Loading...
1997-05-07 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda High School Cafeteria West Wing, Historic Alameda High School Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Wednesday, May 7, 1997 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 or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular and special meetings of March 5, 1997. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of March 15, 1997. 2 -C. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting of April 1, 1997. 2 -D. Recommending the appointment of Ardella Daily to serve as the AUSD representative to the BRAG and Chair of the Education Work Group. 2 -E. Report from the Executive Director recommending the adoption of a resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to represent the ARRA and submit the application for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -F. Report and recommendation by the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for the proposed 1997 budget for ARRA lease revenue. 3 -G. Report and recommendation that the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to enter into an MOU with the CIC— subject to ratification by both CIC and ARRA —to conduct an RFP process to select a developer to purchase the East housing for development. 3 -H. Report from the Executive Director on the background and current status of the Pan Pacific University (PPU) use proposed for a 65 -acre site at NAS Alameda and recommendation that the PPU use proposal be terminated and an alternative use be found for the 65 -acre site. ARRA Agenda - May 7, 1997 Page 2 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -I. Briefing by Rajappan & Meyer on transportation access limitations and impacts on development potential. 4 -J. Oral Report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. 4 -K. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: 1. Airfield workshop on June 4; 2. BCDC Port Priority designation; 3. Alameda Naval Air Museum application; 4. ARRA move to Building #1; 5. Housing lay -up; 6. Leaseback of housing to Coast Guard; 7. MARAD /Trident contracts consummated; 8. EDA grant funding; 9. Economic Development Conveyance negotiations; 10. Update on the Hornet Foundation; 11. NAS Commissary closing July 26; 12. Refuge management plan; and, 13. NAS Alameda post closure gate access and security plans. 4 -L. Oral Report from Executive Director (non- discussion items). 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. This meeting will be taped for broadcast on cable channel 22 on the following evening, Thursday, May 8 at 7:30 p.m. Next ARRA meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 4, 1997. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, March 5, 1997 The meeting convened at 5:48 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 2 -A 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Roberta Brooks, alternate to Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, . Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (left at 6:40 p.m. and was replaced by Mark Friedman, alternate) Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr./Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro (arrived at 5:56 p.m.) Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Greg Alves, alternate to Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda John Abrate, alternate to Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Tim Haffey, alternate to Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda; member Daysog arrived at 6:45 p.m. Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group Absent: Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District Chair Appezzato welcomed the new Assistant City Attorney. City Attorney Carol Korade then introduced Teresa L. Highsmith, who will be providing legal counsel to the A.RRA. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting of February 5, 1997. Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 5, 1997. Alternate Friedman seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Corbett (alternate Ornelas arrived at 5:56 p.m.). 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -B. Report from the Executive Director recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize negotiations and execute a five -year lease with Quality Assured Products, Inc. (QAP) with a five -year option to extend. After discussion, Alternate Friedman moved approval of the recommendation that the Executive Director finalize negotiations with QAP and execute a five -year lease with a five -year option to extend. Member DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote -9. ®Printed on recycled paper 1 C: \MARGARET\ARRA \MINUTES \3- 5 -97.MIN 3 -C. Proposed amendments to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Rules and Procedures and recommendation on the appointment of the Economic Development Chair, Land Use Chair, and City board and commission representatives. BRAG Chair Lee Perez explained that the BRAG Rules and Procedures had not been updated since the jurisdiction change from the City of Alameda to the ARRA. He then provided the reasoning behind the various recommendations. Comments and questions from the governing body were addressed by BRAG Chair Perez and Carol Korade, City Attorney. Alternate Alves stated that he . respects and has faith in the BRAG's work; however, 17 members is unwieldy and the stipulation that was removed which required BRAG members be Alameda residents might result in a committee of people who do not represent Alameda. Alternate Leonhardy moved approval of the proposed amendments to the BRAG Rules and Procedures and the appointment of the Economic Development Chair, Land Use Chair, and City board and commission representatives. Alternate Friedman seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2 - Alves and Abrate. Absent: 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -D. Oral report from David Vandeveer, VZM and Linda Hausrath, Hausrath Economics on the results of the Container Port Feasibility Study. David Vandeveer, Vice President of VZM (Vickerman • Zachary • Miller) and Linda Hausrath of the Hausrath Economics Group presented the results of the Container Port Feasibility Study. This study was commissioned by the EBCRC to determine if a container port facility at the 220 -acre NAS Alameda site is technically, economically, and institutionally feasible. The study concluded that the site was not feasible for a container port facility, with primary factors including: (1) it is not technically or economically feasible for several reasons, primarily due the lack of access to and from the island, hence, the added costs of access infrastructure and operations to move cargo across the Estuary; (2) vehement opposition from the ARRA and the community; (3) potential U.S. Fish & Wildlife Refuge incompatibility; and, (4) institutional barriers of operating a port in an unreceptive host community and apparent lack of interest by the Port of Oakland in operating outside their boundaries. Speakers: Jon Rodgers, an Alameda citizen, stated he has 20 years in the business and while there is growth in containerized ports, traffic considerations in Alameda make it infeasible. Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, discussed transportation alternatives and suggested the internet be used to inform people what is going on at Alameda NAS. James A. Brown, an Alameda citizen, stated that Alameda is not the right location for a container terminal due to transportation problems getting containers and trailer through the streets of Alameda. Earl Peacock, an Alameda retiree from the Corp of Engineers, stated that money for a bridge can be obtained from the federal government and someone should be appointed to explore the possibility. Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing, stated that ships will become 50 percent bigger and they should be able to accommodate the rising cargo needs. Alternate Friedman stated that it was an excellent report. He thanked the EBCRC and Congressman Dellums' office for getting the study funded and he hoped that BCDC will now agree to lift the port Printed on recycled paper 2 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES\3- 5- 97.MIN priority designation. Chair Appezzato seconded Alternate Friedman's remarks. Member DeWitt made a motion to accept the report. The motion was seconded by Alternate Brooks and passed by unanimous voice vote - 9. 4 -E. Oral report from Neal Fishman on the Coastal Conservancy's Dredge Material Reuse Project. Mr. Fishman discussed the Dredged Material Reuse Project, which will help select one or more upland sites where material dredged from San Francisco Bay can be used as a resource. The project will determine the areas with the highest environmental or economic benefits. NAS Alameda is one of four potential sites they would like to investigate further. Chair Appezzato asked if the Coastal Conservancy would provide written assurance that the results of the study will not be imposed on the City of Alameda without the City's approval. Mr. Fishman indicated that the Coastal Conservancy has no power to impose their will either on the ARRA or BCDC; they do all their projects in concert with communities. Member Daysog acknowledged that their might be potential economic benefit to the ARRA. Due to the proximity of NAS, much of the dredge material would undoubtedly come from the estuary. He suggested that the positive economic benefit to the City of Oakland from depositing the dredge materials locally would provide a negotiating card in substantive discussions with the Port of Oakland on airport expansion and overflights. Member DeWitt made a motion to accept the report. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by unanimous voice vote - 9. 4 -F. Oral Report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. BRAG Chair Lee Perez voiced the BRAG's concern to protect the least tern and what security will be provided after the Navy leaves in April. Discussions are being held with environmental groups and Mal Mooney, the Environmental Chair, is working with all parties. BRAG is also working on the issue of Pan Pacific University to address their specific concerns. The Aviation Task Force will foimulate their position on a limited use airfield after incorporating information from the financial analysis that Economic & Planning Systems will present at the Financing Workshop on March 15. Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, requested that ARRA contact people in Washington to ask them to consider NAS Alameda for the UCSF research hospital expansion, which would create 12,700 jobs. 4 -G. Oral report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA. Executive Director Kay Miller reported that she and Chair Appezzato had met with OEA officials on the trip back to Washington and as a result, the Golf Course Feasibility Study and the Airport Management Study had been reconsidered and would be funded. The EDA grant had been approved at the regional and federal level and ARRA has been formally invited to apply by the end of March. Hopefully, the grant award can be announced at the base closure ceremony and construction can begin in August. As a reminder, the Financing Workshop will be held on March 15 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; no decisions will be made, this is just an informational workshop. The NAID conference in Washington, which included representatives from base closures across the country as well as officials from the Department of Defense, Congress members, etc., highlighted that many of the frustrations we are encountering in the closure process are shared by other bases. During the € Printed on recycled paper 3 C: \MARGARET\ARRA \MINUTES \3- 5 -97.MIN trip to Washington, Executive Director Miller attended meetings with HUD and the Veterans' Administration seeking funds to provide an off -site solution for Operation Dignity. Executive Director Miller stated that meetings have been held with City officials and the Navy on the Cooperative Services Agreement (CSA) and the Navy is to provide a written commitment by March 18. Chair Appezzato thanked Dave Ryan and his staff at EFA West who have been working with the City to finalize the CSA. He stated that the Navy has committed to $4.5 million from now through September 30, 1997 and $8.7 million for the next fiscal year. Pan Pacific University has voiced concerns about restrictions surrounding the Tidelands Trust. PPU, State Lands, and ARRA staff will be meeting with the State Lands Commission later this month to clarify the restrictions. The BRAG task force working on the restricted use airfield issue has suspended work until they receive information from the Financing Workshop and a statement from Fish & Wildlife that a restricted use airport will be allowed to operate on the refuge. There are several serious proposals for air shows and the pressure is mounting for a decision on the airfield issue. Joe Davis has requested permission from the Navy for a demonstration project for three weeks around base closure. Historic aircraft would be flow in, offering an opportunity for voluntary noise monitoring to assess the real impact on the community. Alternate Brooks asked for a time frame when a recommendation would be made by the BRAG. BRAG Vice -Chair Helen Sause stated that they were only waiting for the financial information and the letter. Alternate Brooks offered the help of Congressman Dellums' office in obtaining the letter from Fish & Wildlife. The appraiser has been chosen for the Public Trust appraisal and that project can go forward. Executive Director Miller next made announcements not for discussion, including (1) Conflict of Interest forms are due to the ARRA office and (2) the Navy must make a decision about the lay -up (boarding up) of housing while they still have the manpower. The Interim City Manager will be sending a communication to the City Council. Any questions from the ARRA can be referred to her or the Interim City Manager. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Daniel Roberts, representing Alameda Analytical Services Company, spoke in favor of a limited use airfield, stating that it would allow the materials handling facility to reopen, starting with eight jobs and working up to fifty. Ronald T. Reuther, Gratz Powers, Jon Rogers, and Bill Smith yielded their time to Joe Davis. Joe Davis, Nimitz Field, stated that negative press on the airfield has resulted from misinformation. All flight patterns would be over the bay and none would be over Alameda. He would like to do a real presentation to the ARRA with questions from the ARRA and the public. Lamon B. Seim, UNC/LSI Aviation Services yielded his time to Ron Mixon. Robert L. Mixon, Mixon, Wicks, Byrdsong & Associates (formerly UARCO) stated that Ultimate Aerospace could provide 104 -160 annual jobs within five years. He provided estimates of income, possible operating hours, and size and type of aircraft that could be accommodated. Kurt R. Bohan, Kaylor Energy Products, stated that hangars should not be leased to industries that do not promote jobs or a sense of community; airfield- related jobs will give citizens their lives back. Bob Garzee, Chairman of Synergy EV, Inc., spoke in favor of a limited use airfield, stating that the largest single use of electric vehicles is at airports. ®Printed on recycled paper 4 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA \MINUTES\3- 5- 97.MIN Barbara Baack, Alameda Naval Air Museum, spoke in favor of the limited use airport, as it would compliment the Museum by tying in the history of flight with actual demonstrations, produce jobs for displaced workers, and protect the air space above Alameda. Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, announced meeting schedules. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Chair Appezzato thanked the aviation community for demonstrating their support. Member Daysog said that he was heartened to see the meetings being televised. Sam Broadnax, asked that he be heard, as he had turned in a speaker's slip. Chair Appezzato recognized him. Mr. Broadnax represents the Tuskeegee Airmen, who have turned in a proposal for an air show. He stated that after baseball, air shows produce the second highest attendance rates, attracting 1.8 million people per year at $5 —$7 per ticket, plus earnings by vendors and area restaurants and other businesses. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MargarLt E. Ensley ARRA Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. OPrinted on recycled paper 5 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \3- 5- 97.MIN UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAIVIEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, March 5, 1997 Carol Korade, City Attorney, clarified that this meeting complied with the Brown Act, being properly noticed and placed on the agenda. However, to insure the ARRA's internal rules and regulations were followed, she wanted to clarify that the Chair concurred with the meeting being called. The meeting convened at 8:30 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 2 -A 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Roberta Brooks, alternate to Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supv., District 3 Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr./Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Greg Alves, alternate to Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda John Abrate, alternate to Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group. Absent: Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - None. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -A. Authorizing the Chairman of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to write a letter indicating the ARRA's interest in participating in the Coastal Conservancy's Dredge Materials Reuse Project. Chair Appezzato asked that a letter not be written at this point but that he, as Mayor of the City of Alameda, will attend the Seaport Advisory Committee meeting on March 18 to listen, discuss, and report back to the ARRA on all discussion. Alternate Leonhardy so moved. The motion was seconded by Alternate Abrate. Alternate Brooks stated that this item had been agendized because it is the utmost priority to get the 220 -acre designation for a container port lifted. There is a concern that the Seaport Advisory Committee may not want to lift that designation in order to insure that dredge spoils can be dumped here. Her intention in advocating participation in the dredge materials reuse study is to separate the issue of dredge spoils from the port priority designation. Her hope is that this would provide Mayor Appezzato with ammunition to show BCDC that removing the designation does not preclude Alameda from accepting dredge materials. Alternate Friedman said that the ARRA should empower the Mayor to go as their representative to discuss this issue and, if it serves the purpose of getting the seaport designation removed, to proceed with the study. Chair Appezzato clarified that Alternate Friedman was saying that if they agree to lift the seaport designation, it is the ARRA's choice to SPrinted on recycled paper 1 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES\3 -5- SPC.MIN allow the study and it will be the sole choice of the City to make a final decision on whether or not to accept dredge spoils. BRAG Vice -Chair Helen Sause stated that the BRAG heard Mr. Fishman's presentation on the dredge spoils study at its last meeting. Their position is that participating in the study would provide the information needed to assess whether it would benefit the City. Chair Appezzato then stated that if BCDC lifts the seaport designation, the decision on whether to proceed with accepting dredge spoils rests with the City based solely on the benefit to the City. Member Daysog concurred that the issue of lifting the seaport designation needed to be separated from the dredge materials issue. Nonetheless, he stated that he is convinced it is the Port of Oakland who would like to place their dredge spoils on the site as it is in their economic interest to do so. At the same time, it is in the ARRA's best interest to negotiate very strenuously with the Port of Oakland in regard to the airport expansion and the flight overpass. Chair Appezzato clarified the motion: "If I get a guarantee that they will lift the seaport designation, you are empowering me to say, `study it and let us see how the study comes out'." The clarification was accepted by Alternate Leonhardy and Alternate Abrate. The motion passed unanimously - 9. 4. ORAL REPORTS - None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) - None. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY - None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margar=t E. Ensley ARRA Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. ®Printed on recycled paper l C:\MARGARET ARRA\MINUTES\3- 5- SPC.MIN UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP ARRA/BRAG FINANCING WORKSHOP — Saturday, March 15, 1997 At 8:48 a.m., Chair Appezzato asked if the roll had been noted for the ARRA and the BRAG. The ARRA secretary indicated that the roll had been noted. ROLL CALL - ARRA Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Roberta Brooks, alternate to Vice - Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (left at 9:50 a.m. and replaced by alternate Mark Friedman, who left at 10:37 a.m.) Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 8:54 a.m.) Greg Alves, alternate to Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 9:17 a.m.) Absent: Henry Chang, Jr., alternate to Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro ROLL CALL - BRAG Present: Lee Perez, Chair (left at 10:37 a.m.) Helen Sause, Vice -Chair (arrived at 9:27 a.m.) Diane Lichtenstein, Community Involvement Chair Nancy Heastings, Economic. Development Chair Ardella Dailey, alternate to Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District (arrived at 8:54 a.m.) Malcolm Mooney, Environment Chair Alice Garvin, Housing Chair Ken Hansen, Infrastructure Chair Joan Konrad, Land Use Chair Pattianne Parker, Reuse Chair Doug deHaan, Economic Development Commission Representative Absent: Dan Meyers, Employment & Job Training Chair Larry Schulz, Human Impact & Resources Chair Toby Chavez, Recreation Chair Beverly Follrath - Johnson, Planning Board Representative WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Kay Miller welcomed the participants and observers and introduced the topic. CONSULTANT PRESENTATION Jim Musbach of Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) outlined the purpose and provided a general overview of the presentation. Bonnie Fisher, ROMA, discussed site development opportunities and constraints, including regulatory and environmental considerations, conveyC:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \3- 15- 97.MINance options, and base case development with and without a new estuary crossing. ®Printed on recycled paper 1 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES\3- 15- 97.MIN Jim Musbach, EPS, outlined the financial implications of the base case based on the Community Reuse Plan, including a development program with and without a new estuary crossing, market potentials and absorption, phasing of infrastructure and land packages, base case key assumptions, financial results by conveyance type, the economic development conveyance (by phase), and possible "gap" funding sources. At 9:46 a.m., Chair Appezzato officially convened the meeting with a majority of ARRA and BRAG members present. A base case question and answer session followed with consultants, ARRA planner D. Paul Tuttle, and Executive Director Miller answering questions from both the ARRA and BRAG board members. After a short break from 10:37 a.m. -10:45 a.m., Jim Musbach presented scenarios on (1) changing the port development conveyance to an EDC conveyance; (2) using the civic core for an R &D complex instead of a university; (3) operating a limited use airport; (4) developing a conference center in the Northwest Territories; (5) alternative leasing and redevelopment strategies for the East Housing; and, (6) conveying the golf course and recreation facilities to the City of Alameda via a Public Benefit Conveyance. Questions from the ARRA/BRAG boards were answered. PUBLIC COMMENT William John Smith, Sierra Club, urged the ARRA and BRAG to look at Alameda's island status as an opportunity not a constraint, focusing on ferry service, buses, BART, and streetcars to meet transportation needs. Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing, discussed the possibilities of electric trams coupled together magnetically to provide transportation. Bill Tuohy, EBCRC, discussed the disposition of the housing and the cost to administrate the base. ADJOURNMENT Chair Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, a Marg E. Ensley ARRA Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. @Printed on recycled paper 2 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA \MINUTES\3- 15- 97.MIN APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, April 1, 1997 The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Absent: Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 Henry Chang for Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - None. 3. ACTION ITEMS 2 -C 3 -A. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to expend revenues derived from interim leases for routine and emergency maintenance, port insurance, and a base closure media event pending adoption of a lease revenue budget. Executive Director Miller stated that the full budget for lease revenue would be brought before the ARRA in May. This interim request was to provide operating funds to perform routine and emergency maintenance on leased buildings, to expend up to $80,000 to purchase insurance to cover personal property at the piers at NAS Alameda necessary to proceed to consummating the lease with the Maritime Administration and the contract with Trident to operate the piers. Finally, the base closure event offers an opportunity for media exposure on reuse activities and consultant help is needed to help organize those activities and events. Speaker Neil Patrick Sweeney had placed a speaker's slip; however, he was not present when called. Chair Appezzato thanked the City Manager, staff, and Reuse Authority, stating that the budget being presented at the May ARRA meeting did not rely on the General Fund but would be paid out of lease revenues. This was a milestone that showed that the Base conversion may be very successful After a brief discussion, Karin Lucas moved approval of the motion, which was seconded by Tony Daysog. The motion passed unanimously - 5. Absent - 4. &f Printed on recycled paper 1 C: \MARGARET\ARRA \MINUTES \4 -1- SPC.MIN Executive Director Miller provided the ARRA with copies of the new marketing brochure 4. ORAL REPORTS - None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) - None. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Member Lucas requested a status report on Pan Pacific University (PPU) be presented by staff off - agenda prior to the next ARRA meeting. She stated that it had been clear for months that PPU cannot meet any of their obligations, financial or otherwise. She asked that the status report include what the staff recommends be done with the 65 acres now that they will now not be used by PPU and what the staff proposes to do to avoid such serious mistakes in the future. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mar:. E. Ensley ARRA Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. ©Printed on recycled paper 2 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \4- 1- SPC.MIN Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 30, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority r'ROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 2 -D SUBJ: Recommending the appointment of Ardella Dailey to serve as the AUSD representative to the BRAG and Chair of the Education Work Group. Background: When the BRAG was originally formed by the City Council, the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) recommended Berresford Bingham to serve as their representative on the BRAG. The AUSD representative also served as the Chair of the BRAG Education Subcommittee. Ardella Dailey has served as an alternate for Mr. Bingham on this subcommittee. Discussion: By the attached letter, the AUSD board has approved the appointment of Ardella Dailey to the BRAG. The BRAG considered this recommendation at its April 16 meeting and unanimously recommended the appointment. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff and BRAG recommend the appointment of Ardella Dailey to serve as the AUSD representative to the BRAG and as chair of the Education Work Group. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Attachment: April 8 letter from AUSD C:\MARG ARET\A RRA \STAFF -RE. PRT\DAILEY -A.PPT Alameda Unified School District We Serve Children April 8, 1997 Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse/Redevelopment Authority Bldg. #90, Naval Air Station Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Kay: Superintendent's Office located in: Historic Alameda High School 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, California 94501 (510) 337-7060 Fax (510) 522-6926 Dennis K. Chaconas, Superintendent Please be advised that the Board of Education of the Alameda Unified School District unanimously approved the appointment of Ardella Dailey to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), representing the Education Work Group, effective immediately. This action was taken at the Board meeting of March 25, 1997 as shown on the attached agenda. If you have any questions regarding the abov ,n,please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 337 -7060. DKC:bt De Supe • • \ Schoo RECEIVED APR 1 1 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA "Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future. " J. F. Kennedy Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 30, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 2 -E SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director recommending the adoption of a resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to represent the ARRA and submit the application for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. Background: The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) authorized the ARRA's Executive Director to apply for a $3 million grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to upgrade eight buildings at the Alameda Naval Air Station. The EDA has now formally invited the ARRA to apply for the grant; therefore, the ARRA is now eligible to submit an application to the California Trade and Commerce Agency for a California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. The ARRA has twice before applied for and been awarded California Defense Adjustment Matching Grants to assist the ARRA comply with the twenty -five percent local match requirement on all federal grants. The attached resolution authorizes the ARRA's Executive Director to represent the ARRA and apply for the state matching grant money. Discussion/Analysis: The ARRA is eligible to apply for a $300,000 California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. There is a limited amount of state funding available and the ARRA will lose some points in the competition for having received previous grant awards. Fiscal Impact: EDA requires a $1 million cash match for the $3 million EDA construction grant —the total project cost to upgrade the eight buildings is $4 million. If the ARRA is awarded the $300,000 state matching grant, the remaining $700,000 of the local match required will come from lease revenue. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA adopt the attached resolution authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to represent the ARRA and apply to the California Trade and Commerce Agency for a California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. Respectfully submitted, V1Aa: Lt-04 � Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment:. Resolution No. 021 ALAMEDA REUSE AND RED V NO. QMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUT OOR THE (ARRA) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO REPRESENT THE ARRA TO APPLY CALIFORNIA TRADE AND CMATCHING GRANT CALIFORNIA DEFENSE ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program operated by the California Trade and Commerce Agency 1f deral� funding forede defense-related economic grant funds required of communities seeking adjustment strategies and programs; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is Defense Adjustment to the California Trade and Commerce Agency for a $300,000 California D Adjustment Grant; and WHEREAS, the California Trade and Commerce Agency requires the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority authorize application to the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the California Trade and Commerce Agency n requires iem the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority authorize California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Reuse and Redevelopment Authority concerning Program application and the grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda Reuse and powered Redevelopment Authority that the ARRA Executive Director is hereby Reuse and Redevelopment to apply, approve, sign and execute in t he name of the Alameda Authority any documents necessary for applying to receive funding under the California Trade and Commerce Agency's California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program. * * * * * * I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular meeting, assembled on the 7th day of May, 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Margaret E. Ensley Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Date: May 7, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 30, 1997 TO: The Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 3 -F SUBJ: Report and recommendation by the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for the proposed 1997 budget for ARRA lease revenue. Background: The ARRA's net lease and license revenue for the remainder of 1997, including rent rebates to tenants who advanced funds for building shell upgrades, is forecast to be $922,540. The ARRA's lease revenue account balance as of March 31, 1997 was $221,357. The total of projected revenue plus current balance at the end of 1997 is $1,277,897. Submitted for the ARRA's approval are the proposed budget expenditures for 1997. Discussion: Following is the proposed budget for the anticipated lease revenues. Economic Development Administration (EDA) Local Match Requirement (1997) $450,000 The ARRA has received pre- application approval from the EDA for a $3 million construction grant for building upgrades. The required local match is $1 million. (The total project cost to upgrade the buildings is $4 million.) Approximately 50 percent of the building upgrades will be completed by the end of 1997; therefore, the ARRA will need to provide 50 percent of the required $1 million in local match. ARRA Office Budget $144,000 As is its practice with Local Redevelopment Authorities, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) reduced the ARRA's budget request to 75 percent for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997/98, creating an operating deficit of $78,000. Staff proposes that this deficit be made up from lease revenues. In addition, we recommend that ARRA staff positions that receive a City contribution on top of the OEA funding should be shifted to the lease revenues. This will create City ARRA budget savings through January 1998 of $66,000 that can then be used to cover costs that cannot legally be covered from interim lease revenue per the Department of Defense (e.g., negotiation expenses for Economic Development Conveyance [EDC] for NAS Alameda). Port Insurance $80,000 This insurance is required for the ARRA to have operating port/marina activities at NAS Alameda. This was authorized by the ARRA at its April 1, 1997 meeting. Facility Property Management, Maintenance, and Contingency $300,000 This includes expenses in advance of leasing and expenses in connection with property management. These expenses include improvements to fire safety systems, roofs, meter installation, sprinkler system upgrades, routine building/systems repairs, emergency repairs, routine maintenance, equip- Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 2 ment appraisals, etc. Of this figure, $25,000 was approved by the ARRA at its April 1, 1997 meeting. Banking NAS Air Credits $8,000 The total consultant cost to bank NAS air credits for future use or sale is $26,000. Staff has identified $18,000 in City ARRA savings that are eligible to be used for this purpose; therefore, $8,000 is still needed to cover the cost. Once banked, it is anticipated the market value of the banked credits will provide $150,000 in future revenue. This expenditure was authorized at the April 1, 1997 meeting. Base Closure Media Event $6,000 To hire a media consultant to coordinate a media event with NAS base closure ceremonies to focus on interim and long -range reuse plans for NAS Alameda. This was approved by the ARRA at its April 1, 1997 meeting. Construction Manager $25,000 To ensure that construction work can commence as soon as the $3 million EDA grant is funded, staff proposes hiring a construction management firm for a couple of months to complete the preliminary work. This would include the development of specific plans for bid packages to be included in RFPs for the first set of buildings to be upgraded. If final approval of the grant comes sooner than anticipated, funding may not be needed or may be reimbursable. Assistant Facilities Manager $75,000 ARRA staff is requesting an additional assistant facilities manager to assist with the building inquiries, tours, licenses, tenant/Navy requirements problems, and lease negotiations. Total salary not to exceed $56,218 and total benefits not to exceed $18,073. Additional ARRA Clerical Support $25, 000 With the addition of an assistant facilities manager, hiring of a full -time planner, and the anticipated EDA grant for building upgrades, ARRA will need additional clerical support. The proposed budget amount will allow staff to hire temporary help or upgrade an existing support staff position to provide enhanced clerical support. Deconstruction Demonstration Project $24,000 This expenditure will help finance a pilot project sponsored by EBCRC involving the deconstruction of seven wood -frame structures. The project cost will be less than the cost of standard demolition and will divert deconstructed material from landfill. The work will be done by a Homeless Collaborative member organization, thereby helping the ARRA to meet the homeless employment goals specified in the Standards of Reasonableness. A copy of the EBCRC proposal is attached that also discusses their other sources of funding. Support to Community Development Department for the East Housing Solicitation $75,000 The budget reflects the amount of money that CDD projects will be necessary in this calendar year to begin the solicitation for developers for the East Housing area. Additional funding will be needed in 1998 to complete the developer selection process. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 3 Reserve $65,897 TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET $1,277,897 Fiscal Impact: It is anticipated there will be sufficient lease revenue to cover the proposed expenses. No impact on the general fund. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA approve the proposed lease revenue budget for 1997. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachment: EBCRC deconstruction proposal K,`R211997 ARRA ALAMED° March 20, 1997 The East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission 1333 Broadway, Suite 1020 • Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 834 -6928 • Fax: (510) 834 -8913 Ms. Kay Miller Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Postal Directory, Bldg. 90 NAS Alameda Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Dear Kay: As you.know, through the efforts of the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda has received designation by the Office of Economic Adjustment as a national demonstration site for deconstruction. This on -going project is designed to explore the opportunities for using deconstruction, the careful dismantling of buildings in order to salvage building materials, as an alternative to traditional demolition on closing military bases. The enclosed Proposal and Recommendations Regarding Building Deconstruction at NAS Alameda prepared for EBCRC by our Deconstruction Demonstration Project Consultants is part of this effort. EBCRC and its consultants request that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) consider funding the deconstruction of all or some of the buildings included in this proposal. For the full proposed amount of $24,244 this project will deconstruct seven small structures. This pilot project has been designed to provide job training in deconstruction to homeless adults, which is applicable to employment in the construction fields. In addition, deconstruction is more cost effective than demolition would be for the same buildings. A comparison of deconstruction costs versus demolition costs per building is included in the attached spreadsheet. This project has several direct benefits to the ARRA: • Utilizing deconstruction as a job training opportunity will allow the ARRA to economically remove unwanted buildings. • Contracting with BOSS to perform this work will assist the ARRA in meeting the homeless hiring goal established by the Standards of Reasonableness. By utilizing careful deconstruction techniques, nearly all of the component materials of these buildings can be diverted from landfill and reused, assisting the City in its efforts to meet the municipal waste reduction goals established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. ,Oft404 Recvcled EBCRC and its consultants will provide tested deconstruction contract language to the ARRA and will only require the addition of boilerplate contract language • EBCRC and its consultants will have available an experienced deconstruction contractor to provide technical assistance, should the need arise. EBCRC is satisfied that BOSS, the proposed contractor to perform the deconstruction, is suitably qualified for this work. We appreciate the ARRA's involvement and support of this project to date, including Ed Levine's April 1, 1996 letter of support to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Kay Miller's June 27, 1996 letter of support to the City of Alameda's Recycling Department. I understand that there is a possibility of funding this proposal through lease revenues or the ARRA's current Economic Development Administration building upgrade grant. We look forward to continuing this mutually productive collaboration to explore deconstruction opportunities at NAS. Please feel free to call me or my assistant, Lisa Geller, if you have any questions. Evonne Chen Executive Director cc: Ed Levine att. MAR 19 '97 16:51 CEC Center for Economic Conversion MEMO Date: March 19, 1997 To: Evonne Chen, Executive Director, EBCRC From: Base Deconstruction Demonstration Project Consultants Re: Proposal and Recommendations to ARRA regarding Building Deconstruction @NAS P.2. This document has been prepared as part of a proposal to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the support of a model deconstruction project at NAS Alameda. It contains: 1) a brief rationale for favoring deconstruction over demolition. 2),information about the process. of selecting specific buildings for the model deconstruction project. 3) assistance to be provided to the ARRA Attachments: A) spreadsheet indicating the type, costs and time needed to dismantle the selected buildings as provided by the potential deconstruction contractor. B) information about and qualifications of the deconstruction contractor. 1) The EBCRC and its consulting team (the Center for Economic Conversion, the Materials for the Future Foundation, the National Economic Development and Law Center and Pavitra Crimmel, our technical expert) are exploring deconstruction opportunities on closing military bases in the region for a number of important reasons. First, recognizing that hundreds of obsolete buildings will have to be removed as former bases convert to new civilian uses, there is concern that relying on traditional demolition will impose serious negative environmental burdens, particularly on local landfills. Fortunately, an alternative exists, namely deconstruction, (the process of carefully dismantling buildings) which allows materials to be salvaged, reused and recycled, providing significant environmental advantages. Equally important is the fact that building deconstruction is generally more economically productive than demolition. It not only provides more jobs, it returns useful materials to the economy through the sale of salvaged and /or upgraded goods. And in terms of costs, deconstruction can be less expensive than demolition. In the present instance, the project has been designed to: MAR 19 '97 16:51 CEC P.3 a). provide job training in deconstruction • b) be more cost effective than demolition would be for the same buildings 2) For several months, the EBCRC consulting team has been working with the military and the ARRA to identify appropriate buildings for the model deconstruction project. The criteria for selection were: buildings designated level 6 or 7, buildings with salvageable materials (and little or no asbestos or lead paint remediation required) and buildings suitable for training new workers in the techniques of deconstruction. Where required, we have drawn .on the expertise of outside consultants to provide us with building surveys and cost analyses. • This project has been designed to provide employment training in deconstruction to homeless adults which will assist the ARRA in meeting the homeless hiring goal established by the Standards of Reason. Having determined that BOSS (Better Opportunities for Self Support) is qualified to perform the deconstruction work and is supported in this project by the Alameda Homeless Collaborative, we invited managers and representatives from BOSS to visit the designated buildings and prepare a bid to deconstruct them. The attached spreadsheet provides a list of the buildings selected, as well as BOSS's cost and time estimates. The agency's profit will be derived from the sale of the materials salvaged. It is understood that the pricing excludes all concrete removal or demolition, that electrical power will be available at each location and that toilet facilities will be in close proximity. 3. We encourage ARRA to choose all or some of the buildings listed in the spreadsheet to deconstruct according to its present needs. The EBCRC and its consultants will assist in developing the contract language and have available an experienced deconstruction contractor to provide technical assistance. The EBCRC's consultants will also document the economic and environmental benefits of the model project. (Attachments A and B follow) U. (1 4 1 . k s F,i lit 7 P t a d % s a & A t ii A 11. la it i a a 'I a i il E- vfr. Ph 00 90 5 3 a a cf) 1.4 co) t A4111 Fi P g 62 pt } 4,, co • v 4ualutp'931 2201 Fourth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 phone: (510) 841 -WORK (9675) fax: (510) 841 -7948 March 11, 1997 Kivi Leroux Materials for the Future Presidio Building Suite 222 PO Box 29091 San Francisco CA 94129 -0991 Statement of Qualifications: BOSS Enterprises BOSS Enterprises is a licensed, bonded and insured General Building Contractor. Established in July 1996, the Enterprise group is affiliated with BOSS Inc. a non -profit social service agency with a twenty -five year history of providing innovative services to East Bay clients. The formation of BOSS Enterprise was the culmination of three years of research and development. One of the cornerstones of the new business was that it must build its reputation on an experienced core group. Consequently, the current BOSS Enterprise staff is comprised of personnel with diverse and rich construction experience. General Manager: Eron Ersch Exp.: 19 years experience in the construction field. Licensed General and Painting contractor. Master's of Science and Master's of Engineering from UC Berkeley Civil Engineering Dept., Construction Management Specialty. Project types range from residential wood frame construction to an airport expansion project in Japan. Training Coordinator/ Project Manager: David Josselyn Exp.: 9 years direct construction experience. Journey -level carpenter, demolition and foundation to finish work, primarily on wood frame construction. Currently, Mr. Josselyn is instituting the training regime for BOSS trainees. .'fikCoVED MAR 2 1 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA ' StaERPR'S 2201 Fourth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 phone: (510) 841 -WORK (9675) fax: (510) 841 -7948 Carpenters: Patrick McGonagle and Jack Batsel 15+ years ea.: Each carpenter is or has been a licensed general contractor. Extensive experience in all phases of wood frame construction from demolition to finish work. Experience as a foreman and crew leader. Laborers: Various individuals. Currently composed of former BOSS clients, typical helpers have 1 -5 years of construction experience. Thank you for your assistance in this process. If you have further questions please contact me at 510 - 8419675. Sincerely, ll L` Er/on Ersch General Manager BOSS Enterprises Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 30, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 3 -G SUBJ: Report and recommendation that the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to enter into an MOU with the CIC— subject to ratification by both CIC and ARRA —to conduct an RFP process to select a developer to purchase the East housing for development. Background: At its January 6, 1997 meeting, the ARRA governing body directed staff to conduct additional analysis of a number of disposition options for East housing and return to the governing body with a recommendation. In a separate action, the Community Improvement Commission, which is the Alameda City Council sitting as the redevelopment authority for Alameda, directed the City Community Development staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to the three developers proposing to develop the FISC property, requesting them to submit proposals for the development of the East Housing property as a Phase 2 RFP. That directive resulted in a memorandum from the CIC staff (Attachment A). Discussion: An analysis of East housing disposition options was presented by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) at the March 15 financial workshop looking at the financial ramifications of four disposition alternatives (Attachment B). Based on this financial analysis, ARRA staff has concluded that the most prudent course of action for the disposition of East housing is to solicit a developer to purchase and develop or redevelop the East housing rather than the ARRA soliciting a property manager to interim lease the housing. The EPS financial analysis concludes that this option would result in maximizing up -front revenue to the ARRA and reducing its exposure to market and development risks. ARRA staff was prepared to recommend this strategy to the governing body. The memorandum from the CIC staff offering to manage the disposition of the East housing for the ARRA presents an interesting option for the implementation of this disposition strategy. The ARRA staff has considered the offer of the CIC to act as its "agent" in the disposition of the East housing and is recommending that the ARRA governing body accept this offer for the following reasons. 1. Using an existing agency of the City of Alameda to assist in the disposition of property at NAS Alameda moves in the direction of involving existing City agencies and boards and commissions Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 2 in the redevelopment of the base. This has been a stated goal of the Alameda City Council and the BRAG. 2. The CIC staff has experience in issuing RFPs and negotiating developer agreements as part of their ongoing activities as the redevelopment agency for the City. 3. The Community Development Department has existing staff who could manage the development of an RFP, conduct the review of proposals, and take the lead in the negotiation of a development agreement with the selected developer or team. ARRA does not have the staff resources to manage this process without bringing on additional staff. 4. Attached to this report (Attachment C) is the budget and timeline which the CIC staff has projected to carry out this project. It is anticipated that $150,000 will be required to complete this process. The City is requesting that the cost of this process be funded through ARRA lease revenues. The program schedule contemplates beginning the process immediately and concluding the developer selection by July 1998. For these reasons the ARRA staff is recommending that the ARRA governing body look favorably on this offer and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the CIC to allow the CIC to act as the ARRA's agent in the disposition of East housing. The BRAG considered this proposition at its March 19 meeting and concurs in this recommendation. A question has arisen regarding whether any RFP for the East housing should be limited to the three developers proposing on the FISC or opened to any qualified residential developer. Both the ARRA staff and the BRAG concur in the CIC staff recommendation to open the competition to any qualified residential developer. The FISC developer qualification process called for mixed -use developers while the East housing proposal process would be optimized by allowing other qualified residential developers. Several other issues have been raised by ARRA staff or the BRAG which should be considered in the ARRA governing body's deliberations regarding the East housing disposition strategy. Involvement of the City of Alameda Planning Commission. At its January 6, 1997 meeting the ARRA governing body directed staff to involve the City Planning Commission in the deliberations regarding the disposition of East housing and seek their advice, input, and additional public comment. Consistent with this recommendation, ARRA is recommending that the CIC staff solicit input from the Planning Commission in developing the RFP and the criteria for selection of a proposal for the development of East housing. Ad hoc committee. The BRAG also recommended that the process that the CIC uses in the development of the RFP and selection of the proposal be similar to that used in the FISC Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 3 developer solicitation and selection process. That process involved establishing an ad hoc committee for the East housing RFP development selection. The BRAG recommends a minimum of four BRAG members serve on this task force. ARRA staff participation in developer agreement negotiations. We recommend that the ARRA remain very actively involved in the RFP and developer selection process even if it is managed by the CIC staff. This involvement is imperative because, as part of NAS Alameda, the East housing is BRAC property; therefore, the conveyance must be part of the negotiations between the ARRA and the Navy. It is intended that the East housing will be part of the ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) application to the Navy. Because the terms of the developer agreement will have direct bearing on the ARRA's EDC negotiations and terms with the Navy, it is crucial that the ARRA staff be directly involved in the negotiation and structuring of the developer agreement. Fiscal Impact: Decisions regarding the disposition of East housing will impact the ARRA in several ways: 1. The recommendation to proceed to a developer selection process for the East housing should result in the greatest up -front capital and least financial risk to the ARRA. 2. Contracting with the CIC to act as the ARRA's agent in the disposition of East housing would eliminate the need for ARRA to hire additional staff to manage the RFP and developer selection process. However, CIC staff estimates the cost of the process to be $150,000 based upon their recent experience with the FISC property. They would expect to expend $75,000 of this in calendar year 1997 in the development of the RFP and solicitation process. The remainder of the project budget would be needed in 1998 to complete the developer selection. The expense of this RFQ/RFP process would be paid for out of the ARRA lease revenue budget. The .$75,000 needed for calendar year 1997 is included in the lease revenue budget, which is item 3 -F on the May 7 ARRA agenda. 3. The most dramatic impact on the ARRA will be around the agreements made regarding the disposition of the proceeds on the sale of the property. ARRA's interest will need to be protected to ensure that a substantial portion of the proceeds will be dedicated to infrastructure and other site preparation development and management at NAS. Recommendation: ARRA staff recommends the ARRA governing body approve the following actions: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 4 The governing body endorse and authorize proceeding with the disposition of East housing through an RFP process designed to result in the selection of a developer or developer team to purchase the East housing with an acceptable plan for short- and long -term development or redevelopment of the property for residential use. 2. The RFP should be available to all qualified residential developers. 3. The ARRA should contract with the Alameda CIC to manage the RFP and developer selection process. The ARRA governing body should authorize the Executive Director to enter into an MOU with the CIC to define at a minimum: a) the respective roles of the ARRA and CIC and their staffs; b) the process to be followed in the developer solicitation, selection, and negotiation process; and, c) the basic parameters and criteria for the disposition of the proceeds from the sale of the property. The MOU will be subject to ratification by both the CIC and ARRA governing bodies. 4. The ARRA strongly encourages the CIC staff to enlist input from the Planning Commission in developing criteria for the RFP and developer selection criteria. 5. The ARRA requests that the CIC establish an Ad Hoc Committee to assist in the development of the RFP and proposal selection. The ARRA recommends that at least four members of the BRAG serve on the Ad Hoc group. 6. The ARRA governing body approve the transfer of $75,000 of ARRA lease revenues to the CIC in calendar year 1997 to begin the developer selection process. Respectfully submitted, V�n:�Unh Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Att: Attachment A - EDC staff report dated March 13, 1997 Attachment B - East Housing Disposition Options Attachment C - CIC Budget and Timeline for Developer Selection C:\ MARGARET \ARRAISTAFF- RE.PRT'HOUS ING. DIS City of Alameda Inter-department Memorandum March 13, 1997 To: Members of the Economic Development Commission From: Bruce J.M. Knopf Economic Development Manager Re: Attachment A EDC Recommendation That In The Event That ARRA Requests The CIC To Undertake Disposition Of East Housing, The CIC Would Be Willing To Dispose Of East Housing, And, If ARRA Agrees, That The CIC Prepare An "East Housing Request For Proposals" To Be Issued To The Three FISC Developers And -To Any Other Interested Developer Background. On January 21, 1997, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved issuance of the Request for Proposals (RFP) to Redevelop the_Fleet,,Industrial_Supply Center, Alameda Facility and Annex (FISC) to three development _teams. The CIC instructed staff to issue the RFP without delay and directed staff to look at the Naval Air Station, East Housing. separately as an optional phase 2 for FISC developers, with 'input from the EDC and the Base Reuse , Advisory GrOup (BRAG). The RFP was issued on January 23, 1997, and responses to the RFP are due Apri14, 1997. : . Discussion/AnalySis The FISC iSuridet;t1rjutisdiction of'the'CIC-because-it partially lies within -a--tedeieiopment atea and special legislation authorizes the -Secretary of, the Navy to convey the FISC to the City of 41ameda.._ Conversely, East Housing lies within the the Naval Air Station': ' Through the BRAC process, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment,Authority_(ARRA) is authorized to take:title to,, and 4ispbe-of, property within, its jurisdiction. The timing of a'jlavy fcloi4O0, on an _ EcOnonii . Development Conveyance and ,transfer actual contro1 and :title' to ARRAimust be determined.' ARRA could take action 'to engage - the CIC, as its "agent, to negotiate, a disposition of -East Housing, rather than handle disposal on its Attadipent-,k-shows various decisions that would have to be made by the-ARRA and/or-the CIC. Ultimately, the ARRA must decide whether it intends to dispose of East. Housing itself or whether to transfer the responsibility to the CIC. If ARRA asks the CIC to implement a dispositionstrategy, the CIC would, before issuing an RFP, need to approve evaluation criteria for the selection of an East Housing delfelOPkr:clirrentCritia Pertain only to a mixed-use development at FISC An advantage to having the CIC undertake dis osition is RECEIVED MAR 1 4 1997 ITEM #5 A LTC! /1, Economic Development Commission Page 2 March 13, 1997 that it is possible that the process may move forward more quickly. Alternatively, ARRA's continuing, for the present, to handle all aspects related to East Housing offers the advantage of better coordination between decisions related to interim leasing, the timing .of Navy decisions to transfer control, and disposition/redevelopment of East Housing. A second decision would need to be made resolving whether to issue an RFP only to the three qualified FISC developers or to any interested developer." If the RFP is only issued to the three, then a selection process can probably be expedited more quickly than if the RFP is sent to an array of residential developers. On the other hand, while it may take longer, it is possible to solicit prominent residential developers who were not necessarily qualified for, or not interested in participating in, the FISC mixed-use project. For example, Shea Homes was interested in developing residential units, but not commercial property. CIC staff recommends that the process be opened up to all qualified residential developers, in addition to the three pre-qualified FISC developers. A third decision is whether or not various types of units within East Housing should be sold, demolished or leased on an interim basis. As noted in the Attachment, Bay Area Economics and the-BRAG recommended two different actions. Ultimately, this decision is dependent on whether a positive revenue stream can accrue to the ARRA based on certain investments that have to be made to the different areas of East Housing and the timeframe of the amortization of these investments. The ARRA's economic consultant, Economic & Planning Systems, will provide to ARRA financial analysis to test the feasibility of interim leasing. The CIC does not expect to be involved in issues related to interim leasing. As noted above, these are issues which are more appropriately handled by the ARRA. A copy of this memo is being provided to the BRAG and ARRA so that the concept may also be reviewed by the BRAG on March 19 followed by ARRA on April 2. Following the EDC's review and recommendation on March 20, staff will prepare a memorandum to the CIC for consideration at its meeting of April 15th. Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact If ARRA retains disposition authority, there would be no fiscal impact on the CIC budget. However, if ARRA asks the CIC to dispose of East Housing, the cost of implementation will have to be determined; it is anticipated that the CIC would enter into a cost recovery agreement with ARRA, as we have with other property owners (e.g., Riding Company.) As an indication of cost, the total estimated fiscal year 1996-97 expenditure for the FISC Project, including RFQs and RFPs, will be approximately $137,000, including legal, real estate development consulting and staff. This would Economic Development Commission Page 3 March 13, 1997 require a General Fund loan to the CIC/Alameda Point Improvement Project, because there are no tax increment revenues received until at least the year 1999-2000. Recommendations It is recommended that in the event that ARRA requests the CIC to undertake disposition of East Housing, the CIC would be willing to dispose of East Housing, and, if ARRA agrees, that the CIC prepare an "East Housing Request for Proposals," to be issued to the three FISC developers and to any other interested developer. Respectfully submitted, Bruce J.M. ,Kopf Economic Development Manager BK/JD:sf Attachment cc: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Base Reuse Advisory Group g:\econdev\jjd\fisc\ciceh3b.wpd F:FISC\East Housing Community Improvement Commission (CIC) 'Direction at January 21, 1997 Meeting: Unanimous motion by CIC to accept Community Development Department's report and recommendation to issue the Request for Proposals to Redevelop the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC RFP) and directed East Housing be looked at separately as an optional phase 2 for FISC developers. The CIC directed staff to issue the FISC RFP without delay. Staff issued RFP on January 23, 1997. The RFP deadline for responses as approved by the CIC is April 4, 1997. Response to an East Housing RFP would be optional and would have no bearing on the selection of the preferred FISC developer. Obtain input from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG). Legal Authority: • The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is the legal authority to acquire, hold, lease, manage and dispose of real and personal property at NAS Alameda, including East Housing. • ARRA could authorize the CIC, which controls the FISC, to also act as its agent to implement disposition of East Housing. DISPOSITION OPTIONS: 1. ARRA East Housing REP • ARRA could issue an RFP to any interested developer, including the three FISC Developers; or, ARRA may choose a two-step process to screen qualifications of interested residential developers (i.e., RFQ, then RFP, similar to what had been undertaken for FISC) and make the decision to "pre-qualify" the three developers bidding on the FISC property. Format of the RFQ and RFP could be similar to FISC RFQ and RFP, specifically noting that disposition will be under a Base Reuse and Closure (BRAC) process. Evaluation criteria and submittal requirements would have to be modified to reflect a residential project. If there is a positive revenue stream, ARRA could choose to add an interim leasing component. The RFP could allow or require the East Housing developer to interim lease East Housing until market conditions permit development. Alternatively, the RFP could require developers to demolish the property. It should be noted that Bay Area Economics, ARRA's consultant, recommended to upgrade and interim lease 233 apartment units, sell 203 townhouse units and demolish 57 townhouse units. In contrast, the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) recommended to interim lease 260 townhouse units and deconstruct or raze the apartment units. Page 2 * Developers must acknowledge and address ARRA's commitment to the Homeless Collaborative proposal under the Standards of Reasonableness (i.e., 67 units of family housing sponsored by Catholic Charities and 30 UA housing units). * Unless otherwise determined, RFQ /RFP Proposals would be reviewed by ARRA staff, BRAG and approved by the ARRA Board. Analysis * This approach allows the three FISC developers to submit proposals. If there were to be an RFQ process, is recommended that ARRA make the decision to pre - qualify the FISC developers. * An ARRA RFP selection process would be open to developers who deal exclusively in residential projects, as well as those who qualify as a potential master developer for mixed -use development. Shea Homes and Kaufman & Broad, who were not qualified under FISC developer selection process, and other prominent residential developers may submit proposals. * Opening up the process to allow selection of different development entities would, tend to increase variety in design and product as well as expand the resources brought to bear on development within the NAS /FISC geography. * If ARRA chose this approach, it could allow the developer to address both interim leasing as well as demolition and redevelopment. * Timing: ARRA could issue an RFP by late spring or early summer. It is estimated that a selection process would take approximately four to six months, or longer, depending on the number of different bodies reviewing the proposals. If ARRA chooses to qualify potential developers (i.e., issue an RFQ) this could add another four to six months. * The selection process would, undoubtedly, lag behind the FISC developer selection process, and the preferred FISC developer would likely be designated by the time ARRA were to issue the East Housing RFP. Depending on RFP submittals, Navy transfer, interim leasing and residential market conditions, it is possible that East Housing development could precede development of the residential portion of FISC Annex development. This may be desirable in light of ARRA's need for cash flow to finance improvements, etc. Since ARRA has authority over East Housing and CIC has authority over FISC, with advice and input from their respective advisory boards, there would be a separate and parallel development process. * ARRA disposition would afford greater control over linking an East Housing interim leasing program with the timing of a Navy decision to transfer control and with the overall goal of redevelopment of East Housing. Page 3 2. CIC FISC REP Addendum - Distributed to The Three FISC Developers * If the CIC and ARRA approve that the CIC implements the disposition of East Housing, then staff could prepare an Addendum to the FISC RFP to include East Housing. * FISC RFP Addendum would be sent only to only qualified FISC developers (Martin Group, Catellus and Lincoln). * Staff envisions that the format of Addendum would be similar to FISC RFP, but it would note that disposition would be under a BRAC process. RFP evaluation criteria and submittal requirements would have to be modified to address East Housing residential development. * Unless otherwise directed, the Addendum would not address interim leasing. ARRA would be responsible for interim leasing. * ARRA needs to take action authorizing the CIC to dispose of East Housing so that reaevelopment can occur. Conceptually, the CIC would act as ARRA's agent in the process of selecting a developer. The CIC would issue an RFP, and upon selection of a preferred developer, the CIC would enter into an Exclusive Right to Negotiate (ERN) with the developer; ARRA, would also sign the ERN thereby acknowledging its consent. The CIC would proceed to negotiate a Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) with the developer. Upon the Navy's transfer of East Housing to ARRA, ARRA the CIC and the developer would execute the DDA and other agreements, transferring land from ARRA to the CIC and then to the developer. Proceeds from the developer's land transaction would flow to ARRA, less any amounts due to the CIC under a CIC /ARRA cost recovery agreement. * In their response to the Addendum, the developer must acknowledge and address ARRA's commitment to the Homeless Collaborative proposal under the Standards of Reasonableness (i.e., 67 units of family housing sponsored by Catholic Charities and 30 UA housing units). * The EDC has established an Ad Hoc FISC Working Group which includes four EDC members, three BRAG members, one representative each from WABA and the Chamber of Commerce. The draft RFP Addendum and Developer responses to the RFP Addendum would be reviewed by CIC staff, the Ad Hoc. FISC Advisory Group, the EDC; they would be approved by the CIC and ARRA. Analysis * All three qualified FISC developers have expressed interest in East Housing because redevelopment of FISC Annex is intrinsically linked to East Housing. Both properties are slated for, or include areas designated for, residential development, as noted in the NAS Community Reuse Plan. * The anticipated date of Navy transfer of title of East Housing to ARRA must be determined. The date would affect developer interest in bidding on CIC disposition, as well as ARRA's evaluation of what to do with the housing during the intervening period. * If ARRA were to conclude that interim leasing would provide ARRA a positive revenue stream, then ARRA and their property management firm must provide a tentative time schedule for length of interim leasing. Page 4 * Timing: If ARRA and the CIC were to decide in April that the CIC should_ be authorized to issue an RFP Addendum, then staff could modify the FISC RFP and present the Addendum to the Ad Hoc FISC Working Group (consisting of BRAG, WABA and Chamber of Commerce representatives), and it could be reviewed by the EDC within two months (June). The CIC could consider approval of the Addendum in July,and_ the deadline for responses could be September. The CIC is expected to select the FISC developer by late summer or early fall. The CIC could select the East Housing developer probably early to mid -fall, if it wanted to take sequential actions. CIC would have authority over disposition of FISC and East Housing; ARRA would have authority over potential interim leasing. The Ad Hoc FISC Working Group (which includes BRAG representatives) would review developer responses. * Depending on what the three FISC developers submit on April 4 in response to the January 23, 1997 FISC RFP, recall that East Housing Proposals will not have been submitted yet, the CIC could consider selecting either one master developer for the FISC (both the FISC Facility and the Annex), or the CIC could select one developer for the FISC Facility area, which is to be office /R &D, and a separate developer for the FISC Annex area, which is to be residential. 3. CIC East Housing RFP - Open to All Developers * The CIC could decide to expand the selection process to allow ..any interested developer to bid on East Housing, as well as the "short list" of three qualified FISC Developers. See points listed above in #2. Analysis * See points listed above in #2. * Timing: Same as above in #2. * A process open to all interested developers would provide the ability for firms who deal exclusively in residential projects to submit proposals For example, Shea Homes and Kaufman & Broad were not qualified/ were not seriously interested in participating in the FISC developer selection process; yet they, and other prominent residential developers may be interested in submitting proposals for East Housing. Opening up the process costs the CIC nothing and allows the CIC maximum flexibility. g:\econdev\j3d\FIsc\EAsTH7.wn F: \FISC \East Housing Attachment B , v .A,- ,,,,,,,-...v,v ,,,..t.-- itiorowovver'r4V1-N''s'a'*ipe.::ftti. ..,0 ,:„ --,,,„ ... 1 i ,' '', ' ' t'', 71,,,,,2,„ohittiPagWinitiftW atAr,/,xitoL'i.:4-vv7.,,,17:---ei --'t R4- 1 ,,:t -At* wo.V., vv.,r,. liti,..;,%,A4iA,44,404toggidtatamoismake ,2 et i A 0 D 1 ",, °" �&s� ��� spa � ?P.`� a^,� z " . ,,.. ,� . � . - .-.. .�.. � „......� • � _ i , � � - _ a _,. ..... . OPTION DISPOSITION PROGRAM FINANCIAL IMPACT PROS CONS 1 BASE CASE BULK SALE; $15 MILLION RECEIVE MONEY UP- DEVELOPER HAS DEVELOPER SELLS PROCEEDS AT SALE FRONT LITTLE INCENTIVE TO TOWNHOUSES; RENTS LITTLE FINANCIAL RISK MAINTAIN; APT LAND APARTMENTS 15 TO ARRA HEAVILY DISCOUNTED YEARS, .THEN . REDEVELOPS FOR SALE 2 ARRA LEASES MANAGEMENT FIRM $1 MILLION INCREASE ARRA RETAINS CASH RECEIVED OVE APARTMENTS IMPROVES UNITS, OVER BASE CASE, OWNERSHIP OF UNITS TIME INSTEAD OF THROUGH ACHIEVES 15% SPREAD OVER TIME, AND LAND; UPFRONT; PROPERTY RETURN ON PLUS VALUE OF APTS VALUE OF LAND IN ARRA EXPOSED TO MANAGER INVESTMENT, PLUS AND LAND FUTURE MAY BE MARKET AND FEES HIGHER DEVELOPMENT RISKS 3 ARRA LEASES MANAGEMENT FIRM ABOUT SAME AS SALE ARRA RETAINS CASH RECEIVED OVE TOWNHOUSES IMPROVES UNITS, OF TOWNHOUSES OWNERSHIP OF UNITS TIME INSTEAD OF THROUGH ACHIEVES 15% AND LAND. UPFRONT; PROPERTY RETURN ON ARRA EXPOSED TO MANGER INVESTMENT, PLUS MARKET AND FEES DEVELOPMENT RISKS 4 SELL ENTIRE DEVELOPER $3.5 MILLION INCREASE RECEIVE MONEY ASSUMES STRONG PROPERTY TO PURCHASES LAND AND OVER BASE CASE UPFRONT; MARKET POSITION FO DEVELOPER FOR UNITS, REDEVELOP AS LITTLE FINANCIAL RISK HOUSING. NEAR TERM FOR -SALE HOUSING TO ARRA; REDEVELOPMENT IMPROVES ATLANTIC CORRIDOR; LARGEST CASH INFUSION Attachment C CIC Budget and Timeline for Developer Selection :ST HOUSING: BUDGET FOR DEVELOPER SELECTION udget Summery Y 98-97 iaff onsultant Y Total Y 97 -98 staff :onsultant rY Total 7,785 3,600 11,385. 47,819 90,796 138,615 )evetoper Selection Total 150,000 "..:onsultant costs for FISC RFP /RFQ: 10/24/96 to 4114/97 (7 months) = 536,332 Rest of FISC selection process: FY 4/15/97 to monies will be rolled over to FY 98-99, it for necessary. costs Hudget assumes that some Staff /consultant costs during negotiationlmplementation phase not yet estimated Program Schedule RFQ PROCESS Preparation of RFQ Advisory Board Review Public Agency Approval Issue RFQ Response to RFQ Working Group Selection: Advisory Board Review Public Agency Approval of Developer Short-List RFP PROCESS Preparation of RFP Advisory Board Review Public Agency Approval of RFP Issue RFP Response to RFP Working Group Selection Advisory Board Review Public Agency Approval of Preferred Developer FISC RFP process began 5/96 — final selection by 9/97: 17 months Assume East Housing selection process: 15 months FY 96-97 May - June June FY 97 -98 early July early July September September - October October or November December January March April - June June FY 98 -99 July Staffing Assumptions Project Manager Director Clerical Consultant Assumes staff prepares RFQ; consultant prepares RFP 30% to 40% time based on task 10% time 10% time FNABIFwt Homing Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 30, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 3 SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director on the background and current status of the Pan Pacific University (PPU) use proposed for a 65 -acre site at NAS Alameda and recommendation that the PPU use proposal be terminated and an alternative use be found for the 65 -acre site. Background: At the special meeting of the ARRA held in advance of the regular meeting of the Alameda City Council on Wednesday, April 1, ARRA board member Karin Lucas asked for an off - agenda report on the following: 1) What is the current status of Pan Pacific University? When will staff recommend termination of dealings with PPU because of failure to meet deadlines and requirements proving their financial capability? 2) Discuss alternative use of the 65 acres. 3) Discuss staff procedures to avoid future mistakes. Subsequently, in the attached'memo to City Manager Jim Flint, Ms. Lucas also requested an: 4) "Explanation by staff of reason for delay in recommending teiuiination, including wasting the time of California State officials with this unqualified applicant" and requesting "assurance that no ARRA staff member has a close personal relationship with or financial interest in Pan Pacific." Finally, ARRA member Lucas asked that this item be placed on the agenda of the May 7, 1997 ARRA meeting for action. This report is intended to address all of these questions as well as provide background on the process that has been used to evaluate and work with all the Public Benefit Conveyance and long -term users who were specifically named in the Community Reuse Plan. This report will also serve as the staff report and recommendation for the May 7 action. Public Benefit Conveyances and the Community Reuse Plan: In the summer of 1995, as required by federal law, the ARRA advertised that property at NAS Alameda would be available to eligible public and nonprofit agencies for certain types of public purposes. Since 1949, the federal government has had a program of "Public Benefit Conveyances" (PBCs) which makes surplus federal property and land available to these types of agencies for purposes such as education, parks, museums, wastewater treatment plants, etc. Public and nonprofit agencies must apply and be Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 2 "sponsored" by appropriate federal agencies such as the Department of Education, Department of the Interior, Health and Human Services, and others who sponsor PBC programs. An important feature of the PBC program is that once transferred through a PBC, property does not revert to the LRA upon cessation of the original PBC use. Instead, the property goes through the General Services Administration surplus property disposal program in which local communities have no formal legal say. BRAC properties were subject to this PBC program. While not legally required, federal sponsoring agencies and the military departments disposing of the property sought community support for the PBCs through the Community Reuse Plan and the designated local redevelopment agency (LRA) responsible for planning the reuse of the property. In our case this was the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. In other words, the federal law on PBCs permits transfer of military property without local involvement but the affected federal agencies voluntarily asked for local input before making these property disposition decisions. ARRA received PBC applications from a number of agencies, including the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), the City of Alameda Recreation & Park Department (ARPD), Pan Pacific University (PPU), East Bay Regional Parks Department (EBRPD), the Alameda Naval Air Museum (Museum), and several others. In addition to asking for evidence of federal eligibility, the ARRA established a thorough screening process to consider these applications. A committee was formed that was comprised of BRAG members, ARRA's planning and economic consultants, and ARRA staff. Applicants were asked to submit business plans in addition to their applications to their federal sponsoring agencies. They were informed they would be expected to pay their proportionate share of backbone infrastructure costs and fees for public services as well as their own building improvement and property- specific utility and infrastructure costs. Screening criteria were developed that included such questions as: ► Does this meet a useful public purpose? ■ Is it financially viable? ■ Is the use compatible with the Community Reuse Plan? • Is the use compatible with adjacent existing and planned uses? Five applications were recommended for inclusion into the reuse plan: AUSD, ARPD, EBRPD, the Museum, and PPU. The recommendations included several important considerations or modifica- tions. AUSD was asked to move one proposed use to another location deemed more appropriate. The EBRPD was recommended to be included with the ARPD application. The Museum and PPU requested properties were recommended to be included in the ARRAICity Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) application and then leased back at no cost to these entities. This no cost lease was intended to reflect the fact they would have obtained the property free under a PBC. This conveyance mechanism was selected because neither the Museum nor PPU had a financial or perfomiance track record. In this way, the City could maintain control of the property if either of the entities ceased using it for its original purpose. This avoids the prospect of the property being conveyed to yet another federal agency with no local involvement or participation. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 3 It was subsequently learned that two of these properties (PPU and Museum proposals) were not eligible for a PBC at the time the application was submitted, as the properties were in the Tidelands Trust and therefore had to be conveyed to the City. Trust properties cannot be sold or conveyed to a private or nonprofit owner unless the Tidelands Trust designation is removed. Discussions have since been instituted with State Lands Commission (SLC) staff about trading properties in and out of the Trust; these discussions are in a preliminary exploration stage but are being pursued actively by both ARRA and SLC staff. The PBC recommendations discussed above were approved by the BRAG and subsequently the ARRA in the Community Reuse Plan that was adopted in January 1996 and submitted to the Navy. All of the discussion, the description of the properties, and preferred conveyance mechanisms are contained in Chapter 8.0 of the Community Reuse Plan entitled Property Disposal Strategy. The Property Disposal Strategy element of the Community Reuse Plan was adopted by a vote of 7 -1 with one absent at the regular ARRA meeting on November 1, 1995. Then, at its January 31, 1996 meeting, the ARRA adopted the entire Community Reuse Plan by a unanimous vote. In an attempt to ensure the viability of PPU as an educational nonprofit capable of taking on the 65 acres of property at NAS, the ARRA continued to ask for evidence of academic and financial credibility. Mr. David Hakola of the U.S. Department of Education assured ARRA staff that PPU passed DoE's test of eligibility for the Department's PBC program and would have qualified for a PBC had it not been for the Tidelands Trust restriction. To ensure financial viability for the $18 million of renovation costs that PPU discussed in its business plan submission to the ARRA in July 1995, a letter was sent to PPU on July 5, 1995 requiring them to raise $7 million by December 31, 1996, $7 million by December 31, 1997, and an additional $4 million by December 31, 1998. These financial milestones are similar to the financial viability assurances asked of the Museum and the other PBC applicants. By the end of 1996, PPU had raised only half the initial $7 million. The ARRA asked for additional substantiation of the financial commitment and viability of its donors. Members of the ARRA requested additional information from PPU on its academic plans and plans for accreditation of its proposed programs. In late 1996 the BRAG formed a committee to review the fundraising and business plan efforts of PPU. The BRAG committee formed to review PPU's financial plans drafted a comprehensive set of suggestions and recommendations as to what should be included in a thorough business plan. This report was forwarded to the ARRA governing body in the mailing for its March 5, 1997 meeting. PPU and the Tidelands Trust Restriction: PPU has routinely said that its fundraising efforts have been made difficult by its inability to demonstrate to its donors that it will ultimately have ownership of the property. Donors are reluctant to contribute to substantial property improvement costs without that certainty. At its June 5, 1996 meeting, the ARRA governing body adopted Policy No. 01, which clarified its intent regarding the title to the property. Unless the property could be freed of the Tidelands Trust designation, it could only be leased to PPU under terms acceptable to the State Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 4 Lands Commission, which has oversight of Tidelands Trust property in California. The policy adopted by the ARRA made it clear that at such time as the property is freed of Public Trust land use restrictions, the ARRA will request the City to transfer the property to PPU at no cost with the stipulation that in the event PPU no longer needs the property for educational purposes or no longer exists as an educational institution, all the property and improvements revert back to the City of Alameda at no cost. PPU was interested in understanding the State Lands Commission staff's position on leases within Tidelands as well as exploring the process and costs associated with freeing the land from the Tidelands Trust. For this reason, ARRA staff arranged for PPU board members to meet with staff from the State Lands Commission, ARRA staff, and a representative of the City Attorney's office. It was important for us, as well, to completely understand the state's position on long -term leases and land exchanges. The same rules and restrictions, policies and procedures will apply to any non- Trust uses on all properties located in the Tidelands Trust area. The meeting was very informative, helped clarify for PPU the constraints on the property and their options for its use, and assisted ARRA staff and legal counsel to further understand the position that the State Land Commission's staff is going to take on uses of property in the Tidelands Trust. Request #1: Current PPU status and demand for termination of all dealings with PPU. Following the meeting with the State Lands Commission staff, it appears that members of the PPU board have been deliberating internally as to whether the constraints and costs of the 65 acres at NAS Alameda are so burdensome that PPU may wish to look elsewhere for a campus location. While there has been no official correspondence from them on their decision, Dr. Peter Sun has inquired about an alternative of scaling back their campus and college plans to include only the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (Buildings 2 and 3), the Galley, and the adjacent parking and open space. This scaled -back version would envision a much smaller student body of perhaps 800 and a diminished program of offerings and programs. ARRA staff has advised Dr. Sun that he would have to put this proposal for a scaled -back plan in writing with a detailed explanation of the proposed program, renovation, and associated costs and timetable for incurring these expenses, as well as a demonstration of financial capability to take on even this reduced campus and program. As of this writing, no such proposal has been received. Neither staff nor the BRAG task force that is evaluating the PPU business and financing plans had recommended termination of ARRA's relationship with PPU before now for the following reasons: 1) Staff and the BRAG both continue to believe that a college campus use of the 65 -acre parcel is a use that is compatible with the reuse plan and is particularly adaptable to the uses of the buildings for dormitory and classroom use. It also appears to be a use that is compatible with the Historic District designation which is on all of that property in that a college campus could retain the historical character of the buildings and area. 2) There has been no immediate pressure to market the area for other purposes. None of the 65- acre parcel is part of ARRA's Master Parcel Lease. The Navy has not completed all the Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 5 environmental work (FOSL, EBS, etc.) That it must complete prior to leasing any of these buildings. For these reasons it seemed reasonable to give PPU additional time to raise money and decide whether NAS was a realistic place for them to locate their campus. Since this area will be added to the large parcel lease later this Spring, this circumstance will soon change and it is now timely to make a decision regarding PPU. The staff recommendation is outlined at the conclusion of this report. Request #2: Discussion of alternative uses of the 65 acres. There are several possible options for alternative uses of the 65 acres if it becomes apparent that PPU is not a viable use or if they should withdraw their request for property here and if the Public Trust issues are addressed. First, it may be possible to find another college that would have an interest in all or part of the intended campus area. If another college became seriously interested in locating here, the ARRA would have the option of charging market rates for the buildings or discounting the rate to attract a particular user. • There would likely be interest in other special properties in the 65 -acre parcel. The O'Club, originally included in PPU's request, is already being programmed to go to the City. The City and several religious groups have expressed interest in the Chapel. Some interest has been expressed in the bowling alley. The Bachelor Officers Quarters was originally requested by Operation Dignity through the Homeless Assistance Act. The ARRA has been working with them to find funding for an off -site facility which would better accommodate their current needs. In other words, it appears we will not have difficulty finding alternative uses for the property if PPU should fail to materialize. However, should the ARRA governing body feel that a college use of the property is desirable, they should direct staff to attempt to find another college user for all or part of the property. Request #3: Discussion of staff procedures to avoid future mistakes. ARRA staff believes our efforts with PPU were not a mistake but simply working through a complex process. The reuse plan that the ARRA governing body adopted identified this campus for use by PPU for long -term use if they could demonstrate viability. As with all the specifically named long - teim users of property at NAS —PPU, AUSD, the Museum, etc.—ARRA staff worked with the applicants to make certain their plans are on track and their projects are financially viable. PPU has been treated no differently than the other prospective users that were named to receive property at NAS. How will we avoid future "mistakes ?" Staff cannot guarantee no "mistakes" will be made in the future. As you know, redevelopment of NAS Alameda is a very complex project. When we have a potential tenant whom we believe would be a good interim user for the base, staff may "reserve" a particular building for that prospective tenant while they attempt to get financing. If they are unsuccessful, we would then have to find another tenant. Staff has not viewed these decisions as Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 6 mistakes, but opportunities. This is not dissimilar from the PPU situation. In such a complex redevelopment project it is natural that some expected uses will fail to materialize. Request #4: Explanation of reason for delay in recommending termination, including wasting the time of California State officials with this unqualified applicant; requesting assurance that no ARRA staff member has a close personal relationship with or financial interest in Pan Pacific University. Staff did not recommend termination with PPU earlier for the reasons stated above. The BRAG concurred in this determination when its PPU "oversight" committee did not recommend termination but rather asked PPU for additional information. The time with State Lands Commission staff was not wasted but was instructive to both PPU and ARRA staff in understanding the Commission's perspective on long - and short-term uses of Tidelands property. No ARRA staff has a close personal relationship with PPU. We have worked with this entity just as we have worked with the other nonprofit and public agencies to assist them in becoming a successful part of the reuse plan. No ARRA staff has a financial interest in PPU. Discussion: Given the fact that the facilities in the 65 -acre parcel proposed for PPU are soon to be deemed suitable to lease by the Navy, and because we have a special ARRA board request to come to closure on this matter, staff is prepared to recommend that the ARRA notify PPU that it has failed to demonstrate that it has the financial viability required for the ARRA to continue to reserve facilities in the 65 -acre parcel for their use. ARRA staff will then begin to show and actively market the facilities in the campus area to other interim and potential long -term users. Fiscal Impact: The exact fiscal impact of this proposed action is not precisely quantifiable because it is dependent on the alternative use or uses of the property. The property is identified in the reuse plan as mixed - use and could accommodate a range of uses, including another campus use, institutional uses, or commercial uses such as office or R &D. If the property were to be leased at a rate of $.50 per per month, our economic consultants, EPS, projected that the resulting increase in land value would be approximately $6 million when associated infrastructure costs are deducted. Recommendation: Staff recommends the ARRA governing body take the following actions: 1) Direct staff to notify PPU in writing that the University has failed to meet the ARRA's requirement that they demonstrate financial viability in a timely manner and that the ARRA no longer intends to hold the 65 -acre parcel and the facilities therein for PPU use. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 2) Direct staff to begin an active campaign to find other users. April 30, 1997 Page 7 3) Direct staff to -make the appropriate corresponding changes or addenda in Chapter 8 of the Community Reuse plan that makes specific reference to PPU. These changes or additions should be made as a part of the plan amendment changes expected to be presented to the ARRA governing body for action at its June 1997 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Margaret E. Ensley, ARRA Secretary May 1, 1997 Pan Pacific University Correspondence. 3 -H addition Just this morning we received the following fax on behalf of Pan Pacific University from Mr. James L. Tipton. MAY-01-199? 09:39 JAMES L.TIPTON Aaotney at Law 595 Market Street, Suite 1350 San Francis' co, C2lifornia 94105 Telephone (415) 227-0300 Fax (415) 545-1725 April 24, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501-5012 Attn: The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor - City of Alameda P.02 Dear ARRA members: I represent the Pan Pacific University, which understands that a-decision may soon be made on the Pan Pacific University proposal. If a irate is taken, it is doubtful that our proposal would be approv- Some or a majority of the members of ARRA apparently belieNm that Pan Pacific University is not financially viable. We recently met with representatives of the State Land Commission through the helpful assistance of Kay Miller. However, before any vote, not only for us but for the public and yourselves, the following issues need further development: How is title to be taken to properties defined as Public Trust Lands? What is the process for exchanging or trading land in order to terminate the public trust of specific land sites? Is not Pan Pacific University the best reuse for the land in question, and if not, why not? Is the proposed site the preferred site for which to complete a land exchange? As suggested by the California State Lands Commission all of these properties need to be identified and appraised, and what is the time-line for this? In the meantime, Pan •Pacific University will continue its student growth at the College of Alameda. To accommodate our students, we will use the Bridgeport Apartments. It is the clear intention of Pan-Pacific University to present a proposal to lease BEQ2, the Kitchen, and BEQ4, beginning with BEQ2. These facilities could house classes and dormitories for about 800 students in undergraduate programs. When PPU presents its proposal, it will at that time present a financial statement through an international bank which will substantiate PPU's financial viability. Such proposal will be presented early enough MAY-01-199? 09:40 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority attn: The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor - City of Alameda April 24, 1997 Page Two P.03 so that renovation can commence as early as the summer months of 1997. We look forward to your response. Very truly yours, 3127mih cc: Dr. Peter Sun Douglass Fitch 10v Miller Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 30, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: . Status report on current activities. 4 -K 1. Airfield Workshop. As you are aware, staff is organizing, with assistance from EBCRC, a workshop for the ARRA governing body to flesh out the facts and pros and cons of a limited use airfield at NAS Alameda (item 4 -K.1 a). Presentations would be made at the workshop from agencies such as the FAA and USFWS regarding what types of operations would be feasible and acceptable to the agencies. The workshop will also attempt to answer some of the legal and economic questions associated with the airfield operation. It appears from our polling of ARRA governing body members that we will hold the workshop on the regularly scheduled ARRA meeting time at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4. We will then have to find an alternative date to hold the regular June meeting of the ARRA. The BRAG and the public will be invited to the workshop and the public will be invited to speak. We will make every effort to publicize the workshop so that interested members of the public can attend. In regard to the airfield issue, the Airport Operations Committee (AOC) of the City of Alameda has adopted a position in opposition to the proposed airfield at NAS Alameda. ARRA staff and Norma Bishop, base transition coordinator for NAS Alameda, requested a meeting with the AOC (item 4- K.lb). The summary of that meeting and the Committee's position is attached (item 4- K.lc). 2. BCDC Port Priority Designation. The Seaport Advisory Committee of BCDC voted to recommend to BCDC that they remove the port priority designation from the 220 acres at NAS Alameda. A letter from BCDC's Executive Director Will Travis (item 4 -K.2) gives the timetable for BCDC action on this recommendation. 3. Alameda Naval Air Museum. Two items are attached (items 4 -K.3a & 4 -K.3b) regarding the Museum. Per my letter dated April 14, the museum delivered additional information on the operating costs and capital expenses associated with Buildings 77 and 41 and more information on the operations plan and revised projections. The BRAG ad hoc task force, established to review the business plan and make a recommendation on whether the ARRA should proceed with a no -cost lease for the facilities, met on Tuesday, April 22 and discussed the business plan with the Museum proponents. The BRAG task force has requested additional information on the costs and revenues and has suspended making a recommendation until that information is forthcoming. No date was set for a follow -up meeting. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 2 4. ARRA Move to Building #1. The ARRA staff intends to move to Building #1 on or around the first of June in order to co- locate there with the City of Alameda Caretaker Office headed by Fire Chief Bob LaGrone and the Navy Caretaker Site Office of CDR Don Orndoff. ARRA staff believes this move will facilitate cooperation and communication between our office and the respective caretaker offices in making mutually beneficial decisions regarding maintenance of base property. Excellent handicapped accessible meeting space will also be made available to the BRAG. 5. Housing Lay -up. The lay -up of the East housing has begun as reported earlier. The Navy is working from the interior out to the fence to lay up the units. They are capping utility lines at each building and boarding the windows. About 25 percent of the buildings are now laid up. The Navy is currently evaluating what to do with West housing. Their present thinking is to board up the apartments, townhouses, and Chief Petty Officer units but to deactivate the utilities in the Big Whites and single - family units but not board them up. 6. Leaseback of Housing to Coast Guard. Correspondence from the Coast Guard regarding the - leaseback is attached (item 4 -K.6). The Coast Guard will first enter into a five -year license agreement with the Navy for interim use of the housing. The leaseback provisions with the ARRA or City will become effective upon the conveyance of the property and the interim use license with the Navy will terminate. 7. MARAD /Trident Contracts Consummated. Contracts with Trident, Inc. to provide port services to the Alameda Point piers and with the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to berth up to 11 ships at the piers and provide warehouse space were consummated this month. Net revenues to the ARRA from MARAD after deducting Trident Services costs will be approximately $1 million per year beginning in 1998. Both contracts are for five years. 8. EDA Funding. ARRA staff has submitted the full application to EDA for the $3 million building upgrade grant. Matched with the $1 million required from the ARRA, this grant will result in $4 million of construction work on the base. We expect the grant to be awarded in mid- summer. Our EDA program officer has also indicated that they hope to award another $3.5 -4.5 million to ARRA in FY98 if we can identify fundable projects. ARRA and City staff will meet on May 15 to set priorities to be brought to the ARRA governing body in June. 9. EDC Negotiations. ARRA staff and our EPS consultants will meet on May 1 to begin "pre - negotiations" with the Navy on our EDC conveyance. Staff will be recommending some plan changes to the governing body in June that may impact the EDC. Staff intends to present the EDC application for approval at the July 2nd ARRA meeting. 10. Update on the Hornet. Attached (item 4- K.10a) is an update from the Hornet Foundation regarding the status of their fundraising. Until a .decision regarding the donation is made, the ARRA is dealing directly with NAVSEA, the Navy command responsible for the ship and the donation program, regarding the current berthing of the ship at Alameda Point pier 3. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 3 The second letter (item 4- K.10b) from ARRA staff to Dave Ryan of EFA West (base conversion manager for NAS Alameda) expresses staff's concern about NAVSEA's request not to lease the south side of pier 3 to ARRA but rather that the Navy retain the south side of pier 3 for berthing of the Hornet through the year 2000. The letter explains staff's concern regarding the substantial loss of revenue ARRA would incur if this action were taken and the Hornet remain through 2000 with no compensation to the ARRA. ARRA staff has been in discussion with NAVSEA to attempt to resolve this situation. ARRA staff may recommend that the governing body formally request NAVSEA make a decision regarding the donation of the Hornet by the end of this year or some time certain which the governing body deems appropriate in order that we may accurately assess the availability of Alameda Point pier space and project revenues to be derived from ships berthed at the piers. 11. NAS Commissary. The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) infoimed NAS of its intent to close the commissary on July 26, 1997 (item 4- K.11). DeCA is conducting a study to determine whether a new commissary is required to serve active and retired military in the East Bay. Congressman Dellums office advises that if the City and ARRA desire to be a host site for a new commissary, they need to make their wishes known. 12. Refuge Management Plan. Marge Kohler of the Department of the Interior's San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge has advised ARRA staff that a draft Refuge Management Plan will be circulated soon for public comment. BRAG has formed a task force to prepare comments and ARRA staff and our wildlife management consultants are anxiously awaiting the draft. We will keep the ARRA apprised and solicit governing body approval of official ARRA comments. 13. NAS Alameda Post Closure Gate Access and Security Plans. Beginning May 1, 1996, there will be two access points to Alameda Point: (1) The East Gate off Atlantic Avenue on the east side of the property will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Entry to the gate will be controlled by a gate guard. (2) The Main Gate off Main Street on the north side of the property will be open 12 hours a day (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) on all normal work days (Monday through Friday excluding federal holidays). Entry to the gate will be controlled by a gate guard. Access to the west end of the base, which includes the runways and the Refuge, will be limited to scheduled wildlife refuge tours during the tern nesting season from May 1— September 30. Tours will be scheduled through the Navy Caretaker Site Office. The access policy to the west end will apply through the Tern nesting season in September 1997. The access policy will be reviewed quarterly and adjusted as needed. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 30, 1997 Page 4 Decisions regarding caretaker policies such as access are being made jointly through a transition management team comprised of the Navy Caretaker Site office, the City of Alameda Caretaker Office, and ARRA staff. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Attachments: As noted in the text. C:I MARGARET IARRAGSTAFF- RE.PRT\UPDATE5. I RONALD V. DELLUMS 9TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA RANKING MINORITY COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY REPLY TO OFFICE CHECKED: o 2108 RAYBURN H.O.B. WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-2661 E1C 1301 CLAY STREET SUITE 1000-N OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 763-0370 (Congress of tIp 3nit ftitts mom of attpresEntatiuts April 11, 1997 Ms. Kay Miller Executive Director Naval Air Station Postal Directory Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Miller: WASHINGTON OFFICE CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CHARLES C. STEPHENSON, JR. LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR DISTRICT OFFICE SANDRA R. SWANSON DISTRICT DIRECTOR H. LEE HALTERMAN GENERAL COUNSEL 4-K Item 1 a In an effort to assist the ARRA Governing Body to reach a decision on a proposed restricted-use airfield at Alameda Point, this office requests that staff schedule a workshop to present - and consider all issues which may define the parameters and feasibility of such a proposal. Over the past six months, this office has become increasingly concerned about the delay in reaching a decision on the restricted-use airfield proposal. We have received inquiries from aviation-related project proponents who argue that skilled, well-paid jobs would be created if an airfield were available. There is not sufficient data at this time to determine if the airfield is feasible either from an economic, ecological, or community acceptance perspective. Meanwhile, interim leasing to non-aviation tenants may preclude optimum use of an airfield if a decision is that the airfield is desirable and practicable, but the decision comes too late. We realize the issues are complex and appreciate that the Base Reuse Advisory Group has been struggling to define and discuss all relevant factors, but we also feel that the ARRA Governing Body must become knowledgeable about these issues and seriously consider them in reaching its decision. We are always appreciative of the Staff's and BRAG's effort, but the Governing Body must reach a decision only after being fully informed itself on all relevant issues. Being informed, the Governing Body will best be able to understand and evaluate staff's and BRAG's recommendations. THIS PAPER IS MADE FROM RECYCLED FIBERS MS. KAY MILLER April 11, 1997 Page two of two Therefore, we recommend a special workshop for the ARRA, open to the public, in which all relevant issues can be briefed and discussed. Important participants should include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, state and federal environmental regulators, Navy real estate and environmental staff, and ARRA's consultant, Zander Associates. If there are other-important participants please advise. Thank you, and we look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely yours, Ronald . Dellums Member of Congress RVD:agc . cc: Hon. Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda ARRA Board Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Airport Operations Committee FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director DATE: March 28, 1997 4 -K Item lb SUBJECT: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Staff Request ARRA Staff requests that the Airport Operations Committee reconsider the Committee's previous action on the limited -use airfield based on additional facts contained in this report and at a presentation to be made on April 3, 1997. Such reconsideration should include the option of delaying making a recommendation on this issue. ARRA staff also requests that it be permitted to periodically brief the AOC to provide updates on development of this issue and to brief the AOC prior to final AOC or any ARRA board action on this issue. History ARRA originally considered an airport at the Naval Air Station (NAS) site within the context of a general aviation and commercial aircraft facility to include some air carrier and cargo operations. The first P &D study was based on that premise and did not conclude such an airport was feasible. Approximately two years ago, a proposal to consider a private, limited -use airfield was made, and in August, 1996, P &D completed an addendum to the original study which indicated that such an operation had sufficient economic merit to warrant further study. In November, 1996, Deputy Secretary Garamendi, of the United States Department of the Interior, informed ARRA that the Fish and Wildlife Service (F &W) would request 525 acres of land, which includes most of the airfield, by fee title. In the same letter, Deputy Secretary Garamendi made a commitment to work with ARRA and the City to determine if other economic uses, including an limited -use airfield, would be compatible with the refuge. Discussion Therefore, the Memorandum from McDermott, Will & Emery, questioning the legality of a limited - use airfield was based on a misunderstanding of the fact situation. A limited -use airfield, as proposed, would be within the federal lands held by F &W. There are a variety of legal instruments which could be constructed to permit such an operation. No public funds, municipal or federal, would be used to operate or maintain the airfield. The operation would have to be self - sustaining and provide an economic return to F &W and to ARRA and the City. One airfield proponent has suggested that this may be accomplished by an annual air show or air shows and several "fly -ins" per year. e$ Printed on recycled paper ARRA staff is not yet ready to make a recommendation to the governing body on this issue. Details such as type-of aircraft, volume of operations, hours of operations, types of special events, seasonal restrictions, staff requirements, and maintenance and operating costs are yet to be determined. The community, the.AOC, and the BRAG will be afforded opportunity for comment before a final staff recommendation is formulated and the ARRA decision is made. Agreements with F &W would have to be made in regard to the operational criteria governing the airport. F &W has made a commitment to work with the community in developing the management plan, so that process will also afford opportunity for public comment. In the interim, Mr. Joe Davis, who operates .a private, limited -use airfield called Eagle Field in the Los Banos area, has proposed. that a very limited airfield operation be conducted during a six -week period to begin approximately May 1, 1997. F &W has voiced support for this and views it as an opportunity to conduct studies related to compatibility with the Least Tern and other resident species. The demonstration period can also be used to inform the community, AOC, ARRA and others in regard to noise, traffic generation, and other areas of concerned defined in meetings with the BRAG Airfield Task Force, Navy environmental staff, F &W, and environmental interest groups in Alameda and in the larger community. The study would generate essential data for F &W in preparing their refuge management plan and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) they will be required to prepare under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. It is likely that F &W will make a request to the Navy within a few weeks to proceed with this limited -use airfield study. The ARRA staff fully supports this proposal and considers it the preliminary step in fulfilling Deputy Secretary Garamendi's promise to work with the community to maximize the economic benefits of this property while protecting the Least Tern and maintaining the integrity of the Wildlife Refuge. top+p on recycled paper ■ City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum April 14, 1997 To: James M. Flint City Manager 4 -K Item lc From: Margaret A. McLean, Secretary Airport Operations Committee Re: Reconsideration of Recommendation on Limited Use Runway at NAS Alameda Recommendation At a special meeting of the Airport Operations Committee (AOC) was held on April 3, 1997, the Airport Operations Committee (AOC) voted not to rescind their previous recommendation against a limited use airfield at NAS Alameda. The vote was as follows: AYES: 6 DeSimone, DeWitt, Nelson, Tuleja, Roth, Brimhall NOES: 0 ABSENT: 3 DeCelle, Kane, Wetherill ABSTENTIONS: 0 Discussion At the request of Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the AOC met to reconsider their earlier position on a limited use airfield. The meeting began with a short presentation on the proposed airfield by the Executive Director, with assistance from the Base Transition Coordinator, Norma Bishop. In brief, the Committee was advised that ARRA staff received a proposal' for operation of an airfield, and that ARRA was treating that proposal as an application for lease. Due to limited funding for a full evaluation of the issues, EBCRC funded a study that looked at whether a limited use airfield could be a viable option. The study, performed by P & D Consulting, Inc., did show that a limited use facility was conceptually feasible, but that the operating parameters would need to be fully developed and a marketing plan performed based on the proposed operating parameters. The Executive Director requested that the AOC rescind their previous recommendation, at least until more information can be developed on the proposed airfield. Following the presentation, the Executive Director answered questions from the Committee. The following is synopsis of the Committee's discussion/questions on this matter: What number and type of operations per day would there be? Ans. Perhaps 10 to 15 operations, but that level of detail has yet been developed. 1 Nimitz Field, A Limited -Use Airfield for Alameda, prepared by Joe Davis of The Nimitz Field Project. Dated December 12, 1996. James M. Flint City Manager April 14, 1997 Page 2 How long has it been since full use of the NAS airfield? Ans. It has been closed since June 1996. There were a few operations last October. How would limitations on airfield use be enforced? Ans. Through a three -way agreement between Fish & Wildlife, the field operator and the City. The project will only proceed in a way that Alameda is comfortable with. What is the proposed revenue? Ans. The differential for leases would be in the area of $.05 to $.10 per square foot. It is believed that there would also be a higher demand for lease of the larger hangers. Also, there could be revenues direct to Alameda from the gate revenues of air shows. ARRA staff have been advised that these air shows could generate as much as $500,000, per event weekend. Is the limited use airfield being driven by staff or by the ARRA. Ans. The ARRA has not yet taken a position. Staff is still gathering information on what the benefits to Alameda would be. _What outreach has ARRA made to the community on this issue? Ans. The BRAG process acts as the community outreach for ARRA issues. So far there have been no meetings on this issue before the community. Copies of articles from the California Pilots' Association was distributed to ARRA staff as representative of the conditions affecting residents in the East End of Alameda. Several members of the Committee advised that, under no conditions, could they endorse any proposal that would possibly subject their neighbors in the West End of Alameda in a similar manner. Summary At the completion of the discussion, it was moved that, until information was provided to overturn the previous findings of the committee, the original recommendation of the Committee would stand. MAM:em cc: Airport Operations Committee Assistant City Attorney City Attorney Executive Director, Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Govemor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THIRTY VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2011 ;AN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 -6080 PHONE: (415) 557 -3686 April 16, 1997 Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority NAS Alameda, Postal Director, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Dear Kay: As you requested a few days ago, attached are copies of the sections of the Commission's law and regulations which specify the procedures we must follow to amend the Bay Plan. Consistent with these legal requirements and following our normal practices of holding Commission meetings on the first and third Thursdays of a month and mailing material for the Commission meetings on Fridays, following is our proposed schedule for getting the Seaport Planning Advisory Commit- tee's recommendation on the deletion of the .remaining port priority designation on the Alameda Naval Air Station before the Commission for its consideration: May 2 Staff mails proposed descriptive notice of the proposed Bay Plan change as specified by regulation section 11001. (Note that regulation section 11001(c) requires that this proposed notice must be mailed at least 10 days before the Commission considers the notice making May 12 the first day the Commission could consider the notice.) May 15 Commission considers and adopts descriptive notice as specified by regulation sec - tion 11002. May 16 Staff mails descriptive notice. (Note that regulation sections 11002 (d) and 11004 (a) require that the notice must be mailed at least 30 days before the Commission public hearing on the proposed amendment making June 15 the first day the Commission could hold a public hearing on the amendment. Note further that Government Code Section 66652 prevents the Commission from voting on a Bay Plan change until at least 90 days after this notice has been issued making August 14 the first day the Commission could vote on the amendment.) Jun 13 Staff mails planning report as specified by regulation section 11003. (Note that regu- lation section 11003(a) requires that the report must be mailed at least 30 days before the Commission public hearing on the proposed amendment making July 13 the first day the Commission could hold a public hearing on the amendment.) Jul 17 Commission holds public hearing as specified by regulation section 11004. Aug 15 Staff mails planning recommendation as specified by regulation section 11005. (Note that regulation section 11005(c) requires that the recommendation must be mailed at least 6 days before the Commission public hearing on the proposed amendment making August 21 the first day the Commission could vote on the amendment.) Aug 21 Commission votes on proposed amendment as specified by regulation section 11006. Please let me know if you have any questions about this schedule. cc: Seaport Planning Advisory Committee Since el WILL TRAV S Executive Director Dedicated to making San Francisco Bay better. RECEWED APR 2 1 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA . Alameda Iteuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 overning Body tlph Appezzato ayor, City of Alameda .ndr6 R. Swanson ce -Chair strict Director for ,nald V. Dellums Congressional District ilma Chan :pervisor, District 3 ameda County Board Supervisors enry Chang, Jr. xkland Councilmember ruing for ihu Harris ayor, City of Oakland len M. Corbett ayor ty of San Leandro my Daysog juncilmember ty of Alameda Ibert H. DeWitt runcilmember ity of Alameda arbara Kerr ouncilmember ity of Alameda arin Lucas ouncilmember ity of Alameda ay Miller xecutive Director April 14, 1997 Barbara Baack President Alameda Naval Air Museum 16148 Via Sonora San Lorenzo, CA 94580 Dear Ms. Baack and Mr. Howell: Terry Howell President Western Aerospace Museum P. O. Box 14264, Airport Station Oakland, CA 94614 • (510) 864 -3400 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 Thank you for the submission of your business plan on March 31, 1997 in response to our April 1 deadline. As I discussed with Mr. Ron Reuther, the plan, although excellent in many ways, leaves essential questions unanswered, and I offered to extend the deadline to April 17 to supplement it. At a meeting on April 10 with ARRA staff, Mr. Ed Levine and Ms. Norma Bishop, the Base Transition Coordinator, discussed the deficiencies in detail with you, Ms. Marilyn York, Mr. Ron Reuther, Mr. Clyde Grimes, and others of Western Aerospace Museum's (WAM) board. Mr. Levine asked for more detail in two areas: the exact nature of day -to -day operations in each phase of your plan's implementation and an itemized list of operating costs and capital expenses for each phase, to include the $0.025 /square foot common services fee and upgrades and utilities costs. At that meeting Mr. Reuther requested another extension, although it seemed that the data was available but had not been included in the business plan. Following a discussion with ARRA staff about rescheduling the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) committee review, I have concluded that a further extension would not be advisable. April 17 provides only a five -day review for the BRAG committee, and rescheduling their meeting with you would be difficult at this time. At my request, Ms. Bishop called Mr. Reuther on April 11 to inform him that a further extension was not available and the BRAG committee would meet for ANAM/WAM's presentation on April 22 at 6:00 P.M. in Building 90. I appreciate the time and effort you have put forth on this project. I look forward to receiving your amended plan. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director cc: ARRA governing body BRAG (10 No)z...41Aek_ 44( Item 3b UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Ms. Marilyn York Alameda Naval Air Museum 16148 Via Sonora San Lorenzo, CA 94580 Dear Ms. York: OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT April 15, 1997 FAX This is in response to your April 14, 1997 call to my office regarding the status of your organization's application for a public benefit conveyance of facilities at the Alameda Naval Air Station. As you know, the Air Station is being disposed of pursuant to the military base closure acts. In this process the Secretary of Defense has recognized the Alameda Reuse and Development Authority (ARRA) as the local redevelopment authority (LRA) responsible for recommending a base redevelopment plan to the U.S. Navy. In arriving at a redevelopment plan, the LRA will consider and review all proposed public benefit interests in the Air Station. The Navy, when making its property disposal decision, gives substantial deference to the LRA's redevelopment plan. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Education gives strongest consideration to the recommendations of the LRA. ARRA adopted a community reuse plan on January 31, 1996. In the plan, ARRA recommended that the property requested by the Museum be transferred to the ARRA who would in turn lease the facilities to the Museum at nominal cost. Additionally, the facilities requested by the Museum are located within the area known as Tidelands Trust lands. This designation, unfortunately, precludes disposal to many entities. Therefore, in conclusion, if you have not already done so, I encourage you to pursue leasing options with ARRA. cc: Ms. Kay Miller, ARRA David B. Hakola Director, Real Property Group RECEIVED APR 2 1 1997 600 INDEPENDENCE AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20202 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA 4 -K Item 6 U.S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard Commander Coast Guard Island, Bldg 54D Maintenance & Logistics Alameda, CA 94501 -5100 Command Pacific Staff Symbol: sr Phone: (510) 437 -5900 FAX: (510) 437 -5753 11011 22 April 1997 From: Commander, Maintenance & Logistics Command Pacific To: Commander, Engineering Field Activity West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Subj: NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) ALAMEDA HOUSING Ref: (a) MLCPAC (s) letter 11011 to EFA West dated 13 December 1996 (b) MLCPAC (s) letter 11000 to ARRA dated 19 March 1997 (c) Telephone conversation between Mr. Van de Loo of MLCPAC (sr) and Ms. Miller of ARRA on 15 April 97 1. In our last letter to you (Reference a), we informed you that we were working to gain our Headquarters approval to enter in to a Lease -back arrangement with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for the 300 Marina Village and 282 North Housing units at NAS Alameda. We recently received conceptual approval from our Headquarters to pursue a Lease -back arrangement and have so notified the ARRA (Reference b). I want to formally make you aware that we are now proceeding with Lease -back negotiations with ARRA, our first meeting is scheduled for Monday, 28 February 97. I will keep you informed how these negotiations are progressing. I will also let you know when we receive the expected notification from our Headquarters that the Lease -back authority has been redelegated to our Command. 2. I am aware that the Navy is looking to turn-over administrative responsibilities for the Marina and North housing areas to the Coast Guard effective 1 July 1997. As it is unlikely that the control of , or title in, these housing areas will have transferred from the Navy by this time, I request that a Navy License be granted to the Coast Guard for our use and control of these housing areas effective 1 July 1997. The term of this License could be for the standard five year period, subject to the property's (probable) transfer from Navy control during this time. This will allow us to effectively administer the Marina Village and North Housing areas, and will provide a logical, interim step for the release of Navy control of this property. The ARRA (Reference c) supports this action. 3. I am you point of contact for this action, you may reach me at the address above or telephone (510) 437 -5900. ic5iMec1/..di lero R. B. VAN DE LOO By direction RECEIVED APR 2 9 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA U.S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard cc: ARRA City Manager Ed Levine Commander Coast Guard Island, Bldg 54D Maintenance & Logistics Alameda, CA 94501 -5100 Command Pacific Staff Symbol: (s) Phone: (510) 437 -3531 FAX: (510) 437 -5753 11000 19 March 1997 Ms. Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: As noted in the enclosed letter, we have received conceptual approval to pursue a no -cost lease back arrangement with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for the 300 Marina Village and 282 North Housing units. This is a new approach that we believe will result in a "win -win" situation for both the Coast Guard and the ARRA, but there are many issues that have to be resolved before we can use this new authority. For this reason our request for Title 10 transfer of those housing units will remain in place until the teens for the lease back arrangement are developed and agreed to by all parties. Mr ob Van de.Loo will initiate development of the lease-back arrangement with the ARRA and the Navy. He can be reached at (510) 437 -5900. For other information please contact LCDR Rod Smith (510) 437 -3531. Sincerely, BRUCE Y GOOD Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Civil Engineering Division By direction Encl: (1) Commandant (G -CPP) ltr of 26 Feb 1997 Copy: USCG Commandant (G -CPP, G -SEC) Integrated Support Command Alameda Navy Engineering Field Activity West Navy Public Works Center San Francisco Alameda Unified School District RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA U.S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard Commandant United States Coast Guard 2100 Second Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20593 -0001 Staff Symbol: G -CPP Phone: (202) 267 -2355 FAX: (202) 267 -4401 11000 From: Commandant 2 6 FEB 1 1 To: Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command Pacific(m) Via: Commander, Coast Guard Pacific Area (P) j o� z �L (Oh 7 Subj: ALAMEDA REUSE AUTHORITY HOUSING REQUEST Ref: (a) CG MLCPAC(m) ltr 11000 of 8 Sep 96 1. Your request (reference (a)) to pursue a no cost lease back arrangement with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) in lieu of Coast Guard acquisition of the 300 Marina Village and 282 North Housing units located at Naval Air Station Alameda is conceptually approved. As you are aware, this is a new approach to obtaining housing for Federal Agencies and the Coast Guard could very well be the first test case. In light of this we ask that you keep Commandant (G -CPP) abreast of this transaction and prior to any signing of a lease that the proposed lease agreement be submitted to Commandant (G -CRC) for coordinated review and approval. This request has raised many issues that have yet to be resolved, mainly due to the absence of implementing regulations. Therefore, please work closely with your legal staff and with the ARRA, the City of Alameda, the Navy and other necessary players to resolve any pending issues. 2. Prior to any commitment to enter into a leaseback under Section 2837 of Public Law 104 -106, approval must be obtained from Office of the Secretary (OST) for the specific transaction. In addition, a delegation of authority from OST is necessary. Commandant (G -SEC) is the action office with respect to these items. Please contact them for further guidance. Also, please utilize the direction in enclosure (1) to aid you in your negotiations . and when preparing any lease agreement. If you should have any questions my POC is Ms. DeloresWatson. She can be reached at (202) 267 -2360 or e -mail address (standardworkstation III)Dwatson G- CPP @mailgatehq.comdt.uscg.mil. Encl: (1) Headquarters Direction for ARRA Leased Housing Agreement Copy: COMDT (G -S), COMDT (SEC), COMDT (LEL), COMDT (LGL), COMDT (CPA), COMDT (G- WPW -1) MULL! V11 Headquarters Direction for ARRA Leased Housing Agreement 1. A leaseback agreement entered into by the Coast Guard must be part of, and would follow from, an agreement between DoD and ARRA. A three way MOU should be entered into between DoD, DOT, and ARRA. 2. Utility infrastructure will convey to the ARRA along with the property. 3. In order to avoid a potential violation of the Anti - Deficiency Act, the Coast Guard cannot commit to maintaining the property (including the utility infrastructure) in the leaseback agreement. Likewise, the Coast Guard cannot commit to state or local code compliance. Maintenance of the property, and any state or local code compliance, must be solely at the discretion of the Coast Guard. The leaseback agreement must be a "no cost" lease in every sense. 4. The legal principle behind the leaseback approach is that legal title to the property will pass from the United States to the ARRA. As such, the Coast Guard will be in the position of a lessee. Therefore, the property cannot be considered federal property nor a federal enclave. If the Coast Guard goes on record (through the leaseback agreement or through any other documentation) as supporting or agreeing to the ARRA's (or City's) position that the property is a federal enclave (in order to avoid state and local code compliance issues), then the Coast Guard runs the risk of being held liable for the cost of any environmental contamination/clean up. 5. The leaseback agreement should clearly provide for a successor in interest upon the dissolution of the ARRA.. The successor in interest should be a party to any leaseback agreement. Also, the ARRA must have the authority to acquire, hold, and convey real property. 6. NEPA requirements should be satisfied prior to lease agreement and the responsible party clearly articulated. 7. Prior to any lease agreement, review US Navy files for the remediated hydrocarbon site and conduct on -site investigations to ensure no problems exist. Grandfather responsibility for cleanup, as necessary. 8. CG MLCPAC should confirm in writing that they have reviewed the Environmental Base Line Survey and that it is in conformance with the Coast Guard's policy This should be done prior to any lease agreement. ENCLOSURE (I), HORNET UPDATE: April 24, 1997 The Aircraft Carrier HORNET Foundation is close to our fund- raising goal, and very close to saving the ship! We now have many high- quality corporations committed to, or close to committing, to helping us. We estimate that we will have our funding within 60 to 90 days. We are planning the Grand Opening of the USS HORNET Air, Sea, and Space Museum not later than Fleet Week 1997. This project will be of enormous economic and social benefit to our Community. We expect to be extremely successful - -there are already three other ships identical to HORNET operating as very successful museums in the eastern and southern United States, and, with the lessons already learned from them, we open from the beginning very high on the start-up curve. Our ERA marketing report projects 805,000 visitors HORNET's first year. Break even is 280,000. ERA's record of accurate forecasts of market support and visitation is unsurpassed, and their reports are regarded as the industry standard. The above visitor base will generate about $79 million per year spent directly and indirectly in local economies, benefitting local cities through Sales and Transient Occupancy taxes (estimated at $1.3 million annually). Above revenue will create approximately 779 new jobs in the HORNET impact area. HORNET, when fully staffed, will employ 150 people full time. Priority in hiring will be given to Alameda, Oakland, and East Bay residents who lost jobs due to military base closure. Approximately $1.3 million for infrastructure improvements will be spent immediately upon securing our goal of $2.25 million. Preference will be continually given to local businesses regarding ongoing contracts, supplies, and services. HORNET will be the only registered National Historic Landmark located on the former Naval Air Station. In addition, HORNET will be the only major large ship museum on the west coast, and the only ship museum to have major ADA access for disabled visitors. PO. Box 460 • ALAMEDA. CALIFORNIA 94501 • 510 - 521 -8448 / FAX 521 -8327 , Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda (510) 864 -3400 Postal Directory, Building 90 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 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 Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board of Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving for ihu Harris your, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Tony Daysog Councilmember City of Alameda Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Barbara Kerr Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director &3Recycled paper Item 10b April 1, 1997 Dave Ryan, Base Conversion Manager EFA West 900 Commodore Drive San Bruno CA 94066 -2404 SUBJ: AIRCRAFT CARRIER EX- HORNET BERTHING AT NAS ALAMEDA Dear Dave: This letter is in response to the memorandum dated 24 March 1997 to Naval Facilities Engineering from the Commander of Naval Sea Systems regarding berthing requirements for the Hornet at NAS. This memorandum requests EFA West not lease the south side of Pier 3 to the ARRA. NAVSEA also requests that EFA West provide for the Hornet berthing on the south side of Pier 3 through December 2000. The ARRA wishes to express its strong opposition to this request. If implemented, this no -cost arrangement would deprive the ARRA of approximately $240,000 per year in revenue from berthing two (2) MARAD ships at this pier location. Through December 2000, our combined revenue loss would be approximately $850,000. As you are well aware, the ARRA has been working diligently for well over a year to plan the immediate productive reuse of the piers. These plans relied on NAVSEA's own statement that the NAS piers were in excess of its needs. In anticipation of the piers being available to the ARRA for lease and subsequent sublease, we have been negotiating for the past year with MARAD to lease the piers and have contracted with Trident Management, Inc. to provide port services for the piers. In connection with our agreement with MARAD and Trident, the ARRA will provide a $76,000 insurance policy covering the personal property associated with the provision of port services to ships on the pier. Dave Ryan, Base Conversion Manager EFA West April 1, 1997 Page 2 As you know, the ARRA has consistently supported the Hornet Foundation's proposal to convert the ex- aircraft carrier to a permanent museum and event facility at NAS. However, our support has always been conditioned on obtaining fair - market compensation for the berth space that the Hornet will occupy. A significant portion of this price would cover the ARRA's costs for ongoing port maintenance and operation by our contractor, Trident Management, Inc. The Hornet Foundation has generally concurred with this approach. We believe that the same arrangement should apply for NAVSEA. The ARRA hereby requests that EFA West proceed with its original commitment to lease all of Piers 1, 2 and 3 to the ARRA. We assure you that we will make every effort to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the Naval Sea Systems Command to allow the Hornet to remain berthed at NAS through December 2000 and beyond. Sincerely, i/\&l u-�J Kay Miller Executive Director KM/jcb - c: Sandre Swanson, District Director Office of Congressman Ron Dellums Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command C:IWPDOCS\EL\HORNET.REV DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY HEAOGUARTERS 1300E AVENUE FORT LEE, VIRGINIA 23801.1aao RIviM MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA SUBJECT: Naval Air Station Alameda Commissary Closure The Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Commissary will close July 26, 1997 as a result of Base Realignment and Closure Committee (BRAC) 93 actions. As you are aware, the original • commissary closure date was April 1, 1996. The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) has extended the commissary closure date twice to accommodate installation closure time lines and to enable DeCA to investigate closure options. Department of Defense base realignment and closure guidelines state that when an installation is closed as a result of BRAC decisions, that the commissary must also close. Accordingly, the Department decreased the overall DeCA budget required to support these stores. After thorough investigation, I have determined that there are no options available to continue operating a commissary on what will cease to be a non -DoD installation, upon property turnover to the Coast Gtiard. In addition, the Coast Guard has informed me that they are financially unable to support any initiatives that would allow DeCA to continue some form of grocery resale operation. You can be assured that DeCA is doing everything possible to provide the greatest degree of commissary support to the largest number of patrons possible. The increased costs of maintaining a commissary on a closed installation can be counter - productive to this effort. I am aware of the importance of the commissary benefit; however, resources for continued operation are not available and I am compelled to make difficult decisions in order to save the overall benefit. My staff point of contact for this action is Mr. Tom Owens, DSN 687 -8780. cf: Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Chief, Human Resources, USCG Commander, CGES i 5 RICHARD E, BEALE, Director Command Pacific, USCG Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Jim Flint Alameda City Manager FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director DATE: April 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Request from Councilmember Barbara Kerr MilitiMIZENeacassmasmaimumerneal The inquiry from Councilmember Kerr (att. 1) really addresses two issues: (1) the Navy's current practices regarding control and removal of feral cats and (2) plans and procedures for predator control in conjunction with the Least Tern and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ( USFWS) National Wildlife Refuge (refuge). I will address the refuge predator control issue first. As you are aware, the decision to transfer 525 acres to the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) for a refuge was made in November 1996. One of the determining factors in the decision to convey such a large parcel was the presence of a Least Tern colony on the runway. The Least Tem is an endangered species that is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Ultimately, the property will be transferred directly from the Navy to Interior. Interior is required by law to develop a Refuge Management Plan that includes their plans for predator control at the refuge. The primary predators of the Least Tern are raptors (hawks and kestrals), foxes, and feral cats. The management plan will address how Interior proposes to control these predators through a variety of techniques. In his letter of November 18, 1996 (att. 2), Deputy Secretary Garamendi insures that the Alameda community will have input into the process (see response to concern #5). The ARRA staff has been in regular contact with USFWS and refuge staff regarding the development of a management plan. We have been assured that they will work with a group of community stakeholders in developing this plan. USFWS has indicated its intent to distribute the initial draft of its management plan next week. Copies will be sent to the ARRA, the BRAG, City staff, AUSD, and EBRPD any constituencies who have a stake in the management of the refuge. As required by federal law, USFWS will have a schedule for public hearings on the proposed plan. In response to Councilmember Kerr's three requests: 1) Determine the actual extermination practices. The attached memo from Doug Pomeroy (att. 3) addresses the Navy's current practices in performing its requirements under the Endangered Species Act in regard to the Least Tern predator control as well as their overall responsibility for animal control activities at NAS Alameda. t4 Printed on recycled paper Jim Flint, City Manager April 11, 1997 Page 2. 2) Determine whether it would be advantageous for the City to get the $90, 000 contract. The contract between the Navy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Damage Control (ADC) is for very specialized predator control services. However, as Mr. Pomeroy notes in his response #4, as part of the Cooperative Service Agreement the City will be providing activities at the base. g animal ) Determine how the City can insure humane methods are always used. The City will have numerous opportunities for input directly to the Navy and especially through the t Cooperative Services Agreement to insure ongoing discussion of animal control practices. In regard to long- term predator control practices associated with the refuge, the ARRA and the City will need to be active participants in the refuge management planning process. I will make this information available to the ARRA governing body as well. Should you have further questions, please let me know. Att. (3) cc: ARRA governing body FORWARDED mPrinted on recycled paper 04/68/1997 08:28 510 - 748 -4504 ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 01/10 City of AlamedL TO: Jim Flint, City Manager FROM: Barbara Kerr • • • • Attachment 1 April 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Animal Extermination at Alameda Point It has been reported to me that the Navy plans to exterminate any species they see as endangering the Least Tern. The methods are not necessarily humane. Because this program will extend into the time of our joint jurisdiction, it is important that the City not condone practices tbat cause unnecessary suffering to feral dogs and cats, raptors, and other animals such as foxes. The proposed Navy contracts and the proposals from the animal safety citizens are enclosed. It has bean reported to me that plans have been made to trap non -avian animals and leave tha am there for extended periods. When the traps are finally checked, a permitted method of extermination is to shoot the trapped animal forthwith. No effort is to be rnade to determine which animals are domesticated, have been abandoned by departing base families, and are suitable for adoption. The specifications provide for extending the extermination practices into off -base Alameda. The maD imum for the contract is $90,000. Another issue is the management of a few feral cat populations on the base by dedicated volunteers who are paying for spaying and neutering out of their own pocket. The navy is allowing them only a week to relocate these families, an insufficient time. These populations are nowhere near the least terns. We need to determine for ourselves: 1. The actual extermination practices. 2. Whether it would be advantageous for the City to get the $90,000 contract. 3 How the City can insure humane methods are always used. Please rat his item on the April 15th agenda. We want to deal with it to prevent any unnecemsary suffering. Sincerely, cc: City Council Barbara Kerr, Councilmcmbcr East Wing, Historic Alameda High School Office of the City Council 2251) Central Avcntr.: Room 340 • 94501 510 748.4528 °ffic _ • 510 748.4503 Fax • TDD 510 522.7538 /fidA4/ NOU -18 -1996 14:28 INTERIOR DEPUTY SECRETARY 202 208 1873 P.02/04 United States Department of the Interior • OFFICE OF TI'S DEPUTY SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240 November 18, 1996 Kay Miller, Executive- Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station, Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: Attachment 2 Thank you for the October 25,1996, meeting at the Alameda Naval Air Station. I appreciated your candid discussion of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority's (ARRA) concerns and your needs regarding the pending base closure and the proposed National Wildlife Refuge. I am committed to making our potential relationship as beneficial as possible for the .City.and the important wildlife resources of California. Based on discussions at that meeting, as well as input received from correspondence and •discussios r with your organization, Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Navy, local citizens, environment& organizations, and others, we have made a decision concerning the size of the parcel to be requested from the Navy. Based on a consideration of the community's needs as well as the needs oldie endangered California least tern and other wildlife species, the Fish and Wildlife Service will request 525 acres of land and 375 acres of open water in fee title. As described in correspondence from Dale Hall, USFWS, 525 acres of land is considered necessary to ensure the continued survival of the least tern. At the October 25 meeting you requested Departmental cooperation on several issues of concern to the ARRA. At the meeting I stated and continue to believe that there is enough flexibility to accommodate your concerns as well as ensure a fruitful venture. Following are responses to each of your individual concerns: 1. The Service should agree to "reasonable," not onerous, restrictions on land uses outside the Refuge: The Service believes that on the northern portion of the property, adjacent to the proposed Refuge, light industrial uses and a golf course could coexist with management of the least tern colony. Buildings in the light industrial complexes should not be greater than two stories tall. The golf course should not have tall trees but should have open space areas that will provide alternative foraging areas for predators. A "links" style course could provide the least amount of disturbance to tern colony management. As stated in our letter to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Service believes that developing the north end as a port facility would adversely affect the tern colony. The Service will work with the ARRA to configure the development boundaries on the north end to assist in making the most efficient use of the space While still protecting the tern colony. NOV -18 -1996 14:29 INTERIOR DEPUTY SECRETARY 202 208 1873 P.03/04 Kay Miller, Executive Director 2 The Service believes that residential housing north of the proposed refuge would adversely affect the tern colony. Residential development would increase the presence of predatory domestic animals and would attract invasive predators such as the red fox. Other activities on the Navy base in general, such as landscaping, should consider the suitability of those actions in relation to predator enhancement. Certain types of trees are more conducive to nesting crows which will prey on terns. Crows are also very closely associated with golf courses. Therefore, the two combined may enhance predation by a specific predator. This in no way precludes landscaping on the base, only that consideration should be given to the effects. 2. The Service should explore conveyance and ownership options that include a reversion of lands to the City if they are no longer needed as a Refuge: Since the October 25 meeting, Service staff met with you, the City, the Navy, and Department of the Interior legal staff, to explore conveyance options that would allow "reversion" to the City. • As you are aware, staff have been unable to determine a method which would provide sufficient security for the endangered least terns while still complying with existing Federal surplus property laws. Therefore, we are requesting the Navy transfer jurisdiction of these lands to the Service in fee title. However, we are willing to work with you if other methods toassure reversion to the City become available after jurisdiction of the lands is transferred. 3. All parties should commit to expediting the EIS process: Upon receipt of an adequate biological assessment from the Navy, we are allowed a maximum of 90 days to complete formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare a biological opinion that summarizes our assessment of project effects on listed species and any critical habitat. The length of time required to complete our consultation will depend upon the number of options for redevelopment that the Navy requests the Service to review in making its determination. We assure you that the Service will work closely with the Navy and the ARRA to expedite the process. 4. The Service should get involved with BCDC's Port Priority Designation of the 220 acres north of the proposed Refuge. There may be a conflict with Coastal Zone Consistency and the Endangered Species Act: The Service agrees, as stated earlier, that port development of the north end of the Navy base would adversely affect the tern colony and there may be conflicts with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Service is committed to be fully engaged in any discussion with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as well as other interested parties on this issue. 5. The Service should assure that the ARRA and the Roca' community can participate in the management plan for the Refuge: The Service will work with the ARRA, the City of Alameda, and the community in the development of a management plan for the refuge. At this time, the Service is working on a NOV -18 -1996 14:30 INTERIOR DEPUTY SECRETARY 202 208 1873 P.04/04 Kay Miller, Executive Director 3 draft conceptual management plan which will be provided to the community for review. Pubic meetings or workshops will be held in order to facilitate further dialogue with the community and a more detailed plan will be prepared after the property is transferred. Regarding public access to the site, the Service has previously indicated a willingness to cooperate,with the East Bay Regional Park District on a perimeter trail around the site. However, complete access around the site may be limited during the nesting season, although point access and observation platforms would be made available for viewing during this period. 6.. If the Refuge is 525 acres, neither the ARRA nor the City of Alameda will contribute financially to the Refuge: We understand your concerns. However, we hope this will not preclude future cooperative agreements with the City regarding economic use of the site, as discussed below. 7. The Service should commit to cooperate with the ARRA and the City on compatible economic uses within the Refuge: The Service looks forward to working with the ARRA and the City on economic uses of the site. As . has been stated previously, the Service will,consider restricted airport use and use of the bunkers at the site, provided we can assure the California least terns are not jeopardized and the proposed uses are found to be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established. I appreciate your efforts on behalf of the Alameda community to provide economic development opportunities and protection for important wildlife resources at the closing Naval Air Station. 1 hope this letter resolves some of your concerns regarding the proposed unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System at Alameda. We look forward to working with you in order to make the refuge a valued partner in the community. cc: Ron Dellums, U.S. Representative Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Bill Cassidy, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Navy APR 10 '96 05:02PM EFA WEST BRAC 60 P.2 /4 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY, WEST NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND 900 COMMODORE DRIVE SAN BRUNO, CAUFORNIA 94068 -5008 Attachment 3 10 April 1997 IN REPLY REFER TO: MEMORANDUM: 4.4-2. Froth: Doug Pom y, Engineering Field Activity, West, San Bruno, CA 415 -244 -3008 To : Norma Bishop, Base Transition Coordinator, Alameda Rcuse and Redevelopment Authority SUBJ: ANIMAL CONTROL AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION, ALAMEDA 1. Thank you for providing me a copy of the memo from Barbara Kerr to Jim Flint so I could provide an accurate desetiption of the Navy requirements under the Endangered Species Act, and Animal Control Activities at the Naval Air Station, Alameda. The Navy has managed the endangered California least tern nesting colony at the Naval Air Station, Alameda since 1980 as required by the federal Endangered Species Act. During thin period the California least tern nesting population at the Naval Air Station. Alameda has increased from 60 nesting pairs in 1980 to 208 nesting pairs in 1996. California least tern management at the Naval Air Station, Alameda, is specifically required both by the Endangered Species Act, and the Navy/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act agreements, called Endangered Species Act Section 7, consultations. Under an Endangered Species Act in 1988 (1- 1- 88 -F -39) which allowed construction of the partial breakwater gap closure at the Naval Air Station, Alameda, the Navy is required to conduct annual management of the Naval Air Station. Alameda, least tern nesting colony. Predator management and specifically a feral cat (domestic cats gone wild) control program at the Naval Air Staatn, Alameda is required as mitigation for construction of the Naval Air Station, Alameda, Building 24 -Paint and Finishing Hanger, and Building 25- Corrosion Control Facility under the Endangered Species Act, Section. 7. consultation (1- 1 -88-I -707). in 1988. The Navy Public Works Center has also required that pets in housing units be on a lease or restricted to indivi 1ua t yards for many years under t:hr housing instruction. 2. I talked by telephone with Mr. Roland Sherman, Ms, Diane McDermott and Ms. Katherine Pelayo for approximately one hour on April 4, 1997, and explained the program to them. Their depiction of it to Ms. Kerr appears to be inaccurate. It appears that Ms. McDermott and Ms. Pelayo have be acting inconsistently with the Navy feral cat management program which has been required of the Navy at the Naval Air Station, Alameda since 1988. The specifics of closing one time animal control activities and ongoing programs are described below, as is a brief discussion of the proposal by Ms. McDermott and Ms. Pelayo. 3. The Navy Public Works Center will during the month of April remove feral cats that are currently in and under buildings which must be sealed to meet the Navy caretaker requirements. When Roland Sherman and I talked with Ms. McDermott and Ms, Pelayo, I advised them that we could allow them approximately a week to remove what cats they have been feeding prior to Navy PWC trapping these areas. The feeding activities of Ms. McDermott and Ms. Pelayo have been inconsistent with a Navy/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreement that has been in place since 1988, bit we still wanted to give them an opportunity to remove and place the cats in homes prior to closing up the buildings. However, these buildings must be sealed as part of the Naval Air Station's agreement with the Navy Engineering Field Activity, West to put buildings which will not be immediately reused into caretaker status. 4, The Navy /City of Alameda cooperative agreement provides for a full -time animal control employee of the City of Alameda to work at the Naval Air Station, Alameda. It is anticipated that this position would handle animal control activities on most of the Naval Air Station, Alameda, except for the actual airfield areas, which would use the Navy agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The City of Alameda animal control position would operate consistent with City requirements, but must also be consistent with the Navy/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreements, which would an ongoing feral cat colony on the Naval Air Station, Alameda. APR 10 '96 05:02PM EFA WEST BRAC 60 P.3 /4 5. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Damage Control (ADC) specialists have assisted the Navy with its responsibilities for management of predators and the feral cat control program situ-Y. 1988. The ADC specialists operate t,naier the requirements of the "Animal Damage Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement" and their standards require humane treatment of all animals. The activities are also consistent with the "San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Management Refuge Predator Management Plan Environmental Assessment," 6. Specific questions in Ms. Kerr's letter: a. Extermination of species: The Navy controls individuals of native species as they are identified as predators of the California least tern. Navy PWC housing regulations and the Endangered Species Act consultation for the Paint Hanger /Corrosion, Control facility both required removal of feral cats. All lease agreements between the Navy and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) or its sublessees are required to be consistent with the preexisting feral cat control program. This was a necessary condition of these leases so that the Navy would not need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on every lease in the interim leasing program. b. Humane standards: ADC has established standards and information regarding their activities discussed in detail in the 1994 EIS. c. Trapping Standards: ADC operates under specific federally approved standards, typically traps are set in the afternoon and checked the next morning. Navy PWC operates in the same manner. d. Capturing pets: All animals are checked to determine if they are potentially a pet. Animals with identification are provided to animal control authorities. Navy PWC is transporting animals to an animal control facility. ADC activities emphasize the airfield area. No animals with identification have barn found on the airfield and these cats are feral (gone wild) not domestic, and are not suitable as pets. ADC is trained to use and currently uses veterinary drugs when euthanasia is required. These feral cats on the airfield are euthanized and taken to an animal disposal facility. e. Control Activities Outside NAS Alameda Boundaries: Contract specifications specifically restrict the ADC from conducting activities off of NAS Alameda without specific approval of the Navy. This clause was put in place so the Navy could coordinate with the City if any activities outside of Navy property appeared necessary. This clause was inserted as a contingency as no ADC efforts in support of the Navy least tern management program have been required outside of Navy property in the past. f. Maximum contract amount: The maximum potential agreement amount at the Naval Air Station, Alameda is S33,000 to cover contingencies. However, our initial budget for ADC is S15,000. The 890,000 figure covered the potential maximum extent of activities at three separate Naval facilities, with a maximum of 833,000 at the Naval Air Station, Alameda. g. Actual control practices: The overall program requirements and specific control methods are described in the ADC Environmental Impact Statement, which I have not included as it is about 4 inches thick Control methods at the Naval Air Station, Alameda, consist primarily of specific removal of predatory birds which arc seen foraging over the California least tern colony, and removal of feral cats, as required by the Navy/U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreement. I am available to provide additional specific aspects of the program should it be requested. The program is a mandatory requirement previously: agreed to between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. h. City Contracting Services: The City is already contracted to do animal control under the cooperative agreement. The ADC control efforts require unique skills in wildlife damage control, and approved unique federal permits and state training and permits for trapping wildlife. Such expertise is rarely found in City animal control departments, so this function was not included in the coop. APR 10 '96 05 :03PM EPA WEST BRAC 60 P.4/4 1. Spay /neuter /feral cat colony program; Feral cats have been shown to be devastating to native bird populations, As hunting for cats is an instinct, they will bnn► native wildlife, including songbirds and endangered California least terns, even if they are fed. A spay /neuter program would still have feral cats on the Naval Air Station, Alameda, and these cats would still represent a significant predation threat to endangered least terns and other wildlife. The proponents of the cat program advocate an ongoing feral cat colony at the Naval Air Station, Alameda, and activity is inconsistent with the Navy/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988 agreement, The "humaneness" of the proposal depends on whether one prefers to see feral cats, or native wildlife, inhabit the Naval Air Station, Alameda. Many environmental gxoups would vigorously oppose this proposal. As the for the Navy, establishing a feral cat colony at the Naval Air Station is inconsistent with previous agreements between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on which all Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority leases are based If the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority proposes to establish a feral cat colony on the Naval Air Station, Alameda after transfer, the Navy in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would need to determine whether such a transfer could occur without jeopardizing the continued existence of endangered sya,ies. 04/08/1997 08:28 510-748-4504 ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 02/10 Following this page are the proposals being made by the animal safety advocates, Diane McDermott (865-9578) and Katherine Pelayo ( 521-7723) after their meeting with Doug Pomeroy (415 244-3008, EFA West) and Rolland Sherman (263-3714), Energy Conservation Officer on April. 4, 1997. After the proposals are the contracts. ' 04/08/1997 08:28 510-748-4504 ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 03/10 Proposal: 18 month reprieve (such as the East Bay'Regional Parks have set) while alternative solutions are sought, examined and discussed. Propose natural means of rodent control using feral cats The cats play an important role here which for too long has been overlooked. They help to provide a safer and cleaner environment. Without their presence, this base would be over-ridden with gophers, mice and rats. And the cats greatly reduce, if not eliminate the need for pesticide usage which pollutes our environment. Propose instituting an aggressive spay/neuter and release program versus the current trap and euthanize plan Find relocation site(s). And homes for some- .Least Terns The cats under these buildings do not stray anywhere near the least tern sanctuary. Besides eating the rodents and bugs under the buildings and in this general area, they have been fed for quite a few years and should continue to be. They have shelter and food sources here. If PWC seals all the basements, as they are supposed to do in April, then the least terns may be in danger, as the cats in their panic will spread out in all directions looking for shelter. Ben.,Ifits the Government The Government is paying PWC W an hour to trap and turn in these cats to the shelter. Why not instead pay people with experience in the humane trapping and relocating of cats. The Gov't could pay them half that amount, thereby saving the Government a great deal of money. Benefits the City, Saves the city the time, cost and work involved in taking in and euthanizing these cats. Will provide -a cleaner and safer environment because cats will be working to control rodents instead of pesticides. Benefits to ail Members of the Community will be happy. Humane groups will be happy. The image of the Navy/Govl.t, City, EFA and Fish and Wildlife will be boosted for having agreed to a more humane solution for NAS Alameda's cats. Benefits least terns If the basements are not sealed, the cats who have found shelter 04/08/1997 08:28 510-748-4504 ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 04/10 and warmth in these areas for so long will not panic and spread out to surrounding areas where they might endanger the least terns. 04/08/1997 08:28 510-748-4504 • • - Z a ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 05/10 • 0 NAVAL AIR SELF GUIDED TOUR r o•nt ward Cij of +Hrr.4, 0 20 Mold, 1157 )A.irch 15, 1996, la 1: 71: 04/08/1997 08:28 510 -748 -4504 %"IC.:zIJJLV @SF •L� . • b. • ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 06/10 p.2 5090.18 185DF /tp7..12I 6 From: Commanding 26 February 1997 To : ng Officer, Engineering Field Activity west Gander, Navel Facilities Engineering Command (14 :•117) StTBJ: DE2XRU=NATIONS AND'fINDINGS T0L•ZCONOMY ACT ACRZUENT BmTmEEN .12/LUAIAITELMFIGE tr"NTWIt Tn innvrnr vernaTntt MANACTMINT Rot ta) COMNAMCZNOCCM1tr aer 111A/95 23 of 1 MAR 93 (b) Economy At (c) CONWAY/MC=0CW Itr ser 8952 of 26 SEP 94 Encl: (1) Determinations and Findings 1. Per reference (a) approval of Determinations and Findings for reference been delegated to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command.. Requeet approval enclosure (S), which includes tb) haer Request approval b all information required by PP of the est approval r val y 14 March 1997 so that r predator r managem (c) quidanos. Debent o! squired l and l management BeaLent nsp ctio of 'Service, Animal Damage Control, will he available Animal and Plant Ssalth Inspection management requirements by 1 April I99 7, salable to support endangered species contact is: qu ements R. Pomeroy, ' For additional information. our contact ru>:yntaZ Planning i R, Group Leader, Biology /Haas ConversionoSectio .._ Enviro '494-3737, , Code' 183, D$N 494- 3008, Comm "415 -244 -3008, TA C DSN - Douglas R. Pomeroy. by direction 81Lnd copy to 243w /encl 185DFw /encl 09CRtiw /snot 022w /encl 115chron ... ROL AND 913 ERMAN • Mechanical Engineer eer Energy Conservation Officer Building 114, NAS FMO Code 511 Naval Air Station Alameda,, California 94501 -5000 (510) 263 -3714. 04/08/1997 08:28 510 - 748 -4504 ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER . Mrrc i t - v r 05 : 58AM LESTD IV 09F Enclosuze 1. D iattmATION::•AND PIND1..41$ SCR AN iat` zRAGKNCT ECONOMY, ACT TRANSACT/ON Pursuant to FAR 17. 502, , have determined * ' that an interagency acquisition under the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535)' is in the beat interest of the Government-, based upon the following- findings: PAGE 07/10 , P.3 1. Description of the Requested. action. This action, to obtain predator cOntrcl and management services to endangered species and Navy housing parsonel in northern Californiapzfromt the 0.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control (ADC), does not conflict with any other agency's authority or responsibility. This procurement action is in accordance with the Economy Act. The cost of this requirement is not to exceed $90,000.00. This determined to be fair and reasonable based on c price is agreements and contracts for animal control services comparison end compared to technical field services on other E A WEST contracts. private contractors with similar experience and availability on 24 to 48 hour notice of animal damage control problems require substantial fees-to guarantee availability on short notice. 2. Authority The legal authority for this acquisition is the Endangered species Act-o•f~•-- 1973 (as amended) (16 44USC 1533,•1534,1536) , and. the Sikes Act. (16 uEC•• -••, 670c -1). This action complies with TAR 6.002, in that this action is not being 4r:tared into with another agency for the purpose of avoiding compott.tion requirements. 3. Neither the serving agency nor any contractor has commenced work of this acquisition. This action is in the beat interest of the Government fo: the following reasons: a. The Department of Defense doss not have experienced:predator management personnel with the required qualifications, to carry out this project. respond to a variety of predator species animal damage control problems on short notice. C. Previous agre0Ments with ADC have provided outstanding results with reasonable costs. 4. Responsibilities; The servicing agency, ADC, will be responsible for the removal of predators known from previous field studies at HAS Alameda, and Mare Island to eat adults, eggs, and chicks of endangered or threatened species. ADC will trap for mammalian predators in the vicinity of the endangered species nesting habitat. ADC will remove avian predators Navy site monitors identifies individual birds which are eating adulticre juvenile endangered species or threatened species their eggs. Tha a*rvicin5 agency point of contact is Mr. Jeff Jones, Animal Damage Control, Modesto Field office, 4807 Greenleaf Circle, suits H, Modesto, CA 95365, 209 -545- 4639. 04/08/1997 08:28 510 - 748 -4504 ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER PAGE 08/10 • • t' ?1t'C 11 " V'! 09: 58AM EESTDIV 09F • P.4 s. source Availabe tyl. This' acquisition confr- to the requirements of TAR 7.3, Contractor. Amine Coveram+snt Perfor manc... It has been determined that-thy supplies and services to be obtained fron federal sources cannot k performed aa. conveniently armors economically by a private source. 6. Delivery requirements: Services will be-delivered-through the ADC Alameda 'County, California animal control specialist, who reports through . Mr. Jeff Jones, Animal Damage Control, Modesto ,Field Office. Specific work scope is attached. 7. The Program Manager /Requiring Technical Code has checked with the procuring agency and to the but of our knowledge and belief'/ ADC is vw..�,.r�....y w�...� M.�... �rj�•� +�.�..i.L! 44!00 1i�44 ir/�4i1.b.4 401 0434i Jr u X3.bi.og tQ acctlp this interagency acquisition. ADC is not receiving any fee or profit beyon the coat of project services and is using in- house resources. 8. Payment .provisions: The Punctional'Manager will review the number of 'hours reportedly, worked by ADC, and the final report, prior to approving payment of the invoice. 9. Contracting officer's consultation sought: No 10. Program Manager /Requiring Technical. Coda: The program /manager requiring technical code will review the cost data and ensure that amounts billed to. the other rode:al agency are proper for payment. The program maz:ager /requiring technical code will initiate corrective action(s) if the amounts billed are not commensurate with the services received.. _ Program. .. manager /requesting technical code initial. tional Manag /Requester g R. Pomeroy, c r 05DP zra WEST Reviewed as to form and legality: Counsel: Roger reen, Contract :: &adows, Code 0221 Lr* WEST Date Z/Z4/79?" Data • • Data %� /A, y ?e 04/08/1997 08:28 510-748-4504 MHM 11 -7 es: 59i 1€STDIY 09F CXMCMITIK • ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER NAVFAC: IMWEE;7—lea3. ZatatsTiuppert, Coe 3 APPROVED: Fax Economy Act Orders outside of'DOD: Director, Contract Support Directorate, Co 11 Date Date PAGE 09/10 P.5 04/08/1997 08:28 510- 748 -4504 • tic 11 -- 09 :59PM WESTDIV 09F . ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER ••■ 24• - rasbruary 1997 PAGE 10/10 P.o =OA' =WORK • Letter Agr ieruntt N 6t7 PREDATOR MANN Y To � 3 11iA1�i- 97 -LT - • SULTS AT NAVAL. BASSO• IN NORME MOMS MMOP o 7tDC • 1. UApa a. wipers of this agree:Rent IS ^ to provide for timely and affective maneqamaszt and control of predators as'needad to protect andangarsd spacial, sensitive natural rsaourn's, and public health at Naval bases in northern California. b. Naval Air Station Alameda: The endangered California least tarn nesting colony at the Nava.: Air Station, Alameda, has been subject to predation by a . variety of predators for many years. Day tailed monitoring studiaa of the least tarn colony at the Naval Air Station, Alameda, over the last 16 years have shown that in the absence of predator management and control afforta, a.ignificent numbers of jvvan {ia least tarns have been lost to predation. In particular, American Wastrels and feral cats have been responsible for significant losses of juvenile least terns. The feral eat portion of the predator management and control program is also a requirement of an tndangered Species Act, Section 7, consultation between the Navy and the Q.S. Pish and Wildlife Service. 'adividtial..,birds of prey of other species have also been responsible for substantial losses of juvenile least. terns. The Naval Air Station, Alameda, will elms and become a oaretaker facility under the administration of the Engineering Field Activity, West,• (trA_ 1ZA T1..2an- 8runo,. CA, on 1 May 1997. As part of its caretaker responsibilities Z'TA NZ=T must maintati:s the predator managmasnt program to protect endangered species: c. Totter Mars Island Naval Shipyard: As a result of the Endangered Special: Act, Section 7, consultation for the roperty disposal of Nara Island Naval shipyard, the U.S. Timis and Wildlife �arviavr and =FA Wt8T have identified that a predator management program of not to tua»ed 20 hours per weak is required fl V!!rsIelaggve rauadmistriocelithriliMinam pi ngietEyc uta;QaT dnri continued survival is threatened by feral Cats (domestic cats gone 441d1 and by the possible presence of the non - native red fox. Thai endangered salt marsh harvest :souse may also be effected by predation by these 'ponies. Mare Island Naval Shipyard closed on 1 April 1096 and became the caretaker rsaponaibi.ity of ZTA WZ8 ?. d. Naval Weapoas•Station Concord: The Naval Weapons Station, Concord, is an active Naval Base with extensive wetland and upland areas. The endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and California clapper rail are present in these wetlands. 'extensive upland areas of grassland art also present on the facility adjacent to family housing areas. Coyotes have been commonly seen in the upland areas. Although predator management is not currently required :or this facility, non- native red fox may become a concern in the wetland areas, and coyotes may becoan * aanaern in Navy fancily housing areas and subsequently require control at a later data. e. Other Naval facilities in northern California include the former Hunters Point Shipyard, Naval Station Treasure Island, Department of Defense Housing facility Novato, former Naval 9acurity Group Activity - Skaggs Tsland, Naval nest and Industrial Supply Center, and. Naval Communications Station - STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OX 23660 AKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 (510) 286 -4444 TDD (510) 286-4454 March 31, 1997 Mr. Robert L. Warnick Public Works Director City of Alameda East Wing, Historic Alameda High School 2250 Central Avenue, Room 280 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mr. Warnick: PETE WILSON, Governor G a.1 APR -41997 Ala-260-R0.9/R1.9 EA 04- 440101 Thank you for your letter dated March 4, 1997 reiterating the City of Alameda's concerns on the Posey/Webster Street Tubes Seismic Retrofit Project. The proposed project will require work from both outside and inside the tubes. From outside the tubes, the filhfoundation around the tubes will be densified to make the soil more rigid to prevent liquefaction during a seismic event. Work from inside the tubes include installation of expansion joints between the tube segments and modifications to the portal buildings to tube connections will add more flexibility to the tubes. In regards to the City's request to upgrade the tubes to full limited performance level, we regret to inform the City that this is not feasible due to funding constraints. However, recognizing the significance of these tubes to both Cities of Alameda and Oakland, a decision was made to include a number of elements from the limited performance strategy into the project, e.g. modify tube expansion joints, portal to tube connection and new tube expansion joints. In fact, these extra elements of work is the very reason why we have to close the tube for extended period of time. Had we strictly followed the minimum performance criteria, most of the work could be accomplished outside the tubes and minimal closure would have been required. To retrofit the tubes to full limited performance level, even if funding is available, will require more extensive work inside the tubes resulting in lengthier closures as well as delaying overall project schedule. As with any major construction project, there will be traffic and potential socio- economic impacts to the public. My staff has had several meetings with the City's staff in addressing these same concerns and will continue to work with the City to develop a mutually acceptable closure alternative and suitable measures to minimize the impacts. At City's request, Caltrans' design team is currently evaluating in detail the constructability and fiscal impacts of the City's proposed night closure scenario. It's anticipated that a decision will be made in May, 1997, on the appropriate closure scenario which is cost - effective and at the same time minimizes impacts on business, residential and educational communities. RECEIVED APR 7 =1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA Mr. Robert L. Warrick Page 2 - March 31, 1997 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Patrick Pang, Project Manager at (510) 286 -5125. Sincerely, DIANNE S'1EINHAUSER District Division Chief Design East Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda (510) 864 -3400 Postal Directory, Building 90 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandr6 R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board of Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Cbuncilmember serving for `u Harris _ayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Tony Daysog Councilmember City of Alameda Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Barbara Kerr Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director April 7, 1997 Arthur Feinstein Eve Bach Golden Gate Audubon Society 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Ste. G Berkeley, CA 94702 Dear Arthur and Eve: In response to your letter of March 27, the ARRA does not intend to apply for the Wildlife Refuge as part of the Economic Development Conveyance application. The map that was distributed on March 15 reflects the proposed conveyance as it was contemplated when the Open Space and Conservation element of the Community Reuse Plan was adopted in January 1996. As you are aware, the ARRA staff and governing body have had discussions with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ( USFWS) about a variety of conveyance mechanisms for the Refuge. However, in his November 18, 1996 letter, Deputy Secretary John Garamendi made it clear that the Department of the Interior wishes to obtain the property in fee title. We are all proceeding on the assumption that the property will transfer directly from the Navy to the Department of the Interior. We too are looking forward to working with the USFWS, FAWR, and other organizations dedicated to making the Refuge an integral part of the successful reuse of NAS Alameda. Yours truly, Kay Miller Executive Director cc: ARRA governing body A:\AUDUBONI.LTR Golden Gate Audubon Society 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G • Berkeley, CA 94702 • Phone: (510) 843 -2222 • Fax: (510) 843 -5351 Americans Committed to Conservation • A Chapter of the National Audubon Society Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge A Project of the Golden Gate Audubon Society March 27, 1997 Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Naval Air Station, Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 Dear Ms. Miller: The materials and presentations by consultants at the March 15 ARRA Workshop have raised a concern that the Friends of the Alameda Refuge (FAWR) are requesting you to address. It appears that the ARRA will be including the 525 -acre National Wildlife Refuge land as part of the application for an Economic Development Conveyance, now under preparation. (See attached map.) Although Captain Dodge, Doug Pomeroy from EFA West, and Helen Sause of the BRAG assured us that ARRA does not plan to request conveyance of the Refuge land, we would be very appreciative if you could clarify for us whether this reflects your current thinking and directions to the consultants. As you probably realize, we would be opposed to such an approach. Our organization and other environmentalists that have been advocates for the Wildlife Refuge believe that federal ownership of the site is necessary to provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with the long term authority required to meet their responsibilities. Our concerns are heightened because of current efforts to incorporate other uses - an airfield, in particular - into the Refuge. We have not opposed these possibilities because of our confidence that federal title would provide needed protection of the site's habitat value. We hope to hear from you soon. We appreciate your cooperation and eagerly anticipate working with you to maximize Refuge benefits to Alameda. Yours truly Arthur Feinstein Eve Bach cc: Mayor and ARRA Board RECEIV ED APR 0 1 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA 0