Loading...
1996-11-06 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * * ** Alameda High School Cafeteria 6, 1996 West Wing, Historic Alameda High School Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Wednesday, November 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 October 2, 1996. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Establish Priorities for a Grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the Alameda Naval Air Station and Authorize the Executive Director to Proceed with the Application. 3 -C. Recommendation by the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) for a Bylaw Change to Create Vice -Chair and Member -at -Large Positions. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -D. Report from Peter Sun, Ph.D., Pan Pacific University on Progress Toward Fundraising Milestone Goals. [5 minutes] 4 -E. Report and Recommendations on the Housing Market Analysis from Janet Smith - Heimer of Bay Area Economics (BAE). [15 minutes] 4 -F. Status Report on the Utilities Study by Juanito Jamias of Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. [5 minutes] 4 -G. Status Report on the Building Upgrade and Demolition Study by Allan Brochier of the Onyx Group. [5 minutes] ARRA Agenda - November 6, 1996 Page 2 4 -H. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. 1. Town Hall Meeting on November 13, 1996 from 7 -9:00 p.m at Historic Alameda High Cafeteria. 4 -I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on; 1. Meeting at NAS Alameda on October 25, 1996 Regarding the Wildlife Refuge; 2. Status of Public Trust Appraisal; 3. Update on RFQ for FISC Redevelopment Site; 4. Update on Developer Panel scheduled for November 21 -22, 1996; 5. Update on EBCRC Feasibility Study for Port Priority Designation; 6. Update on Leasing Efforts: • MARAD negotiations • Microsoft event • Additional film production. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT Notes: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary, at 864 -3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available . * Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. * Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. Next ARRA meeting scheduled for December 4, 1996. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, October 2, 1996 The meeting convened at 5:37 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District (arrived at 5:50 p.m.); Alternate Mark Friedman for Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (left at 7:30 p.m.); Alternate Kathy Ornelas for Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro; Alternate Jay Leonhardy for Henry Chang, Jr., Councilmember, City of Oakland (left at 6 :50 p.m.); Alternate Pattianne Parker for Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony Daysog for "Lil "Arnerich, Councilmember; City of Alameda; Ex- officio Lee Perez, Base Reuse Advisory Group; Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District. Absent: None. Resigned: Charles Mannix, Councilmember, City of Alameda 2 -A CONSENT CALENDAR At the request of Alternate Daysog, item 2 -C was pulled for questions. Alternate Alves moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Alternate Leonhardy seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 1 - Swanson. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 4, 1996. Approved. *2 -B. Report From the Executive Director Recommending Support of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority's Membership in the California Defense Facilities Marketing Association. Approved. *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. Approved. 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. (Printed on recycled paper Alternate Daysog stated his concern with the impact that a 1,700 -acre redevelopment area would have on the general fund, which he said would be negatively impacted by the cost of providing services to the base because property taxes generated on the base will not accrue to the general fund. Executive Director Miller stated that ARRA economic and financial studies were currently underway to insure that the fiscal impact of the base conversion, including formation of a redevelopment area, would leave the City whole. Chair Appezzato stressed that one of the goals of the Reuse Authority is not to financially harm the rest of the City from the redevelopment of the base. Member DeWitt stated that he believes that the two existing redevelopment areas in the City now pay a fee to the general fund for City services. Mr. DeWitt further stated that the City will get more money back from the sales taxes and other business taxes and fees from a redevelopment area than it would receive from property taxes; also, a redevelopment area exists for a limited time. Alternate Daysog's concerns were duly noted and Alternate Daysog asked the Assistant General Counsel to issue an opinion of the legality of redevelopment funds being used to pay for services. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin indicated that she would prepare an opinion. Alternate Alves moved to authorize the Executive Director to execute an agreement with the City CDD to implement the OEA grant to establish a redevelopment project area for NAS Alameda. Alternate Friedman seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: 1- Alternate Daysog. Abstain: 0. Absent: 1- Swanson. 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. Executive Director Miller stated that the LAMBRA application deadline is November 5. She stated that ARRA staff had met with all affected City departments and the City Manager's office to develop a package of business incentives that would be low cost to the City yet of high value to businesses considering locating at NAS Alameda. Julie Mantrom, ARRA Management Analyst, stated that the current length of the LAMBRA designation is eight years; however, there is a move to change it to fifteen years. Alternate Daysog questioned whether or not members from City commissions such as Economic Development and Planning Commissions had been invited to join the LAMBRA team. Executive Director Miller answered that Planning and CDD staff had been included to create a "fast tracking" team but she did not feel it was necessary to include the Commissions. Mr. Daysog stated that it was his personal preference that they be included. Chair Appezzato read the comprehensive list of LAMBRA team members that are presently included in the LAMBRA application. Member DeWitt moved to adopt the Resolution detailing the proposed package of local incentives for the LAMBRA designation. Member Swanson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0. ORAL REPORTS ePrinted on recycled paper 2 4 -F. Report From Jim Musbach of Economic Planning Systems (EPS) on Results of the Market Study and Framework/Methodology for the EDC Application. Mr. Musbach reported that EPS is engaged in combining the financial information from the various studies underway to construct a financial model. This model can then be queried using different assumptions to provide financial analyses based on alternative development plans. This will include assumptions for variables such as proposed wildlife refuge sizes and with/without a restricted use airfield operation. Member Swanson emphasized the immediate need for a financial analysis of the airfield given the possible lost opportunity costs and the economic impact that an early injection of cash from an airfield operation might provide. Alternate Alves asked whether or not the City will have to pay for the NAS Alameda property being conveyed through an Economic Development Conveyance. Mr. Musbach replied that the federal government wants to make money from the property; an EDC means the property is conveyed for less than market value but not necessarily zero value. The property is being appraised now and the price will be negotiated with the Navy. The price starts at market value and then is discounted by economic development costs such as infrastructure costs, the cost of freeing the property from the Public Trust, etc. Norton Air Force Base cost $52 million. Mr. Musbach discussed historical growth in employment in the Bay Area and provided a comparison of supply and demand conditions and NAS market potential. 4 -G. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. Chair Lee Perez reported that subcommittees have been restructured into working groups and their resources are diminishing while their work is increasing. Working Groups are currently studying matters such as the possible financial impacts of continuing the Commissary as well as housing issues. Mr. Perez invited everyone to the Town Hall meeting on November 13 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cafeteria of Historic Alameda High School. 4 -H. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA. Ms. Miller reported on one additional BRAG Working Group that is working on the Alameda Recreation and Park request to add (or restore) ten acres to the Sports Complex. Ms. Miller stated that the September 17 Container Cargo Forecast Roundtable unanimously concluded that the cargo forecast was correct and the projections would probably be realized. The EBCRC has approached the Office of Economic Adjustment for a grant to fund the next step, a feasibility study to ascertain whether NAS is a viable option for five cargo container berths. Avery productive meeting was held Friday, September 13 with Deputy Assistant Secretaryy of the Navy William J. Cassidy, Jr. and representatives from the Department of the Interior, Congressman Ronald V. Dellums' office, and the 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 at NAS Alameda, where the site can be viewed. The goal is to bring this issue to closure by the end of the month. $Printed on recycled paper 3 A BRAG Town Meeting has been scheduled for November 13 at 7:00 p.m. at Historic Alameda High School Cafeteria. A Developer Panel ( "mini -ULI" type panel) is being planned by Bay Area Economics for November 21 -22. ARRA and BRAG members are invited to attend the afternoon session of November 22 to hear advice from developers on the how, what, when, and where for developing the base. Ms. Miller thanked the cities of Alameda and Oakland for each contributing $5,000 toward this effort. Last, Ms. Miller announced that an additional $62,000 has been awarded by OEA as an amendment to our current OEA grant for environmental consulting, a consultant for the EDC strategy, and $30,000 for the City Public Works Department to help them develop their part of the Cooperative Services proposal. In closing, Ms. Miller thanked the County of Alameda for their participation in the LAMBRA incentives as well as the $5,000 they contributed for the consultant to put together the LAMBRA package. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Bill McCall, an 82 -year Alameda resident and former Mayor asked for, in writing, an answer to the following: (1) Least Terns —why do they need more than 50 acres when they now have four and why can't they be relocated to the Oakland Airport in the westerly portion? (2) Why is Alameda the dumping ground for Oakland and San Leandro's homeless? Who made the deal on the hotel? (3) The RV Park —why doesn't the City of Alameda operate it? (4) Why does the City of Alameda Recreation Department have to relocate their soccer fields to the westerly end to accommodate somebody else? (5) He is very disturbed that revenue sharing related to the wildlife refuge acreage will go to the County. Chair Appezzato directed ARRA staff to draft a response to Mr. McCall's questions and concerns. Sam L. Broadnax, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the Tuskeegee Airmen, urged and encouraged the ARRA to allow their organization to have an annual air show at NAS Alameda. Chair Appezzato asked Executive Director Miller to have the Airfield Task Force also look at this issue. Member Swanson encouraged Executive Director Miller to meet with the organization. Joe L. Davis, Nimitz Field Project, stated that they will have a business plan with two or three scenarios to prove out the profitability and jobs created by a limited use airfield. Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, spoke to many issues, including declaring war on environmental toxic cleanup and publishing all aspects of base conversion on the Internet. Ed Nwokedi, President of City Garage /Carstar, asked the ARRA to strongly consider a limited use airfield, as Carstar has customers now who are willing to bring their aircraft in for refinishing. Paul Beck, UNC Lear, Oklahoma City, stated that NAS Alameda has the best facilities his company has seen to accommodate their expansion needs. He urged the ARRA to approve a limited use airfield as Alameda can offer ideal one -stop shopping and re- employ already trained, laid -off workers. Chair Appezzato asked if they could provide a conceptual proposal; Mr. Beck answered yes. Geoff Macfee, President Otis Spunkmeyer Air, stated they need hangar space for their two DC3 aircraft and they would like to use NAS as a launching point for upscale one -hour flights of the area. ePrinted on recycled paper 4 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER: At 7:40 p.m., the meeting adjourned to closed session for a Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision © of Section 54956.9: 1 case. RECONVENE TO PUBLIC SESSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY. At 7:48 p.m. the meeting reconvened and it was announced that the Governing Body had received a briefing from legal counsel and no action was taken. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Alternate Alves asked that an MOU be written between the ARRA and Pan Pacific University to detail how the Economic Development Conveyance/Leaseback arrangement would be handled. Executive Director Miller said that staff agrees that an MOU is a good idea. Member Swanson asked that information be provided on how much money has been generated to date from interim leased /licensed properties. Ms. Miller stated that most revenue was being generated from very short-term licenses. The Navy receives 50 percent of revenues derived from licenses; however, talks are ongoing about how the Navy's 50 percent can be used in such a way that it will also benefit the ARRA. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted Margaret E. Ensley Secretary •Printed on recycled paper 5 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 30, 1996 TO: The Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 3 -B SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Establish Priorities for a Grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the Alameda Naval Air Station and Authorize the Executive Director to Proceed with the Application. Background: Funding for the 1996/97 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant program became available in October. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is eligible to apply for a grant from EDA for Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) projects; however, there is a limited amount of EDA funding available, and EDA has already begun receiving grant applications for 1997. In the past, the City of Alameda and the ARRA have submitted competing applications to EDA, and EDA requested that the ARRA and the City meet in advance to establish priorities for any EDA grant funding requests. Last year, the ARRA received a $450,000 technical assistance planning grant from EDA to fund a Building Upgrade Study, a Demolition Study, and a Street Improvement Plan. EDA funded these studies with the understanding that they would provide the basis for the ARRA's future EDA construction grant application. To ensure the EDA funding will be available for ARRA priority projects at NAS Alameda, the ARRA should set priorities and authorize the Executive Director to submit an application to EDA. Discussion/Analysis: The following is a list of projects suggested/considered by the ARRA and the City for EDA funding: ♦ Planning and/or Construction of the Mitchell Mosely Extension ♦ Tinker Avenue • Atlantic Avenue • Storm Drain Improvements • Sewer Improvements ♦ Revolving Loan Fund for NAS/FISC Tenants • Bureau of Electricity Substation • Bureau of Electricity Upgrades ♦ Fire Training Station ♦ Ferry Terminal ♦ Street Improvement Plan Upgrades (Study funded by EDA.) • Utility Study Upgrades (Study funded by OEA.) ♦ Building Upgrades (Study funded by EDA.) Honorable Members of the October 30, 1996 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 The following projects are recommended for the 1996/97 EDA application: • Mitchell Mosely Road Extension Planning -- $650,000 • Building and Infrastructure Upgrades -- $4.35 million • Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) -- $600,000 Street and circulation improvements must be completed in order to provide greater public access for all redevelopment projects on the base. This funding will pay to design the Mitchell Mosely extension to make effective use of its proximity to the waterfront and link Marina Village and Mariner Square to the base. In 1996, the ARRA worked with the City, and the City secured a $3 million construction grant to provide a linear park and street improvements. on Main Street, which is the primary access road for NAS. The construction will vastly improve access to the Main Gate of NAS by eliminating seasonal flooding on Main Street. Successful long -range economic development at NAS is dependent in large part on the success of the ARRA' s interim leasing effort. The ARRA' s ability to generate revenues from its current leasing program will be greatly enhanced if it can independently provide essential building upgrades rather than look to its tenants to front -end the cost of these improvements. By avoiding the need to rebate rents over an extended period of time, the ARRA will realize a substantially greater net operating income and thereby be able to finance needed infrastructure improvements and accelerate the pace of redevelopment on the base. ACET currently has a $400,000 1995/96 planning grant awarded from EDA to the ARRA that was extended through Spring 1997. As contemplated when the original EDA application was submitted for ACET, to move to the next phase of implementation the ARRA would apply for ACET implementation funding -- unless ACET can apply independently as a 501(c)3. Fiscal Impact: The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) can only fund base reuse planning —not implementation. Building upgrades, infrastructure upgrades /improvements, and street improvements costing millions of dollars are considered implementation: EDA is the only source of implementation funding for the ARRA. Unfortunately, EDA funding does require a 25% local match of the total project cost. The local match for a $5 million EDA grant (Mitchell Mosely Planning and Building/Infrastructure Upgrades) is $1.6 million. The City, not the ARRA, may actually submit the $650,000 planning grant application to EDA for Mitchell Mosely. The match for Mitchell Mosely Planning would be $216,667, and in kind City staff time working on the project would be used as match. To provide the match for the Building/Infrastructure Upgrades, the ARRA would use (or if possible borrow against future) lease revenue, count the City's contribution to the ARRA budget, credit the City staff time spent on base conversion activities, and apply for a $300,000 California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. ACET will be solely responsible for the $200,000 matched needed for its $600,000 EDA implementation grant. Honorable Members of the October 30, 1996 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 Recommendation: To ensure that the limited EDA funds available for projects at the Alameda Naval Air Station are first allocated to the ARRA's priority projects, it is recommended that the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to proceed with a $5.6 million EDA grant application for the Mitchell Mosely Road extension plan, for NAS building/infrastructure upgrades, and for ACET implementation. Respectfully submitted, LA-tite),) Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: The Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM:. Kay Miller Executive Director 3 -C SUBJ: Recommendation by the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) for a Bylaw Change to Create Vice -Chair and Member -at -Large Positions. Background The Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) was created by the Alameda City Council in July 1993 to provide advice to the City on the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda. The Council appointed 11 members to serve as Chairs for 11 subcommittees representing particular areas of interest such as land use, education, environment, etc. Advice on appointments of BRAG members and committee member- ship was sought from various constituencies and agencies such as the Alameda Unified School District, the Planning Commission, etc. Membership on the 11 BRAG subcommittees was voluntary and membership from outside of Alameda was allowed and invited. In April 1995, the BRAG recommended that it become advisory to the ARRA. The ARRA accepted that recommendation and the BRAG continued with 11 members and open public participation. Discussion In 1993, Helen Sause was appointed to the BRAG as Chair of the Economic Development Subcommittee representing the Alameda Economic Development Commission. She has also functioned unofficially as Vice -Chair of the BRAG (a position not recognized in the Bylaws) for the past three years. The BRAG voted at its October 16 meeting to request a change in the Bylaws to recognize Helen Sause as a voting Vice - Chair —a 12th voting member of BRAG. The BRAG also voted to request that ARRA include Doug deHaan on the BRAG as a non - voting Member -at- Large. These modifications would necessitate a Bylaw change. Fiscal Impact There would be no fiscal impact beyond staff time for the Assistant City Attorney to draw up the papers and process them. BRAG Recommendation: The BRAG recommends that two new positions be added to the BRAG —a voting Vice -Chair and Doug deHaan as anon - voting Member -at- Large. This would bring the total number of voting members to 12.. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director PEI"- wit-mg. ituiriticitir II": Limicea ••:,,,.....,....,., ::::i:::::igiiii:.:%V '''.0.1* :"..k., • ....:•:•"::•:::::<:., X.:,..::•:.>:,..X.:±4,...,:.Y.,... es;.', •:::;..;;;;;*;:i*,;:,,,,• >x.:,/,:x.......•3,..... t.,.* ...,.... , • ....,...:.:.:44.:.,.....x':,,x.: ..:::::, • ,,,:...4,,,;.:.:•,:kv..,,!.%•,..'.. ..4...' • ::::.:.>: .:,/.. x.1.*:,4:f.::::::::•::::::::::,,4,:, V:: `4*4 • • • • . • S;,•:,, . . Eugene Neese, Curator 0 0 CI. OU' ci) i..., . 0 .5. g 172) 1:3 0 1.4 C■S 9 PD4 "k TA 0 ill as ..... r ....."0 go 0 < . . m a' l- . 0 ., ..,,- .... . ci p4 9 0 .... 0 0 03 E cr, 01 c0 ..) .. .0 ,?, -■ 4- -0 2 • = • LcCn S ., : L •• . . c.3 0 0 .-.. o = ▪ = a) 0 • ... 0 z 0 •C "8 co 13 tt 0 ...c7) a 0, CS V) 04 0 --, 0 0 CS ° CS 0 ..... 0 10 / ,, , cs) cn t...-■ 0 "= ..0 1... 0 -0 ..... ...-. ..., 4... 0 .-: • -. .... z ..0 '4"4■• 0 0 ..-) . o .0 4. - • a O. 0 O 0 a 8 0 - u 0 c c ,,,ce, -0 R ,,, c 0 , 0 CS 0 cv .< • .., ...,, '.›. .;"..-. "-crs -2 4. ...." 0 cip .0 0 10 a) .... ° 10 O X -5 E Z o 0 o o s- ,.. 0 ,.... o ..... I 0 0.. 0 ...., ,c to. o F.5. •;-7:. 0 E-■ ca E-, e i-r.: E-■ 7.1 ca E-■ o p:1-,491.g8 Alameda Naval Air Museum is a non - profit or- ganization. Not sponsored by or affiliated with 12- o c >, .0 -o cu u) •••••• cu z 0 a 03 0 0. 0 a 0 8 E.L.)9- E cs o ..a (• 15> • 1 , a , s •Cf)- a) 0 < Ca o.. OS "! - " .> as = ca 6 7--. c E " '5 cu c2F)s = 'a ct, t> >, CO 6..). c co > >, sc3 .S .... ...e- E c C 0 so o 0 CCI >s 0.)" 0. CU (i) 0 Cl. 7.5 .0 >, o ... cn CIS 0 0 0 a, 0 (/) 9- CU 0 La?. E 0 CC 0 0 a, 03 0) '50 fac 0 CI) It a .c Cl) 2 0 0 c 0 • al 0 co 0 c . . a) 0 2 E c) *-' c ..c m 0.. E a) 0. c ..... 0- 8 • C 6).= .. " : E Ctl 10 C C. Li) 0) C 0 1:5 a) 0 • a) C (U 0 .0 .0 .0 "•2 u) 0. I- .0 • E cu 6* cu :al: 5 .c a) -6 ..0 V) C CO 0 0 0 0 ..E .0 0. O. :a Z 0 0 .0 >, 03 0. 0 0 0. .0 6.9 Annual membership 0) .40 CCS 0. 0 t Sponsor /Corporate 2 0- z 0. N co cu U) 0.) 0 -0 - >4 0 "0 4:00 Please make check payable to ANAM. • V, r) CII Con 0 on n (--) ..z. 5 (-D.,,,,,,00t._.. _0 0 cm 0' .... - • 0 - co = - ,-t .1::$ to 8" 0 ...t .., • _. 0 ..... ....... 6 5, CD r,".. = •-•' )••••, cp ..::. .•-• 5. ity CA r. '11 0 5:4 :17 Ca 0 ,... ... o 0 ra .1 z 0 0 CD..., o ..., •-, ...... o 0 ... 5 • • • • • • •--,_. r.--- rzr. 5 .... ... ... Y.? , 0 to CD 0 ca c 7--i• - • 0 if, n 1:2, P. (7. 6 5 a ; = -0 PD-. y -, g , c., 111 CD ci ts 7" '' ". D'" Q ?., ar D ° ...5 . 2. . ' C A C 0 3-, --•- a. --, 0._ • ..., 3- 5 D''' g 5. re: 5 P., a) -,.. 0 o c 14. n 0 c ,., crts - .. E.:). 2 ...., cn m , tn 25— 64., z ....- P... a) a,, 3 13 g 'D 3 2 Er 3 ""' A-- • o .--.1 0 •-• pz CT.-. 7 D 77• C C In- 0 2. 5• n z. „F- o -.- (D a) a i3 7, -< 0 < 9: g..., 61 r:TI a, cr c -1 v, z 5. _ u = — a' 0 - --,. 0 .- o * = 5 -4-- o-- 0_, -o _. n s. D "J rl '-': Cl. ■-■ L-1 0 0 g- o An , r.,,,... o .- A-- C. A) ( D CO t-5 . 5- ..- c r .-_-. . fj4 . . (!) 73 :r ir 0 = .tr D)"' - • o I. eL -1 et ■•••• ... CD a --' 0 z -- D 7," 0 A V.,' 38 '..V 0 7 5, - ..C. -0 (p 0 r, :Of 0 s< n ° D ..... 0 , (0 CD a Cr n- a) 0 13 Co -3 - • 0 .-3 ..., .... 0 0 0 0 P 0 .,-. (-) 0 o 0 o „-- 0 C &., ti) = 'C'' 7 Q_ < a .... 3 0 CD ,c ? . D) 0 c 0. C cD (1) S. -) 0 CD CD D3 u, CD 0 0 0 0 • 0 c 0- St CD gi) cD < CD cp CT Di) gl) • Donations from veterans and active already been saved by the museum. 01 cn CD CT CD f1) O. gl) 0 CD CD Medical Center - Oakland, Naval Air • Collections and artifacts from Naval <0 5 0 -.. co -o 0 9.- 3> St EST CD 3 a) (Da a 0 0 0 FL' CD ID 0. 5. CD President's Kennedy, Bush and Clinton stopped here. <0 CD (fl 0 3 (1) a) a) 0 co 0 ID C) ID3 -D. 5 = 0. (fl CD 0) ID 0. ra) 0. c -C3 Cf) — CD 5. S. CD = 0' CD of aweo "ratanN 0 In the repair shops at NAS Alameda, "Rosie the <> a) cn CD (1) (7) c 0. o. ID oCT c 310 (7) 0 0 C CD 0. cD ID a) > 3u CD »ID a) 3 a) <> .wnasnui aqj pulgaq .a6ueg aqi ul eaoale Hof ewe uolteaotseJ /deldsip y By the end of WW II, there were over 110 aircraft CD 0 = -• t-ri = o - 5 e. ■••• • 'A = rg ' "•• cr o = `-' . . 0, t,) ,-. 0 CD .-.. 0 5 :-..0, C ....• ,-. trl o. - c ... ' rt) 0 M L , 76 ,... i' . 7, I... = a `) 0. v) 0 7, 0 0 -, -.„ 0., 0 -' z rz- 0 Z 6 w 2 0 w 14 0 0 . - -1 0 5 ,..- ' t • -" (17 ,,; -, c.s• g ‘o .... :7.7' - • - 0 i".7:: P_.3 5 R.. ...,..- 0 0, V• = I ''''' aa r, u, launch the famous "Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo ". aqf g1lnn panes ,jauaoH 's,9 -9 snowej 0 ID 0 3 CD -1 CD CD 3 0) -ct z 0 epawely SYN woad Given time and the resources, these dreams a) cu - co c 3 • jo aan;nd ata} o; nnay\ y Interim Use Permits Approved >(< >< >< >< >< X X Est. Employ. 0 0 N 0 •-• 351 0 0 0 r 1001 0 351 tr) N. r 1831 2001 CO O 0 V" 25 45 50 50 75 1 25 140 525 15 1 40 1 2223 Projected FOSL Completion Date _ CompIete1 Complete, a) (.0 Z. T- Er 0 0 a) a E 0 C) Complete fa) -05. E 0 0 CD r .`"- (0 T'* r Completel CO .r.... .-- CO •r. .-- (1) a E 0 0 Complete 11/96 CO V... r N. T... -,-- N. (0 NI- ,-- r CO ‘.-• .--- CO -,-- -,--. 1 Complete 4/97 CO r .--• (.0 ,--• ..r.. N., c- r N. 1.- .C... Building Vacancy Date Leased Leased Leased 10/96, Licensed, one-time event Leased' (0 cs) CO CO CT) 8 Now' Now Now Now 2/97 N. CD T''. 0 2: N. CO CT) 0) Nr co CO CO 8 CO C7) to Now 4/97 CO 0) co (0 (3) co 1 2/97 1 Now Area (Sq. Ft.) CD CD o c0 (0 34,250 13,150 17,000 40,000 0 CD 0 ci co CNI 55,450 0 o 0 (.6 co 55,0001 0 0 0 0 0 t-. (0 coo h-NCOt--0 1.6 Cs1 co' cq co to 0 f-, ‘.-- v- 30,8001 0 0 coo 00 ei o CO .c... 40,000 55,000 84,250 0 o 0 -47 110,000 0 o C- co V* .e.- CD a N.- .l.. 42,000 0 up C•1 .c.- CO U) v•-• Building Number Portions of 24 & 25 N- 0) •,-- co Portions of 24 < 0 0 Nr C4 Z.: c-• ,- Adjacent to Bldg. 360 167 & finger piers v-- (NI 12 (1/2 of bldg.) 621 530 32 292 & 612 • Piers 1, 2, 3; 168 CO 0) ct) 0) 0) Cf) •cr I-- (D co v- 'Portions of 24 & 25 1--. CO to o CO co CA co "*Employment estimates based on company's projection or industry standard Tenant (1) (..) Carstar (Vehicle Painting) Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair) City Records Storage Film Studios 0 1-; Soccer Field Nelson's Marine Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.) ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator) 1 , 111411111.414 ••■•■■••■ • Richard Miller (Photography) Tower Aviation (Avionics) STS (Plating Company) Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) 0 <( :i 1Polvethelene Products Alpha Document Storage Aviation Advisory Group (Airplane Hangar) 1Naviaator Systems (Furniture Mfgr.) !Dynamic Business Dev. (Boat Production) >, a as 0. E o 0 c o 8 0 E a c) <C IPuPlio (Shit) Repair) . . . !Delphi (Exhibit Displays) 4 . . I PIVCO (Electric Cars) Chat (Coffee Roaster) 1_ Envirtech (Powder Coating) 1TOTAL POTENTIAL LEASES: I*Very probable leases **Sianed lease or license N CO Nh In CO h•-• CO (3) CD T- r- CV (Y) •Ch LO (.0 h-- CO a) CD tr) co N- revenl 0.xis Shell Improve- ment Costs Reimbursable by ARRA $410,000 1 00 0 000 CD ct (5 o co (5 -4- 0 Minimal Minimal Minimal 0 To be determined To be determined To be determined CU E ._ a 2 Total Years 1 -5 1 $ 495,000 $ 555,000 0 0 ,--- V- $ 960,000 0 0 c) CS CO fi3 $ 470,000 $ 800,000 1 $ 120,000 c) a 0 . CO 0) To be determined $ 48,000 To be determined CD o 0 .4- -4- CD c) 0 C)- to co N-- 6/9 CD o 0 CO- 1--. ,-- ft To be determined Year 5 $ 99,000 $ 154,000 $ 31,500 $ 210,000 00 00 c) c) 1.- 1-- 69- 69- $ 24,000 $ 22,000 To be determined a) '0 CD ID a) o o .g. 0f- E ('i a) • a) '0 co a co (.6 0 r 69- $ 350,000 a o o c6 V, V> To be determined Year 4 $ 99,000 $ 141,000 0 CD L() CO 69 0 0 0 0) ,r- 69 $ 111,000 $ 176, 000 $ 24,000 CD 0 0 (NI 69. To be determined $ 10,000 To be determined CD 0 0 - 0) (f) CD 0 0 L() CO 69 CD C. 0 CO- (e) 69 To be determined Year 3 CD 0 0 0) 0) $ 114,000 CD 0 LO N-- CO $ 195,000 t $ 88,000 $ 160,000 CD 0 0 ,:t: C \I 0 0 0 CT CNI To be determined $ 10,000 To be determined CD 0 CD T-• OD V> CD 0 0 C5 LO CO 69 $ 36,000 To b determined Year 2 CD CD 0 0) ft $ 90,000 $ 28,300 CD 0 0 CO c-- 69 $ 80,000 $ 144,000 CD CD 0 Csd $ 18,000 To be determined $ 8,000 To be determined CD CD CD N--- N. 000`002 $ 34,000 To be determined Year1 CD 0 CD 0) o) CD CD CD (6 to $ 28,300 CD C) CD 0 co v-- 000`09$ $ 80,000 $ 128,000. $ 24,000 $ 18,000 To be determined $ 8,000 To be determined $ 77,000 CD 0 CD (5 (::, 1.- 69 CD 0 CD Nr- co To be determined Prospective Leases (Rental Income Assumed Based on Going Rates) ) Film Studio revenues assume current License agreements are renewed. Occupancy Date Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied one -time event CO CO 0) 0) a N..- -t--- ‚- N■ T■ 0)0) (- NI 04 CO 0) -,- 2/97 1/97 t■ a) ,...-- N- a) (NI T■ a) CO T■ a) Area (sq. ft.) 0 0 0 (6 CO 32,550 1.- V- co- c-- 260,000 55,400 66,500 0 0 CO 82,250 0 0 h■ ,40,000 0 CD CD CO 14,0001 0 'Cr CO CO- Lt) * Ci) V CO Portions of 24 & 25 113 17-, V' ''' (NJ a o le- 0 CL <1— C CI (0 ('4 .4. Cs4 , V-. Adjacent to Bldg. 530 621 530 292 & 612 Piers 1, 2 & 3 r o T■ CO Signed Lease or License Tenant CALSTART Carstar Giannotti Film Studios * ** Microsoft Nelson Marine QAP Storage Units Richard Miller Tower Aviation Bay Ship & Yacht MARAD Navigator Systems Alpha Documents Puglio STS 3 4, 4, 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 revenl 0.xis CO" ' SPONDENCE Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director DATE: October 29, 1996 SUBJECT: Responses From and Discussions with the U.S. Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service Re: Size and Management of the Wildlife Refuge Attached you will find the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service response to the Draft Conceptual Management Plan that we presented at our September 13 meeting in Washington, D.C. As you know, Mayor Appezzato and Roberta Brooks and Bob Brauer from Congressman Dellums' office met with Mr. John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the Interior and William J. Cassidy, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, in a follow -up meeting last week. Also attached is a letter from me to Mr. Garamendi that outlines the essence of our discussion. As you can see, Mr. Garamendi promised a decision within the next three weeks as well as a written response to the seven -point "demands" we put on the table at the meeting. As soon as we have a decision and response to our seven points, I will inform the Governing Body. Printed on recycled paper I' rrri v!<rrer. ar 1- 1 -96 -TA -1475 United States Department of the Interior : FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Sacramento Field Office 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130 Sacramento, California 95821 -6340 October 8, 1996 Ms. Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory Building 90 Alameda. California 94501 Subject: Second Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern for the Preferred Alternative Community_ Reuse Plan NAS Alameda: Alameda, California Dear Ms. Miller: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Second Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the California Least Tern for The Preferred Alternative Community Reuse Plan NAS Alameda: Alameda, California (Management Plan) dated September, 1996, for Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda) in Alameda County, California. In the transmittal letter from Zander Associates dated September 19, 1996, we were requested to review the Management Plan and provide written comments. This response has been prepared jointly by the Service's Sacramento Field Office and San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Background The western portion of NAS Alameda supports one of the most significant breeding colony sites of the endangered California least tern. According to the report Characteristics of California Least Tern Nesting Sites Associated With Breeding Success or Failure, With Special Reference to the Site at the Naval Air Station, Alameda by Dr. Carolee Caffrey in 1995 (Caffrey report), the endangered California least tern breeding site at NAS Alameda has played a significant role in recent increases in the number of'least terns throughout California, and is consistently one of the most successful sites in California. According to the Caffrey report, a number of critical site characteristics are necessary to perpetuate the continued success of least terns at NAS Alameda. Because the surrounding tarmac and runways are devoid of most threats to least tern breeding success, the NAS Alameda site has in most years not been plagued by the.high levels of predation and human disturbance characteristic of most other least tern breeding sites in California. This buffer zone constitutes an inhospitable environment for predators, and affords least terns the ability to easily detect and "mob" any predators that may venture near the colony; this mobbing behavior by least terns is effective in causing potential predators to move away from a nesting area, especially when large numbers of terns are involved. This buffer zone allows land managers to conduct a variety of effective predator management actions in areas adjacent to the colony to further minimize the threat from predators. Areas south, west, and Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director northwest of the main colony site provide prey - supporting habitats for predators and serve to draw predators away from least terns at the main colony site. Thus, the present configuration of predator- supporting habitat relative to the large open buffer zone effectively channels predators away from the least tern colony site and toward the outlying areas. In addition, least terns have moved their young to various locations within the buffer zone surrounding the main colony site during several breeding seasons (and on one occasion as far as about 4,000 feet northwest of the main colony site), apparently to avoid predator pressure at the main colony site. Finally, the open water offshore of the western end of NAS Alameda contains extensive, generally productive foraging habitat areas for least terns breeding at the NAS Alameda site. 2 Comments on Management Plan The Service's goal is to promote recovery of this endangered species, not merely to maintain its survival. Contrary to assumptions in the Management Plan, the Service intends to both encourage establishment of least tern breeding colonies (by enhancing habitat at other locations around San Francisco Bay) and to expand the existing tern nesting habitat at NAS Alameda. The Service believes that a minimum area of 525 acres is needed to provide adequate protected space for the successful enhancement and expansion of least tern nesting habitat at NAS Alameda. The Management Plan acknowledges that the Service intends to implement an integrated predator management program on the refuge. The Service's policy is to take predatory animals as a last resort, after all reasonable non - lethal and preventative measures fail. The best initial preventative measure in this situation is to reduce the availability of predator habitat and raptor perches near the tern nesting site. This would be accomplished by maintaining a large open buffer area around the least tern colony. A larger buffer also reduces the chance for conflict between last resort predator management and adjacent human activities, allowing safer and more effective predator management measures. To allow flexibility and maximize the effectiveness of a predator management program on the refuge established at NAS Alameda, the Service proposes to incorporate a full -range of predator management techniques into the program. However, hazing, harassing, and relocating predators, as proposed in the Management Plan, are not always effective management tools; many raptor species do not regularly perch while hunting, and it is ineffective to try to haze nocturnal predators such as owls. In addition, frequent hazing could cause significant disturbance to the least terra' colony, restating in significant nest failure. Our concern about the implementation of predator hazing to effectively manage predators at the main colony site is shared by several least tern experts, including Dr. Caffrey, and by U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control personnel experienced in predator management to conserve endangered species, as documented in Appendix D of the Management Plan. Relocation of far- ranging species, such as raptors, can result in poor success, since many birds return to the capture area within weeks. For these reasons, a number of predator management techniques will be necessary for effective predator management to conserve least terns at NAS Alameda. However, our ability to conduct a full array of predator management activities would be severely hindered, if not eliminated, with a 390 -acre refuge area, because a significant portion of the existing buffer zone would be lost and actually replaced with developed areas that would support additional predators near the colony site. In addition, the proposed development of 135 acres of land would put the public in close proximity to areas where predator management activities will need to take place. Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director 3 The Management Plan discusses the installation of a fence around the perimeter of the refuge area in order to reduce terrestrial predators and human trespass into the nesting site. Unless the proposed perimeter trail is completely closed to foot and bicycle traffic (i.e., securely gated) during the least tern breeding season, the entire perimeter of the management area (not just the north and east sides) will need to be fenced. We believe that the site monitor should be mainly responsible for intensive monitoring of the tern colony, with only limited predator management responsibilities. The monitor should not be involved in intensive predator management activities. Effective predator management will require expending a significant effort throughout the area, not just adjacent to the colony. If the monitor were involved in tracking /trapping predators in distant portions of the site, predation could occur on the tern colony while the - monitor was away. Instead, the majority of predator management activities should be conducted by 2. separate person(s), who is in direct contact with the site monitor, though not necessarily under the monitor's direct supervision. Close and frequent contact between the monitor and the predator management personnel will be critical for the success of the management program. Additional least tern nesting habitat should not be created to the west of the .colony site, since this would place the new habitat near existing prime predator habitat located in the nearby wetlands. More appropriate nesting habitat enhancement measures would consist of simply enlarging the existing colony site and /or creating new nest habitat to the north of the existing colony. However, nesting habitat enhancement in this area also would be subject to predation pressure with development of an additional 135 acres of land. A 525 -acre refuge area would still afford a substantial buffer zone between the enhancement area and any development north of the area. We agree that vegetation control on the airfield in the vicinity of the colony is a major concern, since vegetation provides cover for predators. Any management scheme will need to provide for ample personnel and supplies to accomplish this task. The Service intends to prepare a conceptual management plan for the 525 -acre wildlife refuge area as part of a biological assessment to be prepared for the Navy. Some of the information in the Management Plan prepared for the ARRA will be useful in the development of our conceptual management plan. However, the increased development that would need to occur for the ARRA to fund these proposed management actions would significantly reduce the existing buffer zone surrounding the main colony site and would establish predator supporting areas in close proximity to the site. This additional development would significantly increase predation pressure at the main colony site, reduce the effectiveness of an integrated predator management program, and reduce the potential benefits of enhancing nesting habitat areas adjacent to the main colony site. Furthermore, areas used in the past by least terns to avoid predator pressure at the main colony site would be permanently lost. For the reasons discussed above, the Service does not believe that the actions proposed in the Management Plan will adequately offset potential impacts associated with development of an additional 135 acres of land, and still maintains that preservation of a minimum of 525 acres of land and 375 acres of open water is necessary to perpetuate the site characteristics at the NAS Alameda site that make this site so successful for least terns. Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director 4 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Browning in this office at (916) 979 -2739 (Ext. 439) or Ms. Marge Kolar at the Refuge at (510) 792 -0222. 1 Sincerely, oel A. Medlin '_/ Field Supervisor U.S. Department of the Interior Coordinator cc: Reg. Dir., (Attn: AES), Portland, OR SFBNWR, Project Leader (M. Kolar), Newark, CA U.S. Navy (D. Pomeroy), San Bruno, CA USDA Animal Damage Control (M. Small), Santa Maria, CA Congressional Office of Ronald V. Dellums (R. Brooks), Oakland, CA Dir., CDFG, Sacramento, CA Reg. Mgr., CDFG, Reg. III (C. Wilcox), Yountville, CA Zander Associates (L. Zander), Novato, CA Golden Gate Audubon Society (A. Feinstein), Berkeley, CA Ohlone Audubon Society (J. Delfino), Castro Valley, CA Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (F. LaRiviere),Palo Alto, CA Alameda Ileuse and iioeve1opIllellt Aiit1ioriiy Naval Air Station Alameda (510) 564 -3400 Postal Directory, Building 90 Fax: (510) 521-3764 Alameda, CA 91501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Anthony J. "Lil" Arne rich Councilmember City of Alameda Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board ''- Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving_ for Elihu Harris Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San. Leandro Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director October 31, 1 996 Mr. John Garamendi Deputy Secretary of the Interior Department of the Interior 1849 C Street Northwest, MS -5100 Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Garamendi: On behalf of the ARRA, I would like to thank you for meeting with Mayor Appezzato, Bob Brauer and Roberta Brooks of Congressman Dellums' office, and me last Friday to discuss the Wildlife Refuge at NAS Alameda. Obviously, we are grateful to Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy Bill Cassidy for facilitating these discussions between us, USFWS, and you and representatives from the Department. Mr. Cassidy clearly understands the importance and sense of urgency we all have in moving to a resolution of the issues related to the refuge. In the meeting, I noted that we have received the USFWS "Justification for the 525 - Acre Refuge" transmitted in a letter addressed to Roberta Brooks, office of Congressman Dellums. We have also received USFWS's response to the second draft of our Conceptual Management Plan via a letter addressed to me on October 8, 1996. We appreciate receiving both these documents — especially the Service's justification for the larger Refuge, as we have been asking for that kind of written justification for over a year. At the meeting, we once again outlined the ARRA's concept of a 390 -acre Refuge and the proposed uses and development north of the Refuge. We briefly outlined the major features of our proposed Management Plan and highlighted how our more intensive Least Tern monitoring strategy differs from the monitoring and predator control strategy proposed by the Service. And finally, we discussed the financial commitments the ARRA would make to the capital and ongoing management costs of the Refuge. That commitment is substantial. We can only contemplate doing that from revenues we would derive from the additional 135 acres we could develop under the 390 -acre Refuge scenario. Mr. John Garamendi October 31, 1996 Page 2 We appreciate your unequivocating statements that a decision will be made in the next three weeks and that we will receive a written response to all of the conditions we raised at the meeting. The specific conditions that we outlined in the meeting were as follows: If the decision is for the larger refuge, the USFWS must agree to "reasonable," not onerous, restrictions on land uses outside the Refuge. Their letter to Congressman Dellums' office indicates that "525 acres would still afford an adequate buffer between the enhancement area and any development north of the area." We have taken that statement quite literally in terms of assuming there will only be minimal restrictions on what we can do outside the Refuge. 2. The USFWS needs to earnestly explore with us conveyance and ownership options that include a reversion to the City if it is no longer needed as a Refuge. 3. We need a commitment that all parties will move expeditiously to get the EIS back on track and not do anything to unnecessarily or intentionally delay that from happening. 4. The USFWS needs to weigh in with BCDC on the Port Priority Designation on the 220 acres north of the proposed Refuge. In fact, the two areas actually overlap if the Refuge is 525 acres. If that is the case, perhaps this conflict will need to be determined through the Coastal Zone Consistency Determination and we do not know which act has priority, the Endangered Species Act or the Coastal Zone Consistency Determination. We consider it essential to economic reuse of the Naval Air Station that the Port Priority Designation be removed concurrent with your decision on the size of the refuge. We need assurance that the ARRA and the local community are going to be able to participate in the development of a Management Plan for the Refuge. We need to know this is going to be a "people- friendly ". Refuge, not just for the wildlife but for the public to enjoy as well — especially when the Least Tern is not nesting at NAS. For example, the Department of the Interior needs to commit to maintaining the trail through the Refuge. If the Refuge is 525 acres, neither ARRA nor the City of Alameda will contribute financially to the Refuge. That scenario does not leave us with enough developable property that we can commit to participating financially. We need a commitment that the USFWS will cooperate with us on compatible uses within the Refuge. For example, if we want to use the runway as an airfield or the bunkers for a revenue - producing use such as wine storage, USFWS should not impose undue restrictions that make it impossible to conduct these activities. Mr. John Garamendi October 31, 1996 Page 3 Again, we thank you for corning to NAS Alameda and we will look for a decision in the next three weeks after, you and Mr. Cassidy have had an opportunity to confer. Very truly yours, Ail L ()a/ Kay Miller Executive Director cc: William J. Cassidy, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy ARRA Governing Body Congressman Ronald V. Dellums, Att: Bob Brauer and Roberta Brooks Rob Wonder, Interim City Manager, City of Alameda Dave Ryan, Base Conversion Manager, EFA West Dale Hall, Asst. Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service Members ALAth1E1 RE i„ez_eic-) NT A UTHORI TY . / r B Chair Ralph Appezzato Mayor City of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 748 -4545 Fax: (510) 748 -4504 /Vice-Chair Sandre R. Swanson District Director for Congressman Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763 =0370 Fax: (510) 763 -6538 /Supervisor Wilma Chan Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3 1221 Oak Street, Suite #536 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 272 -6693 Fax: (510) 268 -8004 ayor Ellen M. Corbett City of San Leandro 835 E. 14th Street San Leandro, CA 94577 (510) 577 -3355 Fax: (510) 577 -3340 Mayor Elihu Harris Office of the Mayor City of Oakland 505 14th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238 -3141 Fax: (510) 238 -4731 0 Recycled paper Alternates Mr. Lee Perez Chairman of the BRAG 29 Seabridge Alameda, CA 94502 (510) 865 -7903 Fax: (510) 865 -5614 A-11,1 Ms. Roberta Brooks Senior Staff Member 9th Congressional District 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763 -0370 Fax: (510) 763 -6538 Mr. Mark Friedman Ms. Alice Hui, 2nd Alternate Alameda County Bd. of Supv., District 3 1221 Oak Street, Suite #536 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 272 -6693 Fax: (510) 268 -8004 Mr. Garry Loeffler Ms. Sheila Young, 2nd Alternate City of San Leandro 235 Begier Avenue San Leandro, CA 94577 (510) 667 -3592 Fax: (510) 568 -3028 /Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr. Jay Leonhardy, 2nd Alternate 238 -7081 Oakland City Hall 505 14th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238 -3266 Fax: (510) 238 -6938 October 1996 ouncilmember Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich City of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 340. Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 748 -4506 Fax: (510) 748 -4503 Home fax: 523 -2538 ouncilmember Albert H. DeWitt City of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Rm. 340 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 748 -4506 Fax: (510) 748 -4503 Home fax: 522 -8212 /ouncilmember Karin Lucas City of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Rm. 340 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 522 -0460 Fax: 522 -2465 Mr. Berresford Bingham Alameda Unified School District 420 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 380 -3568 Pager Fax: (510) 568 -3652 Mr. Lee Perez Chairman of the BRAG 29 Seabridge Alameda, CA 94502 (510) 865 -7903 Fax: (510) 865 -5614 0 Recycled paper Mr. Tony Daysog 146 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 251 -2600 Fax: (510) 251 -0600 Ms. Pattianne Parker 154 Basinside Way Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 521-3824 (hm) (510) 643 -8302 (wk) Fax: (510) 450 -1412 Other: 845 -0200 /41r. Greg Alves 1815 Clement Street Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 522 -6339 (hm) (415) 864 -2996 (wk) Fax: (415) 864 -2381 Ex- Officio Members Ms. Anna Elefant Alameda Unified School District 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 337 -7060 (District) Fax: (510) 522 -6926 Ms. Helen Sause 816 Grand Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 521 -3940 Fax: (415) 749 -2585 October 1996 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda; CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich Councilmember City of Alameda Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board of Supervisors tiry Chang, Jr. vakland Councilmember serving for Elihu Harris Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director ®Recycled paper October 7, 1996 CAPT Dick Clark Commanding Officer ISC Alameda Coast Guard Island, Bldg. 21 Alameda, CA 94501 -5100 Dear CAPTs Clark and Christensen: (510) 864-3400 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 CAPT Tom Christensen Navy Public Works Alameda Naval Air Station Bldg. 796 -2 Alameda, CA 94501 The ARRA and the Alameda Unified School District are extremely concerned that a smooth transition occurs between the Navy and the Coast Guard for the takeover of the Marina Village and North housing. The School District is especially concerned due to the steady decline of the student populations at Miller, Chipman and Woodstock schools. If the populations continue to decline or are projected to drop even further, AUSD will have to make a decision by March 1997 to close the schools in order to give adequate notice to teachers and other personnel who would have to be laid off due to the closure action. As you know, elementary students from Marina Village and North housing attend Miller School. Both the ARRA and the school district believe that the Navy and the Coast Guard should immediately agree that Coast Guard families receive first priority for move -in into the Marina Village and North housing and that Navy families who are still requesting housing be placed in East housing. Moving quickly and intentionally to get Coast Guard families into Marina Village and North housing may "save" Miller School. As we understand it, the current policy to give Navy families first priority will almost certainly result in the closure of Miller School. The housing units that feed into Miller School are filled with Navy families who will be moving on to other assignments over the next 8 -9 months and will most definitely be required to leave when the Navy shuts down the housing on July 31, 1997. That "drawdown" would most certainly necessitate the closure of Miller School. Then, as the Coast Guard families begin gradually to occupy the Marina Village and North housing units, the pressure will build to reopen Miller School. This is an untenable situation for the School District. Likewise, the ARRA has a very keen interest in the plans for a "seamless transition" and is concerned that even more units become abruptly vacant next spring and summer due to poor transition planning. Further, we have a direct interest in being a party to the discussions between the Navy and the Coast Guard because the ARRA will actually take title to the property and lease it back to the Coast Guard. As the potential ultimate property owner, we are very concerned that these units be in immediate productive reuse and not sit idol and deteriorate. CAPTs Clark and Christensen October 7, 1996 Page 2 Our particular concern is for North housing, which we recognize as less desirable to both Navy and Coast Guard families than Marina Village housing. If neither Navy nor Coast Guard families accept placement in this area, we could find ourselves with a high vacancy rate there similar to our current situation in East housing. We need to discuss what can be done to ensure this does not occur. For example, does the Coast Guard intend to institute a policy that requires their personnel to live in Coast Guard housing until it is fully occupied? For all these stated reasons and concerns, ARRA and the School District would like to meet with you and the appropriate people from your staffs to discuss and better understand your plans for this transition. I will be the point of contact for the ARRA and Ardella Dailey, Assistant to the Superintendent, will be the Alameda Unified School District representative. We propose to meet the week of October 21. Please call my assistant, Margaret Ensley, at 864 -3404 with your availability that week and she will coordinate the schedule with the School District. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, 7 . Kay Miller Executive Director KM:mee cc: Dennis Chacones, AUSD Superintendent Ardella Dailey, AUSD ARRA Governing Body Rob Wonder, Interim City Manager Norma Bishop, Base Transition Coordinator PROGRESS REPORT ON BUSINESS PLAN FOR ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM, INC. 1. The volunteer museum staff has kept the museum open from Fleet Week, October 1995 through Fleet Week, October 1996. Guest books indicate the number of visitors over this period. A conservative estimate of total visitors would be the number of signatures multiplied by three. If we could have charged admissions, we would have received $3 for each signature and made our estimated goal. 2. We have sold memberships in the museum at 5 for individuals, #45 for families. We are currently conducting a membership drive and seeking renewals. At present we have over 50 memberships and are increasing this number. 3. During the past year the museum has been open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. manned by volunteers. We have accepted donations. We have supported NAS special events. These events included two Fleet Weeks, the ceremony for the end of World War II, POW/MIA memorial day, Pan American anniversary, visit of the Japanese Fleet, the Model A car club visit, the DC-3 visit, the General Hap Arnold plane visit, and many other special events. We raised funds at each of these events. 4. We participated in a fund raiser at which Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldren was guest speaker. We sent out over 1,100 invitations. The dinner was #50 per person. We are to receive one-third of the proceeds after expenses. This event was a great success with over 300 buying tickets. 5. The museum is sponsoring a pancake breakfast at the Alameda Lutheran Church to be held on November 2, 1996. Tickets are $5. We hope that this too will be a fund raising success. 6. We are negotiating with officers of Western Air Museum to sublease part of Hangar 41 to obtain a steady income to help meet museum operating expenses. We hope that this effort will place something on the table which will forge a positive collaboration for the future. 7. We have applied for grants at the James Irvine Foundation, San Francisco Foundation, and the East Bay Community Foundation. We hope that in time we will qualify for start-up funding. 8. Our volunteers have painted the entire first floor of the museum and we have donated 35 gallons of paint and $200 of carpeting The labor for painting for three men took 120 hours for each man. At the minimum wage this is equal to $1800. 9. The Museum Gift Shop was opened in September 1996 with $1700 worth of merchandise. Sales for each weekend have averaged $300 each day that the gift shop was open. Our volunteer, Nita Rosen, was owner of the House of Lights in Alameda and has over 22 years of experience. Those who have seen the gift shop think that it is a great success.The gift shop has already earned back half the initial investment. 10. The museum has acquired a significant inventory in the from of showcases valued at from $500 to $3,000 each. These have been donated or purchased with donated funds. This inventory should be counted as an asset on the plus side of our ledger. 11. The hundreds of hours contributed by our volunteers are worth a good deal of money. These contributions should go to the plus side of our ledger. The volunteers worked in excess of 3,000 hours worth at minimum wage $15,000. 12. We plan to rent out conference room space to civic groups. This is a planned project to begin after the Navy leaves. 13. We plan to run a small coffee shop. Plans for this fund- raising effort have been hampered by the presence of Hornet members in that space. We still plan to pursue this idea once this space becomes available. 14. Additional fund raisers will be held in the future periodically. Town Meeting On Base Conversion of Alameda Naval Air Station November 13, 1996 7:00 P.M. at the Historic Alameda High School Cafeteria Find out the latest on base conversion plans for Alameda's newest neighborhood, Alameda Point. Hear about issues of public concern: ✓ Wildlife Refuge ✓ Restricted -Use Airfield ✓ Parks and Recreation ✓ Housing Strategy (including the proposed RV Park) ✓ Environmental Clean -Up ✓ Leasing Status Questions and answers will follow. the -- vs on am resentations. Come, hear, participate, be a part of the future of Alameda! BRAG Advisory Work Groups Chairman of the BRAG Lee Perez 865 -7903 Community Involvement Diane Lichtenstein 523 -1235 Economic Development Helen Sause 415/749 -2506 Education Ardella Daily 337 -0762 Environment Malcolm Mooney 522 -2258 Human Impact and Resources Larry Schulz 522 -6012 Housing Alice Garvin 748 -1763 Employment and Job Training Dan Meyers 521 -3323 Infrastructure Ken Hansen 444 -0515 Land Use Stephen Fee 415/434 -0320 Recreation Toby Chavez 522 -4479 Reuse Pattianne Parker 521 -3824 Base Conversion Office Postal Directory, Bldg #90 NAS Alameda 94501 Phone: 864 -3412 Fax: 521 -3764 Town Meeting Sponsored by BRAG Visit BRAG and Tour the Base on the Internet: http://www.fhso.navy.mil/brag