Loading...
1997-08-06 ARRA PacketAGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** ARRA - Building 90, outside East Gate Alameda Point / Former NAS Alameda Alameda, CA 94501 Wednesday, August 6, 1997 4:00 p.m. sharp 1. ROLL CALL 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) 3. BUS TOUR OF ALAMEDA POINT The bus seats 40 passengers; therefore, seating (other than ARRA board members and alternates) will be done on a first -come, first - seated basis. The bus must be loaded and ready to leave at 4:00 p.m. sharp. The bus will return to Building 90 at 5:00 p.m. sharp to allow participants travel time to the regular ARRA meeting scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at the Historic Alameda High School cafeteria. 4. ADJOURNMENT From From Sacramento Walnut Creek From San Francisco Atlantic Avenue From Castro Valley From San Jose AGENDA 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 Alameda, CA 94501 Wednesday, August 6, 1997 5:30 p.m. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY: (1) Please file a speaker's slip with the secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to three 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 ARRA meetings. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -A Recommendation that a member or members of the ARRA governing body be included on the selection panel for a property manager for all or a portion of Alameda Point West Housing. 3 -B Discussion of the July 28, 1997 restricted -use airfield workshop with any follow -up direction to staff; final action to be deferred to a future meeting (no staff report). 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -C. Presentation by D. Paul Tuttle on public trust appraisal results. 4 -D. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. 4 -E. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: 1. Wildlife refuge —Least Tern update (provided by the Navy Site Office) 2. Port priority designation 3. Status of NAS housing 4. Master use permit 5. BRAG proposal regarding a 65 -acre campus 6. ARRA move to building #1 7. "Best of Show" recognition for Alameda Point brochure. 4 -F. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). ARRA Agenda - August 6, 1997 Page 2 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 THE 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 for review at the ARRA offices upon request. This meeting will be videotaped for broadcast on cable channel 22 on the following evening, Thursday, August 7, at 7:30 p.m. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 3, 1997. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Recommendation that a member or members of the ARRA governing body be included on the selection panel for a property manager for all or a portion of Alameda Point West Housing. Background: At its June 4 meeting, the ARRA governing body authorized staff to issue an RFP to solicit property management proposals for West Housing. The staff report proposed a selection committee composed of ARRA staff, a representative from the BRAG Housing Work Group, and the City Manager or his designee. A status report is included (Attachment #1), which indicates that the RFP (Att. #2) has been issued and the Bidder's Conference has been held (Att. #3 and #4 — agenda and attendee's list, respectively). ARRA board member Barbara Kerr has expressed interest in serving on the selection panel. ARRA legal counsel has advised that the governing body must approve the appointment of any of its members to subcommittees, etc. Therefore, staff is referring this matter to the ARRA governing body for action. Discussion: The selection panel will have the following functions and duties: 1. Review all the proposals, apply the stated selection criteria, and decide which 3 -5 firms or teams should be invited to interview. 2. Participate in the oral interviews to be held August 13 or 14. (A final date will be selected based on availability of the panel members.) 3. Score and rank the proposals from the oral interviews and participate in any follow -up interviews the panel deems appropriate. 4. Make a group recommendation to the ARRA governing body regarding the selection of a property manager or managers for all or a part of the West housing. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the ARRA governing body approve the inclusion of Barbara Kerr on the selection panel for West housing. Staff also recommends that the board select one other member Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 29, 1997 Page 2 to serve, as well. That member needs to be available to participate in the interviews on August 13 or 14 and devote the necessary time to reviewing the proposals the week of August 4. It is anticipated that the selection panel will require a time commitment of approximately 10 -20 hours. Respectfully submitted, VIA Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Att: Status report RFP Bidder's conference agenda Bidder's conference list of attendees C: \MARGARETWRRA \STAFFREP \W HSNG.COM Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director DATE: July 29, 1997 SUBJECT: Status of RFP for property manager for all or part of West Housing. Per the Governing Body's direction at the June 1997 ARRA meeting, staff drafted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a property manager to manage the single - family residences at Alameda Point's West housing area. Upon determining that three townhouse buildings containing six units and an adjacent playground area seem to be a logical addition to the basic RFP, they were included. Bidders were also given the option of submitting proposals to manage the remaining available apartment and townhouse units in the West housing area. July 3 An announcement of the RFP was sent to 47 property managers and related firms and associations July 9 The RFP was available for distribution July 11 A bidder's conference and tour was held on July 11— attendance was mandatory and more than one dozen interested prospective managers attended. July 18 A follow -up tour (not mandatory) was offered for the benefit of any of the attendees who wished to view housing units again. August 4 Proposals are due and Wk of Aug. 11 Interviews will be held for the 3 -5 proposals that make the short list. The selection panel will make its recommendation to the Governing Body at its September meeting. Meanwhile, the matter of utilities is being addressed. Since the housing units are not separately metered at this time, each of the utilities (Bureau of Electricity, PG &E, and East Bay MUD) has been requested to begin the process of installing them. Estimates and timelines for this work are forthcoming. Printed on recycled paper REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Property Management of Residential Units West Housing, Alameda Point (former NAS Alameda) ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY July 9, 1997 Important Dates: Bidders Conference (required): Follow Up Tour (optional): Proposal Due Date: Selection Interviews: Award of Agreement: Projected Start Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 at 9:00 am Friday, July 18, 1997 at 9:00 am Monday, August 4, 1997 at 12:00 pm Wed/Thur, August 13 & 14, 1997 Wednesday, September 3, 1997 Monday, September 8, 1997 Contact: Tom Havey, Assistant Facilities Manager Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Point (former NAS Alameda) Bldg. 90 Alameda CA 94501 -5012 Phone: (510) 864 -3409 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction A. Background B. Description of West Housing Area C. Transitional Housing for Homeless Nonprofits D. Condition of Units E. Use Permit for West Housing Area F. Bay Area Economics' Housing Feasibility Study G. Process for Leasing Housing Units H. Historic Designation I. Purpose of the Request II. Scope of Services A. General Responsibilities B. Specific Responsibilities III. Proposal Format A. Approach B. Description of Organization, Management, and Team Members C. Organization Qualifications D. Scope of Work E. Proposed Budget F. References, Related Experience, and Examples of Work G. Diversity/Local Participation IV. Selection Process A. Qualifications B. Selection Criteria C. Proposed Selection Schedule D. Award of Contract V. Proposal Due Date and Delivery VI. Conditions of Request A. General Conditions B. Liability of Costs and Responsibility C. Validity D. Permits and Licenses E. Oral and Written Explanations F. Proposer's Representative G. Deliverables H. Restrictions on Lobbying I. Insurance TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTD. VII. Availability of Documents ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D 3 I. INTRODUCTION The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is requesting proposals from qualified firms and organizations to assist the ARRA in the Property Management of Residential Units at West Housing, Alameda Point (former NAS Alameda). An outline of the scope of work is provided in Section III of this Request For Proposals (RFP). The firm/proposer should be knowledgeable and experienced in all areas delineated in the scope of work. A. Background. Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS) —now known as Alameda Point —is located on the western edge of the City of Alameda. The current entrance is the East Gate, which is situated at the west end of Atlantic Avenue. NAS Alameda was a BRAC 1993 base closure. The ARRA was formed in April 1994 though a "Joint Powers Agreement" between the City of Alameda and the County of Alameda. The ARRA is the local reuse authority (LRA) recognized by the Department of the Defense (DoD) as the entity responsible for preparing the Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda. It is also responsible for taking title to the base lands conveyed from the federal government and for implementation of the final Community Reuse Plan. The ARRA is composed of nine members: the Mayor of Alameda and the other four Alameda City Council members, the Mayors of Oakland and San Leandro, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors member representing the Third District, and the United States House of Representatives member representing the Ninth Congressional District. In June 1994, the ARRA retained a consultant team to prepare the NAS Community Reuse Plan. The Community Reuse Plan was adopted by the ARRA Governing Body on January 31, 1996 and submitted to the U.S. Navy. The community, the ARRA staff, and the ARRA member agencies have invested a great deal of time and resources to complete a final Community Reuse Plan that details the community's vision for NAS. A map of the plan for the property is attached as Exhibit A. The Community Reuse Plan provides for an Interim Leasing Program pending the long -term redevelopment of NAS. This program has been initiated and includes the West Housing area. The closure of NAS in April 1997 and the pending master lease of existing residential units to the ARRA has opened approximately 260 units of single family and multifamily housing units to the market. The ARRA has not yet begun leasing housing units. Therefore, there is no private market operating history at NAS. The ARRA is inviting proposals from qualified property management companies to renovate, lease, and manage some or all of these units until permanent lease or sale options are determined. B. Description of West Housing Area. The West Housing residential units lie in the center of Alameda Point (see location on Exhibit A), completely within the respective boundaries of the City and County of Alameda. The units available for lease range from 2 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms and are grouped into four types: "Big Whites," ranch -style homes, townhouses, and apartments. These units are all wood frame 4 construction with stucco exteriors and a mixture of composition shingle and tar and gravel roofs. Parking is available in carports, open parking stalls, and on the street. Grounds associated with single family units extend up to fifty feet on the front, side and rear. Grounds for townhouse units include the front and rear for interior units and the front, rear, and side for end units. The grounds associated with apartment units are considered common areas. Below are descriptions of the four types of residential units that would be available for lease and the year in which the units were constructed (Exhibit B lists the specific locations of available units): Big Whites 1941 19 units 19 buildings 3 BR Ranch Style 1960s 30 units 30 buildings 3,4 BR Townhouses 1960s 19 units 7 buildings 3,4 BR Apartments 1960s 190 units 42 buildings 2,3,4 BR TOTALS 258 units 98 buildings Of the 258 units above (subject to verification, along with number of buildings), all but approximately 35 are currently vacant; all housing units will be vacated by mid - August 1997. However, one unit (the "Admiral's Residence "), located at 100 Alameda Road, is being taken over by the City of Alameda as a conference and event center. Therefore, this unit is not a part of the subject of this RFP. C. Transitional Housing for Homeless Nonprofits As required by federal law, 89 West Housing units are allocated to nonprofit groups for transitional housing of homeless families and individuals (indicated by cross- hatched sections of Exhibit B). These 89 units are not included in the 258 units listed above, which are available for market rate lease. The proposer(s) selected to manage the property will be responsible for the leasing, management, and maintenance of the market rate units only. Leasing of nonprofit units and special services required by occupants will be provided by the agency placing these families. Nonprofit housing providers will manage their respective units. The nonprofit entities are not expected to take possession of their housing units until the fall of 1998, although they may begin rehabilitation of the units at an earlier date. D. Condition of Units. At present, no units have individual meters for electric, gas, and water utilities (the Navy installed master meters); the ARRA will arrange for such metering at its expense prior to occupancy of the units. The Navy has responsibility for lead -based paint and asbestos disclosure; its policy is attached as Exhibit C. 5 E. Use Permit for West Housing Area. Housing requires a Use Permit under current zoning regulations. The ARRA currently is in the process of obtaining this Use Permit from the City of Alameda. F. Bay Area Economics' Housing Feasibility Study. The ARRA commissioned a study to address alternatives in reuse of NAS housing units. The Housing Feasibility Study is available as a useful source of information on the condition and potential cost of upgrades to the units. This study is one of the consultant reports referred to in Section VII of this RFP. G. Process for Leasing Housing Units. The ARRA and the Navy have entered into a Large Parcel Lease dated March 24, 1997 for one portion of NAS. The West Housing portion of NAS will be included as an addendum to the Large Parcel Lease. Therefore, the future occupants of West Housing units actually will be subtenants of ARRA; their subleases must be in accordance with the Large Parcel Lease (copy available at ARRA office). H. Historic Designation. All of the Big Whites are in a historic district which has been determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Any renovations or repairs must be made with in -kind materials and both interior and exterior historic appearances must be retained when possible. I. Purpose of the Request. This RFP is intended to provide the ARRA with sufficient information and analysis to determine the most appropriate and cost - effective means and to provide the full range of services for a portion of existing NAS housing. Our purpose is to select a property manager for all or a part of the West Housing. We anticipate this will be a one -year contract with the option to renew on an annual basis. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES The ARRA seeks to enter into a contract with a property management firm to provide full service property management. The scope of the services and final contract to be executed by the selected firm will include but not be limited to the following elements, including a list of major work tasks that should be accomplished as part of the scope of work. The proposer is asked to define the approach and the specific scope of work and methodology to achieve the objectives presented in this RFP. A refined scope of work should be developed that includes a detailed description of all project tasks included in this RFP with any proposed changes, additions or recommendations. The 6 description of each project task should include specification of the task itself, the methodology or analytical process, scheduling, personnel, and costs. Generally, the units are in good shape, having been left clean by the Navy. As stated previously, the ARRA will assume responsibility for installing individual gas, electric, and water meters prior to occupancy. However, the ARRA is willing to entertain proposals that suggest additional renovation and/or and improvement to units prior to leasing with the goal of increasing achievable rental rates. Proposer should explain its plan to finance such upgrades because the ARRA is unable to provide funds for this purpose. A. General Responsibilities. 1. Market and lease all single family dwellings, plus four adjacent townhouse buildings (7 units) and maintain the Park area on Lemoore Road. These are expected to be leased at market rates based on the proposer's knowledge of prevailing rates in Alameda. 2. Improve and maintain the condition of building exteriors and surrounding grounds (excluding those enclosed for individual units), utilizing proposer's own/contracted maintenance staff. 3. Provide all necessary services, materials, equipment, supplies, facilities, and professional and technical personnel to implement the approved management plan. 4. Report regularly to the ARRA staff and annually to the ARRA Governing Board. B. Specific Responsibilities. 1. By October 1 of each year, prepare an annual budget for the subsequent year to be approved by the ARRA and operate within that budget. Variances from that budget exceeding 10% must be justified in writing monthly for preceding month of operations and submitted with an invoice of services. 2. Provide monthly financial statements that include a cash receipts journal, cash disbursements journal, vacancy loss report, an analysis of actual rates compared to budget, accounts receivables aging, general ledger accounts payable aging, accounts receivables billing, bank reconcilement, reserve for replacement accounting, general journal register, and security deposit listing. 3. Assure that property expenses are necessary and reasonable to maximize project income. Obtain contracts, materials, supplies, and services on competitive terms that result in the best advantage for the property. 4. Prepare a marketing budget and plan that includes descriptions of targeted tenant profiles; and recommended rental rates and policies with specific emphasis on leasing and marketing strategies that incorporate advertising and promotion to facilitate expedient 7 phased leasing of each area, with a target date for completing lease -up. It should also support means of maximizing tenant retention. 5. Prepare a management plan for the site. Included in this plan must be: a. The planned recruitment, hiring, training and supervision of property personnel; location of a management office for occupancy specialist; staff list by position and resume for each, if currently employed; plan for emergency maintenance personnel and tenant procedures to contact such personnel. b. Recommendation of rental rates for project to be approved by the ARRA. c. Leasing arrangements that incorporate the following standards: leases must be signed by all tenants who occupy the units. They may be leased on a month -to -month basis or other renewable term not to exceed one year; the proposer should recommend the most advantageous length of lease term. Special provisions may be required to facilitate lease termination in the event of a property sale or infrastructure project. Unit inspection forms to determine unit condition must be completed before resident moves into the unit and when resident vacates the unit. Eviction procedures should be identified within this plan. Continuous delinquency in payment without good faith efforts to comply with lease may be condition for eviction. d. Alameda police and fire departments provide normal municipal services; should the proposer believe that additional security services will be required in addition to ordinary municipal services, then a plan for such should be provided. e. Complete description of physical conditions of all units and plan to improve, repair, or upgrade when necessary. f. Recommended services for units, personnel, and materials needed to provide services, and duties of each position needed to implement services. g. Work order system for repairs and maintenance. h. Inventory tracking system for supplies and equipment. i. Energy conservation measures. j. Pest and rodent control. k. Maintenance plan to provide neat, clean, safe, and sanitary conditions for interior and exteriors at all times, including: trash and litter removal from receptacles and common areas, mowing and edging lawns, trimming shrubbery, and raking leaves. Common areas include: parks /playground areas, parking areas, vacant units, and exterior walls and fences. Such a plan shall include a time frame for providing services that include, but are not 8 limited to, mowing the lawn once per week and fertilizing three times per year. Further, maintenance should ensure that occupied units have weather -tight roofs, windows, ceilings, and floors. Hot and cold water, sanitary facilities, sewage disposal, heating, ventilation, electricity, plumbing, and appliances should all be provided in good and safe working order. Plan should include procedures for management reporting and problem- solving. 1. Procedures to be followed and disciplinary actions to be taken in response to neighbors' complaints regarding appearances and decorum. This should include but not be limited to related statements in the rental contract. m. Measures to include outreach to residents and neighbors with means to discuss problems and make suggestions for improvement. Such measures must be coordinated with ARRA staff. n. System to maintain a record of all complaints, dates of complaints, person responding to complaint, action taken, and date of response. o. System to maintain resident and unit files in an organized and confidential manner. p. Plan for tenant notification of proposed rent increases and major repairs. q. Standard procedures for documenting and maintaining security deposits. 6. Prepare non - financial reports including: turnover rates, occupancy rates, and the percentage of tenants accepted at orientation. 7. Conduct screening and intake. 8. Submit the following items within a specified number of days after the date of contract execution: a. Marketing and Leasing Budget b. Annual Operating Budget c. Leasing and Marketing Plan d. Inspection Report e. Full Management Plan. NOTE: At proposer's option, the proposal may be expanded to include a "add on" for the remaining townhouse units (12) and all remaining available apartment units (190). III. PROPOSAL FORMAT All proposals shall include the following minimum information: A. Approach. 9 A short discussion of the intended approach to the Alameda Point property that demonstrates the proposer's understanding of the issues and tasks and the proposer's ability to address them. B. Description of Organization, Management, and Team Members. A description of the team/proposer organization and a work plan that identifies the personnel to be assigned to each task. The organization description should clearly identify who will be the property manager and the day -to -day contact person for the job. Also included should be the following: 1. Resumes of key staff members who will commit more than 50% of their time to the property. 2. Identification of potential team members and/or subcontractors proposed to be utilized in the leasing, management, and maintenance of the Alameda Point residential units. 3. Location of local office, size of staff, and years in existence. C. Organization Qualifications. Provide an outline of the organization qualifications indicating relevant background, experience, and capabilities for this work. A list of major properties, both ongoing and planned, to which the organization is committed during the time frame of this contract should also be provided. Include the staff resources devoted to those properties and the status of the properties. The outline shall be well - composed and shall concisely present the firms' qualifications to manage residential units at Alameda Point. All outlines shall include the following information: General experience in managing properties, including number of projects currently being managed, address of properties, brief description, types of services and management responsibilities, number of staff at each property, and a contact person for the property ownership with a telephone number that the ARRA may contact. 2. All certifications held by the Proposer and its officers. 3. Specific experience in managing mixed - income properties similar to those at Alameda Point. D. Scope of Work. The proposal should contain a description of each work task with an explanation of how the proposer plans to approach the tasks and the steps that will be taken to complete the task, including any analytical methods and tools. Proposers must demonstrate that they understand the magnitude 10 and importance of each individual task. Tasks should be organized into phases constituting measurable objectives. The following information should be included: 1 Outline of management plan for this site. This outline should include a maintenance program for all aspects of the property and an outline of staffing, including provision of an on -site occupancy specialist. Include a representative management plan of a similar residential development that Proposer has managed within the last five years. If this or any other submittal is confidential, please clearly mark these materials. The ARRA will do everything within its power to keep these materials confidential. 2. Outline of marketing and leasing plan Proposer might use for this project. This should include an estimate of the marketing budget. This plan should include proposed rents for each type of unit with documentation supporting the feasibility of achieving the proposed rents. Also submit a representative marketing plan of a similar residential project that Proposer has managed within the last five years. 3. Outline of an operations budget for the property, to include gross and net revenue to the ARRA. 4. Outline of program for outreach to residents and neighbors and statement of Proposer experience and philosophy in conducting outreach. E. Proposed Budget. Indicate the costs and hours for the total contract on a task -by -task basis and on a subcontract basis, inclusive of reimbursables. Prices quoted must be binding for a minimum of one year. This budget must include a management fee that is inclusive of all functions to be performed by the management company. The fee should reflect the cost to perform the tasks as identified in the scope of services outlined above. • The ARRA shall pay the Manager on a monthly basis as full compensation for work required, performed, and accepted. F. References, Related Experience, and Examples of Work. Provide client references with phone numbers for relevant work. Specify the client, location, consultant firm members and participating individuals, and role on team (principal, project director, etc.), type of work, implementation results or status, examples of work, and other relevant information as needed. Included should be at least three references relating to property managed within the last five years. G. Diversity/Local Participation. 11 ' The ARRA encourages efforts of Proposers and subcontractors to take steps to assure participation by Disadvantaged, Veteran Business Enterprises, Minority Business Enterprises, Woman Business Enterprises, Small Business Enterprises, and to retain businesses in the local jurisdiction represented by the ARRA in the formation of teams. Provide a section in the proposal on how the consultant will address this issue and plans for continual maintenance of diversity hiring in the ongoing management of this project. IV. SELECTION PROCESS A. Qualifications. All proposals received by the due date will be evaluated by the ARRA. Only information that is received in response to the RFP or any subsequent interview will be evaluated. The ARRA will judge the responses of each proposing firm in several critical areas. Selected proposers will be invited to an oral interview. B. Selection Criteria. The ARRA will select the most qualified proposal based on the following factors. Responses to the RFP should address the qualities and indicators that are listed below: 1. Ability of the Lead Manager to Design an Approach and Work Plan to Meet the Property Requirements. An assessment of the overall quality of the proposal. Qualities and indicators that will receive consideration include the proposer's performance in converting the Scope of Services into a work plan; the detail and clarity of the discussion as to the proposer's approach to undertaking the project; the proposer's performance in identifying any special problems or concerns that may be associated with the project and preliminary ideas about how these obstacles should be addressed; the inclusion of any unique approaches which are designed to save time and money or increase the benefits or effectiveness of the proposed work; and the demonstrated ability to work with governmental bodies and a full understanding of applicable laws or regulations that relate to the project. 2. Ability of the Proposer to Carry Out and Manage the Proposed Project. An assessment of the past experience of the organization in general. Qualities and indicators that will receive consideration include the number and types of projects the organization or its employees have completed; the variety of projects completed and a demonstration of the organization's ability to undertake this project, the general level of experience in the areas of supervision, observing and monitoring projects; the organization's ability to realize timetables and quality control objectives; and the demonstrated general ability to bring about a successful completion of the projects under the proposer's direction. 12 3. Capabilities of the Proposer Organization and/or Team. An assessment of the capabilities of the organization and individuals that will be engaged in the project. Qualities and indicators that will receive consideration include what professionals will be doing /working on each task; the various professional, technical, and educational achievements and registrations of each organization and individuals involved; the applicable experience of the proposed assigned staff, and the specific experience gained on similar projects. 4. Current Workload of the Proposer Organization and/or Team. An assessment of the perceived ability of each organization to devote the necessary human resources and management attention to the project. Qualities and indicators that will receive consideration include the number and size of the projects presently being performed by each organization and the assigned staff; the status of existing projects; the past ability of the organization to deliver projects on a timely basis; and the nature of existing projects that are behind schedule or past the completion date. 5. Proximity to the Project Involved for the Proposer and/or Team. The application of this criteria shall include an assessment of the geographic proximity to the project; the location of the office from which the proposed project will be administered; the perceived response time and general availability of the proposer's management to be on site; the perceived effect that project management location will have on price and the ability of the project to be expedited on a timely basis; and the availability of special travel or communication plans which would effectively mitigate difficulties associated with location. 6. Demonstration of Diversity/Local Participation. An assessment of how Proposer clearly demonstrates how it intends to promote diversity and local participation in the performance of the contract. 7. Profitability of Proposal Projected net revenues to ARRA, while not determinative, will be considered in the selection process. C. Proposed Selection Schedule. Following is the expectation of ARRA in terms of the timing in the process of selection: Bidders Conference: Follow Up Tour: Proposal Due Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 at 9:00 am Friday, July 18, 1997 at 9:00 am Monday, August 4, 1997 at 12:00 pm 13 Selection Interviews: Wed/Thur, August 13 & 14, 1997 Agreement Approval Date: Wednesday, September 3, 1997 Projected Start Date: Monday, September 8, 1997 D. Award of Contract. It is anticipated that the decision regarding the award of an agreement for services will be made by the ARRA Governing Body at its September 3, 1997 meeting. This is solely the Governing Body's decision. V. PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND DELIVERY Ten (10) sealed copies of the proposal clearly marked with the project description should be submitted no later than: 12:00 p.m. on Monday, August 4, 1997 to the address below. All copies received by that time will be date stamped with the time noted. Proposals will not be accepted after this time. Proposals should be addressed to: Tom Havey, Assistant Facilities Manager Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Point Bldg. 90 Alameda. CA 94501 -5012 Faxed proposals will not be accepted. Hand - carried proposals will be accepted at the above address (located next to the Alameda Point East Gate at the corner of Main Street and Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, California). VI. CONDITIONS OF REQUEST A. General Conditions. The ARRA reserves the right to cancel or reject all or any portion or portions of the RFP without notice. Further, the ARRA makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded to any organization submitting a proposal. The ARRA reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted in response to this request or any addenda thereto. Additionally, it is at the ARRA's option to (1) select a Manager for some or all of the housing types or (2) select different Manager for each of the housing types. The ARRA also reserves the right to reject any subcontractor or individual working on a Manager team and to replace the subcontractor or individual with a mutually acceptable replacement. Any changes to the proposal requirements will be made by written addendum. 14 B. Liability of Costs and Responsibility. The ARRA shall not be liable for any costs incurred in response to this RFP. All costs shall be borne by the person or organization responding to the request. The person or organization responding to the request shall hold the ARRA harmless from any and all liability, claim or expense whatsoever incurred by or on behalf of that person or organization. All submitted material becomes the property of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). The selected lead Manager will be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they possess them within their organization. The selected lead consultant will be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. C. Validity. The proposer agrees to be bound by its proposal for a period of ninety (90) days commencing August 4, 1997, during which time the ARRA may request clarification or correction of the proposal for the purpose of evaluation. Amendments or clarifications shall not affect the remainder of the proposal, but only that portion so amended or clarified. D. Permits and Licenses. Proposer, and all of proposer's sub - consultants, at its and/or their sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of any agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City of Alameda Business License which will be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. E. Oral and Written Explanations. The ARRA will not be bound by oral explanations or instructions given at any time during the review process or after the award. Oral explanations given during the review process and after award become binding when confirmed in writing by an authorized ARRA official. Written responses to question(s) asked by one proposer will be provided to all proposers who received Requests for Proposals. F. Proposer's Representative. The person signing the proposal must be a legal representative of the firm authorized to bind the firm to an agreement in the event of the award. G. Deliverables. Ten (10) copies of proposals are required with one copy left unbound. H. Restrictions on Lobbying. 15 The agreement will be subject to 24 CFR 87 which prohibits the payment of Federal funds to any person for influencing or attempting to influence, any public officer or employee in connection with that award, making, entering into, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or agreement. I. Insurance. General Liability, Automobile, Professional, Liability, and Worker's compensation insurance are required in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit D. VII. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS Copies of ARRA's consultant reports are available for review at the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) office located at Building 90, or can be purchased from the Alameda Copymat at Mariner Square Drive, Alameda CA 94501, (510) 522 -2679. A list of the reports and the costs of reproduction is available. The consultant reports are also available for review at the Alameda City Library at 2264 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA, (510) 748 -4660. 16 West Housing Agenda for Bidders Conference July 11, 1997 1. Sign In/Introductions 2. Summary of RFP - Kay Miller, Executive Director 3. Presentations from Experts Nouna Bishop, Base Transition Coordinator Cmd. Don Orndoff, Navy CSO Officer In Charge Emerson Nash, Navy Housing Officer Steve Davis, Alameda City Building Dept. Steve McKinley, Alameda City Fire Dept. 4. Questions from Bidders/Handouts 5. Tour of West Housing Area & Units 6. Return to Bldg. 90 /Any Additionl Questions c: \tom\misc\rfp bidconf Bidder's Conference July 11, 1997 Company Name Company's Representative Woodmont Real Estate Services Thomas G. Robertson CGR Associates Thomas G. Robertson Brighton Pacific Gail L. Coslow Eugene Burger Management Jonathan Vines Orbit Property Management Rick Quinn Orbit Property Management Mr. Jackson P/K Enterprises Barbara Price Harbor Bay Realty Linda Grant Inv. Solutions Gig Codiga Cantrell Harris Jim Cantrell City of Alameda Steve Davis Optima Group Tom Terry American Realty Mark Seyranvan The Property Shop Management Jan Colvin OMM- Mason Management Jon Mason Oakland Community Housing Management Cheryl A. Baker Gallagher & Lindsey Donald Lindsey Gallagher & Lindsey Lisa Fowler GPI Felix Guillory John Stewart Co. Loren Sanborn John Stewart Co. Dan Levine Bridge Housing Jim Buckley Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary SUBJ: Informational materials on the restricted -use airfield proposal. With the exception of the presentation given by Kay Miller at the Monday evening workshop, you have received the remainder of the following materials in previous mailings. They are being sent again in this packet, however, to ensure that you have the relevant materials at hand for discussion and direction to ARRA staff at the August 8 ARRA meeting. 1. Presentation given by Kay Miller at the July 28, 1997 workshop on a restricted -use airfield. 2. Executive Summary — Addendum to Airfield Reuse Study by P &D Aviation. 3. BRAG Airfield Task Force Recommendation. 4. November 18, 1996 letter from John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior. 5. May 17, 1997 letter from Margaret T. Kolar, Refuge Complex Manager, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 6. Letters of support received by the Mayor's office. Respectfully submitted, ‘e: Margaret €. Ensley ARRA Secretary KM/mee Att. (6) C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\STAFFREP\AIRFIELD. STF "C:/ N 4711 O 4) viar cntE rm8 "$(14 cio N bO ) • E U] 0 gp U 0 -4--) c 0 a) 4:9 Use of airfield and related E U1 E CU 0 0 r••' C/) ct CA 7)4 4•4 CC3 ;-�+ 0 bA 0 •E U; U O Li e"( -+-' 0 c45.1 0 al ti) a� ct • U vti 0 ttO Con COD • N cT 00 ■ t t 0 w czt • • a Pio t Kaiser Air: Definite airfield - related use Alternative uses - film studios /co Could be used for either aviation or non - aviation, light industrial use Hangar for private aircraft; leasable for non - aviation uses H L.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N N - o CID 0 0 0 b a) 0 a) a) 25 (stripping facility) Alternative uses - fil 715,000 square feet Probable tenant - Zebra Motors, CALSTART spin -off Very leasable, users similar to QAP, CALSTART Already committed to Delphi (exhibit displays) E 0 a) a) "d 0 ai cc3 a) E a] O Ct O • SQ O C) • c 'b O V cn a) cct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 00 0 ,-a 0 N M ch N N M 01 00 *film studio usage generates significant revenue but is erratic and has not produced permanent jobs. Unanswered Issues tto V 1 cif). !rte O • w v) O 0 v'S 4 . R bo .„.9cio ,,,, }, O 4.4 cv .� _° E 0 o • R tt '4 tip cA CA (I). (1) � :4;:j4 •,-•4 ;•=.1 -� c emmi r0 1) • E CI) C.) 7, (1.) b 4) < v c ct E4 • A a) vD cv cd 0,0 • A a) O czt 0 ct cu E cz3 up 0 CD vs ct a) a) • O C-11 rzi • o C cA9) -4c-,11) "74.4 CAD � o I I) CID CID vs • .� a) C.) ;i34 74) a.� Q • A Unanswered Issues ough RFP process • To be dete CCj 1 711) vi IJII ct 4t 0 CODE'% ert S yr) ft 'r o tD0 • .-Con ' CD° CI cc3 1 ct3 ;-, fai CID • ›-Revenues to A I 1 0 ,C/) W a) t.E a U ct ca o a) Cf) C.) g-4 .10 7:1 CA 0 , CID . F41 E -E "Pn -4,8 t) . r-, 0 ai Tanimni �, E Q 4) p • l--, ' 4° • OO cci Cd • �--� N ;•••4 at t' *C,) 0 0 rc) co ta) E I Ct O ®.o ° •v 1 75 4 < H tO • •-1 7473 ,b 0 --1.: ;-4 0 E a� K w U U • 4. -;\ NIMITZ FIELD PROJECT ADDENDUM TO AIRFIELD REUSE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 1996 the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission retained P &D Aviation to respond to issues and concerns raised by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority over the feasibility of converting the former NAS Alameda airfield to a "restricted use" civil airport. The term "restricted use airport" means a publicly -owned airport leased to a private operator for the exclusive use of airport tenants and others engaged in business or other authorized activities at the airport. The airport would not be open to the general public. Airfield Configuration This report has identified an area of approximately 420 acres as being the optimal project area required to support a restricted use airport, as follows: Airfield Operating Area 228 Acres Development Area 130 Acres Open Space (including Least Tern nesting area) 62 Acres TOTAL 420 Acres Included within the Development Area are approximately 1.8 million square feet of aviation and aviation- related buildings and facilities. Financial Feasibility Projected airfield area operating costs were estimated at $550,000 per year. At a competitive lease rate of approximately $3.19 per sq. ft. /year (which includes a surcharge for airport operation and maintenance), a minimum of 695,000 sq. ft. out of 1.8 million sq. ft. of building space would be required to be devoted to aviation uses in order to break even on the costs of operating the airfield. This is approximately 40 percent of the avail able building space in the area defined for the project. By leasing a little more than 50 percent of the available buildings for aviation purposes, an estimated additional $264,000 net revenue could be anticipated over and above the non- aviation uses. This amount is net of the estimated annual airfield operating costs of $550,000, but does not include other potential sources of revenue (e.g., air shows, special aviation events). With a 75 percent aviation use factor, the net additional revenue over and above non - aviation uses could total $650,000 annually. This would also be net of the annual airfield operating costs, but does not include revenues from special events or other aviation activities. 730221execsum NFP:AARS (Act. 28) (8/30/96) - page ES -1 On this basis P &D believes the idea of a restricted use airfield has sufficient economic merit to warrant further study. Recommendations Should the City of Alameda/ARRA decide to pursue the use of Nimitz Field for limited or restricted aviation activities, P &D recommends the following near -term actions be taken over the next 6 months: • Solicit comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the proposed airfield layout and operating areas (as set forth in Figure 2) with respect to their compatibility with the wildlife refuge and the "Wildlife Refuge Management Plan." • File Form 7480 -1, "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" with the Federal Aviation Administration to commence the required aeronautical study and airspace assessment. • Coordinate with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) concerning the proposed use. • Notify the Alameda county Airport Land Use Commission of the intent to operate a restricted use civil aviation facility at Nimitz Field. • Publicly advertise for and request proposals from financially qualified and capable airport operators /developers to lease buildings and operate the airfield. 730221execsum Apply to Caltrans for Airport Operating Permit. NFP:AARS (Act. 28) (8/30/96) - page ES -2 6. RECOMMENDED ACTION PROGRAM Should the City of Alameda/ARRA decide to pursue the limited aviation use of Nimitz Field, P &D recommends the following near -term (over the next 6 months) actions. f.} Solicit comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the proposed airfield layout and operating areas (as set forth in Figure 2) with respect to their compatibility with the proposed wildlife refuge and the "Wildlife Refuge Management Plan." • File Form 7480 -1, "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" with the Federal Aviation Administration to commence the required aeronautical study and airspace assessment. • Coordinate with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) concerning the proposed use. • Notify the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission of the intent to operate a restricted use civil aviation facility at Nimitz Field. • Publicly advertise for and request proposals from financially qualified and capable airport operators /developers to lease buildings and operate the airfield. • Apply to Caltrans for Airport Operating Permit. 6.1. Time Frame The above six tasks will require a minimum of 6 months to complete, as follows: 1. Coordinate with USFWS 60 -Days 2. Obtain FAA Airspace Approvals 60 -90 Days 3. Coordinate with BCDC 60 -90 Days 4. Coordinate with ALUC 60 -90 Days 5. Issue/Evaluate RFPs 60 -90 Days 6. Obtain Caltrans Operating Permit 90 -120 Days The following is the anticipated time line for completing the above six tasks: 5.4. Finding P &D believes the limited use airfield concept has sufficient economic merit to warrant continued evaluation. Our recommended actions are set forth in the next section. BRAG Airfield Task Force Recommendation to the BRAG on the Proposed Limited Use Airfield The BRAG Airfield Task Force finds that: The concept of reusing the NAS Airfield as a limited use airfield is compatible with the goals and objectives-of the Community Reuse Plans as an interim use based on the information made available to date; and • A limited.use airfield would provide opportunities for attracting other compatible airfield maintenance uses for the reuse of existing hangars and aircraft maintenance buildings at Alameda Point. The Airfi.)Id Task Force recommends that the BRAG advise the ARRA to proceed with the necessary feasibility analysis to determine the suitability of an interim reuse of the existing NAS airfield as a limited use airfield and that evaluation and actions should include: (1) Development of an appropriate business plan, lease arrangements, and joint use agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Navy to allow for a limited use airfield at Alameda Point; and, (2) Obtaining and evaluating the information identified for decision making on the attached matrix; and (3) Seeking appropriate airfield users through a marketing strategy for and lease of appropriate facilities; and (4) Successfully completing these tasks before the ARRA issues an RFP to select an operator of the airfield; and (5) (6) Requesting the appropriate City and regional committees and agencies review the proposal and participate in the proposal; and Adoption by the BRAG and forwarding these recommendations to the ARRA Board. Some Concerns and Comments on Limited Airfield Proposal Considered by Task Force • May be difficult to end airfield uses once the field is established. • The lease period is assumed to be 10 - 15 years to permit amortization of improvements. • the field may increase air traffic over Alameda. There already is a serious potential problem with Oakland Airport expansion. These issues are subject to management. • Alameda will need to evaluate its responsibility for air field maintenance, insurance, fire, etc., as well as the management plan for fish and wildlife in order to avoid incurring unforseen liabilities. - • Evaluation of legal, operational, and financial liabilities needs to be completed. • Tr °: make it economically feasible, some threshold level of buildings will have to be devoted to airfield related activities. • The necessary Runway Accident Protection Zone would inhibit adjacent uses. • Compatibility with other uses and the Community Reuse Plan needs further evaluation (see attached matrix). • Environmental impacts have not been reported out for consideration. Proposal requires further public input. May 5, 1997 a.) 0) 07 0) 03 (1) . — 0 a> 0 0) a.) 0) 0 0 cri 0 e co c —9 " ay A -cs •c-a- E < CL uses in the Community Reuse Plan. (2) Presumes originally propo (3) To be determined by noise equivalency tests. v) sn n a, tE g ;5 "g CO... ± c o 0 ii,l, 27)" 2 2 -o E M .2 cl.. • 4,.. E c i e -= t, c M V 0 cl) ; " 03 Museum Tourist Attractions en rg e, 'vs c C2 Or .1.‘ :12 .2'4 . VI Z E a) > ittr, g as .g) a ve. 2 -o o n: 0 +it' CL < I-- ‹c ....= E ii = ca. -go g w M () Public Trust ± C.) cn S ...T *-3 . E .-.• = :..._ 55 Zi li) lo= m co ca. E Land Uae Compatibility Criten4 Adjoining Business Uses = —SC C Z' :—. .25 E its. . "E § BCDC Pori ..,C _92 it 9 ... .... e- —,„ E cc ,=-• 6 a (....) a .t-- c., ca -4.--, • 0... E 15 I ■ NW Territory (2) M Goff Course A aco l •c -• ac ) Cf3 S *te) k as c,.. en 0 • ±". (...) 0 = -= = :' .— ;413. re Z-15 E t"T3 1-0. I- .= Q. 0. -, -o E ) 0 C3 .= 7C-17 co 0 1 .iuLt, s, '6 ,2 -- tu ce El u, = -C ' cs. -5 a) -F.,„ E cr --Tv' .0 03 (i) ots ± LI cc —J ....--, 02 .90 o Development Options: C o -2. •••"-• E = ,.....(13 4: e .-:-1 •••="t". -.C.. a) ....... (Xi = In 0 a.) 0) 07 0) 03 (1) . — 0 a> 0 0) a.) 0) 0 0 cri 0 e co c —9 " ay A -cs •c-a- E < CL uses in the Community Reuse Plan. (2) Presumes originally propo (3) To be determined by noise equivalency tests. 0 475 urc CO CO M -cc 0) er1 ca, cn 0 0 0 0- E a) Financial Impact Criteria E 15- 0) 0 a.) o CC 0 o GI 0 a) U) -0 c E'tcL 0 0) E cc 0 E co S2 Transportation Impacts 0) Development liming Immediate Next 5 Years Air Space Restrictions Air Space Permit from FM ct 0 a E 0 Development Options: Limited Use Airfield Option 0 • 0 -18 .2 a N E -c 2 23 "0 C • 0 2 an .E -0 co = = 03 IS . N a E tit 7t6, -.... .T 2 2. 0 e g* -75 0 0 c..) .. -75 0 ... "g 0 = g a =' a) X° ID to .13 ----Z- E to ...ra . co c .52 r, CU .0) 1 (..) E .... T 2 6 e — ..,6= er, 2 e o to c.) E ."2 a Lta . ... m e = LE A ' '"' .2 m , T.. ....., — „ L) -4( 171 co 46 ?...• , g g .6 co Ec, E co S 2 5 C . ,i.7. -C3 • 411 ›... -C7- 1) :Fo IX 2 --' In .. F, 2 ff 2 2 1 .c Et) crlq 2 §. -0 0 2 co .s w (9) Impacts are expected to be °low' except during special events. NOV-13-1996 14:28 INTERIOR DEPUTY SECRETPIRY 282 208 1873 P.02 /84 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE 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: 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 discussions with your organization, Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Navy, local citizens, environmental organi?ations, and others, we have made &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 of the 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 Ieast 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. NOU -18 -1996 14:29 INTERIOR DEPUTY SECRETARY Kay Miller, Executive Director 202 208 1873 P.03 /04 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 Depai tnient 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 to assure reversion to the City become available after jurisdiction of the lands is transferred. 3. MI 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 local 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 NOU -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. T 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 RECEVED United States Department of the Interior MAY 2 2 1997 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex P.O. Box 524 Newark, California 94560 -0524 (510) 792 -0222 Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, California 94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA May 19, 1997 At our meeting on May 6, 1997, concerning the potential limited use airfield at the former NAS Alameda, you requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) list the restrictions that would be placed on any airfield operations once the area is included in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service has proposed to acquire the lands at Alameda under the authority of Public Law 80 -537 which provides that excess Federal property may be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if it has particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird program. The reason for acquiring lands at Alameda would be to protect and enhance habitat for migratory birds, including endangered California least terns, endangered brown pelicans, and Caspian terns. Our highest management priority for the site would be to protect and enhance wildlife populations and their habitats. However, as stated in the November 18, 1996, letter from Deputy Secretary of the Interior John Garamendi to you, "...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." To make both the non jeopardy and compatibility determinations, the Service must follow certain procedures, including development of a specific plan for the site and compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures. Because our planning and compliance are not yet complete, we cannot give you a definitive list of restrictions to be placed on airfield operations at this time. However, for general planning purposes, the following types of restrictions are presently being considered. Please keep in mind that the restrictions are based on the intent to acquire this land for wildlife protection and enhancement; any other uses of the land, for recreation or economic uses, would be considered as secondary to this primary use. (1) Limiting airfield activities, other than security operations, to specific daylight hours (9:00 am to 5:00 pm). (2) Requiring flight schedules to be flexible enough to allow periodic tern use of the runways. Affected time period could include April to August, although late June to early August is more likely. Occasional limited sweeps of the runway to allow an in- flight plane to land will be considered during the endangered species consultation process (see further information below). (3) Restricting aircraft parking, maintenance activities and refueling facilities to off - refuge sites. (4) Requiring "follow -me" vehicles and specifically defined taxiways defined by the Service. Taxiways may be changed depending on bird use. (5) Restricting ground crew activities to specific locations determined during annual pre - breeding season meetings. (6) Prohibiting certain type of operations or aircraft, such as "touch and go's, " low level approaches, or helicopters (during breeding season), and limitations on the number of takeoffs /landings per day. (7) Limiting the number of "air events /festivals" allowed between September 1 and March 31. No events /festivals would be allowed during the breeding season. At the May 6, 1997, meeting, questions were raised about "sweeping" the runway of terns prior to takeoffs or landings, since this practice occurred during Navy air operations. As explained at the meeting, the primary reason for acquiring these lands would be to protect and enhance wildlife, particularly the California least tern. Therefore, any secondary use of the refuge would need to be compatible with this purpose. In addition, the California least tern and the California brown pelican are fully protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Section 9 of the Act, and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species without special exemption. "Take" is defined by law as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harass" is defined by regulation as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Harm" is defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Incidental take" is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with other requirements within the Act and Federal regulations. A limited level of "take" incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized during the formal consultation process pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The Service will prepare documentation under NEPA and section 7 of the Act during its decisionmaking process to determine whether to allow an airfield on national wildlife refuge lands. As part of the process for proposed disposal and community reuse of NAS Alameda, the Navy will also consult with the Service pursuant to the section 7 of the Act. Since part of the reuse proposal may be dependent on the use of the airfield, then this formal endangered species consultation will include the anticipated effects of all proposed disposal and community reuse activities at NAS Alameda, including the airfield. Any incidental take authorized in this biological opinion would be based upon an evaluation of all aspects of the Navy's proposed disposal and community reuse of NAS Alameda, including, but not limited to, any airfield use proposal. The Service may require the implementation of reasonable and prudent measures to minimize any incidental take authorized within the biological opinion. Again, the above information is intended for general planning purposes. The Service has not made formal decisions on whether an airfield would be compatible with the refuge or whether or not an airfield would jeopardize the continued existence of the California least tern. However, I hope this provides you with sufficient information to proceed with the base reuse planning process. Please contact me at 510/792 -0222 or Jim Browning at 916/979 -2725 if you have questions. Sincerely, Margaret T. Kolar Refuge Complex Manager cc: FWS, Sacramento ES (J. Browning) Navy (D. Pomeroy) City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum TO: Councilmembers FROM: Ralph Appezzato Mayor DATE: July 25, 1997 SUBJECT: Letters Supporting a Limited Use Airfield at Alameda Point RECEIVED JUL 2 5 ARRA CITY OF ALA FDA I wanted you to be aware of the mail I have received regarding this subject. As of this date, I have received 82 form letters (sample immediately following this memo) and 12 individualized letters, also enclosed for your review. enclosures cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager ARRA Executive Director fritt;t1VEL CITY OF ALAMEDA., MAYOR'S OFFICE July 16, 1997 The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor Appezzado: The Alameda Naval Airbase has been a prominent fixture of the bay area throughout our lifetime. Recently, we have been informed that a group of people are interested in preserving the airfield. We lend out support on behalf of their cause because this airfield has played a significant role in history by providing a station for whom Jimmy Doolittle began his famous journey toTokyo. We all know his mission and how it changed the course of World War 11. The airfield and its buildings should be preserved as a reminder for future generations to know that an idea was originated here, fabricated here, tested here, and launched from here. This airbase symbolizes what America is all about. An idea is all it takes to change the course of history. Respecffully, Barry & Nancy Sandkuhle 2 Corte Encanto Danville, CA 94526 July 19, 1997 The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor Appezzato: RECEIVED CITY C't- HLANIEDP. MAYOR'S OFFICE I am writing to express my support for the concept of retaining a limited -use airfield capability at the former Alameda Naval Air Station, at least for the next few years while this facility is fully converted to civilian uses. The Bay side of this installation lends itself to such limited aviation usage, in addition to its functionality as a wildlife refuge. Admittedly, excessive aircraft operations might degrade its serviceability as a home to wild life; however, that's not what is being proposed. Proponents of the limited -use concept envision a small business operation that would be sufficient to: © Maintain a small yet significant number of aviation jobs on the site ® Help with the infrastructure that can contribute to making today's fledgling air museum a success, and © Serve as a venue for occasional aviation events that can be conducted with all flights being directed over San Francisco Bay waters, instead of built up municipalities. Limited use of this Bay -side airstrip (and a small part of the ex -Navy facility) for aviation purposes makes economic sense. It does not conflict with light industry. And it can contribute revenues directly (through tourist activity) as well as indirectly (with its limited payroll) to the City of Alameda and the entire East Bay. For all of these reasons, I.do support the proposal, and I hope that it receives your favorable consideration, as well. Sincerely,] Mike Mills Oakland Resident July 1997 Dear Airfield Decision Maker: RtetiVEC CITY OF ALAMEDA MAYOR'S OFFICE By signing this letter I support a limited use airfield in Alameda for the following reasons: 1. It will provide well paying aviation jobs that would otherwise not be available in the City of Alameda. 2. It will have no negative consequences for the City of Alameda, including no noise pollution, and there will be no flights over the City. 3. There will be only fifteen to twenty flights a day, average, and only a very few landings at night (corporate aircraft returning from trips). 4. It will support historical tourism, the electric vehicle industry, the almost new $200 million paint facility, the proposed golf course, the O'Club and others. 5. In supporting tourism, it will help bring up to $200 million into the community each year. 6. It does not conflict with light industry, and will actually bring additional industry into the non - aviation oriented structures. 7. It will provide a degree of security and upkeep for the wildlife refuge, as well as acting as a buffer. 8. Because there is such a large hangar shortage in the Bay Area, there will probably always be a waiting line for businesses to get into the hangars. 9. There will be absolutely no additional cost to the City for the airfield. 10. The airfield is an interim solution, and perhaps a future City Council will vote to close the airfield when something better comes along. Many airports are closing every year in the United States due to encroachment and development. The only way the airfield will remain open is if it is providing a vast amount of revenue to the community, which would be a high - classed problem for the City to have. The above are some of the reasons I support the airfield. Signed w. City ,4�i S `fJ Date % - / - Phone /\009-- ^ 4f 0 KAUZMIC COMMUNICATIONS 22527 Main Street, #206 • Hayward, CA 94541 • 510 -886 -9696 • fax 510-886-9695 • Kauzmic @aol.com • httpilwww.kauzmic.com July 22,1997 Steve Kauzlarich Kauzmic Communications 22527 Main St, #206 Hayward, CA 94541 The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Ave, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 RE: NASA Airfield RECEIVED ED CITY O: MAYOR'S vrrlu Dear Mr. Appezzato: As a life -long resident of Alameda County, and growing up in Oakland in the late Fifties and Sixties, I would like to see part of our rich Bay Area heritage remain intact. I am referring to the former Naval Air Station Alameda and a very important part of it, the airfield. I have been a WWII aviation enthusiast since I saw my first John Wayne movie at about age 4. There is something very warm or romantic about that era -- a much simpler, patriotic time perhaps. Whatever it is, I feel NASA is a perfect representation of those times, that era, that American Dream if you will. If the airfield remains open, allowing limited and controlled air traffic in and out, I think that it would be a plus for the Bay Area economy. And, with the proper organizations located there, it could almost be like a time machine back to the Forties, Fifties and Sixties. During the recent Doolittle Air Raid ceremonies held at the base, I was able to go up to the abandoned control tower and look out across the airfield. What an eerie, but good feeling it left me with. It was an experience that I just could not have had from looking at a picture of the tower or surfing the Internet. In addition to the aviation orientated businesses that could locate there, we could consolidate a number of historical groups interested in preserving ships, planes, cars, jeeps, busses, and.trains, among other era related museums full of memorabilia. And Alameda is the perfect place for this. It has a genuine small community feel about it. All of these things, plus perhaps an annual air show to replace Fleetweek, could really be a big tourist attraction, and without too much of a distraction. So I hope that you will see fit to help keep a big part of our past alive by keeping the NASA airfield open. Too much of'our history is plowed under on a daily basis in this High Tech, rush -rush society that we all live in. Sincerely, Steve Kauzla ich Business Owner The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Rm 300 Alameda Ca 94501 Dear Mayor Appezzato: 5770 Balboa Drive Oakland Ca 94611 339-9485 July 23 1997 RECEIVED CITY OF ALAIVIEDA MAYOR'S OFFICE I am writing to you to tell you of my concerns regarding the use to which the former Navy air field will be put. I.strongly support the idea of a limited use air field. My reasons for the above statement are many: The limited use field will bring strong economic development to the City of Alameda. The limited use field will provide the best solution for the preservation and upkeep for wildlife. The limited use field will help replace some of the lost jobs and repair the damage done to Alameda small businesses in the area caused by the closure of the Naval base. The above reasons are strong reasons to support limited use, however, one other VERY IMPORTANT REASON should not be overlooked. In the event of a major earthquake, it may well be, as during the last quake, Oakland and SFO could be closed. Alameda Point's limited use field would be a life saver to all of Alameda, as well the surrounding community. During the last earthquake which closed both Oakland and SFO, I was a passenger on an incoming airline to Oakland. Diverted to land in Las Vegas because of the field closures, I experienced first hand the fear and disruption it caused.. I am sure many of Alameda's residents would value Alameda Point limited use field for the life saving help it could provide in such an incidence. Yours truly George T. Hansen III 1624 Bellflower Place Walnut Creek, CA 94596 t-itUtiVED July 17, 1997 CITY OF ALAMEDA MAYOR'S OFFICE The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of the City of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mr. Appezzato: As a resident of the Bay Area, I am writing this letter to urge you to support the proposal of designating the airfield at the Naval Air Station in Alameda as a limited use airfield. I believe this proposal, while potentially being only an interim solution, could provide greatly needed revenues to the City of Alameda with virtually no negative impact on the City, the wildlife refuge or the immediate surrounding area. The revenues resulting from the proposed plan would be generated through additional tourism (using the historical value of the field to attract visitors), creating new jobs to support the businesses in the community, providing rental income for the City through leases of the hangers, and enticing new companies into the City's tax base that would otherwise look elsewhere for facilities. Since the airfield would be designated as having "limited use" as prescribed by the FAA, the noise normally associated with an airport would not be present. In fact, all flights would arrive and depart over the bay thereby eliminating any potential noise pollution over the City. Further, .designating the restricted use of the runway would provide a needed buffer zone between the wildlife refuge and the populated portion of the facility, which would result in increased security for the refuge. Finally, designating the field for limited use air operations would require no additional costs or expenses to the City of Alameda. The proposal appears to have only upside potential not only for the City but also for the Wildlife Refuge and the entire Bay Area. I appreciate the opportunity to present my views and again urge you to support the limited use airfield proposal for the Air Station. Sincerely, 461-9e._ The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor Appezzato: I'd just like to add a personal note along with this "form" letter although I think the letter says it much better than I can. My main reason for supporting this plan is, I don't want what's happened to Hamilton Air Force Base to happen to Alameda NAS. Hamilton has been closed for over 20 years, has been allowed to fall into almost total disrepair, and just recently, has started to "move" after all these years of haggling over what to do with it. The city of Alameda is in a position to do something really positive with the Air Station, I sincerely hope you folks won't let this golden opportunity slip by. Sincerely, ohn,L. Baczyns 4 Romero Court Novato, CA 94945 -1626 415 - 897 -2419 Dear Airfield. Decision Make July 1997 htL C1 v CL. CITY 01- ALANIEUi- NIAYOR.'S OFFICE By signing this letter I support a limited use airfield in Alameda for the following reasons: It will provide well paying aviation jobs that would otherwise not be available in the City of Alameda. It will have no negative consequences for the City of Alameda, including no noise pollution, and there will be no flights over the City. There will be only fifteen or twenty flights a day, average, and only a very few landings at night (corporate aircraft returning from trips). It will support historical tourism, the electric vehicle industry, the almost new $200 million paint facility, the proposed golf course, the 0 Club and others. In supporting tourism, it will help bring up to $200 million into the community each year. It does not conflict with light industry, and will actually bring additional industry into the non - aviation oriented structures. It will provide a degree of security and upkeep for the wildlife refuge, as well as act as a buffer. Because there is such a large hangar shortage in the Bay Area, there will probably always be a waiting line for businesses to get into the hangars. There will be absolutely no additional cost to the City for the airfield. The airfield is an interim solution. Perhaps a future City Council will vote for an alternate plan of action. But this plan brings revenue to the community immediately which no other plan provides. he above are some of the reasons I support the airfie Signed City /e),-ely W e/e►f ,coveiay /I 79 7 ... ,�..�' ( ,.,,.,.— ArA A/4.41` Phone Date 7"/" 1/e0{0/7rti To: The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Ave. Rm 300 Alameda, Ca. 94501 From: Janelle Sahr 1029 Holly St. Alameda, Ca. 94502 (510)865 -4643 REGtI VEL 7/16/97 CITY Or ALAMEDH MAYOR'S OFFICE Re: Supporting Nimitz Field: Proposed Limited Use Airfield former NAS Alameda Dear Mayor Appezzato, As a resident of Alameda I am writing this letter in support of the proposed limited use airfield at the former NAS Alameda (now Alameda Point). 1 support this effort for the following reasons: Aid in the Protection of Least Terns: •Fish and Wildlife is and will continue to be in total control of the 500 acre refuge. As a result, they have "veto" power over airfield activities. •The refuge will be self - supporting. Instead of a drain on limited budgets, the refuge will benefit from this partnership with Nimitz Field. The limited use airfield will provide revenue to Fish and Wildlife to fund efforts to protect the endangered least terns. •The least tern has thrived under the stewardship of the Navy /Federal Government. The rebound of the population occurred while the Navy was operating a very active airfield. The birds thrived in an dynamic environment of flight after flight of jets. The proposed limited -use airfield will have a fraction of the flights of the Navy field while providing a funding resource for the refuge. •Airfield activity will help to discourage predator incursion into the refuge. •Maintaining the airfield will also maintain the open area that allows terns to see approaching predators. Allowing the airfield to decay will destroy this advantage. Economic Benefit to the community: •The retention and use of Nimitz Field will preserve a valuable regional resource. Without usage and maintenance, this hundred million dollar asset will fall into disrepair. •A limited -use airfield will attract business to the redevelopment areas. •Businesses that call Alameda home often cite the wonderful lifestyle/location as a reason why they located here. An airfield will be yet another benefit to businesses that locate here. Nimitz Field Will Improve Quality of Life: •Limited -use airfield will not negatively impact quality of life for Alameda residents. The city will have an active role in airfield activity. The proposed traffic pattern for the field is entirely over the bay. •Closure of airfield has led to increased Oakland.S.F. traffic over the west end of Alameda. At times I have been startled by the level of noise coming from overflying jets. The noise from Oakland/S.F. air traffic is so loud that conversation is impossible. Operating even a limited use airfield will discourage overflight of Alameda by Oakland and San Francisco air traffic. •Supports historical preservation projects (Aircraft Carrier Hornet, Naval Aviation Museum). RECEIVED -7-4/9e ,'/€e4&- C -' a7Z/' 4.40404/cg '4(Ze S4e1117 • �7;�„ � err r.� .► ajt,. ?.cam" Cam" v.arye_ e2e-09cee: .,07# 7‘4"-_,egap,-exa774"e./. e ustl „0,6 cove C� "9' HiEUtIV'E, CITY OF ALAMEDi- MAYOR'S OFFICE 2717 Washington Street Alameda, CA 94501 -5324 July 17, 1997 The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Alameda Mayor Ralph Appezzato: As an Alameda resident and supporter of limited use airfield for Alameda Point, this letter expresses some of the reasons I support the airfield. It will provide well paying aviation jobs that would otherwise not be available' to the City. It will have no negative consequences for the City, including no noise pollution as there will be no flights over the City. There will be 15 or 20 daily average flights and only a very few night landings (returning corporate aircraft). It will support historical tourism, the electric vehicle industry, the almost new $200 million paint facility, the proposed golf course, the 0 Club and others. In supporting tourism, it will help bring up to $200 million into the City each year. It doesn't conflict with light industry, and will actually attract additional industry into the non- aviation oriented structures. Because there is a Bay Area large hangar shortage, there will probably always be a wait list for businesses to get into the hangers. It will provide a degree of security and upkeep for the wildlife refuge, as well as act as a buffer. THERE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CITY FOR THE AIRFIELD. The airfield is an interim solution. Perhaps a future City Council will vote for an alternative plan of action. Meanwhile-this plan brings revenue to the City immediately which no other plan provides. Respectfully, Mary Lou 523 -7979 m n tituti VEL) CITY Ut- ALAMEDA MAYOR'S OFFICE 2740 Pontiac Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94598 July 21, 1997 The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 Subject: Limited Use Airfield at Alameda Point Dear Mayor Appezzato: For economic, tourism, and wildlife protection reasons, I urge you to support the subject use of the former Naval Air Station's facilities. Carefully controlled use of this valuable asset will benefit all concerned. Sincerely, Ken Evans (510) 935-8148 As you know, Alameda is both blessed and cursed by its central location. Blessed for its proximity to the large metro areas of San Francisco, Oakland, and the South Bay; cursed by the clogged transportation arteries that must be used to to get in and out of the island. The inevitable closure of the Posey /Webster tube and Alameda bridges for maintenance and the ongoing reconstruction of 1-880 all conspire to isolate Alameda. This location creates a wonderful lifestyle filled with outdoor activities and isolation that creates a small town atmosphere that we all enjoy. These blessings create a wonderful quality of life but also leave Alameda businesses isolated and at times difficult to reach. There is a need to offset this negative with alternatives and services. Nimitz Field will give the city another argument in favor of locating business at the former NAS development area. I work for a large tech company in the valley. Through this connection I come into contact with quite a few Silicon Valley companies and their employees. I have often asked what technology companies seek in a site /campus. They comment how the standard business needs of cost effectiveness etc. are concerns of course. However, one CEO of a start-up told me that recruitment and retention of talent is his most serious concern. In this respect Alameda has definite edge over Silicon Valley. I described Alameda and he was thrilled. He was impressed with the Marina Village development; housing, business, and shopping all within bike range. He was concerned with the distance from the valley and transportation difficulty for those employees outside Alameda. When I told him about the proposed limited use airfield he became very interested in the project. I recount this conversation to illustrate the need for communities to sell companies on the "whole package" of Alameda. The airfield is a big plus in the effort to develop portions of the former base. Please give Nimitz Field as opportunity to benefit Alameda. If we fail to give this project a chance we my lose a valuable resource to disrepair and stifle potential reuse opportunities. In the best interests of Alameda and the continued protection of the California Least Tern, I ask that you support Nimitz field. Sincerely, GCA 2717 Washington Street Alameda, CA 94501- -5324 July 17, 1997 The Honorable Ralph Appezzato Airfield- Decision Maker, Mayor of Alameda 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 RECEIk CITY OF AL, MAYOR'S C, Dear Airfield Decision -Maker Mayor Appezzato. As an Alameda resident and supporter of limited use airfield for Alameda Point, this letter expresses some of the reasons I support the airfield. It. will provide well paying aviation jobs that would otherwise not be available to the City. It will have no negative consequences for the City, including no noise pollution as there will be no flights over the City. There will be 15 or 20 daily average flights and only a very few night landings (returning corporate aircraft) . It will support historical tourism, the electric vehicle industry, the almost new $200 million paint facility, the proposed golf course, the 0 Club and others. In supporting tourism, it will help bring up to $200 million into the City each year. It doesn't conflict with light industry, and will actually attract additional industry into the non-aviation oriented structures. Because there is a Bay Area large hangar shortage, there will probably always be a wait list for businesses to get into the hangers. It will provide a degree of security and upkeep for the wildlife refuge, as well as act as a buffer. THERE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CITY FOR THE AIRFIELD. The airfield is an interim solution. Perhaps a future City Council will vote for an alternative plan of action. Meanwhile this plan brings revenue to the City immediately which no other plan provides. espectfully, Colonel Thomas A.Bolmen 523- -7979 Appraisal. Instructions For Potential Trust Land Exchange At Naval Air Station (NAS), Alameda 4 -C I. Minimum Requirements of Appraiser The appraiser must be licensed by the State of California as a Certified Appraiser in good standing and/or a member of the Appraisal Institute. II. Appraisal Instructions 1. Fair Market Value The appraisal assignment is to determine the fair market value of the fee simple interest in the property described in Exhibit A. Fair market value is defined as: The most probable price which a specified interest in real property is likely to bring under all the following conditions: 1. Consummation of a sales as of a specific date. 2. Open and competitive market for property interest appraised. 3. Buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably. 4. Price not affected by undue stimulus. S. Buyer and seller typically motivated. 6. Both parties acting in what they consider their best interest. 7. There are adequate marketing efforts and reasonable time was allowed for exposure in the open market: 8. Payment made in cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto. 9. Price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sales.' 2. Free and Clear of Public Trust The appraiser is to appraise all of the subject properties as though they were not encumbered by the public trust, or the terms and conditions of the legislative grant to the City of Alameda. 3. Neighborhood and Subject Property Description The appraiser shall inspect and catalog the salient attributes of the subject properties. The appraisal shall include photographs of the subject properties, description of the subject neighborhood, the site, any improvements on the site, a description of other land use regulations and standards applicable to the site. 'The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal. Third Edition, Appraisal Institute, Copyright 1993, page 223. Draft Appraisal Instructions for NAS Alameda Page 1 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 4. Highest and Best Analysis The appraiser shall clearly identify, explain and justify the highest and best use of the subject properties based on complete analysis. Highest and best use shall be defined as: The reasonable probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible and the results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, maximum profitability.' 5. Appraisal Methods A. Market Comparison Approach When using the market approach the appraiser must document each comparable sale as the grantor, grantee, public record, plot plan, and photograph as well as basic detail of construction, if improved, and existing encumbrances, terms of sale, and seller motivation. All calculations necessary to adjust prices to cash equivalencies must be documented and explained as must all adjustments to relate the comparable price to the subject property, so that the reader can repeat the mathematical adjustment. If the market comparison approach is not used in the final valuation, then a discussion on why it is not used is required. B. Income Approach If the income approach is used the appraiser is to state the method used such direct capitalization technique, discounted cash flow techniques or any other method deemed appropriate for valuing the property based on the income stream from the property. The rationale for income projections, vacancies, absorption time and expense projections must be itemized and explained in detail. If a discounted cash flow analysis is used, the appraiser must document his opinion as to the appropriate discount rate applied to each segment of the cash throw -off together with financing terms assumed. If direct capitalization is used, the appraiser must document the capitalization rate used in the analysis. If the income approach is not used in the final valuation, then a discussion on why it is not used is required. C. Cost Approach If the cost approach is used to determine value, a cost approach analysis by a responsible service or professional should be supplied with the appraisal. If this approach is not used, then a discussion on why it was not used is required. The appraiser is expected to carefully inspect the property and report his/her own independent views on the quality of maintenance, deferred maintenance and tenant housekeeping. 2 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Third Edition, Appraisal Institute, Copyright 1993, page 171 Draft Appraisal Instructions for NAS Alameda Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority D. Development Approach A development approach combines both a cash flow and market comparison for different parcels —those with existing buildings and vacant lands. If this combined approach is used the appraisal must document each approach. For the parcels ,psing the market comparison approach, the appraiser must document each comparable sale as the grantor, grantee, public record, plot plan, and photograph as well as basic detail of construction, if improved, and existing encumbrances, terms of sale, and seller motivation. All calculations necessary to adjust prices to cash equivalencies must be documented and explained as must all adjustments to relate the comparable price to the subject property so that the reader can repeat the mathematical adjustment. For parcels using an income approach, the appraiser is to state the method used —such as direct capitalization technique, discounted cash flow techniques, or any other method deemed appropriate for valuing the property based on the income stream from the property. The rationale for income projections, vacancies, absorption time, and expense projections must be itemized and explained in detail. If this approach is used, then the appraisal should provide a discussion on why it was used. E. Civic Core Area The appraisal for sites with existing buildings within the Civic Core may be appraised on an income approach based upon the reuse of existing hangars, warehouses, and existing offices (see attached site plan). The appraiser is to state the method used (e.g., direct capitalization technique, discounted cash flow techniques, or any other method deemed appropriate for valuing the property based on the income stream from the property). The rationale for income projections, vacancies, absorption time, and expense projections must be itemized and explained in detail. If this method is not used, the appraiser should explain why this method was not appropriate. 6. Subject Property The appraisal shall be completed on the subject property as identified on Exhibit A - Property Appraisal Map. The appraiser shall carefully inspect the parcel map and check the parcel sizes (acres) with the best known survey available and any other site maps available to the City of Alameda and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. The appraiser shall document the size and value of each parcel in the Appraisal Report. The parcels identified on the property appraisal map are intended to determine the property's market value only and do not reflect the parcels intended to be traded in or out of State Lands Public Trust jurisdiction. III. Appraisal Standards All work will be done according to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraiser Practices (USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation. If the appraiser engaged for this assignment is a member of the Appraisal Institute, he /she shall also complete the appraisal in accordance to Supplemental Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices and Code of Professional Ethics of Appraisal Institute. Draft Appraisal Instructions for NAS Alameda Page 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority The appraiser shall perform the specific assignment with professional skills and reasonable care. 1. Time of Performance The appraiser is to provide the State, the City, and the ARRA with a preliminary analysis by , 1997 and a final report prior to , 1997. 2. Purpose of Appraisal The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the fair market value of the subject properties as outlined above. 3. Function of Appraisal The appraisal may be used in connection with the trust land exchange at NAS Alameda/ Alameda Point. 4. Date of Value The date of value shall be , 1997. 5. Type of Report The Appraisal report shall be a self - contained appraisal report as defined in the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice. Draft Appraisal Instructions for NAS Alameda Page 4 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 0 0 -1... • •.• 0. 0 S HAS Bound° 2 0I City of Oakland I g w 2 \sooda cp.4 0‘5P isco,o`l c;i•ass co • e 0 0 LL 0 Parcelization Plan Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Status report on current activities. 1. Wildlife refuge —Least Tern update (provided by the Navy Site Office.) There are approxi- mately 242 pairs nesting in birdland. Without benefit of any sex education they have produced 408 chicks with over 390 surviving. of which well over 100 have fledged. Additionally, another 48 chicks are "in the oven" and more birds are preparing to nest. This is an increase of approximately 15% over the total for last year with the season only half over. However, our little family of birds is starting to outgrow its home and the birds are spilling out onto the runways. Therefore, before anyone is allowed out south of the east/west runway, they must contact the Navy Caretaker staff for a "bird update." 2. Port Priority Designation. BCDC holds its public hearing on the removal of the container port designation on 220 acres at NAS on Thursday, July 17, 1997. The vote on the removal of the designation will be held on August 21, 1997. 3. Status of NAS Housing. (1) West Housing RFP. The RFP (Request for Proposals) for a property manager to lease and manage all or part of the West Housing was available for prospective bidders on Wednesday, July 9, 1997. A status report on the RFP for a property manager for West Housing is included with the staff report for item 3 -D. Proposals are due August 4 and interviews will be held mid - August, with a recommendation to go to the ARRA board at their August meeting. (2) East Housing Redevelopment. The ARRA has asked the City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC) to manage the process of soliciting proposals for the redevelopment of the East Housing. The ARRA is awaiting a Memorandum of Understanding from the CIC. (3) Marina Village and North Housing Lease. The ARRA staff has begun the process of negotiating a long- term lease with the Coast Guard for the Marina Village and North Housing. The ARRA has proposed that the property be conveyed to the ARRA and we will lease it back (lease -back) to the Coast Guard for up to 50 years at no cost. The Coast Guard is still entertaining the idea of "privatizing" their housing by contracting with a private developer to own and manage their housing. 4. Master Use Permit. Now that the Large Parcel Lease (LPL) with the Navy is completed, ARRA and the Planning Department staff have developed a "master use permit" to cover that property. The master use permit is scheduled to go to the Planning Board in August. 5. BRAG Proposal Regarding a 65 -acre Campus. This recommendation has been forwarded to the ARRA. A staff recommendation has yet to be prepared in response to the BRAG proposal. We will attempt to agendize this for the September ARRA meeting. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 29, 1997 Page 2 6. ARRA Move to Building #1. ARRA Staff now expects to move to Building #1 over August 8 -11. The ARRA offices will be closed Friday, August 8 and Monday, August 11. We hope to have the August BRAG meeting in Building #1. 7. "Best of Show" recognition for Alameda Point marketing brochure. The Alameda Point marketing brochure has been recognized as "Best of Show" in the General Purpose Brochure, Industrial category awarded by the National Association of Installation Developers (NAID). The brochure was prepared by the advertising agency of Mulhauser and Young. Kudos to the ARRA, Ed Levine, Facilities Manager and the BRAG Marketing subcommittee, composed of Bill Garvine of the Chamber of Commerce, Doug deHaan, Diane Lichtenstein, and Pattianne Parker who shared the task of editing and approving the final version of the brochure. The award will be presented to the ARRA at the August 1997 NAID conference to be held in San Antonio. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee C:\MARGARET\ARRA\STAFFREP\STATUS_7.21 Correspondence ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Interim Leasing Status Report Pending Leases Ise730xIs Page 2 Tenant Building Number Area (Sq. Ft) Interim Use Permits Approved 1 ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator) 7 and 62 58,237 2 Airweld of Kentucky (Aircraft Sales & Parts) 564 8,750 3 Alameda Point Storage (formerly Military Storage) 1200 Mini- storage units near Bldg. 530 0 X 4 Alameda Unified School District (Child Care Center) 258 12,430 5 Cable Moore, Inc. (Cable Rigging) 372 3,000 6 Carstar (Vehicle Painting) Portion of 24 12,927 X 7 City of Alameda /Bureau of Electricity (EV Expo) 23 65,500 X 8 City of Alameda (Gymnasium) 134 36,959 9 City of Alameda (Officers' Club) 60 29,538 X 10 Delaco Builders (Cabinetry) 44 5,100 11 Delphi (Exhibit Displays) 39 110,000 12 Dynamic Business Dev. (Boat Production) 166 55,000 13 Forem Metal Mfg. (Sheet Metal Contractor) 114 20,000 14 Haviside & Heastings (Ship Repair) 43 10,500 X 15 Integrated Technology Group (Computer Rebuild) 66 30,900 16 Puglia (Ship Repair) 67 14,000 X 17 Quadrantek (Electric Motor Works) 163 12,100 18 Tower Aviation (Avionics) 530 82,250 X 19 United States Customs Service 29 19,480 20 USS Hornet Pier 3 - 21 Zebra Motors, Inc. (Electric Vehicles) 23 65,500 Ise730xIs Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interim Leasing Status Report Signed Leases or Licenses Ise730.xis Page 1 Tenant Term of Occupancy Building Number Area (Sq. Ft.) 1 Alpha Document Storage long term 9 82,000 2 Area 51 Productions (Event Production Co.) completed portion of taxiway 3 Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) long term 292 2,700 4 Boy Scouts of America (Spike & Pitch Park) completed - 5 CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Consortium) long term 20 66,000 6 City of Alameda (Records Storage) long term 397 17,000 7 City of Alameda (Soccer Field) long term Adjacent to Bldg. 360 8 Clubhouse Pictures (Film Co.) completed 25 16,000 9 Disney Studios (Film Co.) completed 24 22,000 10 Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair) long term 113 13,150 11 Great Benefit Productions (Film Co.) completed Portions of 24 & 25 84,250 12 Industrial Light and Magic (Film Co.) completed 400A 67,000 13 Industrial Light and Magic (Film Co.) completed portion of taxiway 14 lnterscope Communications (Film Co.) 9 months 11,12,400A 250,000 15 MARAD (Ready Reserve Fleet) long term Piers 1, 2; Bldg. 168 117,000 16 Microsoft (Software Co.) completed 400A 67,000 17 Nadel Productions (Film Co.) completed portion of taxiway 18 Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfgr.) long term 14 40,000 19 Nelson's Marine (Boat Repair) long term 167 & finger piers 55,450 20 Off Duty Productions (Film Co.) completed portion of roadway 21 Polyethylene Products (Plastics Recycling) long term 398 10,000 22 Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.) long term 21 66,000 23 Richard Miller Photography (Photography) long term 621 5,770 24 Rysher Entertainment (Film Co.) completed 24 22,000 25 Storage yard (Bureau of Electricity) long term at FISC 26 Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt. /Maint.) long term 15 16,603 Number of Properties Currently Occupied: 15 Building Space (sq. ft.) Currently Occupied: 741,673 Current Employment in Leased Buildings: 412 Projected Future Employment in Leased Buildings: 914 Ise730.xis Page 1 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary SUBJ: Copy of Briefing Materials for NAS Alameda/Alameda Point given to the Secretary of Defense during his visit. Following are the briefing materials on NAS Alameda/Alameda Point provided to U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen during his visit on Monday, July 21. Summary of Successes to Date at NAS Alameda / Alameda Point 4 The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has 15 properties on the Naval Air Station currently under lease. This accounts for a total of approximately 650,000 square feet of leased building space. (An interim lease status report and a current tenant map are attached.) 4 The ARRA has also entered into a berthing services agreement with the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to berth and provide services for up to 11 of MARAD's ready reserve fleet. The MARAD ships will be on the Alameda Point piers for five years. 4 In order to provide port services such as docking assistance, crane service, bilge water treatment, etc. the ARRA contracted with Trident Corporation, which is composed of former Navy and civilian base workers. Trident Corporation was successful in winning the bid to provide port services for ARRA, in large part, due to the help and guidance received from the prototype "Workers to Business Owners" project, whose objective is to assist displaced Navy and civilian workers at Bay area base closures to start their own firms. 4 In addition to interim leases, the ARRA has entered into a license agreement with the Navy for short-term users (less than one year) for buildings and special events. These license uses include film production and set building, production of television commercials, car shows, exhibitions, and other special events. 4 ARRA also expects to sign leases with another 14 tenants over the next several months, which will absorb an additional 460,000 square feet of building space. 4 ARRA's current leasing program has created approximately 400 jobs and these companies/ activities are expected to employ more than 800 people in the long term. The pending leases will result in approximately 700 additional jobs. Alameda Point has the opportunity for several successful incubator projects: 4 CALSTART, ARRA's first tenant, is an incubator for advanced transportation technology firms. Assisted with DoD seed money, the CALSTART initiative is likely to, spin off numerous electric vehicle related users as long -term tenants on the base. Alameda hopes to capitalize on this success and market Alameda as the "EV capital of the West." 4 Another incubator soon to come on -line will be managed by the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET). ACET, with the assistance of EDA (Department of Commerce), will provide startup space for envirotech companies. Again, we hope they will "grow into" even larger permanent space at Alameda Point. 4 The Workers to Business Owners project is also pursuing the idea of incubator space at Alameda Point. 7/97 1 4 A number of hi -tech software companies are actively looking at the establishment of an incubator building at NAS where small start -up companies could expand from outgrown locations elsewhere in the City and East Bay. 4 The ARRA negotiated a homeless accommodation at NAS (as required by the Homeless Assistance Act of 1995) with a collaborative of homeless providers from Alameda County. The NAS Alameda homeless accommodation was one of the first plans approved by HUD, who heralded the planning process as "a model for base redevelopment." 4 The Community Reuse Plan for NAS submitted to the Navy in January 1996 was a consensus plan that has been embraced by the Alameda community, with citizens, agencies, and interest groups having had input into the plan. Hundreds of citizens, under the umbrella of the Base Reuse Advisory Group, a dedicated citizen's advisory committee, continue to provide input into the base conversion process. 4 The City of Alameda successfully negotiated a Cooperative Services Agreement with the Navy to caretake the base through September 1999. The City is providing the full range of services — police, fire, utilities, and building and grounds maintenance —to the Navy. This has been a mutually beneficial arrangement that has also provided more than 30 jobs for displaced federal workers. 4 Upon assuming the caretaker function, the City agreed to take on legal jurisdiction of the base so that the property is treated as any other part of the City for purposes of application of state and local laws and ordinances. 4 Alameda Point has been designated as a Local Agency Military Base Recovery Act (LAMBRA) site by the State of California. This is essentially like a State Enterprise Zone for closing military bases. The state tax credits, expedited permit process, and other incentives offered under the program will assist the ARRA in marketing Alameda Point to businesses for short- and long -term use. The ARRA received this designation from the State through a competitive proposal process. 4 The City and ARRA have both received assistance from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce for projects that will assist substantially in the redevelopment of the base. The City has received a $3 million grant to improve drainage, landscaping, and general road improvements to Main Street, which encircles the property. ARRA expects to receive a $3 million award shortly that will allow us to bring a number of large buildings up to code and prepare them for early tenant occupancy. 7/97 2 ISSUE #1: CLEANUP - BUDGET FOR BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ISSUE DESCRIPTION: At 29 closing or realigning military bases within California and at many more nationwide, communities are questioning the commitment and resources of the services and DoD to complete environmental cleanup to acceptable standards and within schedules that will allow complete environmental cleanup to acceptable standards and within schedules that allow communities to take advantage of redevelopment opportunities. Some of the opportunities available now to many communities may not be available five or ten or fifteen years from now when developers and markets have moved on, locating their projects at other sites. Particularly in California, where the market moves quickly, communities facing drawn -out cleanup schedules may find themselves left behind —the holders of military "Brownfields." DISCUSSION: At NAS Alameda (announced for closure in 1993), not one of 23 original Installation Restoration (IR) sites has been completely cleaned and the IR Program began years before the closure announcement. Just recently a 24th site was added to the program. Still, we have been told that only 70 percent of the funds required to execute the original FY97 cleanup budget are "guaranteed." The contract with University of California at Berkeley, touted so highly by the Navy and DoD as a $25 million project, has been only minimally funded. What we need is a little "truth in advertising." The services and DoD are less than candid on at least two points: 1) Projected "costs to complete" of approximately $180 to $220 million, are probably inaccurate given the fact that the Navy has not completed one Remedial Investigation (RI) or Feasibility Study (FS); and, 2) Estimates of total cleanup costs and a budget commitment per fiscal year for a timely completion have never been provided. In regard to the latter of these two points, Alameda has begun negotiations with the Navy for an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) of more than 700 acres of the base property. That EDC application is based on a phased redevelopment plan and staged revenue generation; if the cleanup schedule and funding commitment is not accurate, basic assumptions will be flawed. Since the most likely scenario is that the Navy is putting an inaccurately "positive spin" on the cleanup picture, the community could find itself on the losing end of the EDC negotiations, having spent more than it should —for a military `Brownfield." ACTION RECOMMENDED: 1) DoD and the services must be candid with both communities and the Congress on cleanup schedules and cleanup funding requirements. It has become apparent that DoD overestimated the savings of base closures, not accurately anticipating the cost of environmental cleanup and greatly overestimating the market value of its bases. If DoD expects Congress to extend BRAC authorization for future closures, it must be forthcoming about cleanup costs and accomplish cleanup of those bases already closing. (The Senate was clear about this during hearings early this month.) 2) DoD must commit to signing Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreements (FFSRAs) at all bases to ensure each state and community can look to enforceable cleanup schedules..3) DoD and Congress must find ways to guarantee cleanup funds. For example, all funds saved as a result of closure (100 percent of the Operating and Maintenance budgets of a closing base in the year closure is announced) should be committed to environmental cleanup until the cleanup is complete. This fund should be analogous to Superfund and be "untouchable" by the services for other requirements. 4) DoD and Congress must continue DSMOA funding at a level to support meaningful . participation of the States in the cleanup process. This is in the best interest of the Services and DoD as well as the communities; diminished funding would lead to a process more focused on enforcement and litigation —tools no one wants to see used. 5) Just as there must be continued support for Restoration Advisory Boards, including technical assistance and facilitators, there must be funding to provide environmental technical assistance to the Local Reuse Authorities. Many communities find themselves ill - equipped to take on the daunting task of redeveloping thousands of acres of military property. Add to this the complex coordination of environmental restoration and redevelopment phasing, and staffs are pushed beyond the limits. The Office of Economic Adjustment must supplement LRA staffs to accomplish the job, which will serve the interests of DoD by transferring properties at the earliest opportunity. 7/97 3 ISSUE #2: ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING METHODOLOGY DISPUTE ISSUE DESCRIPTION: The Navy (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Engineering Field Activity West) has selected and is proceeding with an environmental screening methodology that the State of California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal -EPA) and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) view as less protective than the State's methodology and believe may not comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). We have been advised by both EFA West and the State that this screening methodology issue also has the potential to affect the adjacent property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center's Alameda Annex. The selection of a methodology that does not meet State approval has significant implications for protecting human health and the environment and for the value and marketability of real property and this community's conversion and redevelopment of the base. DISCUSSION: The conflict between Navy and State began approximately two years ago. The ARRA and the City have been patient, deferring to the agencies and relying on the Navy's continued assurances that the issues would be resolved "in a few weeks." Those assurances have produced no results other than to raise expectations and keep the community from voicing these concerns at an earlier date. The current situation is that the Navy intends to proceed with its Tiered Screening Methodology despite the State's objections and the State has provided the Navy with a letter which is essentially a "courtesy notice" that an enforcement action is imminent. The ARRA and this community have worked diligently since the announcement of closure in 1993 to develop a model reuse plan. Now we are moving into the implementation stage and have anticipated that some of the property not presently in the Installation Remediation Program (IRP) could be conveyed as early as late summer or early fall of 1998 when the NEPA ROD is signed. As we begin to consider specific redevelopment plans, we must have certainty on the cleanup process and dependable schedules for conveyance of properties. In February 1997, USEPA informed EFA West, " ... for any property found suitable for transfer based entirely on the tier 2 risk assessment calculations in question, EPA will comment on the Finding of Suitability for Transfer that the Navy can not [sic] make the covenant under CERCLA .. . that all necessary remedial action has been taken with respect to contamination on property." This is an unacceptable result. If the Navy's objective in adamantly pursuing this course of action is to save money and time, it is obviously not acting in the community's or its own best interest. In addition to certainty on environmental process and conveyance schedules, we must have title to property that does not subject us to potential liability. Navy environmental staff has informed us that if they proceed with their "Tiered Screening Methodology" the State may issue a cleanup order to the City of Alameda when it receives title to the property. This is unacceptable. Regardless of the Navy's position that it is the lead agency and has the authority to proceed absent concurrence of State regulators, our position is clear —the Navy cannot subject this Community to such liability. The fact that the Navy and the State have been in dispute this long and the Navy's insistence on proceeding without concurrence of USEPA and the State have created a perception that the property is "not desirable." ACTION RECOMMENDED: 1) The Navy must understand that proceeding with a methodology that does not have State approval is not an option. In the long run, there is no savings if the property cannot be conveyed with a CERCLA covenant. 2) The Navy must work with the State and U.S. EPA to sign a Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreement which would address dispute resolution and set forth enforceable schedules for remedial action. 3) The BRAC Cleanup Team must work together to ensure the Installation Site Remediation Program stays on track while the Screening Methodology issues are resolved. 4) The Navy must commit funding to stay the course on environmental cleanup and meet state standards and schedules that allow the Community to maximize redevelopment opportunities. 7/97 4 ISSUE #3: LIVING UP TO THE PRESIDENT'S FIVE -POINT PLAN Issue Description: Exactly two years ago, President Clinton announced his Five -Point Plan for successful base conversion. While much of that commitment has been carried through in subsequent actions, policies, and regulations of the Services, some have apparently been forgotten or become distorted over time. Perhaps the Services should be reminded of the Plan points and their actions and policies be made consistent with the President's objective. DISCUSSION: There are two specific areas where we would encourage actions and behaviors that are consistent with the Plan. The President specifically promised 1) Job - centered property disposal that puts local economic development first; and, 2) Easy access to transition and redevelopment help for workers and communities. The process of early leasing of properties before and shortly after the closure of the Naval Air Station has been challenging. After much trial and error and bumps along the way, the leasing process between the ARRA and the Navy has been smoothed out and is working relatively well with large parcel leases and subleases. We assume the Navy will continue to press the issue of lease approval at the lowest possible level. Property at NAS is leased "for consideration" and the ARRA reinvests all of the lease revenue into marketing efforts, improvements to the property, etc. However, for an unknown reason the Navy decided to treat license revenues differently. The Navy decided to keep 50% of the proceeds of all licenses. Licenses have been issued when the Navy could not process leases in a timely fashion or for short-term uses such as movie and commercial production or special events. The ARRA has been successful in attracting numerous short- term tenants for these uses. To date, the ARRA has collected more than $250,000 in license revenues. Knowing this was going to be a substantial source of revenue, the ARRA attempted to work with the Navy to use the revenues in a fashion similar to the lease revenues (e.g., marketing, property improvements, etc.). In fact, relying on EFA West's indication that this arrangement would be acceptable, the ARRA put together a lease and license revenue budget that relied on all of these revenues. Subsequently, NAVFAC decided the 50/50 split policy would be instituted. LRAs must have sources of revenue to "prime the pump" in order to make conversion to civilian uses successful. Early revenues need to be poured into infrastructure upgrades, building upgrades, local code compliance, etc. In fact, ARRA has pledged $300,000 in lease/license revenues to match an EDA grant of $3 million that will allow us to upgrade 8 -10 of our large prime buildings to prepare them for tenant occupancy, thus allowing these huge properties to come off the Navy caretaker roll. It is in both Navy and ARRA interests to allow all revenues from leases and licenses to be poured into the redevelopment effort. ACTION RECOMMENDED: The Navy needs to rescind its policy on the 50/50 proceeds split of license revenues. The Presidential Plan also promises "Transition coordinators at major bases slated for closure." The conversion of NAS Alameda is extraordinarily complex because of numerous federal transfer requests, regulatory, cleanup, and conveyance issues. The ARRA requested a full -time BTC be assigned to NAS because of these complex interdepartmental and jurisdictional issues and this was done. Navy funding expires for our BTC at the end of this fiscal year. We have requested the Navy to provide funding for the continuation of this position (see attached letter to RADM Froman) but have not had a response. ACTION RECOMMENDED: DoD should fund `the BTCs rather than the Services. This should be a DoD billet and not a service - specific cost. The NAS BTC should not be "dual- hatted" because of the bases' complexity and the ombudsman's role of the BTC for the community. Funding should be found for the Alameda Point BTC for FY1997 -98. 7/97 5 ISSUE #4: CONVEYANCE OF TRW 525 -ACRE WILDLIFE REFUGE FROM THE NAVY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ( USFWS) ISSUE DESCRIPTION: The Department of the Interior (DoI), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ( USFWS) applied for a wildlife refuge at NAS Alameda under the federal screening process. Subsequently, they concluded that they required 525 acres of land and 375 acres of underwater property surrounding the refuge to adequately protect the endangered Least Tern and other species that reside there. The DoI determined it needed to have fee title to the property rather than enter into a leaseback or management agreement with the City of Alameda as the ARRA proposed. DISCUSSION: The DoI's decision to take the 525 acres in fee title was communicated to the ARRA in a November 1996 letter from Deputy Secretary of the Interior John Garamendi (attached). We were promised that a Refuge Management Plan would be developed with community input. We have yet to see even a draft plan. Currently, the Navy is bearing the expense of maintaining the refuge and paying for weed, pest, and predator control. Consequently, this ends up impacting the Cooperative Services budget for the City, as at least part of these costs come out of this budget. The refuge area is currently closed to the public awaiting the development of a management plan and takeover by the USFWS. This closure is a source of consternation to the public, who were anticipating access to the refuge. Unfortunately, the Navy is receiving negative press for restricting access to the property. Congressman Dellums has written to Deputy Secretary of the Interior John Garamendi (attached) encouraging DoI to proceed expeditiously to accept responsibility for the property and produce a viable management plan and budget for the refuge. ACTION RECOMMENDED: DoD and the Navy should communicate to the Department of the Interior the need for USFWS to assume responsibility for the refuge and the protection of the endangered species as quickly as possible. This is in both the Navy's and the Community's best interest. Perhaps a conversation between Secretary Cohen and Secretary Babbit could move this along. The Alameda Point Refuge could be either a successful urban refuge or an abysmal failure, depending on Interior's commitment to funding adequate management and working with the community to make this an asset, not a liability. 7/97 6 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Jim Flint, City Manager Robert Wonder, Assistant City Manager FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director DATE: July 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Response to Councilmember Tony Daysog RE: Status of Homeless Housing at NAS Alameda In addition to answering your two specific questions, we thought it would again be helpful to describe the homeless accommodation at NAS and the federal law which mandates it. Summary of Homeless Housing provision at the former NAS Alameda The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act) requires the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to accommodate the needs of the homeless at closing military bases. The Redevelopment Act requires that each LRA for a closing military facility submit its Community Reuse Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Secretary of the Department of Defense for review and approval. The Redevelopment Act requires that the homeless submission in the Community Reuse Plan accommodate the needs of the homeless in the "communities in the vicinity of the installation." The Department of Defense (DoD) in the July 20, 1995, Federal Register, Page 37342, defines "communities in the vicinity of the installation" as the political jurisdictions that comprise the LRA for the military installation. For the Alameda Naval Air Station, the ARRA is the LRA, and the ARRA includes the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, the City of San Leandro and the County of Oakland. Therefore, for the Alameda Naval Air Station, the homeless submission in the Community Reuse Plan is measured against the homeless needs in Alameda County. Working cooperatively with the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative (Homeless Collaborative) the ARRA negotiated a reasonable accommodation for homeless needs at the base. The accommodation was called the "Standards of Reasonableness" which established the total envelope of built space that would be allocated to homeless providers, without specifying actual buildings or facilities that must be dedicated to homeless services. Not tying the Standards of Reasonableness to specific buildings allowed the ARRA to ensure that the homeless could be accommodated in a manner that would not conflict with the community's economic development needs. (It should be noted that prior to the ARRA's recognition of the Homeless Collaborative and the passage of the 1994 Redevelopment Act, homeless providers were interested in 900 of the 1,513 housing units at NAS Alameda. Before the 1994 Redevelopment Act, the old Title V McKinney Act allowed homeless providers first choice of all closing military base property. The old process did not to t Printed on recycled paper give the local community any power to decide what facilities would be set aside for the homeless. ) Only permanent and transitional homeless programs will operate at NAS. Program participants at NAS will only be referred by the appropriate agencies and organizations, rather than choosing to come to the base on their own. Candidates for transitional and permanent housing at NAS will be screened, and will already be participating in appropriate support services. Residents in housing at NAS will be maintaining their service connections. Those who do not wish to participate in appropriate services will not be candidates for housing at NAS. Transitional housing is for people working with a support network to break the cycle of homelessness /domestic violence and transition to permanent housing. Permanent housing is for people who are working in job training programs and are ready to transition to permanent housing with the goal of self - sufficiency. The Redevelopment Act allows the homeless providers to take title to the property or utilize a long term lease. At the ARRA's request, the Homeless Collaborative agreed to a long term lease. The Redevelopment Act requires each LRA to execute a Legally Binding Agreement with the homeless providers receiving property at the closing military facility. In the Legally Binding Agreement (Community Reuse Plan), the homeless providers are not required to execute the Legally Binding Agreements with the ARRA until after the EIR/EIS (Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement) and ROD (Record of Decision) are completed, but the format and content of the ARRA's Legally Binding Agreement was submitted with the Community Reuse Plan to DoD and HUD for review and approval. Each homeless provider has one year after the Legally Binding Agreement is executed to secure financing and occupy the facility if the homeless provider is doing minor rehabilitation, two years if the homeless provider is doing major rehabilitation. Of the 1,513 housing units at NAS Alameda, 186 were allocated to the homeless in the Community Reuse Plan. The homeless were also to receive 200 barracks units, 75 units for the San Leandro Shelter for Women and Children and 125 units for Operation Dignity. However, Operation Dignity in Oakland was only interested in the Bachelor Officers Quarters (BOQ) and not the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ); however, the BOQ had been designated by the ARRA to go to Pan Pacific University. Instead of locating at NAS Alameda, the ARRA agreed to work with Operation Dignity to secure federal funding to develop a facility on its lot in Oakland. The Navy Lodge was allocated to the San Leandro Shelter for Women and Children for the 75 barracks units. The San Leandro Shelter for Women and Children serves women from all over Alameda County -- including women from Alameda, and those programs will continue to operate in San Leandro. The Navy Lodge will be an additional program operated by the San Leandro Shelter for Women and Children for transitional housing- -not as an emergency shelter. The 75 units will be reconfigured and reduced to 54 units. The Homeless Collaborative will also receive a building for a child care center, Building 607 (woodworking shop) for job training, Building 101 for classroom /office /warehouse space, Building 92 (warehouse) for the Alameda County Foodbank to store food and earthquake disaster relief supplies, and part of Building 91 (warehouse) for job training. Also, the ARRA adopted a 15% homeless hiring goal for long -term tenants at NAS. In the Community Reuse Plan, the 186 units for the Homeless Collaborative are divided equally between East Housing and West Housing. In East Housing, the Plan allocates 97 units of permanent family housing; 67 to be operated by CREDO (Catholic Charities) and 30 by U.A. (University Avenue) trk f ®Q Printed on recycled paper Housing. In West Housing, Resources for Community Development will have 20 units of transitional housing for victims of domestic violence, and 12 units of permanent housing for victims of aids; Dignity Housing West will receive 30 units for transitional family housing; U.A. Housing will receive 15 units for permanent family housing; and United Indian Nations seven units of family housing for veterans, one youth home, one unit for battered women, and three units for persons in residential recovery. The Homeless Collaborative agreed to submit no claims for property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Alameda Annex. Homeless providers will pay a public service fee in lieu of taxes to off -set the costs of providing basic municipal services to these building, including police, fire, public works, etc. The homeless assistance providers now need to negotiate Legally Binding Agreements with the ARRA. They are required to have to demonstrate legal site control to HUD in order to apply for grant monies and in order to get additional private financing to renovate their buildings. There is also an outstanding issue to be resolved for the housing units which fall into the Public Trust boundary as to whether the housing use is allowable under the Public Trust. In answer to the two questions: 1. No, they are not yet in residence in the buildings on base. 2. It is anticipated that they will take possession of the buildings from ARRA when the federal Record of Decision on the base disposal is announced, in summer of 1998. We have asked our attorney, Alice Vilardi, to work with them on the Legally Binding Agreements so they can prove site control for their funding requirements: to: Printed on recycled paper JUL.. -15 -1997 .0 :57 FROM EXECUTIVE OFFICES TO 5213 ?b4 H. o2 July 15, 1997 Robert: Tufts Chairman San F ::z.ncisco Bay Conservation Development Commission Thirty Van Ness Avenue San Fr:,ncisco, CA 94102 -6080 CH ALES W. FOSTER Executive Director Re: Agenda Item 10, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1 -97 Port Pricrity Use Designation at the former Alameda Naval Air Station Dear Chairman Tufts: We understand that the Commission will take action on whether or not to remove the Port priority use designation from appro >..'mately 220 acres of the former Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS). We also understand that one of the reasons that has been suggested for not removing that designation is so that the site might e used in the future for disposal of dredged material. We urge t1.e Commission to eliminate the Port Priority Use Design.= .tion, and believe that continuation of the designation for disposL1 of dredged material would actually be counterproductive to your goal of encouraging beneficial use of dredged mat:. : :ial. The Port of Oakland has completed more than six upland disposal projects, and is beginning a planning effort to reuse all of the 20 million cubic yards of material that will be generated when we deepen the Harbor to 50 feet. The most salient lesson in our experif•.nce is that it takes landowner cooperation (and a tremendous amount of work) to make disposal on an upland site possible. The present acrimony between the City of Alameda and BCDC i:• counterproductive to the cooperative environment needed to nurture reuse of dredged material at Alameda. There :a.re two possible uses of the former NAS that have been suggested: rehandling dredged material for reuse; and constr.ction, specifically of a golf course. Because of the proximity to the least tern colony, both uses will requir€ consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 1 WO Water Street ■ Jack London Square e F.O. Box 2064 ■ Oakland. California 94604 -2064 Telephone (510) 272-1100 ■ Fax (510) 272 -1172 • TDD (510) 763 -5703 ■ Cable address, PORTOFOAI, Oakland JUL-15-1997 10:58 FROM EXECUTIVE OFFICES I U DciJib4 Preparing for that consultation, and for the necessary environmental review, will take a tremendous effort in defining and analyzing the project. This work is currently not occurring, and the City of Alameda has stated that it is unwilling to participate in this effort while the BCDC Port Priority Use Designation is in place. The City has also stated that, upon removal of that designation, it will participate openly and cooperal.ively in developing dredged material disposal options of mutual 1.enefit. The LTMS has not completed the necessary detailed work to bring this site on line, and the Port of Oakland cannot do detailed planning for property in another jurisdf,ction. Thus, the current disagreement seems to have created a stzlemate that does not further BCDC interest in upland disposal at tale site The Port of Oakland is interested in using the former NAS site for reuse of dredged material, and we have pursued this matter directly with Alameda. However, our interest is contingent upon the site being available and "practicable". We believe that the construction cost for the site would be feasible. However, for the site to be practicable, it must be planned, analyzed under the relk;.vant environmental statutes, and permitted in a reasonable time. We urge the Commission to take the long view, and see cooperative solutions to this issue that will break the current stalemate. Siner-e) y, s g. Foster Executive Director cc: Congressman Ronald Dellums, Kay Miller, City of Alameda 2 Alameda Reuse and ttedevelopmellt Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 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 Councilmember serving for Elihu Harris Mayor, 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 July 11, 1997 Judy Ann Miller Office of Military Base Retention California Trade and Commerce Agency 801 K. Street, Suite 1700 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3520 Dear Ms. Miller: (510) 864 -3400 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 I have had an opportunity to have input regarding how the BRAC process can be improved through the Governor's Rountable Meetings. I am sure Ben Williams has passed my thoughts on to you for incorporation into any California initiative you advance to the Congress. I also serve on the NAM Task Force 2000 along with Ben and have advanced my thoughts in that arena as well. A group of Bay Area LRA directors developed a possible statement on BRAC issues we feel are particularly important. I have passed that information on to the Rountable and to Ben. I am particularly supportive of the suggestion for a discreet BRAC cleanup account and tying its creation to the next round of base closures. Please let me know what we can do to promote this initiative. You can also count on members of the ARRA board, members of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (our citizens' advisory committee), and City of Alameda officials to speak out in support of the State's position. Very truly yours, Kay Miller Executive Director KM:mee cc: ARRA Governing Body BRAG James Flint, Alameda City Manager Pete Wilson Governor Julie Meier Wright Secretary 801 K Street Suite 1700 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3520 ALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY May 20, 1997 Ms. Kay Miller Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority NAS Bas Conversion, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: This letter is to update you on the status of future base closures and request your assistance in protecting California's remaining installations, the 250,000 jobs they provide, and the billions of dollars these installations mean to our economy each year. The public debate that has begun in Washington signals a significant increase in the probability of more base closures. (See related attached statements from reports, speeches, press conferences, and major newspaper articles). On May 1st, Deputy Secretary of Defense White told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, "There should be another BRAC."1 On May 6th, a Department of Defense (DOD) spokesman announced during a press briefing that Secretary of Defense Cohen "will seek additional base closures" because "reductions in base infrastructure have not kept up with other military cuts. "2 Although the decision on additional rounds may not be made for some time, we should expect and plan for base closures in 1999 and 2001. We must act now to not only protect the state's remaining installations, but to position them to receive the missions from bases that will be closed in the event of BRAC Future. At the same time, we must build a strategy to take advantage of future redirect - authority to change actions of previous BRAC Commissions. To do this, California needs your assistance. As Director, Office of Military Base Retention, I will be the state's primary point of contact for these initiatives. One part of the state's multi -track strategy will be recommendations for changes to the closure legislation used for previous BRAC rounds. We need to make , both these recommendations o have)fOutDure legislationl enacd l l tedthat ens i a ures Californa s Delegation. Our goal not put at any disadvantage. Therefore, I need you to review 1 Jobs Saved in Election Year, Military Workers on Their Own, John Diamond, Associated Press, Washington, May 1, 1997. 2 Nolan Waters, Knight - Ridder Newspapers, Washington, May 6, 1997. RECEIVED JUN 1 0 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA the enclosed legislation, that was used for the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds, and suggest ways to make it more California - friendly. For example, one of the major issues facing communities when their installation is recommended for closure is the timely cleanup of environmental problems caused by DOD operations. As a state with some of the most stringent environmental goals, the lack of adequate - and guaranteed - funding is especially burdensome for California communities. It is clear that efforts to balance the Federal budget will intensify in the next few years and that will mean the funds necessary for environmental cleanup will face increasing competition from requirements that affect larger constituencies. While DOD has always promised the funding, only a small portion of the needed monies has been set aside specifically for use at closing bases. We believe it is in the interest of all states - especially California's - to require DOD to create a separate account (escrow) to fund the environmental restoration costs at closing installations. Therefore, we would recommend that future legislation include language to provide 100% funding of the estimated cost of environmental restoration at closing installations. Further, the authorization and appropriation to create such an account should be part of the vote to accept the closure and realignment recommendations. We have identified other changes as well, but I need your suggestions to ensure the state's position is as robust and all inclusive as possible. I am looking forward to working with each of you as we craft and execute a strategy to protect our remaining bases, create and use redirect - authority to fix mistakes made by previous commissions, and improve our economies while we contribute to a strong, affordable national defense. The current base closure debate and need to balance the Federal budget while funding defense operations and readiness, but still protecting a number of domestic programs, means the issue of base closure is on a fast - track. We need your suggestions quickly to ensure our recommendations can be made in time to be included in any future legislation. I look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact me anytime you have questions or comments. (916) 323 -5015, (916) 322- 3524(FAX). Sincerely, 7u r2 n filler Office of Military Base Retention Enclosures: Media Extracts Public Law 101 -510, as amended