBRA Business: 4 weeks Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: After completion of construction, the LAMBRA business will request issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the CPO. The CPO will administer expedited, concurrent review by the City departments. For LAMBRA Business: 1 week For Non - LAMBRA Business: 2 weeks Total Time Required for City Processin g For LAMBRA Business 8 -16 weeks For Non - LAMBRA Business 14 -38 weeks Exemptions, Reimbursements & Licenses Partial Exemption from Improvement Tax: The City's Improvement Tax is one percent of the value of new construction. LAMBRA businesses will receive a 50% exemption from this fee. For every one million- dollar value of construction planned by LAMBRA businesses, the 50% exemption will save the business $5,000 in improvement tax. Reimbursement of Unsecured Property Tax: State law provides for two statewide taxes that have a special impact on business: the possessory interest tax and the tax on the unsecured property tax roll. The possessory interest tax is effectively a substitute for property tax imposed when a private party leases government -owned property and the tax on the unsecured roll is a tax on property other than land such as heavy equipment. The unsecured property tax returns approximately 27% to the City for every $1 tax paid to the County. This amount will be reimbursed to LAMBRA businesses. 9/25/96 Page 3 of 6 Business License Fees: LAMBRA businesses that generate $23,750 in local sales and use tax in the City (equivalent to $2.5 million taxable sales) will receive a 50% exemption of the City's business license tax liability. LAMBRA businesses that generate $47,500 in local sales and use tax in the City (equivalent to $5 million taxable sales) will receive a 100% exemption of the City's business license tax liability. The exemption will apply to businesses which employ at least 20 employees who work at least 30 hours per week, 12 months a year in the year for which the credit is applied. The City's business license fee is 40 cents per $1,000 in gross receipts. Redevelopment A Redevelopment Project Area will be formed for NAS. On January 18, 1996, the Alameda City Council created a redevelopment survey area encompassing all of the NAS lands proposed for LAMBRA designation. At the ARRA and City's request, the California Legislature adopted AB 3129, special legislation that tailors the redevelopment plan adoption process to particular needs of the proposed LAMBRA area. The benefit of redevelopment is that it allows the capture and reinvestment of all new property tax that would otherwise leave the City. Redevelopment financing depends upon the success of and the investment by the private sector. Redevelopment derived tax increment can be used to assist LAMBRA businesses in a variety of ways, including such things as: • Acquiring land or buildings; • Assisting development by providing favorable financing or revolving loan programs for commercial projects; • Funding facade improvement loan programs; • Financing transportation improvements; • Developing parking lots and streetscape improvements to improve the appearance and function of commercial areas; • Funding or constructing public infrastructure; and, • Developing or improving community facilities and public amenities that serve the area. An Implementation Plan will be prepared as part of redevelopment plan adoption based on the needs and projected tax increment revenues of the LAMBRA area. The City's Community Development Department will designate a staff person, Sue Russell, AICP, Development Specialist, to be the LAMBRA Liaison to the ARRA. In addition, Community Development Department will provide a Business Development Facilitation Service, with a focus on the LAMBRA area. Development Manager, John Doll, will participate in meetings of the 9/25/96 Page 4 of 6 LAMBRA Project Review Committee, and be available to work with LAMBRA businesses to shepherd complex projects through the permit/development approval process. Bureau of Electricity The City of Alameda's Bureau of Electricity is a municipal electric utility serving the entire City of Alameda, including NAS Alameda. The Bureau of Electricity is fully committed to assisting with the reuse and redevelopment of the base. The Bureau of Electricity is prepared to offer the following incentives and assistance programs to LAMBRA businesses: Attractive Utility Rates and Economic Incentive Rate: In addition to the Schedule ED rate described below, the Bureau of Electricity's per kilowatt electric rate is typically 3 -5% lower for commercial and industrial accounts than communities served by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. It is the Bureau's objective to maintain this lower rate. The City of Alameda, Bureau of Electricity will work with LAMBRA businesses to apply the Schedule ED rate to their business. The rate incentive provides a five -year declining rate discount applied to all charges under the standard general service rate for qualifying customers. The discount is as follows: First 12 months 25% Second 12 months 20% Third 12 months 15% Fourth 12 months 10% Fifth 12 months 05% Loans for Infrastructure Upgrades: Based on individual LAMBRA businesses' needs, the Bureau of Electricity will consider applications for business loans from the Bureau's Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). The RLF is a new program offered by the Bureau targeted to businesses locating in the LAMBRA. Use of the loan funds will be restricted to infrastructure upgrades and loan amounts would normally be limited to $40,000. Transformer Deposit Fee Waiver: The Bureau of Electricity will waive the $10,000 to $25,000 transformer deposit fee for LAMBRA businesses. Business Assistance & Technical Support: Gene Keller, Marketing Coordinator with the Alameda Bureau of Electricity, will be assigned as Project Manager for all electric issues and services to LAMBRA businesses. In addition to working with LAMBRA businesses to secure the Bureau's economic incentive rate, Mr. Keller will work with LAMBRA businesses to discuss overall energy requirements, energy efficiency and auditing programs, rebate programs, contracts, rates and scheduling, and will assist the LAMBRA business with any service delivery problems or expansion requirements. 9/25/96 Page 5 of 6 Energy Efficiency Upgrades: For LAMBRA businesses the Bureau of Electricity will provide rebates calculated at six cents per kilowatt hour saved during one year of operation for equipment upgrades in excess of State of California, Title 24 requirements. Rebates could be in the thousands of dollars per LAMBRA business. Retired Equipment Removal: As a service to LAMBRA businesses, the Bureau of Electricity will arrange for the disposal of obsolete transformers, switches, or breakers that are oil - filled (and potentially PCB - contaminated). This will be done at no cost to the LAMBRA business. Savings to the LAMBRA business could be in the thousands of dollars for this service. Marketing Assistance: The Bureau will assist LAMBRA businesses in marketing efforts where consistent with City and Bureau activities. This will include write -ups about business activities and products, inclusion of business product descriptions and services in letters and brochures published by the Bureau in support of strategic business initiatives, and advice relating to marketing activities and opportunities for interested LAMBRA businesses. The Bureau of Electricity currently has an Internet Web site, and will work with LAMBRA businesses (as appropriate) to develop hyper -links between the Bureau and the LAMBRA business Web sites. Disconnect - Reconnect Fee Waiver: The Bureau of, Electricity will waive the $150 disconnect - reconnect fee for all LAMBRA businesses. 9/25/96 Page 6 of 6 CORRESPONDENCE ARRA UPDATE - September 25, 1996 -4 BCDC Port Priority designation remains because the Container Cargo Forecast Roundtable on September 17 upheld the cargo forecast figures used to project demand for container berths. The next step is to look further at the feasibility of NAS as a viable option for five cargo container berths. To that end, the EBCRC is requesting OEA funds to conduct a feasibility study. -� A very productive meeting was held Friday, September 13 with Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy William J. Cassidy, Jr. and representatives from the Department of the Interior, Congressman Ronald V. Dellums' office, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). This two -hour meeting was arranged by Secretary Cassidy for the ARRA to present its Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern and to initiate meaningful discussion. Meeting participants received substantial encouragement from the Navy to continue the dialogue and a follow -up meeting was set for October 25 in the Bay Area. The goal is to bring this issue to closure by the end of October. -> Leases and licenses: Six signed leases or licenses, including CALSTART (bldg. 20), Gianotti (ship repair company - bldg. 113), Carstar (vehicle painting - in portions of bldgs. 24 and 25); City of Alameda records storage in bldg. 397; Disney is filming in a portion of bldg. 24; and a soccer field adjacent to bldg. 360. • Finalizing leases with Tower Aviation (avionics instrument repair - bldg. 530); QA Products (valve manufacturer - bldg. 21); Nelson Marine (bldg. 167); and five other significant tenants for bldgs. 66, 14, 9, 166, and 398. • Currently negotiating two license agreements: (1) with Microsoft for a one -time major event in bldgs. 11 and 400A and (2) with a film company affiliated with Francis Ford Coppola, for his new film, The Rainmaker. -4 The City of Alameda was awarded a $3 million grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to provide a linear park and street improvements on Main Street, which provides the primary access road for NAS Alameda. The construciton will vastly improve access to the Main Gate of NAS by eliminating seasonal flooding on Main Street. This project will improve vehicle, bike, and pedestrian access to NAS and aesthetically enhance the area. -> The EIR/EIS process has been delayed pending conclusion of the federal -to- federal transfers to: • Fish & Wildlife for the Least Tern Refuge • Coast Guard Housing -- resolution on lease /leaseback arrangement INTERIM LEASING STATUS REPORT Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to , 1 : E E 2 1).<1><!).< lxklix 1 ,x: : :x: , I c < 11 1 1 1 1 ; ; 1 oltr) ololotto to -,C ; I I-- I ,•-• 1 1 ,- , ; 1 ; . . , ; 1 ; 10 tc) 0:0 0 (0 ; Ni cL) co to cat1oltoLotoltoltr) o oholo I : co 4-011.01 ('J 1 0 CV ' •:t 1-0 in .,_ 1 1 ' 1 ; 1 1 ' , ■ ' , ' . I 1 , 1 t 1 • ! o ; (1) 1 Cn (.0 I 0 i (.0 i<.0 ! 0 1 0 ! CO c0 ; t--- t-- CO CO CO ; 0 11--- i CO ! QD ; CO t---- ; 1*--- Ts 0 15.1-6.1 al— „L ja.1,--1.,--1 cil ,,-;;-; „Li a..;,-; Yrr.... '- 4-- V”' : V.". „,...14-,,,----14--,-,,,,,-- 2 -.I 4 = 1 ( D i E E i E E ! E1E1 1 1E1 0 4-,;ooc) ; oo ; lot '-p- 0E10E171 il ; 1` '-t'-1E1 1`'.11`"--`-',‘- o ._)..0 Z.,0111oloc...)1 (....)! 1 101 ; c.)0': : , 101 2. L.1- E 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 ' t) T.) ' 1:3 1 (C) -o1-c)1016131 I 1';,r---.1,!--.11N- to (010' `IN;•1t61,10, 0) >, 0; CO a); o)1,:y) a.)1a.)101co, 010 i 0 0 • '• C - 5 0 c cXo S a _tiJ t 1 . _J ' __to I ' 1 -.0 -- 1u0 1 ) ]' 1 (,1,J ,a) :1 1 ; ---- - V,1 ; 1 1 •,- -- - - 1 ,1 1 : ;. 1 ! : , 0i, 0.1 92' 0;Hc92 t a 0) :M 0 0 a i1 a, 0 C 0 1 (00zz z zzc—z- 0)c0)z-a-0n0)Z (N1 Z V (2 000 0I 0 as _ ! F 1 ! , 0,0 00 0 ;C)10i0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0010!0!0:000 . .._ . 0 , LO ; (0 , 0 0 " ; to 1 o 1 0 ,i--, to'vr.o 0 0 0 o 0 t0;t0 t0 :0,0,0 o o cit :0 , C\ I • ,t- , 0 , 0 , ;-zt-i0;0 ; I-- c'.1 • (0 ' N- 0 co • 0 0 0 0 : (ssi .0 ,0 ,0,0):4-- 0 to olir--;c2) !LOICOlt0 ;LO N!CO.N 1---;0 N 0 01- 00,0 N N 4-t CO : CO !,,--- r- ' 1 In CO 1 LO , CO • LO ' %-- • CO (0 ,-- st i (0 , CO i r- r- ' r- CI ,- -ct 03 LL. -,-- , , , ,,,,--- 2.2 < , , . I 1 , • E = . Z : : ! 0 , , (0 E (0 . , La c : , : - co , a ; : • N ! • i (/) 0Z5 , ; ■ 1:7 CZ : ' '''.... ... a 5 , .4. . '- ("4 I ; (" ' '-'-' ; +- , ! 0 ! , . CO ■ M ,.1... ■ ■ n 4Z 0 ci X .tr) 1 4- 0 6! 0) c \I - o , 1.- 6 .1. ! t .t.'. ' ' '' 1 1°1 - ,C 1 (1) i o 'E- co t.--cl.a3 1-- `-,..7-- c) 4-• cat IN: 43100: fo)[ciL-1 1 c i ! 'cO, '-' ' i , , a) 1 -- , c„.1 ._ . ; 1 1 , 1.-- 0 0 -- 2 1 (0, ,..1 , 11 , co 0) , - 0 0 - • c) 0 v0 c,o , ,- N 1,0 CI ;(0 N cz iElo) 0) 0 0 N 0 0 00:0 N a_ _ • va_< ._ N,_ i.. .a)(0,ol\iifoo co ,- ! 0- op 1 •zr 1 't (,°‘*""■,--* ) 1 ; ico 20) *82 Eal 0, a1 -,-_-; •_ . 4-, : a 0 1 1 co 2 v, 'E.--; .1.1fal . ' 0) . , c ; < ..tc ca o ; ; cts c oo 0) , ; ; ; o) a- 1 0 as 1 1 ,(-) 1 1 0 c c v, • 1 1 c 1 2 a) c1).E1 -1.-E ItitE E -L-1--1C31-111-,-_-111g ''-c./;" - 1;c1C-ii 'Cm t.(2°) <E1-z 10.- a, E „9:=10-1-c-15; „ttc.,(x,-0 '5 0-1 --- 1 -cs u) '''' u) 1 ("1 1 E 1 'iii 1 0 1 0 1 0 ; Ft., : 4.5 C-1-- , ,9 nic) , 1 a- ' a) 0-5 -,„ .„.,- 1 —1(x 1 a 1,--, c „ a) _-tu...1 a); ■.-;...,- ; o ! — — a.)'E.- 5, w1ct 1-011.51.0, a.)10_ a) •.:= MI )-- '. › u) = 1 o 1.5:1-C.E 1■--; 1 co ; c!...) "Fil ko 0 ra ii-.1 < 11.1 u) , < .,..1 (k,---1--- <, ..c)101= ,- ..-0 ..,.. i 2 lia_mc:_:.-s; 0 al ci.:5!ota- ittot.Ni-= 1- 1 iii ; 0 1,a) I 65 (T.) 1 „c •?.,' F_ C." 10 (ti•-•-•,(1),`:,4-,10;a3 '41,- .2) al ; 1= ; 0. ; 1u)11-t,', ! Ei'-'--1 0 61.---, w .2 'I- . :cni >,.1-1- i ...?7,1-E. .52 (,3 .,1 31"-aj > ..c ; .c ,(--1 (,%; (011-' E `) ii = 0 ' 1,2 0,1-1°1<101'zt-: z 01<la.10 E.' u)oitil 1(5 (5:(1.5 ir. u) z 0 < ': 1—,a)103:21°-! , ,IIII 1 ; . . • ■ , , 1 : , ,I iI i 1 11 1 I 0 1 V eV 4 1 , (ri ' t;"7' i F * (:! P * 14 -; mm coir•-o aT 7 r .V V V 0 (; 1 c1 c' CO l cr CO (0 • 0 C 0 (0 SIX•01,U9A91 MARAD Piers 1, 2; To be To be * & 31 1/971 determined! determined' 1 * 'Navigator Systems 14 40,0001 1/971 $ 77,000 $ 77,000 . : 1 * Alpha Documents 91 82,0001 2/971 $ 100,000 $200,000 1 *.Puglio 67 14,000 3/971 $ 34,000 , $ 34,000 I* Bay Ship & Yacht .292 & 6121 2,700, 2/97_I $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 Storage Units , Adjacent' to Bldg.; 530. 2/97 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 * Nelson Marine . 167! 55,400, 10/961 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 * QAP 221 66,500, 11/961 $ 128,000; $ 144,000 Carstar Portions; of 24 &I ** 251 32,5501 Occupied $ 56,000 $ 90,000 To be determined $ 79,000 44 -EA CO ! (J) 0) : 0 o , a 0 ; CD -EA (0 ! (D —x + -6 1 - a i 5 0 CD I A 0- 429 —,. c, 0 0 To be determined 69 N.) 4.. b CD 0 4444 _, 0) c) b 00 CD oo co b 0 -EA _, (0 ol b CD CD 44 Oa --). bi CD CD $ 114,000 <Y) (0 co b 0 0 Year 3 To be determined 44 "..1 (0 b a a $ 350,000 $ 36,000 To be determined $ 91,000 kfl —.a 0 b a a To be determined 44 r\) 0 00 00 a 44 r\) -ta, a $ 176,000 69 -- --a --a b a a $ 195,000 $ 31,500 44 --.. .A. --a b a a -EA CO CD a a a To be To be! determined determined j Minimal 1 $ 85,000 $ 391,000 To be determined $ 350,000 $ 1,350000 To be determined ,To be determined $ 38,000_, $ 178,000 To bel To be determined! determined; 0 $ 106,000 $ 442,000 To be determined $ 12,000 $ 48,000 1 Minimal! To be To be determined determined; Minimal $ 22,000 1 $ 98,000 1 Minimal! 44 N) 4=• b a o $ 192,000 1 $ 800,000 410,0001 4:4 " b 00 00 44 CD b a 00 01 a b a a kft . CD a 44 CD b a a $ 31,500 $ 151,100 oJ $ 154,000 $ 555,000 0 $ 99,000 1 $ 495,000 $410,000 Shell Improve- Total Years ment Costs Year 5 1_5 Reimbursable by ARRA 69 —a. N.) CD b a a a ZANDER ASSOCIA1ES Environmental Consultants Transmittaliblemorandum Via Fax 2 pages To: Kay Miller / Paul Tuttle From: Leslie Zander Subject: Revisions to Management Plan for the Least Tern Date: September 5, 1996 Based on the action taken by the ARRA last night regarding the above - referenced plan, I would recoinmend we make the following changes to the Draft dated August, 1996: 1. Title: Add the words Second Draft to the title and continue to print document on Draft paper 2. Introduction: Add an Introduction to the Second Draft that describes the review process and how comments were incorporated into this version. 3. Table 1: Revise per the BRAG's recommendation (Acreage's of development incorrect) 4. Revise the paragraph On increased monitoring to more clearly state that a monitor would be posted from dawn to dusk and that there would be flexibility to stay the night if warranted. 5. Revise Paragraph on least tern habitat expansion to incorporate the gradual expanse of habitat, remove the use of dredge spoils and sand, add gravel and keep shells but revise area to be covered. Also modify Figure 3 to indicate proposed enhancement area adjacent to existing colony and to the east. 6. Remove runway wetland enhancement per the BRAG's recommendation. 7. I need help trying to address the limited use airfield. Should we keep it in or remove it. If we keep it in, we should revise the text to better address how the airfield would fit into the management program. 8. Revise dates for dredging in conformance with comments received. 9. Add suggested success criteria from Carolee Caffrey for Development Phasing in the 135 acres. 10. Revise Management Costs to reflect changes made in management concepts. 11. Add Appendix which includes copies of all coininent letters received per the ARRAs direction. I have requested that Sherry Teresa and Peter Bloom provide me letters by Monday responding to the comments received and reinforcing their position on the plan. Following is a list of comment letters I have received. Please check this list and make sure I have everything that you have received. I know I will need the minutes of the BRAG 8/21/96 meeting. 150 Ford Way, Suite 101, Novato, CA 94945 (415) 897 -8781 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM:. Margaret E. Ensley L, ARRA Secretary DATE: September 26, 1996 SUBJECT: Letters /Comments on the Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern Following . are letters commenting on the Draft Conceptual Manage Plan for the California Least Tern that I have received since the interim mailing was sent out on September 6. • August 22 letter to Leslie Zander from Leora R. Feeney, Biological Field Service • August 27 letter from Carolee Caffrey, Oklahoma State University • August 28 letter from Maynard A. Small, USDA - APHIS -ADC • September 11 letter from Eve Bach, Arc Ecology • September 25 letter from Dave Ryan, EFA West to Joel Medlin, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service In previous mailings you received the letters listed below. Included with your August 28 packets for the September 4 ARRA meeting: • August 18 letter from Arthur Feinstein, Golden Gate Audubon Society • August 19 letter from Frank and Janice Delfino, Ohlone Audubon Society • August 22 letter from Ruth Gravanis • August 23 letter from Saul Bloom, Arc Ecology Included in the interim mailing on September: • August 22 letter from Laura D. Collins, Field Biologist • September 2 letter containing additional comments from Ruth Gravanis • September 3 letter [corrected version] with comments from Arc Ecology. I hope this list will help you to locate these letters when you get inquiries. To the best of my knowledge this list comprises all of the letters received to date. ©Recycled paper page 1 of 5 BIOLOGICAL FIELD SERVICES WILDLIFE CONSUL"i', \'I ION - DOCU \IENTATION - PIZOTF.0 Ilc )N August 22, 1996 Zander Associates Leslie Zander, Principal 180 Ford Way, Suite 101 Novato, California 94945 RE: Conceptual Management Flan for the California Least Tern Naval Air Station, Alameda Dear Leslie, It is with regret that my schedule now does not allow me the time to review the above. document with the attention a California least tern management plan deserves. The review period of one week (date received 15 August) is not really adequate. I do, however, appreciate having a chance to see the plan. My twenty years of least tern monitoring and managing experience and 14 years as a professional least tern biologist has put me very close to the problems of the San Francisco Say Area least tern population and intimately involved with the challenging task to reduce least tern predation. It appears that this "conceptual" plan is informal.. It lacks scientific presentation and format. There is no use of scientific names; there is little or no discussion of California least tern status. There is no discussion of the history of least terns at the Naval Air Station, Alameda (ANAS), nor is there any discussion of their natural history. There is no presentation of credentials related to least tern management experience for the primary consultants preparing this plan. Nor could I find in your references any literature that might substantiate some of the management changes the plan proposed. For my part, the greatest objection is the absence of references for critical statements in the document. All of these elements are expected in a management plan for any species. The primary goal of the plan appears to be to serve as a vehicle to offer money, "improved" management strategies, and "habitat enhancement" to offset the loss of least tern habitat at ANAS for the ARRA's proposed 390 acre reduced refuge. It fails to offer convincing arguments for the ARRA plan. 1330 EIGI-1T1 -i ST. ALAMEDA, CA .94501 (510)522- 8525 page 2 of 5 (Feeney 8/22/96) It is wrong to mislead the reader by stating that the least tern colony "occupies approximately 4 acres of the airfield" (Executive Summary, paragraph 1). Only the enclosure is about 4 acres. The terns have nested outside the enclosure, and the terns rely on many, many more acres to roost. feed young, and escape predators. One of the most unique qualities of the ANAS site is the ability to allow the terns to use natural strategies of escape when predation cannot be stopped. Opening the fence frees the adults to lead their flightless young away from the focus of predation. Least terns have been documented to move young chicks to the northwest boundary of the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) proposed 526 acre refuge. It is unfortunate that your management plan does not address documented least tern use areas at the ANAS or explain how the (ARRA) 390 acre proposed refuge would compensate for the loss of some of these use areas. The "entire airfield" is wrongly described as 595 acres (paragraph 2, Executive Summary). The 595 acre figure is the size of the original (USFWS) refuge request. Since their request did not include the eastern portion of the east /west runway or the adjacent grasslands to the east, the entire airfield would have to be substantially larger than 595 acres. It Is sometimes forgotten that the open areas surrounding the eastern portion of the east /west runway when developed will reduce predator foraging opportunities, increasing predator pressure on remaining areas of ANAS including the least tern colony. This impact will require some attention. I believe, compromising open areas was thought possible with a 595 acre refuge, because it was considered that predator management would be feasible with a refuge of that size, and predators would still have foraging opportunities some distance from the least tern nesting area. The reduced USFWS 526 acre refuge is actually a second compromise and was a disappointment to me and others. A 526 acre refuge barely,allows for documented least tern use areas and brings the public dangerously close to predator control efforts. Even with a "links golf course" adjacent to the refuge, I have no confidence that raptor foraging will be adequate, and I have had personal experience with three golf courses, where convenience apparently weighed over policy with regard to the use of rodent pesticides and landscape chemicals. These are very difficult elements to enforce, especially with the passage of time. Risk to the current status of the leaet tern colony is inevitable with the closure of the ANAS, and any encroachment on the open areas around the least tern colony requires serious and thorough discussion in a management plan. An opinion statement signed by seven of California's most reknowned least tern experts includes the following sentence: "We contend that any significant change to the current configuration of the airfield and adjacent open area may irrevocably affect the success and perpetuation of the page 3 of 5 (Feeney 8/22/96) NAS Alameda least tern colony, potentially jeopardizing recovery for the endangered species." I agree thoroughly with this statement. The Zander management plan for a 390 acre ARRA proposed refuge offers funding based on "additional development that would create additional revenues ". Reducing the refuge size, eliminating known least tern use areas and increasing risks to the currently successful least tern management program for money based on the questionable success of real estate development is not an attractive offer. There is no guarantee of'successful development of this land or long term financial viability of the development. I am curious as to the purpose of the statement that "no funding assistance would be available from the ARRA under the USFWS land use scenario." (Executive Summary, last paragraph) And I wonder if this statement can be said with full confidence. "Improved" management concepts are proposed without presenting current management policies for comparison. It appears that continuous monitoring and predator harassment are proposed to compensate for the reduction of least tern habitat by 136 acres (526 minus 390). There is no detail or referential documentation that continual monitoring and predator harassment are methods that could improve upon the current management methods even if the open space configuration were to remain the same. Continuous monitoring (Executive Summary, paragraph 3) modified to monitoring "all day every day" (paragraph 2.1.1 page 4) leaves me confused. "Continuous" suggests that a monitor would be present 24 hours a day, every day. If this is what you mean by "all day ", then the time allotted for a monitor (Cost Analysis, page 3) falls short by over a 1000 hours (May, June, July, August at 24 hours per day is more than 2900 hours). There is no mention in the plan about nocturnal monitoring or the difficulties presented during nocturnal observations. There is no discussion about how your methods would improve upon current intense monitoring that includes daily nest and chick censusing and day and night continuous vigils when necessary. your plan does not mention censusing at all. I have spent some time considering your proposal for predator harassment (Proactive Predator Control, paragraph 2.1.2., page 5). Based on my experience this approach suggests naivete. Although you state that this method is "effective for several species ", you neglect to list them or reference the statement. Harassing hawks may cause them to flush, if the perches are low enough. I doubt that you can produce conclusive evidence that any species, generally, can be diverted from a known food source by harassment as proposed. Several least tern predators hunt on the wing or from distant perches. Harassment of northern harriers, peregrine falcons, and even American kestrels would be difficult, if not impossible. If every avian predator observed page 4 cf 5 (Feeney 8/22/96) from the least tern colony were to be harassed from perches or nearby areas, it would take several people at once chasing about_ the airfield many hours every day. Harassing predators at the least tern fleeting area would interrupt least tern defense strategies (mobbing and chick concealment) by harassing least terns as well. Harassment of nocturnal predators (often mammals and /or owls) would prove to be a unique challenge. One of the most important components of the current management ttprogramoni *._or daily censusing of nests and chicks. I suggest would have little time to census if their main task was to haraes predators. It is not stated what benefit the 70 acre habitat expansion and enhancement (paragraph 2.1.4 page 5) would offer least terns at ANAS. The development of the 70 acres proposed in the Zander plan would reduce further the already too small raptor foraging areas and propose that least terns move closer benefit to remains placing "1 raptor foraging areas. There is no apparent "1 to 2 feet of dredge materials" on the airfield and the sand covering would simply blow away requiring repeated maintenance. The habitat enhancement plan as presented can only harm current least tern protection strategies by further reducing raptor foraging opportunities even closer to the least tern nesting area and the ternst(Both gulls iandgCaspian dterns �are8documentedt to predators of California least terns). There is no explanation on how the runway wetland habitat enhancement (page 6) helps to enhance the least tern nesting effort. However, I do appreciate wetland enhancement. There is no reason to assume that the Navy airfield use can be therefore, compared to a future civilian airfield use and that, therh use of the airfield will be compatible with the colony (paragraph S p 2.1.5., page 6). And in fact, this is a dangerous assumption. A civilian airport cannot offer the same level of cooperation as the Navy airport. With the absence of the east /west runway, there will be no alternative runway to use when least terns (even chicks) roost on the north /south runway as the case. This critical issue is not addressed in your The section on dredging restrictions in least tern foraging areas (paragraph 2.1.6., page 6) does not provide adequate protection to least tern food sources. The least tern breeding season varies a bit, but minimally should be considered from late April through August and not as suggested "May 1 to July 15 ". There is no conoideration in your proposal for the impact to fisheries if dredging occurs before the least terns arrive. In my opinion there are no compensations in this management plan, even with e benefit beyond P page 5 of 5 (Feeney, 8/22/96) current management strategies. And in fact, it could be argued that some of the changes (predator harassment and habitat enhancement which would reduce raptor foraging areas) you propose would have negative impacts to the site even with no change to the airfield configuration. It also seems that there would be prohibitive costs associated with the plan. The numerous impacts that will occur with ANAS closure must be mitigated (even with a 595 acre refuge) by a detailed plan and policies that will guarantee without any question the future success of the endangered least terns at this site. So far, this has not been accomplished. It is most alarming, that a plan for least terns has been presented with untested and unsubstantiated management changes to a least tern management program that is viewed statewide as being excellent with enviable results by any standard. Sincerely yours, Leora R. Feeney 7,2 SEP 0 4 1996 ARRA CITY OF ALAIV1EDA Department of Zoology 430 Life Sciences West Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078.3052 405:744-5555 Al,aust 27 1996 Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory Building 90 Alameda CA 94501 Dear Ms. Miller: I recently received from Leslie Zander a copy of the Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern, Naval Air Station Alameda. "For your reading pleasure" she said. It made my blood boil. I have just moved to a new position in a new state with a four month old daughter; I have no free time. I resent having to spend the hours it has taken to read and respond to this document, which represents yet another attempt to undermine the decision made a year ago by the USFWS (a compromise made for solid reasons, both economic and biological), especially because it involves repeating many of the comments I have already made over and over again. To wit, the first sentence of the Executive Summary is untrue. As such, I will respond only in general to most things, and in detail to a couple. Please reread my Navy report, as many of the threats to the success of terns at NASA associated with these changes to the current configuration have already been addressed. And please keen in mind that we are dealing with an endangered species here; no amount of money can buy it back. First, you seem to have missed the point, again, that the large "buffer zone" of non-prey- and predator-supporting habitat effectively minimizes the predation pressure on this site in the first place. This is a critical factor with regard to the site's • success. Yes it also facilitates predator detection by terns, and Predator control procedures by humans, but first and foremost it keeps the site relatively free of the predation problems that plague other sites in the state. Decreasing the size of this buffer zone to the north will increase predation pressure for Bringing Dreams to Life myriad reasons (included in my Navy report); I suspect you are aware of this, as that explains the predation management thrust of the new proposal. As I have said numerous times before, increasing predation pressure and then killing lots more predators is not ok, from a biological or an ethical point of view. Second, if I wasn't worried that someone is going to take this seriously, I would almost find humorous your suggestion that predator deterrence and trapping is so easy. Statements such as "...as simple as driving to or walking to a predator perch site..." (page 3) and "...just by walking or driving along the outside of the fence" (Appendix A) are dangerous (in this context) as well as misleading. Have you ever tried to keep an avian predator out of an area by walking around and waving your arms? I doubt it. Granted my experience is only with crows and a kestrel, but it doesn't work. While you shout and wave in one area, they land in another. Needless to say, I should think, the 25 people that it would take to guard the fence at NASA would be disruptive to terns. And I am baffled as to how you plan to walk or drive by roof- and treetops. As to the ease of live - trapping, I again refer you to my Navy report for examples of how difficult that can be. Many terns have been lost as kestrels, peregrines, hawks, and owls have repeatedly escaped trapping attempts. The majority of predators at tern sites across the state have had to be killed. And the limiting confines of a 390 acre refuge would severely hamper such efforts, for the many reasons that have been discussed to death, I thought, already. In addition, the contention that creating more nesting habitat would increase the number of breeding pairs, thus enabling the site to "withstand moderate predation" is ridiculous, as I have already discussed with Leslie. The number of terns at Alameda is not limited by the size of the area in which they breed. That number is a function of the number of terns that decide, for reasons unknown, to head all the way up to NASA (isolated far to the north of all other sites); once they're there, they either breed or not, depending on local conditions. As Leslie and I discussed, it is unlikely that terns on their wintering grounds are spreading the word ( "hey, there's a really nice spot up in San Francisco Bay "). I suppose I should say, however, that independent of the above issue, I think creating additional breeding habitat is a splendid idea. Third is the issue of adjacent development restrictions. Listed here are things such as "building heights" and "landscaping" with no details. That scares me. What kinds of buildings and vegetation will not provide breeding and perching habitat for predators? In addition, with regard to restrictions placed on pet ownership, how are you going to prevent someone from acquiring a cat? What happens if someone does? Are you depending on neighbors to turn each other in? And then what? This section, potentially the most threatening to terns, needs explicit details before anyone should even consider considering this plan. Fourth, the index of site stability and tern reproductive success that should be used to assess phased development effects (an idea I like) should include the fledgling to pair ratio as well as pair numbers. Fledgling to pair ratios tell' you how well the pairs that attempted breeding did; the high F /Ps at NASA, in addition to the large number of pairs, is what makes this site so crucial to the recovery of this species. And lastly, on a positive note, the development of an Educational /Public Awareness Program is an excellent idea and deserves all of our support. I apologize for how nasty this ended up reading as I did not intend to offend you personally, but this latest proposal makes me angry, for the reasons stated above. I am adamantly opposed to the plans put forth in this document because tern reproductive success and the perpetuation of this site will be in jeopardy, and I hope that someday soon long - term and big - picture considerations are placed in front of the economic benefits to be had by a small number of people. Sincerely, Carolee Caffrey, PhD cc: Jim Browning Leslie Zander 1, United States Animal and Department of Plant Health Agriculture Inspection Service August 28, 1996 Leslie Zander Zander Associates 150 Ford Way, Suite 101 Navato, California 94945 Dear Leslie: Animal Damage Control San furs District Office 223 South Oakley Street Santa Maria. CA 9345 -t Jr-. Up 1996 I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer comments on the Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern (CLT) at NAS Alameda for ARRA. These first few paragraphs are written in response to the fourth paragraph of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. I believe there is a financial responsibility for ARRA and the City of Alameda to pay some mitigation for negative effects of the existing buildings, new buildings and their new expected uses if the USF &WS plan containing 525 acres is adopted. The increased numbers of people, the domestic pets they bring and ARRA declaring there will be less control of the public with an open base are all reasons for predator management funding to be paid by ARRA and the City of Alameda if the USF &WS Refuge is kept at 525 acres or reduced to 390 acres. The navy has taken the responsibility to fund monitoring and minimal predator management of the CLT colony because of the navy's negative impact to the CLT colony, even though it has controlled access and operations, without increasing development and the numbers of people with their domestic pets. ARRA's reasoning and opinion that they owe nothing if the USF &WS Refuge is maintained at the 525 acres seems flawed to me. I can show you dozens of CLT sites in the southern California area that have been damaged by development, human encroachment and cutting down their acreage and size. There is not one CLT site that has benefited from reducing their acreage, increasing development and increasing human uses. Therefore, 1 reason there is no argument that can be presented with site referencing that will indicate that a CLT site is better off if it is smaller in size. If you reduce the acreage down to the ARRA's proposed 390 and the CLT colony shows decline, are you prepared to tear down the structures and remove the development or will it just be another sad case of an endangered CLT colony losing to the dollar. Pages one, two and three of the introduction are covered by the above statements. In paragraph two on page four (section 2.0), the statement "regardless of the final configuration of the wildlife refuge and adjacent development, reuse of the remainder of the base will increase public exposure to the area and public perception of trapping and disposal of predators will likely become an issue." That statement alone is verification that we really need to keep the refuge boundaries as ,large as possible and keep the businesses and non refuge operations as far away from the CLT colony and predator management operations as possible. k4120 APHIS -- Protecting American Agriculture Referring to page five in the first paragraph (section 2. 1. 1 ), the trapping, tracking and patrolling of the perimeter would be conducted by others under the direction of the monitor, should be stated as, under the direction of the USF &WS Refuge and the USF &WS with daily coordination with the site monitor The USF &WS and the Refuge should direct all predator management activities at NAS Alameda. It is also extremely important to have daily and frequent interfacing between the monitor and the predator removal specialist. In the first paragraph of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ARRA states "there is no scientific or public consensus on what factors associated with reuse of Naval Air Station, Alameda could increase predation and /or human disturbance of the CLT colony." There is evidence at many CLT sites that predation and disturbance of CLTs increases with the increase of people, buildings, other structures, landscaping, domestic pets and downsizing. Also, increased human use decreases the uninterrupted ability to manage predator populations and selective predator removal. Paragraph two of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "The USF &WS maintains that a large buffer area is essential for trapping and shooting to continue." That is not the only reason but it is a good one. The closer you move the people and structures to the management area the more difficult it will be to conduct the shooting and trapping in a safe manner. It is always safer to shoot further from people than closer. The general public observing predator management techniques, will always stimulate some criticism and that will decrease the effectiveness of the predator management and could get it stopped. The further you keep the domestic pets from the CLT colony, the less predation there will be by them on the CLTs. The further you keep the buildings and other structures from the CLT site the fewer problems from perching avian predators you will have. The importance of keeping the open area larger is not only to conduct predator removal but you also could have smaller numbers of predators to remove. The ideas in this paragraph about monitoring, vegetation removal, removing perch sites are all necessary. Paragraph three of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY refers to the monitor being trained to monitor and remove predators. This is difficult for one person and the predator management should be separated from the monitoring. Frequently trapping and predator removal will take place in the outer perimeters of the site to remove major CLT predators prior to them getting to the CLT site. If the monitor was conducting the predator removal, he or she would be away from the CLT site for a considerable time during each day to service the predator removal equipment during which time undocumented predation might take place. In section 2.1.2, reference is made to live trapping avian predators and relocating them. ADC has trapped, banded and relocated red - tailed hawks more than 280 miles from the capture site, kestrels more than one hundred miles and loggerhead shrikes more than sixty miles, only to have each of them return to the exact same location within a few weeks. Who is going to relocate the birds the hundreds of miles needed to deter them from returning and who will pay to care for them while the trips can be arranged? There are many avian predators that do not, or seldom perch for you to harass as you describe prior to them attacking the colony or owls perching at night when the monitor is not present and could not see, even if he or she was present. In the same paragraph, reference is that this harassment technique has proven to be very successful for several species of avian predators. The key word here is several and I would add sometimes to the word several In this document you have described protocols to resolve simple predator management problems while the overall predator management is a very complex issue that varies greatly, over time and from year to year. There has to be flexibility in this program and the predator management personnel must have the ability to adapt to different predator issues as they arise The fence described in section 2 1 3 will be helpful in keeping out unauthorized humans and some domestic pets. In section 2 1.4, habitat expansion or enlarging the CLT site would be helpful in increasing the possibility of colony expansion. The eight -foot fence described to enclose the site sounds like a good perching place for avian predators. Small did not indicate that you can eliminate or discourage avian perching with an electrified top wire on a cantilevered chain -link fence. Small stated that a properly designed and maintained electric fence will help in excluding many mammals. There are wire ribbons that carry a ground and a hot wire that can be electrified for discouraging perching but 1 have no experiences to refer to in their use. In section 2.1.5, I remind ARRA that there is a possibility of a conflict with an increased number of CLTs using the site and aircraft bird strike hazards. The FAA manages airports to minimize the potential for bird strikes by aircraft. Section 2.1.7 refers to building and structure configurations that are designed and built to reduce the attraction of avian and mammalian predators but the fact remains that in most cases, buildings and other man made structures increase predators such as domestic cats, red foxes, skunks, raccoons, opossums, and dogs. The buildings and structures will also increase avian perch sites and activity of owls, crows, ravens, gulls and many other avian predators regardless of how they are designed. The links golf course will provide foraging for crows, skunks, red fox, raccoons and other predators. There is a historic attraction of predators to golf courses, who use them for grubbing, hunting of small mammals and birds attracted to the greens, scavenging for scraps and trash and using them for a fresh water source. The parking lot areas always attract animals to feed on items such as a piece of a sandwich, a grape or two, an apple core, a few pieces of popcorn, a piece of candy that is dropped and left by the golfers, visitors and their friends. Usually there are light poles in the parking lots and they are attractive for perching and attracting insects when they are used at night. The development phasing and post construction requirements in this section sound all right but are in and of themselves admitting to this development creating predator management problems. Section 2.1.8 would all be beneficial and should be adopted regardless of the plan selected. Section 2.2.1 (management area 1) management goals and measures should be implemented in either the 525 or the 390 acreage scenarios. Most of section 2.2.2 I disagree with, as it would require reducing the refuge from 525 acres down to 390 acres. Section 2.2.3 has good management goals and measures stated. Section 2.2.4 listed as 2.1.4 in the Conceptual Plan also contains good goals and measures. Section 3.0 and 3.1 deals with management costs that are listed as initial capital and annual ongoing costs for Conceptual Management Plan The problem with this plan is that ARRA does not want to shoulder any financial responsibility if the refuge is established at 525 acres, which 1 prefer There also is no inflationary clause built into the funding of this plan The cost ARRA is willing to incur should be listed in staff years rather than dollar amounts Your revenues will increase with inflation and so should the amount of the ongoing annual funding The development will have an effect on the CLT colony forever and so the funding should be secured forever to accomplish the stated goals. The $91,577.41 ongoing yearly cost in a few years will not fund even a small portion of the project management and goals PREDATOR CONTROL PLAN Harassment and other non - lethal techniques of resolving predation and potential predation of CLT should always be attempted before lethal techniques, with the exception of when the predation is substantial and there would be too much loss of CLT if non - lethal techniques are tried first and they don't work. Monitors and ADC Predator Specialists will need to be very careful in walking or driving to harass predators that they don't cause the CLT to get up from their nests very many times or the CLT eggs will cool or over heat, depending on the weather. The time the CLTs are off their nests will leave the eggs and chicks more susceptible to predation. It is just as bad for the CLT to get off the nest from a human disturbance as a predator. If multiple trips are required to discourage a predator and you are getting the CLTs off their nests, it is better to take the predators than to harass them. Transmitters on traps are good with small numbers of traps but they do add substantially to the cost of operation and losses when equipment is stolen or thrown in the bay. When there are traps in the field they need to be monitored physically at regular intervals to make sure you do not have trap avoidance by predators, animals restrained or a non functioning transmitter. Referring to constantly harassing kestrels, there is no consideration in this paragraph for not harassing the CLTs. Dealing with the northern harrier, again there is no consideration for the harassment the monitor and the predator specialists are doing to the .CLTs. This constant harassment of first one predator species and then another would on some days keep the CLTs off their nests far too long, in the end causing as much damage to the CLT reproduction at this highly productive and extremely important colony as the predators. The same comments in the above paragraphs apply to red - tailed hawks and other raptors. The crow paragraph is quite straightforward and accurate but there is always the possibility that a circumstance might arise where it is necessary to take an individual crow or raven The gull paragraph is accurate and the golf course will probably attract gulls and cause them to fly over the CLT site and increase the possibility of predation of CLT eggs and chicks. The raven paragraph is quite good and the crow response applies to ravens. The fence described around the CLT colony sounds like a real perch site for avian predators. Please see comments about this fence in the response to 2.1 4 Looking over APPENDIX C, it indicates there are not near enough hours available for ADC to be "proactive" in predator management Seventy -five hours during each CI,T breeding season is not adequate to protect this CLT colony_ It will take approximately half a staff year including a vehicle to conduct predator management effectively at NAS Alameda in a proactive manner during each CLT breeding season. There are also listed exotic animal traps at $5.00 X 100 units for $500 total. That is inadequate. There will be a need for initial purchase of the following items: Cage traps 24 at $50 each Total = $1,200 Soft catch traps 36 at $150 per dozen Total = $ 450 Stakes, swivels and related equipment Total = $ 300 Bait, euthanasia drugs and etc. Total = $ 150 Avian traps etc. Total = $ 500 Grand total = $2,600 There will be ongoing maintenance and replacement costs, baits and etc yearly of-approximately $500. This CLT colony is very important to the recovery of the CLT and the maintenance of a viable population. To take the chance of losing any reproduction from this colony is unthinkable. ARRA's plan makes major changes to this site and the surrounding areas land uses, structures and buildings of which all could effect this CLT colony negatively. I would like to see the proposed USF &WS Refuge stay at the USF &WS plan of 525 acres and have ARRA finance monitoring and predator management from revenues they will receive from the new buildings that are being allowed and the income from the existing structures and buildings. I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments and if I can be of further assistance, please call me at my office at 805- 929 -3780. Sincerely, Maynard A. Small San Luis District Supervisor USDA -APHIS -ADC SEP -12 -1936 13; 24 833 Market Street, Suite 1107, San Frandsen, CA 9.1103 Tel: (J15) -495 -1786 Fax: (415) 495 -1787 E -mail arccajgc,apc.orl Arc Ecology P.02 September 11, 1996 The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of the City of Alameda Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 -5012 Dear Mayor Appezzato: Environmentalists in Alameda and the Bay Area were relieved when the ARRA voted on September 4 to forward the Zander Refuge Management Plan to the Department of Interior as a concept paper for review, rather than endorsing it as ARRA's position. We were pleased that you and other members of the ARRA Governing Board affirmed that the decision on Refuge size needs to be based on the best available science. Although you were very forthright in stating your preference for a Refuge of 390 acres, the discussion clarified that the Reuse Plan approved by the Board includes a Refuge of either 390 or 525 acres. Our understanding is that least tern scientists generally concur with the Interior Department's request for 525 acres. They agree that reducing the Refuge from 525 to 390 acres would significantly alter current Refuge conditions with unpredictable results. These changes could severely threaten the viability of Alameda's least tern colony. No evidence has been presented that the measures described in the Management Plan could effectively offset the risks to the Alameda least tern colony of losing 135 acres of buffer zone. Furthermore, we believe that reducing Refuge acreage would increase rather than decrease the necessity for shooting raptors. We are also very troubled by the idea driving the Zander Plan that Alameda so desperately needs additional R &D development that it is in their interest to reduce the size of the Refuge. The underlying assumption is that the risk of relying on untested wildlife management techniques is justified by economic benefits accruing to Alamedans. The data suggest the main flaw in this argument: the additional development will taut generate a net revenue surplus and will not produce the funds needed to pay for the City's share of the $5 million in capitalized costs that Zander projects for the Plan. As you know from my September 3 letter (attached) and my oral comments at the ARRA's September 4 meeting, I have gone through the exercise of applying ARRA's previously published economic assumptions and statistics to calculate the fiscal bottom line of such development. My conclusion is that the development will in effect require a subsidy from City of Alameda taxpayers (and from the entire County if redevelopment is used) just to cover its own expenses. The May 28 memorandum from Matt Kowta of Bay Area Economics (BAE) to Kay Miller and Paul Tuttle of the ARRA (attached), which was distributed at the September 4 ARRA meeting, reflects the same methodological shortcomings as previous efforts, and raises new causes for concern. The single greatest oversight in the BAE May 28 fiscal analysis, as in their previous efforts, is that major expenses are omitted from consideration. For example, the memorandum d :veve\envnc1\RRE9-1 I _DOC) ± SEP -12 =1996 13:25 P . 03 suggests that ARRA will receive $1.6 - $8.1 million in land rent from leasing the airfield for R &D development, but nowhere accounts for the fact that ARRA will have to buy that land from the Defense Department, at or near market price. The Defense Department has developed very detailed procedures to set Economic Development Conveyance purchase prices in order to assure that they, not local reuse authorities, capture the potential value of base real estate. The ARRA will have to purchase the and from a Defense Department that will negotiate a price as close as possible to full market value ; the ARRA must then negotiate a lease rate with a developer who will not be willing to pay more than the land's market value. It would be foolhardy for the ARRA to assume they will realize a substantial profit on this deal, as BAE figures seem to suggest. This methodological problem is compounded by others. For example, BAE's May 28 analysis, as previous ones, fails to consider ARRA's costs of providing the capital improvements required to support the development. The memorandum: applies a "fiscal balance" (which appears to contain this same problem) from the entire base to an analysis of the airfield. It appears to apply the results of a revenue analysis based on private ownership to a land lease scenario. The dramatic conclusion contained in the May 28 memorandum, however, is that the "fiscal surplus" for the next three decades will come from using the Golf course as a dredge spoils disposal site, not from R &D development. The memorandum also makes it clear that the dredge spoil revenues can be realized without reducing the size of the Refuge. (The amount that the dredge spoils are projected to contribute seems unrealistically high, however.) The BAE analysis advises that buildout of the additional R&D development is unlikely to occur for 25 to 30 years, and revenues should be considered speculative because they will be generated so far into the future. We are hopefiil that a second look at the fiscal demands on the City of Alameda of the Zander Plan will encourage you to rethink your personal support for reducing Refuge acreage. We strongly believe that a 525 acre Refuge is a win -win solution. Reputable experts in the field tell us that a Refuge that maintains existing conditions will best ensure that the Alameda least tern colony continues to thrive. The numbers that your economic consultants have shared (if not their analysis), plus the study commissioned by the Audubon Society, suggest that a full size Refuge will provide greater economic returns to the citizens of Alameda than the additional development proposed. Please feel free to contact me if 1 can be of any assistance. Yours truly, Eve Bach Staff Economist/Planner enc: Letter 9/3/96 Eve Bach to Kay Miller Memorandum 5/28/96 Matt Kowta to Paul Tuttle/Kay Miller d: \cve\envnet \RE9 -1 1, DOC9/ 12/96bu96 -12 page 2 SEP -12 -199 13 :25 cc: ARRA Governing Board and Alternates Ms. Kay Miller ARRA Executive Director Mr. William J. Cassidy, Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Conversion and Redevelopment Mr, Bruce Babbitt Secretary Department of Interior Mr. John Garamendi Deputy Secretary Department of Interior Mr. Michael Spear Director Re ion 1 Fish and Wildlife Service The Honorable Ronald V. Dcllums Representative 9th Congressional District attn. Bob Brauer Mr. Matt Kowta Bay Area Economics Bay Area Base Closures Environmental Network Refu_ >e Committee d:\ eve \cnvnet \RE9- 11.DOC9/ 12I9Gu96-12 page 3 P.04 SEP -12 -1996 13:25 Arc Ecology 833 Market Street, Suite 1107, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 495 -1786 Fax: (415) 495 -1787 E -mail arc@igcapc.org P.0S September 3, 1996 [corrected version] Ms. Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: I would like to comment on the wildlife refuge management plan that you are proposing to the ARRA Governing Body. I have attempted to understand your proposal by attending the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) meeting of August 21 and reviewing the plan. You appear to be recommending that the ARRA dedicate revenues that Alameda would realize from development of 135 acres resulting from reduction of the Wildlife Refuge, from the 525 acres that the Fish and Wildlife Service has requested, to 390 acres. My understanding is that additional light industry - business park development would be permitted. The proposed Management Plan is unacceptable primarily because it puts the least tern colony at serious risk and increases the need for aggressive raptor control. Since you have already received many comments on biologicaVecological problems with this proposal, I would like to focus on the compelling economic issues that City financial support of this Management Plan would trigger. My concern is that the Management Plan is not financially feasible, creating the probability of serious impacts on the public safety, quality of life, and financial health of the city as a whole. In developing my comments, I have had to rely on previously published fiscal analyses because no information was provided in the Management Plan nor at the BRAG meeting. The only reference to the financial feasibility of the Plan is a conclusionary statement appearing on page 3. "ARRA conducted a preliminary analysis of potential revenues it could realize with development as proposed in the USFWS Alternative Plan and the Preferred Alternative Community Reuse Plan. The fiscal surplus for build out of the Community Reuse Plan was substantially more than for the USFWS alternative plan and would allow ARRA to assist USFWS in funding management of the refuge. Furthermore, when members of the BRAG raised questions about the financial assumptions during their meeting of August 21, your staff responded that they were basing their conclusion that there will be a "fiscal surplus" on "back of the envelope calculations" which were neither summarized nor shared. All information available to the public to date indicates that the additional development that a reduced refuge could enable would not generate a "fiscal surplus ". I am basing this CEP -12 -1995 13:26 P.06" 'conclusions on rough interpolation of the fiscal analysis' prepared for the Reuse Plan. (See attachment A for details.) The fiscal analysis for the Reuse Plan demonstrated that its revenues would approximately equal2 its costs of government operations (police, fire, etc.). According to this analysis, about half the City's revenues come from property taxes, with the remainder coming from sources such as property transfer taxes, business license taxes, utility user taxes, state subventions, etc.3 There is no reason to assume that the relationship of revenues to costs would be substantially better on the additional 135 acres in question..' Therefore, we may roughly estimate, for purposes of this analysis, that total revenues from ea acreage be n property tax revenues. These total revenues would be roughly equivalent to the cost of City services for the additional development. In other words, total revenues = 2 x (property tax revenue); and total costs = 2 x (property tax revenue). The problem with City revenues covering operations costs only is, of course, that there are no revenues5 to cover capital costs (much less the additional costs for more intensive management of the refuge). Nonetheless, the ARRA is preparing to establish the entire base as a redevelopment area under California's Community Redevelopment Law. After a redevelopment area is established, subsequent property taxes collected on the growth of its assessed value (the "tax increment ") are diverted to the redevelopment agency, with a substantial proportion usually used to finance a redevelopment bond. w I NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, Long Range Alternative Analysis, Technical Appendices, to use TPub ti A evieit Draft, August 1995. and updated version for the Preferred Alternative, January 1996. (Note: is necessary to recticulate totals shown because of extensive arithmetic errors.) ' Costs l ionlThet"nefar l balance" for the Preferred Alternative �of $259 accounts for lest than 5% of revenues, $5.4 million 7h well within the margin of error of the estimates. 3 Property tax as a percentage of total revenues (recalculated) for the alternatives ranges from 51% to 53 %. In the Reuse Plan, property tax provides S2.9 million of the total S5.4 million of revenues generated. On the basis of this relationship, I have assumed throughout that the costs of city services are equivalent to property tax revenues. If anything, revenues would likely be lower than costs because assessed valuation for this use would be somewhat lower than average. and revenue sources based on population (such as State subventions) would nor increase. The most significant costs however are property related (police, fire, roadway maintenance). The actual marginal costs of providing these services to the new development are likely to be higher than the average costs calculated in the Reuse Plan Fiscal Analysis. 5 It may be possible. of course. to impose substantial development fees to offset some of the high costs of infrastructure that are anticipated. In practice, Alameda's ability to load these costs onto the site's developer will be Experience on other bases suggests that the Navy will not be gre<uutly constrained by a number of market factors: (t) xpen which hill in turn require the ARRA to eager to discount the price of the property in conveying it to the ARRA, recover these acquisition costs from the developer, (2) site preparation costs are also likely to be high because of soil stability problems related to the site being on landfill; (3)title restrictions related to the site's landfill history - contamination and public trust status - will also negatively affect the combined amount of acquisition price and development fees that developers would be willing to pay for the site. page 2 SEP -12 -1996 13:2? P . la? State Law is, however, very particular about how redevelopment funds can be spent, requiring that the money (including bond proceeds) be used only for capital investment, economic opment agency development programs, low and moderate income housing, and agen, they may not be used administration. If property taxes are diverted to the redevelopment for regular City services - police, fire, road maintenance, etc. en b the ARRA indicate that it intends to dedicate all of its property tax revenues) to Actions tak y capital improvements on the base. O Y or is rdinaril , the proportion of an area's assessed value that is represented lb the growth fa area are initially low, and it grows gradually over time as blighted properties in torn down and replaced, or improved. In the case of the Alameda base, however, the ARRA successfully lobbied for special amendments to California Redevelopment w t w ll e ble 100% 919e from base p r p ert y ( about half of total revenues according rough formula above) to be desi gnated as tax increments6 , thus channelin g a� property Y tax collected on the base for redevelopment. One s that it of the main problems with the fiscal analysis prepared for then aR.reeusetPl a an as a thole the costs suggests that development will pay its own way because revere of city services needed by that development. The Plan's at analysis does not consider the Y capital improvement costs; with even greater disingenuousness, proceeds into redevelopment impacts on the City's General Fund of channeling props tax P financing. appears to be replicated (and compounded) in the This large oversight in the Plan's fiscal analysis app for more intensive Refuge staff assertion that there will be a balance Prrevenues rm the additional onai Northwest Territories management. It appears the property acreage are to be spread to cover a third purp ose: to P rovtde an endowment fund to financially support the prodes no information on this posed osed Management Plan. Since the Zander report arl ovi the revenues generated by subject, it is not possible to guess whether staff is planning to use revenues that would remain if property tax the additional development, only the non-property � revenue are dedicated to redevelopment financing, or whether you are planning use redevelopment financing to establish the endowment. To illustrate the problem that your recommendation would a reate, twos would not rply lore two scenarios: the first assumes e second assum t haedevelo,pment financing would be used. redevelopment financing; review requirements to enable the redevelopment 6 gases propcnics arc different from most redevelopment areas because the asscssed value prior to conveyance o private owners is zero. ARRA lobbied to loosen environmental ssib>e in order to make sure that the assessed area to be put in place more quickly than would otherwise be W will still be zero when the redevelopment area is established. SEP -12 -1996 13:28 SCENARIO I NO REDEVELOPMENT P . 08 Figure 1 illustrates that the additional development would not generate enough revenue to cover capital improvements in addition to operations, much less projected refuge management costs. Annual revenues from the additional development on the Northwest Territories at buildout would be approximately $700,000. These revenues would cover annual costs of city services at buildout, although this coverage is likely to deteriorate over time because property taxes as well as most other sources increase more slowly over time than the costs of City services. Financing the endowment fund would be difficult without redevelopment. The City already has reduced services to the public by operating only four days a week because of fiscal problems. To budget the cost of the $5 million endowment out of annual cash flow would worsen these problems. Yet the Management Plan obviously needs to be in place when base property is conveyed to the City, but buildout will not occur immediately because of cleanup and land stabilization issues on this filled site. If we assume that Alameda voters would support borrowing the $5 million on a long term basis, the City might, for example, arrange to � repay loan uld be diverted into financing g the year. The revenues generated by the additional development fund, but then of course the costs of city services and capital investment for that development would be shifted to taxpayers elsewhere in Alameda. In post - Proposition 13 California, this extra load usually translates into reduced service levels because of prohibitions against new or increased taxes. SCENARIO TI WITH REDEVELOPMENT The same basic shortfall shows up in Figure 2, although this scenario opens the possibility of channeling some of the County's and special districts' (e.g., AC. Transit, East Bay Regional Park District, Peralta Community College District) share of property taxes into redevelopment financing. The actual amount that these financially strapped jurisdictions will contribute will have to be negotiated and the outcome is impossible to predict.7 The main advantage of the redevelopment scenario is be that the redevelopment bond could include financing of the endowment on a long term basis, although a bridge loan would be needed because this bond could not be issued immediately,. According to Redevelopment Law, the County and special districts are entitled to retain their base amount of property taxes (I% of the assessed value of the property at the moment the redevelopment district is established) plus the 2% per year increase attributable to property appreciation. The problem these other agencies will face with redevelopment of the Naval Air Station under Alameda's amendments to Redevelopment Law is that the assessed value of the base at that moment will be zero, so the enure value will qualify as tax increment. Therefore the County and special districts would theorcti tlty only be entitled to collect 2% of SO. The situation that el one tiu a of cse jurisdictions will Bice when Alameda establishes a redevelopment district on app Y island's land area, and designates 100% of property taxes as the tax increment will be unprecedented dt agency Although WO /a of the County and districts' share could theoretically be folded into the first refit ve much revenue aenc proceeds, it seems extremely unlikely that these financially strapped agencies protest. page 4 SEP -12 -1990 13:29 P.09. However, the most serious flaw in the redevelopment scenario is that the Redevelopment Law explicitly prohibits the use of redevelopment funds to pay for operational costs) on publicly owned land.8 Of the $4.9 million total cost of the Refuge Management Plan, Zander indicates that 74% are operational (initial and ongoing) costs. Furthermore, if redevelopment funds are to pay for the $1.3 million Zander identifies in capital costs on publicly owned land, the Law requires the ARRA to make legal findings "That no other reasonable means of financing the buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements, are available to the community." t0 and "That the payment of funds for the acquisition of land or the cost of buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the project area or provide housing for low- or moderate - income persons..." tt The ARRA could not legitimately make these findings because (1)without the Refuge Management Plan, federal funds would pay for necessary improvements to the Refuge; • and (2) the improvements are proposed to protect an endangered species, not to remediate blight. (The base is eligible for redevelopment because it is a closing military base, not because the Naval Air Station meets the criteria for blighted property.). CONCLUSION 1 None of information currently available to the public supports the assertion thatssubstituting development for the Refuge on 135 acres would generate a fiscal surplus that could provide financial support for more intensive management of the /Re� aggravate e. Diverting funds from elsewhere on the base, or from the rest of the City of Alameda shortfalls generated by the Reuse Plan. Diverting City funds to pay for a Federal program is clearly not justified economically, and would probably be unacceptable to an informed public To redirect funds from the County and special districts for the purpose n of reducing Hospital faces of the Wildlife Refuge would be even harder to justify at a time Highland and AC has eliminated evening and weekend bus service on many routes. The fiscal problems flushed out by Zander's Refuge Management Plan underscore that a full -size Refuge. Development makes economic as well as ecological or ours? Taxpayers of the City of throughout the base will not pay its own way in my yours. of the County, and of all the special districts will be better served by a Refuge that generates modest, but real, economic returns to the City and region without relying on scarce local tax dollars. 9 In Section 33445(b), California Redevelopment Law states: "A redevelopment agency shall not pay for the normal maintenance or operations of buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements which are publicly owned." 9 See printouts for both Initial and Capital Onsite }Tasks alabele°d Costs and Irnprovementns ise$1�3 million_ These costs first, the subtotal for the first category of expenses roduce plus Initial Onsitc Costs (SI million) plus S2.6 million for Ongoing Onsite Tasks (see second printout) produce Total capitalized program cost of $4.9 million 'Redevelopment Law. Section 33445 (a)(2) " Redevelopment UM, Section 33445 (a)(3) SEP -12 -1996 13:29 P. 10 economic analysis indicates that the Refuge will directly and indirectly The Audubon Society's of Alameda because no City services generate.about $l million in net annual revenues for the City or infrastructure will be required. in closing, I would like to request any additional information that may be available to update my projections. I am available to discuss my analysis at your convenience. Yours t v" e Bach Staff Economist/Planner cc: ARRA Board of Governors Environmental Network 12 possibilities for reducing the Plan's deficit exist in providing sites for disposal of clean dredge Additional po of Engineers are dredging clean sand from greater tiv materials For would probably the Pon of Oakland - and the Corps fora disposal site for 500,000 cubic yards every depths and would probably pay for $.50 - Si � go on the Refuge site itself (including the 135 acres at issue), years. Although these dredge spoils should not g without negative environmental explored for their ability to host this lucrative use fiscal negative surplus a by avoiding the adjacent areas should be exp Ie of approaches that achieve a real impacts. This serves as an additional example PP infrastructure costs that loom so large in a diffuse developmenano. nt parr 6 I 19961166-12 SEP -12 -1996 13 :30 P. 11 Figure 1 Without Redevelopment: Estimated revenues and,costs generated by the additional 13513 acres of light industry - business park development in the Northwest Territories ANNUAL COSTS ANNUAL REVENUES APPROX- $702,000 in year of buildout • - $351,000 in property taxes • $351,00014 in other taxes and fees City of Alameda revenues in the first year of buildout APPROX. $1.2 MILLION + UNKNOWN CAPITAL COSTS • $702,000 for operations (police, Eire, etc.) • unknown amount for capital improvements • $454,000 to finance additional refuge management costs City of Alameda costs associated with the additional light industry business park development displacing Refuge acreage in the first year of buildout ANNUAL SHORTFALL AT BUILDOUT YEAR $.7 million - $1.2 million = - $5500,000 1911 is difficult to determine exactly how much additional acreage would be freed for development by the Plan because the numbers fluctuate significantly- The amount of additional development would be • Management ration for the EIS\E1R (162 acres in the Preferred 90 acres according to figures published in t�eEmphce a u Preparation Alternative compare to 72 in the Open Spa • 125 acres if the figures from the Zander report are used (200 shown for the Preferred Alternative vs. 75 shown in the Fish and Wildlife Alternative ;; • 135 acres if the assumption is made that all land subtracted from the Refuge could be used in calculating floor area ratios for development. Appendix A, "Summary of Baseline Fiscal Impact to City of Alameda", �' According to Table A -20 in Technical Appe depending on the alternative considered- However, property tales account for 51 % -53 °/Q of all revenues anticipated, P� g .business � development; property generates smaller amounts of non - property tax revenue taxes are likely to account for a somewhat higher proportion in the case of li ht industry development; shat is to say, this additional a mix of uses. r g.e % SEP-12-1996 13:30 P. 12 Figure 2 With Redevelopment: Estimated revenues and costs generated by the additional 135 acres of light industry-business park development in the Northwest Territories ANNUAL 30-YEAR AND ANNUAL REVENUES COSTS $351,000 of City Property Taxes County and special district . shore of property taxes generates $11.3 million over 30 years (+ unknown contribution from other jurisdictions) for debt service on redevelopment bond 3 Alameda County. AC Transit, East BayRegional Park District, Peralta Community College District. etc. for services $1L5 million (30-years cost of loan) to establish $5 million endowment for additional refuge management UNKNOWN AMOUNT for financing capital improvements 30 YEAR FUNDS FOR REFUGE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CAPITAL LVIPROVEMENTS S11.3 million (City share) - $1.1.5 million (endowment fund) = - $.2 million + unknown amount from County and special agencies $351,000 of Annual City Non-Property Taxes and Fees $702,000 FOR ANNUAL OPERATIONS (police, fire, etc.) ANNUAL SHORTFALL FOR CITY OPERATIONS $351,000 - S702,000 = - 5351,000 d: \eve\ envnct\WNIS-22.DOCWecinesday, September 04. 1996bu96-12 nn cc S SEP -12 -1996 13: 31 P. 13 ATTACHMENT A: ASSTJMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS mated Costs of financing the $5 million endowment for intensive Refuge management Esta assumption 1: Financed by loan to the General F i • interest rate: 6.5 • term 20 years • annual payment $453,782 • total principal and interest $9.1 million assumption 2: Finrmced with part of redevelopment bond proceeds • interest rate 6% term 30 years • annual payment $382,887 • total principal and interest $11.5 million enerated by 135 acres of additional light industry business park development in lieu Estimated revenue g a of Refuge acreage is values ft)i6 =value at buildout (uninflated) • (acreage) x (floor area acre ) x ( �• 135 x 13,000 x $74 _ $129.9 million property of tax revenue at year of • market value x 1% tax rate x 27% city share = $351 thousand (city share buildout) • revenue with 2% annual inflation for first 20 years wth factor) _ (20 x annual property tax) + (compounded 2% growth share of property tax for first 20 years) (20 x $351,000) + $170,568 $7.2 million (city market value on turnover after 20 years c�, 4% annual appreciation = $284.6 million revenue at year 20) • • mar share = $768 thousand (property assessed value x 1% tax rate x 27% city • estirnated revenue with 2% annual inflation for net 10 years factor) = + (compounded 2% (10 x updated annual property tax) ( P tax for next 10 years) 10 x $768 thousand) + $168 thousand = $7 mullion (city share of property ( tat for first 30 years = 515.0 million 75% _ $11.3 million • property • city share funds available for redevelopment bond debt service ts Technical Appendices, Tables A -1 and A-6 16 Technical Appendices. Tables A-1 and A-6 d•!cvc\cm •net \\ MM- 22`13CCWcdncsdav, September 04, 1996bu96-12 • SEP -12-1996 13:31 P.14 • B - A • E Bay Azca Economic, MEMORANDUM DATE: May 28, 1996 TO: Paul Tuttle/Kay Miller FROM: Matt Kowta RE: Northwest Territories Alternatives Analysis The purpose of this memo is to present basic information compiled regarding potential fiscal and financial impacts to the ARRA/City of Alameda from alternative land use scenarios under discussion for the Northwest Territories sub -area of the NAS Reuse Plan. This memo addresses three alternative land use plans for the Northwest Territories sub- Mar. o //+ area. Each of the three alternatives involves the same 1,172 acre portion of NAS; the difference is in the allocation of Iand to different uses among those 1,172 acres, as 2550 9th stn sumrnarized on Table 1, attached. - Suite 21 • • Alternative A is the "USFWS Open Space Plan," which calls for a 525 -acre wildlife B rk`l refuge, 75 acres of R&D development, a 120 -acre golf course, and a total of 77 acres CA 947 of Open Space/Park land. 510.549_73 • Alternative B is the "Community Preferred Plan," and calls for a 390 -acre wildlife fu: 510.549.70: refuge, 200 acres of RAD development, a 175 -acre golf course, and a total of 32 acres of Open Space.Parlcs. • Alternative C is the "Modified Preferred Plan." This alternative provides a 525 -acre wildlife refuge, 185 acres of R&D development, no golf course, and 85 acres of Open Space/Parks. • In addition to the land uses discussed above, each of the three alternatives allocates 375 acres of land fora water wildlife area. FiscalfFinancial Implications Reviewed • This analysis is based on very limited research; therefore, any conclusions resulting; from this analysis should be considered as preliminary at this time and subject to verification through additional research and analysis. The scope of this analysis is limited to the following: (a) potential land rent collected by ARRA. from leasing sites for R&D development (b) potential net operating revenues fivm a golf course on land controlled by the ARRA; (c) potential fees to be collected by ARRA for disposal of dredge spoils on land controlled by ARRA; (d) potential cost implications to the ARRA from increased wildlife refuge management costs incurred due to a reduction in the size of the proposed USFWS wildlife refuge, and; (e) potential City of Alameda General Fund fiscal surpluses resulting from ultimate buildout of the NAS Reuse Plan. 3 F S Suite 21 Dr CA 956 916.750.21' 916.750.21' SEP- 12 -1' ?36 13. 32 These impacts are summarized on Table 2, attached. Table 2 distinguishes between one- time and annual (or recurring) costs and revenues, as explained below. One -Time Costs and Revenues Wildlife Refuge Initial and .Capital Costs. The category of one -time costs and revenues includes up -front capital costs for development of the USFWS wildlife refuge. These up- front capital costs would apply only in Alternative B, which involves reducing the size of the proposed refuge. The reduction in land area results in the need for a more capital intensive strategy to develop the refuge. These costs include items such as installation of fencing and gates around the refuge, habitat creation, wetland restoration, and preparation of a management plan. It is assumed that the ARRA would be allocated approximately 50 percent of the cost for refuge development in exchange for obtaining additional land outside the refuge for future R&D development It is assumed that the ARRA would be responsible for its share of these costs at the time that development occurs on land that otherwise would be maintained as part of the refuge. Dredge Spoils Disposal Revenues. This eetegory also includes revenues that would accrue to the ARRA for dredge spoils disposal on ARRA- controlled lands. This revenue item is only applicable in Alternatives A and B, because these two alternatives reserve land for golf course development, which.can first be covered with dredge spoils. The dredge spoils disposal revenues would. accrue to the ARRA over the next approximately five years. Alternative C does not allocate land for golf course development; therefore, dredge spoils disposal fees are not assumed as a potential revenue source for that Alternative. Annual (Recurring) Costs and Revenues R &D Land Lease Revenues. The largest item in this category is potential revenues to the ARRA from leasing land to private developers for R&D development There is potential for the ARRA to earn revenues from this source in each of the three Alternatives, depending on the amount of land each allocates for R&D development It is important to note that the marginal differences in land lease revenue potential between these three Alternatives would only be expected, at the end of the.buildout process for the NAS reuse plan. In comparing the magnitude of land lease revenue potential among the three alternatives, it is important to consider how long it may take for the reuse plan to reach buildout For the R&D land use category, a concern is the depth of the market demand for the proposed land use. Because the airfield area lies within a State land trust area, the R &D uses that could be developed are limited to maritime and import/export related uses_ This is potentially much more limiting than if the land could be developed for any general R&D/light industrial uses; therefore, it is assumed that ultimate buildout would not occur for at least 25 to 30 years, with the likelihood of a longer buildout timeframe-increasing as the quantity of R &D land provided in a given Alternative increases. For this reason, as the quantity of R&D land provided in a given Alternative increases, the likelihood of achieving the associated land lease revenue potential becomes more speculative. P.15 SEP -12 -1995 13:33 Golf Course Operations Income. By allocating land for golf course development, Alternatives A and B also provide the opportunity for the ARRA collect annual revenues from the net income that a golf course operation might generate. These revenues could potentially be available to the ARRA after a golf course is constructed in approximately five to six years. The difference in "potential golf course income between the two Alternatives is based on the fact that Alternative A would provide only 120 acres of land for a golf course, while Alternative B would provide 200 acres, with the larger course offering greater potential for development of a high -end facility that could generate greater income than a smaller, more modest course. Alternative C does not allocate any land for a golf course; therefore this revenue source is not applicable for that Alternative. Wildlife Refuge Management Costs. Potential wildlife management cost allocations to the ARRA are a consideration in Alternative B, because that is the Alternative that would reduce the size of the USFWS refuge in exchange for providing additional land for R&D and golf course development. It is assumed that the ARRA would be allocated a portion of the costs for intensive refuge management that would result from a reduction in refuge size. These costs include items such as weed eradication on the airstrip, tern colony monitoring, refuge perimeter patrolling, and fencing repair and maintenance. The timing of these additional wildlife management costs to the ARRA would need. to be negotiated between. the ARRA and USFWS. It is presumed that the ARRA would assume responsibility to pay for a portion. of the management costs at the time that development occurs on land that would otherwise have been a part of the larger wildlife refuge, as in Alternative A. City of Alameda General Fund Fiscal Balance. The fiscal balance for the City of Alameda General Fund can be expected to vary among the three alternatives due to changes in the quantity of revenue generating Iand uses that would be permitted in the airfield area. The caldulation of fiscal benefits to the City is most sensitive to the quantity of R&D land that would be developed. Generally, the greater the quantity of R&D land that can be developed, the greater the fiscal surpluses that would.be expected at buildout This is due to the fact that additional development provides a greater base of development across which, to spread public service costs, while additional development also generates new revenues. As with the land lease revenue calculations, it must be noted that the marginal differences between General Fund fiscal surpluses estimated for each of the alternatives would not be realized until the end of the buildout period for the NAS Reuse Plan. Preliminary Conclusion Based- on this brief review of the three Alternatives, it appears that Alternative B would be most attractive to the ARRA, for several reasons. First, this alternative offers the benefit of up -front potential to earn revenue from dredge spoils disposal fees. While Alternative A also provides this opportunity, the potential revenues in Alternative B are greater due to a P.16 CEP -12 -1996 13 :33 Larger site for dredge spoils disposal. Alternative B's Iarge golf course site also provides better potential to generate net income from a golf course development, scsurning that the City and ARRA would support maximizing the revenue potential of the course by orienting the facility to charging higher greens fees than those currently charged at Alarneda's Corica courses. ' In the long term, Alternative B also offers the greatest potential annual revenues to the ARRA from R &D land lease revenues, due to the greater quantity of land available for R &D development; however, due to uncertainty regarding the depth of demand for maritime and import/export related R&D uses, the additional land lease revenue potential in this Alternative, as compared to Alternatives A and C should be considered Long -term (25 to 30 years) and speculative at this time. Nevertheless, the Iong- term potential in this Alternative is balanced by the short -term opportunities to generate revenues from dredge spoils disposal and golf course operations. Finally, this Alternative offers the potential for generating the largest fiscal surplus to the City General Fund at buildout Two negative financial aspects of Alternative B are associated with reducing the size of the USFWS wildlife refuge, but these would most likely be more than outweighed by the benefits. While the ARRA might be responsible for a $600,000 share of up -front capital costs to establish the wildlife refuge under .Alternative 3, this initial capital contribution would be more than offset by dredge spoils revenues that would be available under this Alternative. In addition, while the ARRA might be responsible for a $125,000 share of . increased annual refuge management costs, annual net revenues from a golf course operation would likely exceed this amount If Alternative B proves to be unfeasible due to environmental or political constraints, then the choice. between Alternatives A and C will involve balPncing the ARRA's short terra needs with the potential for long -term returns. Alternative A would be more attractive than Alternative C for the short term because it brings the potential to raise a considerable amount of initial capital through dredge spoils disposal, as well as an ongoing stream of net revenue from a golf course development The annual golf course revenues could become available within five to six years. Alternative C might be considered more attractive than Alternative A in the long -term, due to the considerably greater annual Iease revenues that the ARRA could realize as a result of controlling greater quantities of land for R &D development; however, due to the uncertainty regarding market demand for maritime and import/export related R&D uses, the extra land lease revenue potential in Alternative C should be considered as speculative and long -tern (25 to 30 years) at this time. P.17 SEP -12-193 13:34 Table 1: Northwest Territories Land Use Summary Land Uses R &D Development (acres) R &D Development (bldg. sq,ft) Golf Caursa (acres) P. 18 Alternative A Alternative 8 Alternative USFVVS Open Space Plan Commun/fy Preferred Plan Modified Preferred Plan 75 200 980,100 185 2,613,600 2,417,580 120 175 Open Space/Parks (acres) Shoreline Parks & Traits 32 32 Parks & Open Space 45 32 55 USFWS Wildlife Refuge (acres) 52.5 390 Subtotal - Airfield Area (acres) 525 797 797 Water Wildlife Area 797 375 375 375 1,172 1,172 1,172 TOTAL AREA. Source: ARRA. SEP-12-199G 13:34 Alternative C al Ta• "■-t- 8 0 0 so 0 E Co 1- Modified Preferred Pion One -Time Revenues/Costs one -lime revenues, spread over years 1 -5 one time costs, !spread over years 1-2 one time costs /revenues, years 1-5 mi C C Potential Dredge Spoils Disposal Fees (a) . 0 0 0 CC 40, annually, at bultdout $4.0 mlilion to $8.1 million $4.4 million to $8.7 million $1.6 million to $3.3 million annually, after 6-6 years $260,000 - $750,000 annually, al bultdout negotiate timing wIUSFWS 0 General Fund Fiscal Surpltrs(d) Share of Annual annually. at bultdout $4.6 million to $8.7 million $6.2 million to $18.0 million E a • = ix! Total, Annual Revenues/Costs 0 0 c, 0 c s 0 o . o .0 . _ — 0 0 a E c .0 0 -to TA 03 C m in 01 --. ...- _ ea ■.. 0 0 CLI c .0 c 0 g. 0 =0 0 Ea 10 0 0 -5 E o 2.0 0 c ct ...?... 0 0 -.. < 0 cn 0 ; -c) ct c (5 et < 0 a.) . .1.: co -cis co &. ... 0 B t cp 0 LC 0 0 0 o 0 0 co 0 CI MI 0 .= 10 (0 m a) 6 0 CO 1-- N > ... g - 2 To 0 -0 ..t.c .... o 0 *6- c C3 0 VI 01 03 'C 'CO c '2. en ,...._. 0 01 2 0 1,4 2 0 'n 0 10 0 To' 0 0_ = C0 0 co = To. 0 c 0 a) 0 a) e- 2. c...i 0 < 0 -§ .... -c: 0 0 ,> '..0- 0 0 Lt. 0 0 .g .= a) . = ° -to o to no 0 a 0 co 0 0 .._.--.... '0 -al 0 m o S n o = `4„ < — 0 iss 0 -o 0 to E 0 0 o 0 . -r 0 c , C 0 m ) - C- - i CO M 0 al -0. c 0 "et E 0. ,= •30 *A CL 0 0 en 0 0 - 0 0 0 C.) 0 0) 0 0 E 0 0 Ev CY = us --o. 2 0 -c, c Zo. 0 0 tO 01 C Ci- `a ca.. o al -o .. VP 0 g co .-- I- a) * CD 0. ,,4 0 0 LT 0 03 "' 3 c "ic > 0.— 0 0 ,.o sd .0 ...q eq■ 2 = . ... -a r. - --, ,L, . a . . (0 =<. (5 o 0 E.---... 0 E .. g c-4 .214 .... z 8 .:6 ...... .-., .... .• 2 co v4cx 5 (5 0 - C 0 Eso „0 ,. 1 -, - • 0 • E 0 to c 3 8 ca. 0 co 8 a.. ..•••• - ..... a. " 0 0 0 -c. 0 — ca • a , > ...- c = co rol 0 4") 6to tr) ,u 0 -0 0 CI E g''.. r, P., .61° 2 ra t7: . -2 3 ... — — ct- -! "-: 0 ›. . . 6- . di (5 . m ca co -0 7,; m 2. 0 u ° 73 CO 6o 0 , ca C 0 0 0 0 cr- -0 8 0, E < 0 ,D 12 Q 0 (E) et, WI 0 03 0 m 4.5 -0 ..... o 70- E 0. Eri 0. 0 o -0 CI. 02 7 al . in c E NJ .S4 ct.. en 0 NJ x Er) co 0 ...-= r-_.9 .; VI '5 10 0 0 o .0'2 .0 0 -.-- 0 (i) t- n F- 0 U, a -••••••. C .-.. P.19 Sources: Zander & Associates, ARRA, BAE. SEP 25 '96 02 :22PM WESTDIV 096' OPTIONAL. FORM 99 (7 -90) FAX TRANSMITTAL 0 . 1 of oagaZ avtiAgency fax NSN 7540- 01_317_7368 5099 -101 Mr. Joel Medlin Field Supervisor Sacramento Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3310 El Camino Ave. Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95825 Dear Mr. Medlin: IIP4 Prone Fax e GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 5090.1B 18SDP/EP6- DATE P. 1/4 We are writing regarding discussions held on 13 September 1996 at the Pentagon between the Navy, the City of Alameda, Congressional staff representatives for Alameda, the Department of Interior, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) representatives Mr. Ren Lohoefener and Mr, Roger Beckham. This meeting concerned the Endangered Species Act, Section 7, consultation for the Naval Air Station (NAS), Alameda, and the proposed transfer of portions of the NAS Alameda for use as a national wildlife refuge. At this meeting the Navy urged the City of Alameda and the Service to continue discussions to determine a mutually acceptable size for the proposed national wildlife refuge at the NAS Alameda. Locally, we were asked to clarify the extent of Endangered Species Act, Section 7, consultations required to complete disposal of property at the NAS Alameda, and report on this information to our headquarters personnel by 25 October 1996. The Navy, the Service, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) have met a number of tunes over the past two years to attempt to resolve this issue. Our understanding is that the Service currently believes at least 525 acres of land are required for the protection of endangered species and the proposed national wildlife refuge on the NAS Alameda. Although the Navy has not yet approved any transfer or conveyance of lands at the NAS Alameda, we request your assistance to determine what Endangered Species Act, Section 7, consultations would be required for several situations. The Service has proposed that 595 acres of land, and 375 acres of water be transferred from the Navy to the Service. In addition, the Service proposed to reserve a conservation easement on 118 acres of land north of the lands proposed for transfer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (see figure ). Under this proposal, the Service would own as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System all property immediately to the east of the California least tern nesting colony to a distance of approximately 1,000 feet, and all property north of the California least tern nesting colony to a distance of at least approximately 2,000 feet. The Service would then continue management programs consistent with its mission and federal laws. Does the Service conclude that if such as transfer were made, that disposal of adjoining property out of federal ownership would have no adverse effect and not result in take of any endangered species or threatened species, and could occur with no restrictions on the subsequent development of adjoining property leaving federal ownership? If this conclusion is not accurate, please advise us of the what type and extent of additional Endangered Species Act, Section 7, consultations would be required. During our various meetings between the Navy, the ARRA, and the Service, an alternative proposal consisting of transfer of 525 acres of land, and 375 acres of water to the Service was also considered. Under this proposal, the Service would own as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System all property immediately to the east of the California least tern nesting colony to a distance of approximately 1,000 feet, and all property north of the California least tern nesting colony to a distance of at least approximately SEP 25 '96 02:22PM WESTDIV 09B P. 2/4 I,800 feet. The Service would then continue management programs consistent with its mission and federal laws. Does the Service conclude that if such as transfer were made, that disposal of adjoining property out of federal ownership would have no adverse effect and would not result in take of any endangered species or threatened species, and could occur with no restrictions on the subsequent development of adjoining property leaving federal ownership? If this conclusion is not accurate, please advise us of the what type and extent of additional Endangered Species Act, Section 7, consultations would be required. We understand Thar the ARRA has requested your comment on a conceptual management plan for the California least tern at the Naval Air Station, Alameda. We hope your review of this plan will result in a proposal for a wildlife refuge at NAS Alameda that can be supported by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the ARRA, and be consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. We request a copy of your comments, if any, on the ARRA plan as soon as they are available_ We also request that you advise us, based on your review of the ARRA plan, what, if any, additional consultations or actions under the Endangered Species Act would be required prior to a Navy decision to pursue disposal consistent with the ARRA conceptual management plan_ Thank you for your continuing assistance with this Navy base closure and conversion action at the NAS Alameda. As the Base Conversion Manager for the NAS Alameda, I have overall responsibility for all conversion activities at NAS Alameda. I can be reached at 415 - 244 -3003. Mr. Doug Pomeroy (415 -244- 3008) of our Environmental Planning Branch can answer specific questions regarding the Endangered Species Act consultation or endangered species at NAS Alameda Sincerely, Dave Ryan Base Conversion Manager, NAS Alameda Copy to: ARRA: Executive Director K. Miller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Regional Director, Mike Spear, Portland, OR San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Refuge Manager, Marge Kolar. Blind copy to: mcl w 0 0 am a. C E tol EL a e E E. a 15 r.. 1