The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-09-03 ARRA Packetow w be here ,-c-, Santa Clara Ave ..+-' You are here Central Ave. ct Reminder Due to Rosh Hashanah, the October meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority has been rescheduled to: Thursday, October 9, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Wednesday, September 3, 1997 5:30 p.m. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS TFIF AUTHORITY: 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. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. Applause or demonstrations are prohibited during ARRA meetings. 1. SPECIAL SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR 5:30 p.m. Property: Alameda Naval Air Station Negotiating parties: ARRA and U.S. Navy Under negotiation: Economic Development Conveyance of property at NAS Alameda Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.8. 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 7, 1997. 3 -B. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of June 4, 1997. 3 -C. Approval of the summary report of the Restricted -Use Airfield Workshop of July 28, 1997. 6:00 p.m. 3 -D. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director to amend the applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to include a 525 -acre Wildlife Refuge as a federal transfer as requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and make corresponding technical language changes. 4. ACTION ITEMS 4 -E. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the governing body authorize ARRA staff to negotiate and execute a contract for a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage a part of the available units in West Housing. ARRA Agenda - September 3, 1997 Page 2 4 -F. Report from the Executive Director recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize negotiations and execute a 15 -year interim lease with United Indian Nations, Inc. 4 -G. Recommendation regarding interim leasing and long -term use of the "campus area" of Alameda Point. 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -H. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. 5 -I. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: 1. Airfield demonstration. 2. Transfer of property and refuge management responsibilities to U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service development of a management plan for the refuge. 4. Grant awards to ARRA. 5. BCDC vote on Port Priority Designation. 5 -J. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 6. 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.) 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 8. 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 simultaneously broadcast on cable channel 22. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 9, 1997. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, May 7, 1997 The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District (arrived at 5:37 p.m.) Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr./Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland Kathleen Omelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:39 p.m.) Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:40 p.m.) Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Ardella Dailey, Ex- officio member, Alameda Unified School District Absent: Lee Perez, Ex- officio member, Base Reuse Advisory Group Chair Appezzato introduced Jim Flint, Alameda's new City Manager. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular and special meetings of March 5, 1997. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of March 15, 1997. 2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 1, 1997. 2 -D. Recommending the appointment of Ardella Dailey to serve as the AUSD representative to the BRAG and Chair of the Education Work Group. 2 -E. Report from the Executive Director recommending the adoption of a resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to represent the ARRA and submit the application for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. Alternate Leonhardy moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Daysog seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Absent: 2 - DeWitt and Lucas. ®recycled paper 1 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \5- 7- 97.MIN 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -F. Report and recommendation by the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelop- ment Authority (ARRA) for the proposed 1997 budget for ARRA lease revenue. Executive Director Miller stated that the significant lease revenues being generated will allow the ARRA fund implementation activities that OEA and the State will not fund, pay for maintenance and upkeep of leased buildings, and provide the match money for the $3 million EDA grant for structural upgrades to eight buildings which can then generate revenue. Member Daysog announced that he would recuse himself from this discussion and vote. Member DeWitt requested that staff prepare future budgets using the City's budget format. Member Kerr stated that the Navy had been paid for the deconstruction of some buildings on base and asked if staff had put out bids for people to pay ARRA to deconstruct buildings. Executive Director Miller replied that one of the budget items is for a deconstruction/demolition demonstration project for $24,000. This model project is being sponsored by the EBCRC as a model for base closures around the country. Member Swanson added that the objective of the EBCRC in this project is to prove to the federal government that it can be done for a specific cost to try and entice the federal government to become a partner with LRAs to share some of the cost in deconstruction. This investment may provide a return if these projects are successful. Mr. Swanson stated for the record that when we the conversion effort began it was forecast that the activities of the base could cost the City treasury up to $10 million. It became clear that planning and strategies would have to be formulated that would lead to revenue - generating activities at the base. Now, when the base is just in the preliminary stage of being turned over, the fact that a budget has been submitted for approval that is based on lease revenues is very impressive. It requires some pause and consideration that the plan is working and we are on the right track. Lease revenues will grow and although there are hurdles to be overcome it represents a plan that is coming together and represents a job well done. Chair Appezzato stated that it is miraculous what this community has accomplished in the four years (this summer) since base closure was announced. With minimal staff and despite major impediments, we have been succeeding. The goal was not to tap the general fund for base conversion and it has not been necessary to do so to. Many Naval officials he has spoken to say that Alameda, if not number one in the base conversion process, is definitely tied for that position with almost any other base conversion in the country. A preliminary budget based on lease revenues is exciting. He closed with a "well done" to all involved. Member DeWitt commented that he is very pleased with the budget and the number of leases we have but is still nervous because the budget still falls approximately $2 million short of what we will need once the Navy stops helping us. He added that we must be diligent to market and use the property wisely. Member DeWitt moved to accept the budget as presented by the Executive Director. Member Kerr seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Recused: 1 - Daysog. Absent: 0. 3 -G. Report and recommendation that the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to enter into an MOU with the CIC— subject to ratification by both CIC and ARRA —to conduct an RFP process to select a developer to purchase the East housing for development. ®recycled paper 2 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \5- 7- 97.MIN Executive Director Miller stated that the March 15 workshop on cash flow analysis indicated that the best mechanism to maximize early revenues to the ARRA for East Housing would be to sell the property to a developer for redevelopment. Sitting as the CIC, Councilmember Kerr had asked the CIC staff to look at the possibility of issuing a Phase 2 RFP to the FISC developers to also redevelop the East housing. As the property in East Housing would come through the Economic Development Conveyance to the ARRA (since it is not a part of an existing City redevelopment project area), the only way the CIC could move forward was if they were requested to do so by the ARRA. That is the action being requested this evening. Ms. Miller continued that by adopting the budget earlier, the ARRA authorized $75,000 of lease revenue proceeds to be transferred to the Community Development staff to develop an RFP and begin a developer selection process for the East Housing. Member Daysog stated his preference that East Housing be integrated with the FISC development and limited to the three FISC developers for efficiency in the perspective of both the developer in matching East Housing to the FISC development to ensure appropriateness and efficiency in administering the development process. A thorough discussion followed of the pros and cons of limiting the RFP to the three FISC developers versus opening it up to other residential developers to provide the broadest field of concepts and proposals. Member Daysog moved to accept the recommendation with an addendum to limit the RFP for East Housing to the three FISC groups: Martin, Catellus, and Lincoln Properties. Member Kerr seconded the motion. Chair Appezzato asked the General Counsel if this motion would require the vote of three councilmembers or a simple majority of the ARRA. General Counsel Carol Korade answered that a simple majority of ARRA would carry the motion. The motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 3 - Daysog, Kerr, Lucas. Nays: 4 - Appezzato, DeWitt, Ornelas, Swanson. Abstain: 2 - Chan, Leonhardy. Member DeWitt made a motion to accept the recommendation with the change that the RFP should be available to all qualified developers, not just residential developers. Alternate Ornelas seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6 - Appezzato, Chan, Daysog, DeWitt, Ornelas, Swanson. Chan. Noes: 2 - Kerr, Lucas. Abstain: 1 - Leonhardy. 3 -H. Report from the Executive Director on the background and current status of the Pan Pacific University (PPU) use proposed for a 65 -acre site at NAS Alameda and recommendation that the PPU use proposal be terminated and an alternative use be found for the 65 -acre site. After a short introduction from Executive Director Miller, Member Lucas stated that she was glad this had finally come to the ARRA board. She further stated that PPU was not financially qualified and was proposing a non - accredited school which would have been second -rate. She agreed with the staff report recommendations and proposed to expand recommendation #2 to insure that In the campaign to find other users, the following parameters should be followed: (1) Financial qualifications should be required at the outset to ensure there is financial stability; (2) Ensure the plan submitted by the applicant is for a first -rate accredited school. (3) The idea of a school is good —look at nationally accredited schools and open it up for a national bid. Member Chan asked where we are in the issue of the Tidelands Trust. Executive Director Miller replied that the Tidelands Trust was not only a problem for PPU but would be for any user in that ®recycled paper 3 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \5- 7- 97.MIN area. If we have another university we will be faced with the same issue of having to free it from the trust. Many other users would have the same kind of restriction. ARRA staff and State Lands have jointly selected an appraiser to look at properties that we would propose to trade into the trust as well as properties to be freed from the trust. Once the appraisal is completed there will be an idea of the cost to other users to free the property from the trust for non -trust uses. Member Chan asked if a scaled -down request had been received from PPU. Ms. Miller referred to a letter from PPU's attorney expressing interest in a scaled -down campus to lease the BEQ, the kitchen, the BEQ 2 and BEQ 4, beginning with about 800 students in undergraduate programs. They have not yet submitted a proposal but they have been advised that financial viability, programs, and accreditation questions would still apply to the scaled -down campus. Member Chan clarified that the recommendation would not preclude PPU from pursuing a scaled - down proposal and Ms. Miller agreed that their proposal would be entertained along with any other user. In response to a question from Member Swanson, Executive Director Miller explained that PPU originally came through the Public Benefit Conveyance process, similar to the museum and the school district. When the delineation of the Tidelands Trust area and its implications became clear there were two PBCs —the museum and PPU— that were impacted. Given that information, the Department of Education determined that they could not convey Tidelands Trust property through a PBC process to PPU. Now that PPU has proven non - viable, the property can be leased and will produce revenue. The Community Reuse Plan designates the area as mixed -use, therefore a change is not required except to delete the references to Pan Pacific University as a lessee under no -cost conditions. Alternate Leonhardy respectfully requested that the item be tabled for one month to give Pan Pacific University time to respond and submit an alternative plan for their finances. Member Lucas pointed out that two of PPU's sponsors withdrew their support, they had not met their fundraising deadline, and apart from the promise of the $3.5 million, there is no evidence that it exists. Member Swanson stated that although he originally supported the project, the ability to perform has not been demonstrated. The ARRA has been fair and has a fiduciary responsibility and so it is time to move on. If PPU comes forward with a credible, fully- financed proposal, it will be discussed. Member Daysog moved that the Pan Pacific use proposed for a 65 -acre site at NAS Alameda be terminated and an alternative use be found for the 65 -acre site, with the Member Chan's proviso that they can resubmit a scaled -down proposal without prejudice. Chair Appezzato clarified that the motion included all the recommendations, with Supervisor Chan's proviso plus the additional financial scrutiny proposed by Member Lucas. The motion was seconded by Member Lucas and passed by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -I. Briefing by Rajappan & Meyer on transportation access limitations and impacts on development potential. D. Paul Tuttle stated that the financial workshop included a discussion of the limitation in development of the site due to the traffic conditions through the tubes. In response to a request by the ARRA governing body for a presentation by the traffic engineering firm, Keith Meyer of Rajappan & Meyer, would present the results of the detailed street improvement plan they had been ®recycled paper 4 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \5- 7- 97.MIN developing for the entire site. Mr. Meyer stated that Alameda Point is a unique site with immense recreational and commute possibilities. He presented a brief background of their study and an overview of the transportation constraints and possibilities. Their comprehensive transportation plan includes transit, bikeways, roadways, and the need and potential alignment for a new estuary crossing. It also considered transportation alternatives such as auto, bus, bike, transit ferry /water taxi, amphibious bus, electric shuttle, and light rail. Member DeWitt moved to accept the report. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. 4 -J. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. Doug deHaan, representing Chair Lee Perez, recognized the outstanding efforts of Diane Lichtenstein and her Community Involvement Work Group and other BRAG members for all their work on the decommissioning ceremony for NAS Alameda. He reported that the Airfield Task Force is in the process of finalizing their recommendation and the Recreation Task Force is finishing their work on the Sports Complex. BRAG has had an initial meeting with East Bay Regional Parks. A recommendation on the museum is being worked on. The Environmental Work Group has been concerned about the refuge during the transition period between the Navy's decommissioning and before Fish & Wildlife takes over; the BRAG group is actively pursuing their questions. Docent training for the wildlife refuge will be held this Saturday, May 9. The Educational, Technology and Business Consortium is now in place; they have their temporary officers and their second meeting will take place on Friday. He added that this is an important step in marrying the businesses coming to the base with the education and technology sectors. 4 -K. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: (1) Airfield workshop on June 4; (2) BCDC Port Priority designation; (3) Alameda Naval Air Museum application; (4) ARRA move to Building #1; (5) Housing lay -up; (6) Leaseback of housing to Coast Guard; (7) MARAD /Trident contracts consummated; (8) EDA grant funding; (9) Economic Development Conveyance negotiations; (10) Update on the Hornet Foundation; (11) NAS Commissary closing July 26; (12) Refuge management plan; and, (13) NAS Alameda post closure gate access and security plans. Chair Appezzato stated that copies of the written report were available and he invited comments /questions by exception. Executive Director Miller clarified that on item 1— Airfield Workshop, the June 4 date is not viable. Therefore, the regular meeting of the ARRA will be held on June 4. She asked that the ARRA governing body hold June 19 as a possible alternate date for the workshop. Also, item 12 Refuge Management Plan stated that the plan would be forthcoming soon. Fish & Wildlife, however, is now projecting mid -June as the earliest they can have the draft plan available. 4 -L. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, stated how proud he was that Ardella Dailey had been appointed that night as the Alameda Unified School District representative to the BRAG and Chair ®recycled paper 5 C:\MARGARET\ARRA \MINUTES \5- 7- 97.MIN of the Education Work Group, as she has worked hard since day one with the NAS Alameda conversion. He added that yesterday, May 6, was National Teacher's Day and Ardella Dailey along with all teachers, deserve support and we must show them that we appreciate their help. Merry Bates , Island Cats Rescue Association, spoke against the trapping/killing of feral cats on base, urging a nonlethal solution such as trap /test/alter to reduce the feral and stray cat population. Terry Walters read a letter from Mimi Cary, chair of the Berkeley Humane Commission urging the ARRA and Navy to meet with the many private groups such as CC4C (Community Concern 4 Cats) that trap, test, vaccinate, alter, and adopt/relocate cats, to explore a less antiquated method of solving the abandoned cat problem. Karolyn May Lount, an Alameda citizen and owner of 18 cats, stated that it is time that we, as a community, take a stand and enforce existing laws against [relocating military families] abandoning pets. Bill Smith, interested citizen, discussed a two -way monorail and electric water taxis. He suggested that East Housing is an excellent place for people on welfare and discussed the merits of employee ownership of businesses. Richard Neveln, a concerned citizen, shared his vision of a limited use airfield hosting international air shows that would return a half - million dollars or more for a few days of discomfort. He suggested that ARRA research/contact communities that have hosted successful air shows. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Member Kerr stated that she wanted to make a brief comment for Vice -Chair Swanson's benefit. An overriding concern is that cats that are trapped are able to be brought into City shelters so that adoptable animals can be identified and not killed before the determination is made. The Alameda Humane Society has a fine shelter and a dedicated group of people and Island Cat Rescue is spending their own time and money on spaying and neutering. Member Swanson stated that Fish & Wildlife is going to have to provide a specific explanation of what they plan to do with strays in their management plan . In response to a request by Member DeWitt, Member Daysog motioned to reopen 4K.5— Housing lay -up. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by unanimous voice vote: 9. Member DeWitt requested that the Executive Director proceed with the feasibility study for leasing of West Housing, which includes the `Big Whites" and the single - family homes aboard the base. Member Kerr stated that during a redevelopment conference she had attended in Monterey, they had discussed the concept of a Project Area Committee —which is now required under certain circumstances where people live in a redevelopment area. If the timing of the redevelopment area formation is right, the people living within the redevelopment area have a say in electing people to the Project Area Committee. There might be a liability there because people who have only a temporary interest in the City might become the people who elect representatives to the Project Area Committee. The Project Area Committee opinions stand unless they are overridden by a 2 /3rds vote of the redevelopment authority the CIC in this case. The power would be very real and could even make the BRAG somewhat superfluous. She suggested that in planning for any temporary leasing of housing that be considered. A motion to accept the report [4K.5] was made by Member Daysog, seconded by Member Kerr, and passed unanimously: 9. ®recycled paper 6 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \5- 7- 97.MIN Member Daysog stated that he wants to emphasize that East Housing must be developed to highest and best use and that will be his Holy Grail for the following months. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitte Marga et E. Ensley ARRA Secretary /mee erecycled paper 7 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \5- 7- 97.MIN The bound Summary Report for the Restricted Use Airfield Workshop on Monday, July 28, 1997 was distributed to the governing body at the August 6, 1997 meeting. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, June 4, 1997 The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda (left at 7:20 p.m.) Roberta Brooks, alternate to Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District (left at 7:20 p.m.) Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (arrived at 5:50 p.m.) Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr./Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland (arrived at 5:50 p.m.; left at 7:20 p.m.) Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:55 p.m.) Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group Ardella Dailey, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District Absent: Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda 3 -B 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Report from the Executive Director recommending approval of the recommended priorities for the ARRA's 1998 grant application to the Economic Development Administration. Member Kerr moved approval of the recommendation. Alternate Ornelas seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Absent: 4 - Leonhardy, Chan, DeWitt, Lucas. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -B. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director for changes and clarifications to applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to add 17 acres to the City of Alameda's Public Benefit Conveyance request for a Sports Complex, and other changes and clarifications to Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy. Alternate Brooks inquired how a Public Benefit Conveyance can be changed legally at this stage. Executive Director Miller replied that while we cannot add a new PBC at this stage, we can add acreage to an existing Public Benefit Conveyance. Speakers: Bob B. Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics (Islanders), stated the Sports Complex would provide a positive approach to learning and development and would help revitalize the west end of Alameda. Jennifer Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex and providing a 50 -meter pool for swimmers. ®recycled paper 1 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA \MINUTES\6- 4- 97.MIN Melanie Anne Aeblieck, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex, stating that The Islanders have 100 swimmers and currently, distance swimmers need to go to Chabot, Concord, or Walnut Creek for a distance workout. Toby Chavez, BRAG Recreation Work Group, thanked everyone who had put their time and thought into planning for the 17 acres of soccer fields, tennis courts, a gymnasium, softball field, etc. that comprise the Sports Complex plan. He added that the Sports Complex will not happen overnight and will take approximately 20 years to completely build out. Maria Antonov, a sophomore at Alameda High School and a member of the Alagators swim team, spoke in favor of the motion, saying she knew the swimming community will work hard to find the funding for a new pool. Dr. Robert Deutsch, Alameda Soccer Club Board of Directors, stated that this is a chance to provide some land and recreational facilities as a legacy for our children and the future. Kelly Gallagher, sophomore at Alameda High School and member of the Alagator Swim Team, asked the ARRA to approve the Sports Complex with a 15 -meter pool to train in that will enable Alameda teams to compete on an equal footing with other area teams. Patricia Packard, Vice President of the Alameda Soccer Club and 20 -year Alameda resident, stated that the proposed Sports Complex will offer healthy recreation to area citizens. The Alameda Soccer Club has committed to financial support and a willingness to work with representatives of other sports to make the fields of our dreams a reality. Chair Appezzato announced that just a few days ago the Alameda Soccer Club gave the City a $10,000 check to help defray expenses. On behalf of the City, he thanked all those who donated funds. Karen Simontacchi, Alameda Soccer Club, stated that the Sports Complex is not only important to the children of Alameda but will benefit the entire region and its economy. Warren Hood, Alameda Soccer coach for nine years, spoke in favor of the motion, pointing out that since he began coaching, soccer fields have diminished by less than half and the children are running on fields of play that many adults would dread to walk on. Member Daysog moved acceptance of the report and recommendation. Alternate Brooks seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas. 3 -C. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft and sign a letter to Naval Sea Systems Command ( NAVSEA), Ships Donation Program, requesting that NAVSEA establish August 15, 1997 as the deadline for a final donation application for the U.S.S. Hornet and that NAVSEA make its decision no later than September 30, 1997. Chair Appezzato asked Executive Director Miller if the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation (ACHE) was aware of this agenda item. Ms. Miller answered that ACHF was not only aware of it, they concur with the recommendation and suggested the August 15 date. Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, stressed the importance of the Hornet for its tourism value and the money that tourism will bring to Alameda. He also spoke in favor of the Bullet Train, building ferry boat piers, and USCSF Research Hospital. ®recycled paper 2 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Richard Neveln, an interested citizen, spoke in favor of the Hornet, stating that he hoped the Navy was given some "wiggle room" in the letter to allow them to pay for pier space if they need longer to think. Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, voiced her support of the Hornet and asked why MARAD is paying millions of dollars to dock their ships but the Navy is unwilling to be responsible for the Hornet, which is also a Navy vessel. Executive Director Miller explained that MARAD is not under the Department of Defense; Maritime Administration ships are Department of Transportation vessels. Bob Rogers, Executive Vice President of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, stated that they suggested the dates in the recommendation because they want to go forward. ACHF is wrapping up their fundraising, they have some very exciting things happening, they are very supportive of ARRA, and he thanked staff for they support. He further stated that ACHF is probably the only organization that actually wants to pay rent. Alternate Brooks asked what was motivating the recommendation. Executive Director Miller answered that there is a need to know if the ship is not going to make it into the ship donation program to ACHF because the Navy is then going to have to decide what they are going to do with the ship. Also, the Navy is not willing to pay rent equivalent to what the MARAD ships are paying. Ms. Brooks then stated that if there is anything that Congressman Dellums' office can do about that part of the problem, to let her know. Chair Appezzato stated that if the ship fails to make it into the ship donation program to the Hornet Foundation, the Navy is ultimately responsible for removing the ship from our port. Member DeWitt moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by member Daysog and it passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1- Lucas. 3 -D. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director requesting the governing body to authorize ARRA staff to prepare and issue an RFP for a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage all or part of the available units in West housing. Speakers: James Sweeney, Alameda citizen and member of the BRAG Housing Subcommittee, stated that the first and foremost theme in discussions about the housing is that these old apartments and old buildings have to come down. The vast majority of Alameda citizens have a fear of the ghettoization of the old houses, which are deteriorating from day to day. He asked that deconstruction be looked at in this RFP. Bill Smith, Emeryville resident, discussed the latest issue of the Base Closure News, which has a cover article on 368 units of housing in Fort Ord. The same firm handling the Fort Ord housing has done 3,300 units in the Bay Area for the low income, the disabled, the homeless, and people on welfare. He suggested that we look at this organization to see what they could do at NAS. Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, agreed that due to the wear and tear and state of these units, they would be considered substandard lease or rental housing. She recommended that no action be taken at this time and that ARRA consider selling the property to encourage pride of ownership instead of bringing down rental values because of the proliferation of rental units. ®recycled paper 3 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Executive Director Miller stated that the staff recommendation was to go out to bid for the 19 Big Whites and 32 single - family, ranch -style homes with an option to bid on the townhouse and apartment units to see what the private sector would do in renovating and leasing those units. She stressed that the ARRA would not be obligated to follow through. Alternate Brooks stated that the discussion of destroying units constructed in 1964 and 1966 seems bizarre to her as she lives in a 1941 house which is still going did not were know why ARRA should not pursue studying this and she hop ed she was not hearing that we going to tear down 18 townhouses and 242 apartments. � Ms.Misingle family homes and see recommendation was to issue an RFP to bid on the Big what the private market would do with the townhouse and apartment units. rented? Alternate Leonhardy asked what would happen to these units if they are not leased or asked f Executive Director Miller answered that they would be boarded up. Alternate is willing to have vacant housing throughout that he associated complex? t'ions�th t would that would be the result. Mr. Leonhardy mentioned with boarding up that many units. He then asked th, as the off Tidelands Trust sign the h ulsing out inhibits long -term planning or transition, if any study been m of the trust. Ms. Miller stated that we know that the some period of time1SShe added that there agreeable to "grandfathering in" the existing housing for p are less than 40 units in the trust but that the area includes most of the Big Whites. Member Daysog said that the boarding up issue raises the issue RFP is being let out on renovating, deconstruction on these units. He further suggested tha t if an he leasing, and managing some of the units, he would like °iscolWeekly°recently had an artialeton information gathering process. He added that the San unty of Project Area Committees and how that is affecting redevelopment ctlrea Committees so that he hasoa better eas in the City and San Francisco. Mr. Daysog requested a report on Project of the issue. Member Kerr stated that if there is anyone living within a redevelopment t forrned an 25, then there is a requirement for a Project Area Committee (PAC)—and any number larger may trigger this. The PAC has great legal power and takes a 2 /3rds vote of the governing body of the redevelopment area to override their decisions. Special ne�l lredevelopment law in California. ation was passed last year relating to base closure redevelopments which overrides the g Overriding that is last year's special legislation initiated e She added Alameda Naval Air. Redevelopment lines may have t o be drawn to exclude the housing that the City Attorney's office has been working with riegal�fi A should know how on f tha before might entering any long -term firm commitments on the housing, then there is a affect redevelopment. She stated that once this empty becomes a housing mes put ery serious comet tment for the one - for -one replacement housing requirement. This City of Alameda to do a one - for -one replacement and income levels have to be matched. ousing. Ms. Kerr asked Assistant General Counsel Highsmith General Counsel's officeps currentlyhworking Assistant General Counsel Highsmith reported that h on an opinion to answer questions about whether leasing properties within an intended 4 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN recycled paper redevelopment area will trigger replacement housing and relocation costs as well as other questions voiced this evening. Alternate Leonhardy suggested that if you have to do replacement housing, you have to do 20% set - asides from the redevelopment funds for low and moderate income housing development and those costs might be offset right there, straight across. Ms. Kerr asked that in the first sentence of the final paragraph of page four of the staff report, after the phrase ".. issue an RFP to find a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage" the word "or deconstruct" be inserted. Member Kerr stated her preference that the RFP address only the Big Whites and the single - family homes. Executive Director Miller asked for clarification —if the RFP was only for the Big Whites and the single - family homes, was deconstruction of those units still to be a part of the RFP? Member Kerr stated that in the case that the RFP was limited to the Big Whites and single - family homes, deconstruction would be left out. Member DeWitt voiced his preference for leasing the 19 Big Whites and 32 single - family homes. He added that perhaps the financial benefit of renting the apartment units would not be beneficial to the City given possible relocation fees and whatever else might apply. In that case, the RFP might include what it would cost to deconstruct the apartment -type units. Member DeWitt moved to go forward with an RFP to find a property manager to renovate, manage, and lease the Big Whites and the single - family units. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr. Chair Appezzato restated the motion, to go forward with an RFP for the Big Whites and the single - family homes with an option to bid on the other housing to include looking at deconstruction if, in fact, the market does not bear using them, and the potential for tear -down and redevelopment in other areas. Member Kerr stated that she really wanted to limit it to the Big Whites and the 32 single -story units; otherwise, deconstruction should be included. Executive Director Miller explained that an RFP issued for firms that would deconstruct townhouses would go to a completely different audience than firms that do property management. Chair Appezzato concurred that if deconstruction becomes an issue, a different RFP can be issued. Member Leonhardy stated that the units that the ARRA is talking about boarding up are those immediately around the homeless housing units, which means continuing a blighted condition. Alternate Brooks added that the concept of examining these other issues makes sense and it would be helpful to know if the townhouse and apartment units are viable. Member DeWitt stated that he still has questions about the financial benefit of leasing the apartment units. Executive Director Miller quoted scenario #1, renting only the single - family and Big Whites would probably return about half -a- million dollars annually to ARRA revenue. Scenario #2, adding the townhouse units (6 buildings with 19 actual units) would result in additional revenues of between $130,000– $155,000. Scenario #3, adding the apartments, would result in an additional $800,000 – $900,000 being generated. Alternate Brooks stated that unless an RFP goes out, the ARRA will not know whether anybody thinks this is viable. If no firms want to work with the apartments and townhouses, then the path is clear —they have to come down. If there are interested firms then questions on legal ramifications must be asked, a cost - benefit analysis can be examined, etc. Even if the RFP goes out for all housing, there is no obligation and the ARRA can reject all proposals if they so wish. :recycled paper 5 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Alternate Leonhardy asked Member DeWitt to accept a friendly amendment to include the apartments and townhouses with the management costs and benefits broken down by housing category. Member DeWitt accepted the friendly amendment. Member Kerr then withdrew her second. Member Daysog asked if deconstruction could be started on a second track tonight. Counsel Highsmith answered that the issue of deconstruction was not on the agenda for discussion. The motion was seconded by Alternate Leonhardy and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 1- Kerr. Absent: 1- Lucas. 3 -E. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for signature by the ARRA Chair and Vice -Chair stating the ARRA's opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening methodology in which the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal- EPA)/Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 9 will not concur. One letter will be sent to RADM David J. Nash, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters and the second letter will be sent to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, att: Sherri Goodman. Dave Ryan, representing EFA West, stated that this is a serious issue and the Navy is working in partnership with the state addressing complex technical issues. He suggested the ARRA not take sides but encourage the Navy to work in a collaborative fashion with the state to resolve the issues. Chair Appezzato replied that when the Navy leaves the City will have to work with the state and meet state requirements. Alternate Brooks added that the ARRA has a fiduciary responsibility to the City to weigh in by advocating the property be left as clean as possible. Ardella Dailey, Co -chair of the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) stated the RAB fully supports drafting and sending the recommended letters. Alternate Leonhardy moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: S. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -F. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. BRAG Chair Lee Perez commended all the sports interests that worked together to develop the Sports Complex proposal. The BRAG feels that it is beneficial to the redevelopment of Alameda Point to recruit an academic presence to replace PPU. Chair Perez stressed that the BRAG'S vote on the housing issue had been a very close vote and they felt the housing must be approached carefully. Doug deHaan reported that the Airfield Task Force is recommending a limited use airfield although the financial aspect still needs to be worked out. Chair Perez ended his report by stating that the BRAG continues to work with WABA and other west side groups on the issue of a commissary; they are working closely with the FISC Ad Hoc Task Force; and the BRAG continues —along with other groups —to look at some possible conflicts of interest on dual memberships. Chair Appezzato added that he would be selecting a new alternate. ®recycled paper 6 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN 4 -G. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: (1) Coast Guard Housing; (2) Airfield Workshop; (3) Public Trust Appraisal; and (4) BCDC Port Priority Designation. Executive Director Miller stated that the Airfield Workshop would not occur on June 19 and optional dates in July are being considered. 4 -H. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Richard Neveln, interested citizen, reported on the economics of an air show at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, which generated income of $88 million in one week. Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, thanked the ARRA and the BRAG volunteers for their contributions to the region. Kurt Bohan passed, stating that he would send in a letter. Bill Stremmel, recent Alameda resident, complained of the locked gates to the northwestern end of the base that has been declared off - limits to all human activities due to the nesting season of the Least Tern. He stated that there is always a socioeconomic and environmental price when property is restricted to a narrowly defined purpose and it has serious implications for overall redevelopment. Richard Neveln stated that a Walgreens at Atlantic and Webster does not set a very comfortable tone to the entrance of Alameda Point and suggested that Frys Electronics would set a better tone. Bill Smith, an Emeryville resident, discussed deconstruction and methods of removing lead paint stating that it is much more difficult to deconstruct than it is to construct. Ann Mitchum, an Emeryville resident, stated that the Navy spends tens of thousands of dollars per Big White per year on the maintenance, which makes the viability of leasing the Big Whites and the other units economically weak. Deconstruction is also expensive and economically weak. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Member Daysog stated that although deconstruction was not included in the final motion [item 3 -D], it will not be dropped. If RFP responses do not reflect neighborhood values and City priorities, deconstruction will have to be discussed. He further stated that options were left open such as leasing out the housing. And by leaving West Housing open, another option is the possibility of moving some of the homeless housing in East Housing to West Housing, especially in light of the type of housing that is being considered in East Housing. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Member DeWitt at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margake't E.Ensley ARRA Secretary ®recycled paper 7 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Kay Miller, Executive Director August 27, 1997 SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation from the Executive Director to amend the applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to include a 525 -acre Wildlife Refuge as a federal transfer as requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and make corresponding technical language changes. Background At the time of the adoption of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, the ARRA was negotiating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the actual size and conditions of establishing a National Wildlife Refuge. Therefore, the Reuse Plan as adopted in January 1996 leaves the size of the Refuge as "to be determined ". The Service had proposed a refuge of 595 land acres to protect the existing nesting colony of the California Least Tern. This colony is the largest colony north of Santa Barbara of the least tern, an endangered species. On November 18, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formally indicated its intent to request 900 acres, 525 land and 375 water, of the former NAS Alameda for use as a wildlife refuge to protect the California Least Tern. This letter also outlines the basic understanding between ARRA and the Service and is presented in attachment #1. The USFWS has subsequently made a founal request to the Navy for the transfer of the 900 acres. ARRA staff is recommending that the acreage requested for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge now be included in the Reuse Plan for clarification and use in further environmental and planning studies. However, the USFWS will need to survey the area to determine the exact boundaries of the refuge. Until that survey is completed, the exact impact on the size and boundaries of the Reuse Planning area cannot be determined. The following specific modifications are required to amend the plan. Wording to be added is underlined and wording to be deleted in indicated by strikeout. Specific Modifications: Section 2.0 Land Use Element, Land Use Plan Map, and Illustrative Plan Change in Land Use Map, Figure 2 -2: Draw in new Refuge boundary, approximately along the northern potential boundary shown and extend yellow shading to boundary; add boundary lines to show extent of water area included as shown on the map in attachment #2; Retain wording: "Exact Boundary of Wildlife Refuge To be Determined ". Orr Printed on recycled paper Changes in Plan Text Table 2 -1 ( page 2 -10): Planning Areas: Wildlife Preserve Refuge & Wetlands TBD 525 Page 2 -27: The area of the Wildlife Refuge is to be 525 land acres and 375 acres of water. Section 5.0 Open Space and Conservation Element Figure 5 -1, Biological Resources: same as Figure 2 -2, above. Page 5 -5, Policy 5 -8; The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will prepare with ARRA and public input a Wildlife Refuge Management plan to determine the final size, ownership, management practices and land use allowances associated with the wildlife refuge. Section 8.0 Property Disposal Strategy Page 8 -2, 4th paragraph, add as shown: ...Through this screening process two federal agencies requested facilities at the Base: the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife requested approximately 595 acres of land and 375 acres of Bay waters for a wildlife refuge on the western portion of the base including the runway area and deed restrictions placed on another 118 acres. Their request was subsequently revised to 525 acres of land and 375 acres of Bay waters. Page 8 -7, Direct Transfers to Other Federal Agencies Rather than convey the requested family housing and Building 545 directly to the Coast Guard and the Wildlife refuge dircc , the ARRA proposes to apply for the properties property through the EDC at no cost and to exercise the lease back ...should the federal ageneiesagency no longer require the property for the intended public purpose. The ARRA would then enter into a long -term lease and/or management agreement with the federal agcnciesagency for the use of thcseprepertiesthis property. Beth-the The Coast Guard and-the-Fish and Wildlife Service havehas expressed a willingness to operate under the lease /leaseback provision in the 1995 DAA to Printed on recycled paper The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will obtain a federal transfer for conveyance of 525 acres of land and 325 acres of Bay waters for the Wildlife Refuge. Page 8 -12, 2nd paragraph: EDCs and Public and Quasi public Users: There are two types of public or quasi - public users whom the ARRA will accommodate through the EDC process. One arc groups likc is East Bay Regional Parks and thc Fish and Wildlife Service who are is requesting property for a public purpose ... Page 8 -13: 1) United States Fish and Wildlife Service The Fish and Wildlife Service i3 requcsting extcnaive property to create a wildlife refuge to protect endangered species ineluding thc Least Tern. The ARRA supports it to the Fish and Wildlife Service to be managed as a wildlife refuge. This will allow for protection of cndangcrcd species, while allowing the City and ARRA to no longer viable. All wildlife refuge properties would be leased by the City to the Fish and Wildlife Service at a nominal cost. Renumber remaining paragraphs appropriately, beginning with East Bay Regional Parks Table 8 -8: Delete United States Fish and Wildlife Service and descriptors entirely from first row. Page 8 -15, Table 8 -9, first line: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Transfer EDCFederal Transfer Page 8 -16, Table 8 -10, first line: Federal Transfers 0525 0:0%29% EDC for Public /Quasi Public Uses 46-5-240 42.1 %13% Figure 8 -1 Alter to indicate federal transfer conveyance method for the Wildlife Refuge. Discussion on Proposed Changes to the Reuse Plan: The proposed changes update the plan to reflect the actual number of acres officially requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and change the disposition strategy as described in the Reuse Plan. Instead of negotiating the transfer under the EDC and entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the property will be obtained by Fish and Wildlife though a federal transfer. Terms and conditions of the operation of the Refuge will be addressed in the Management Plan developed by the USFWS with input from the ARRA, following the basic understanding outlined in the Deputy Secretary of the Interior's letter of November 18, 1996 (attachment 1). tot Printed on recycled paper Fiscal Impact: There is no direct fiscal impact. However, the USFWS will pay in -lieu of taxes fees to the City of Alameda of approximately $40,000 per year under the fee title arrangement. Under the lease back arrangement, they would not have paid payment -in- lieu -of taxes (PILOT) Recommendation: The staff recommends that the changes described herein be incorporated into the Community Reuse Plan. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM /egj Attachments: 1. Letter dated from Deputy Secretary of Interior Garamendi 2. Map showing acreage requested by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ws Printed on recycled paper NOU -18 -1996 14:28 INTERIOR DEPUTY SECRETARY 2 02 208 1873 P.02 /04 United States Department of the Interior 01-1- ICE 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 organizations, 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 reeds 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 least amount of disturbance to tern colony management. As stated in our letter to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Service believes that developing the north end as a port facility would adversely affect the tern colony. The Service will work with the ARRA to configure the development boundaries on the north end to assist in making the most efficient use of the space While still protecting the tern colony. NOU -18 -1996 14:29 INTERIOR DEPUTY SECRETARY 202 208 1873 Kay Miller, Executive Director 2 P.03/04 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 tuient 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. All parties should commit to expediting the EIS process: Upon receipt of an adequate biological assessment from the Navy, we are allowed a maximum of 90 days to complete formal consultation and an additional 45 days to prepare a biological opinion that summarizes our assessment of project effects on listed species and any critical habitat. The length of time required to complete our consultation will depend upon the number of options for redevelopment that the Navy requests the Service to review in making its determination. We assure you that the Service will work closely with the Navy and the ARRA to expedite the process. 4. The Service should get involved with BCDC's Port Priority Designation of the 220 acres north of the proposed Refuge. There may be a conflict with Coastal Zone Consistency and the Endangered Species Act: The Service agrees, as stated earlier, that port development of the north end of the Navy base would adversely affect the tern colony and there may be conflicts with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Service is committed to be fully engaged in any discussion with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as well as other interested parties on this issue. 5. The Service should assure that the ARRA and the Iocal 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. I 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 4/11 /96 11 :33 $15107925323 USFWS SF BAY N1%'R 009/009 A 41 1 T-Xtr•lY... -..-7 3.3 7 .T: 1i.; a �: caS>6 -j --'-- on ' 2° a {''(j('ir ('I 256aJp56Zw�„ c` 3150.' 21 zI JIq l J _ 6 .:VE er. S3° 333° 1r0 0 3ZZ �!0 jt�s:,.;.0 % :MO -j cTo 335 j X509 t•' :O IR 'a7E V19 I ,. -K f. I o el';'. l I II - I RUNWAY III r • `\ AIR STATION II ` / °4)6 Ij I r \`�- ....AxnteY Lx�`p:dG 1�t7 lIA_ \� ` \\ \ `,� o. \ \ iF[C7COP ! 7,i nlRCgacT • T. I11\ ; ~.(" \\ III \ \ \ j• ;FiJlyG{4 ;1 N\ ∎I JL )I\ \TRA.DGH ' l; _Il\N f \ \ \.. B `._ \1 \a^ )C \/ `• r� `4a8 PAR CIHG ` ' � ; �C i I ��\ ? • V aPr D� -� i l q I. �t, X569 �" t r .570 C \ • > • 4 6 f i tr 0. .1- 1 .� ti It 0� \OG \(1y4aal� \^[� Ej9� \r 1 is u 0 7 R SE LEGEND EXISTING STRUCTURES EXISTING ROADS CA PAVED AREA OIRT ROADS $IDE'NALK CONCRETE SLAB' TR%;L EX, ;TIUG Rn1LRO$ )4 :4Y Prw.p:R1Y 9OUNOAF;T NAVY PRpPERTY eCUNCGFT WITµ FENCE FENCE NAIN STATION ENTRAtzCE WATER LIVE LANDING PAC (HELICOPTER: :JAS eotNO :RY -'4 - AS:6vUriOAF.Y W :Tr/ FENCE SCALE IN f Proposed Refuge Boundary S A N Figure 1. Proposed Alameda Unit, FRAN UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, June 4, 1997 The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda (left at 7:20 p.m.) Roberta Brooks, alternate to Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District (left at 7:20 p.m.) Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (arrived at 5:50 p.m.) Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr./Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland (arrived at 5:50 p.m.; left at 7:20 p.m.) Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:55 p.m.) Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group Ardella Dailey, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District Absent: Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Report from the Executive Director recommending approval of the recommended priorities for the ARRA's 1998 grant application to the Economic Development Administration. Member Kerr moved approval of the recommendation. Alternate Ornelas seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Absent: 4 - Leonhardy, Chan, DeWitt, Lucas. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -B. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director for changes and clarifications to applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to add 17 acres to the City of Alameda's Public Benefit Conveyance request for a Sports Complex, and other changes and clarifications to Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy. Alternate Brooks inquired how a Public Benefit Conveyance can be changed legally at this stage. Executive Director Miller replied that while we cannot add a new PBC at this stage, we can add acreage to an existing Public Benefit Conveyance. Speakers: Bob B. Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics (Islanders), stated the Sports Complex would provide a positive approach to learning and development and would help revitalize the west end of Alameda. Jennifer Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex and providing a 50 -meter pool for swimmers. ®recycled paper 1 C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\MINUTES \6- 497.MIN Melanie Anne Aeblieck, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex, stating that The Islanders have 100 swimmers and currently, distance swimmers need to go to Chabot, Concord, or Walnut Creek for a distance workout. Toby Chavez, BRAG Recreation Work Group, thanked everyone who had put their time and thought into planning for the 17 acres of soccer fields, tennis courts, a gymnasium, softball field, etc. that comprise the Sports Complex plan. He added that the Sports Complex will not happen overnight and will take approximately 20 years to completely build out. Maria Antonov, a sophomore at Alameda High School and a member of the Alagators swim team, spoke in favor of the motion, saying she knew the swimming community will work hard to find the funding for a new pool. Dr. Robert Deutsch, Alameda Soccer Club Board of Directors, stated that this is a chance to provide some land and recreational facilities as a legacy for our children and the future. Kelly Gallagher, sophomore at Alameda High School and member of the Alagator Swim Team, asked the ARRA to approve the Sports Complex with a 15 -meter pool to train in that will enable Alameda teams to compete on an equal footing with other area teams. Patricia Packard, Vice President of the Alameda Soccer Club and 20 -year Alameda resident, stated that the proposed Sports Complex will offer healthy recreation to area citizens. The Alameda Soccer Club has committed to financial support and a willingness to work with representatives of other sports to make the fields of our dreams a reality. Chair Appezzato announced that just a few days ago the Alameda Soccer Club gave the City a $10,000 check to help defray expenses. On behalf of the City, he thanked all those who donated funds. Karen Simontacchi, Alameda Soccer Club, stated that the Sports Complex is not only important to the children of Alameda but will benefit the entire region and its economy. Warren Hood, Alameda Soccer coach for nine years, spoke in favor of the motion, pointing out that since he began coaching, soccer fields have diminished by less than half and the children are running on fields of play that many adults would dread to walk on. Member Daysog moved acceptance of the report and recommendation. Alternate Brooks seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas. 3 -C. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft and sign a letter to Naval Sea Systems Command ( NAVSEA), Ships Donation Program, requesting that NAVSEA establish August 15, 1997 as the deadline for a final donation application for the U.S.S. Hornet and that NAVSEA make its decision no later than September 30, 1997. Chair Appezzato asked Executive Director Miller if the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation (ACHF) was aware of this agenda item. Ms. Miller answered that ACHF was not only aware of it, they concur with the recommendation and suggested the August 15 date. Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, stressed the importance of the Hornet for its tourism value and the money that tourism will bring to Alameda. He also spoke in favor of the Bullet Train, building ferry boat piers, and USCSF Research Hospital. el recycled paper 2 A:\MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Richard Neveln, an interested citizen, spoke in favor of the Hornet, stating that he hoped the Navy was given some "wiggle room" in the letter to allow them to pay for pier space if they need longer to think. Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, voiced her support of the Hornet and asked why MARAD is paying millions of dollars to dock their ships but the Navy is unwilling to be responsible for the Hornet, which is also a Navy vessel. Executive Director Miller explained that MARAD is not under the Department of Defense; Maritime Administration ships are Department of Transportation vessels. Bob Rogers, Executive Vice President of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, stated that they suggested the dates in the recommendation because they want to go forward. ACHF is wrapping up their fundraising, they have some very exciting things happening, they are very supportive of ARRA, and he thanked staff for they support. He further stated that ACHF is probably the only organization that actually wants to pay rent. Alternate Brooks asked what was motivating the recommendation. Executive Director Miller answered that there is a need to know if the ship is not going to make it into the ship donation program to ACHF because the Navy is then going to have to decide what they are going to do with the ship. Also, the Navy is not willing to pay rent equivalent to what the MARAD ships are paying. Ms. Brooks then stated that if there is anything that Congressman Dellums' office can do about that part of the problem, to let her know. Chair Appezzato stated that if the ship fails to make it into the ship donation program to the Hornet Foundation, the Navy is ultimately responsible for removing the ship from our port. Member DeWitt moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by member Daysog and it passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas. 3 -D. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director requesting the governing body to authorize ARRA staff to prepare and issue an RFP for a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage all or part of the available units in West housing. Speakers: James Sweeney, Alameda citizen and member of the BRAG Housing Subcommittee, stated that the first and foremost theme in discussions about the housing is that these old apartments and old buildings have to come down. The vast majority of Alameda citizens have a fear of the ghettoization of the old houses, which are deteriorating from day to day. He asked that deconstruction be looked at in this RFP. Bill Smith, Emeryville resident, discussed the latest issue of the Base Closure News, which has a cover article on 368 units of housing in Fort Ord. The same firm handling the Fort Ord housing has done 3,300 units in the Bay Area for the low income, the disabled, the homeless, and people on welfare. He suggested that we look at this organization to see what they could do at NAS. Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, agreed that due to the wear and tear and state of these units, they would be considered substandard lease or rental housing. She recommended that no action be taken at this time and that ARRA consider selling the property to encourage pride of ownership instead of bringing down rental values because of the proliferation of rental units. recycled paper 3 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Executive Director Miller stated that the staff recommendation was to go out to bid for the 19 Big Whites and 32 single - family, ranch -style homes with an option to bid on the townhouse and apartment units to see what the private sector would do in renovating and leasing those units. She stressed that the ARRA would not be obligated to follow through. Alternate Brooks stated that the discussion of destroying units constructed in 1964 and 1966 seems bizarre to her as she lives in a 1941 house which is still going strong. She added that she did not know why ARRA should not pursue studying this and she hoped she was not hearing that we were going to tear down 18 townhouses and 242 apartments. Ms. Miller answered that the staff recommendation was to issue an RFP to bid on the Big Whites and single- family homes and see what the private market would do with the townhouse and apartment units. Alternate Leonhardy asked what would happen to these units if they are not leased or rented? Executive Director Miller answered that they would be boarded up. Alternate Leonhardy asked if ARRA is willing to have vacant housing throughout that much of that complex? Ms. Miller stated that would be the result. Mr. Leonhardy mentioned the associated blight conditions that would follow with boarding up that many units. He then asked that, as the Tidelands Trust significantly inhibits long -term planning or transition, if any study been made of possibly trading the housing out of the trust. Ms. Miller stated that we know that the State Lands Commission is going to be agreeable to "grandfathering in" the existing housing for some period of time. She added that there are less than 40 units in the trust but that the area includes most of the Big Whites. Member Daysog said that the boarding up issue raises the issue of looking into the cost of deconstruction on these units. He further suggested that if an RFP is being let out on renovating, leasing, and managing some of the units, he would like to include deconstruction as part of the information gathering process. He added that the San Francisco Weekly recently had an article on Project Area Committees and how that is affecting redevelopment areas in the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Daysog requested a report on Project Area Committees so that he has a better understanding of the issue. Member Kerr stated that if there is anyone living within a redevelopment area when it is formed, then there is a requirement for a Project Area Committee (PAC) and any number larger than 25 may trigger this. The PAC has great legal power and takes a 2 /3rds vote of the governing body of the redevelopment area to override their decisions. Special legislation was passed last year relating to base closure redevelopments which overrides the general redevelopment law in California. Overriding that is last year's special legislation initiated by Barbara Lee that relates specifically to Alameda Naval Air. Redevelopment lines may have to be drawn to exclude the housing. She added that the City Attorney's office has been working with a legal firm that specializes in this and before entering any long -term firm commitments on the housing, ARRA should know how or if this might affect redevelopment. She stated that once this empty housing is put on the market, then there is a one - for -one replacement housing requirement. This becomes a very serious commitment for the City of Alameda to do a one - for -one replacement and income levels have to be matched. Ms. Kerr asked Assistant General Counsel Highsmith to comment on replacement housing. Assistant General Counsel Highsmith reported that the General Counsel's office is currently working on an opinion to answer questions about whether leasing properties within an intended recycled paper 4 A:\MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN redevelopment area will trigger replacement housing and relocation costs as well as other questions voiced this evening. Alternate Leonhardy suggested that if you have to do replacement housing, you have to do 20% set - asides from the redevelopment funds for low and moderate income housing development and those costs might be offset right there, straight across. Ms. Kerr asked that in the first sentence of the final paragraph of page four of the staff report, after the phrase "... issue an RFP to find a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage" the word "or deconstruct" be inserted. Member Kerr stated her preference that the RFP address only the Big Whites and the single - family homes. Executive Director Miller asked for clarification —if the RFP was only for the Big Whites and the single - family homes, was deconstruction of those units still to be a part of the RFP? Member Kerr stated that in the case that the RFP was limited to the Big Whites and single- family homes, deconstruction would be left out. Member DeWitt voiced his preference for leasing the 19 Big Whites and 32 single - family homes. He added that perhaps the financial benefit of renting the apartment units would not be beneficial to the City given possible relocation fees and whatever else might apply. In that case, the RFP might include what it would cost to deconstruct the apartment -type units. Member DeWitt moved to go forward with an RFP to find a property manager to renovate, manage, and lease the Big Whites and the single- family units. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr. Chair Appezzato restated the motion, to go forward with an RFP for the Big Whites and the single - family homes with an option to bid on the other housing to include looking at deconstruction if, in fact, the market does not bear using them, and the potential for tear -down and redevelopment in other areas. Member Kerr stated that she really wanted to limit it to the Big Whites and the 32 single -story units; otherwise, deconstruction should be included. Executive Director Miller explained that an RFP issued for firms that would deconstruct townhouses would go to a completely different audience than firms that do property management. Chair Appezzato concurred that if deconstruction becomes an issue, a different RFP can be issued. Member Leonhardy stated that the units that the ARRA is talking about boarding up are those immediately around the homeless housing units, which means continuing a blighted condition. Alternate Brooks added that the concept of examining these other issues makes sense and it would be helpful to know if the townhouse and apartment units are viable. Member DeWitt stated that he still has questions about the financial benefit of leasing the apartment units. Executive Director Miller quoted scenario #1, renting only the single - family and Big Whites would probably return about half -a- million dollars annually to ARRA revenue. Scenario #2, adding the townhouse units (6 buildings with 19 actual units) would result in additional revenues of between $130,000 – $155,000. Scenario #3, adding the apartments, would result in an additional $800,000 – $900,000 being generated. Alternate Brooks stated that unless an RFP goes out, the ARRA will not know whether anybody thinks this is viable. If no firms want to work with the apartments and townhouses, then the path is clear —they have to come down. If there are interested firms then questions on legal ramifications must be asked, a cost - benefit analysis can be examined, etc. Even if the RFP goes out for all housing, there is no obligation and the ARRA can reject all proposals if they so wish. erecycled paper 5 A: \MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Alternate Leonhardy asked Member DeWitt to accept a friendly amendment to include the apartments and townhouses with the management costs and benefits broken down by housing category. Member DeWitt accepted the friendly amendment. Member Kerr then withdrew her second. Member Daysog asked if deconstruction could be started on a second track tonight. Counsel Highsmith answered that the issue of deconstruction was not on the agenda for discussion. The motion was seconded by Alternate Leonhardy and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 1- Kerr. Absent: 1- Lucas. 3 -E. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for signature by the ARRA Chair and Vice -Chair stating the ARRA's opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening methodology in which the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal- EPA)/Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 9 will not concur. One letter will be sent to RADM David J. Nash, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters and the second letter will be sent to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, att: Sherri Goodman. Dave Ryan, representing EFA West, stated that this is a serious issue and the Navy is working in partnership with the state addressing complex technical issues. He suggested the ARRA not take sides but encourage the Navy to work in a collaborative fashion with the state to resolve the issues. Chair Appezzato replied that when the Navy leaves the City will have to work with the state and meet state requirements. Alternate Brooks added that the ARRA has a fiduciary responsibility to the City to weigh in by advocating the property be left as clean as possible. Ardella Dailey, Co -chair of the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) stated the RAB fully supports drafting and sending the recommended letters. Alternate Leonhardy moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -F. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. BRAG Chair Lee Perez commended all the sports interests that worked together to develop the Sports Complex proposal. The BRAG feels that it is beneficial to the redevelopment of Alameda Point to recruit an academic presence to replace PPU. Chair Perez stressed that the BRAG's vote on the housing issue had been a very close vote and they felt the housing must be approached carefully. Doug deHaan reported that the Airfield Task Force is recommending a limited use airfield although the financial aspect still needs to be worked out. Chair Perez ended his report by stating that the BRAG continues to work with WABA and other west side groups on the issue of a commissary; they are working closely with the FISC Ad Hoc Task Force; and the BRAG continues —along with other groups —to look at some possible conflicts of interest on dual memberships. Chair Appezzato added that he would be selecting a new alternate. ®recycled paper 6 A:\MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN 4 -G. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on: (1) Coast Guard Housing; (2) Airfield Workshop; (3) Public Trust Appraisal; and (4) BCDC Port Priority Designation. Executive Director Miller stated that the Airfield Workshop would not occur on June 19 and optional dates in July are being considered. 4 -H. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Richard Neveln, interested citizen, reported on the economics of an air show at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, which generated income of $88 million in one week. Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, thanked the ARRA and the BRAG volunteers for their contributions to the region. Kurt Bohan passed, stating that he would send in a letter. Bill Stremmel, recent Alameda resident, complained of the locked gates to the northwestern end of the base that has been declared off - limits to all human activities due to the nesting season of the Least Tern. He stated that there is always a socioeconomic and environmental price when property is restricted to a narrowly defined purpose and it has serious implications for overall redevelopment. Richard Neveln stated that a Walgreens at Atlantic and Webster does not set a very comfortable tone to the entrance of Alameda Point and suggested that Frys Electronics would set a better tone. Bill Smith, an Emeryville resident, discussed deconstruction and methods of removing lead paint stating that it is much more difficult to deconstruct than it is to construct. Ann Mitchum, an Emeryville resident, stated that the Navy spends tens of thousands of dollars per Big White per year on the maintenance, which makes the viability of leasing the Big Whites and the other units economically weak. Deconstruction is also expensive and economically weak. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Member Daysog stated that although deconstruction was not included in the final motion [item 3 -D], it will not be dropped. If RFP responses do not reflect neighborhood values and City priorities, deconstruction will have to be discussed. He further stated that options were left open such as leasing out the housing. And by leaving West Housing open, another option is the possibility of moving some of the homeless housing in East Housing to West Housing, especially in light of the type of housing that is being considered in East Housing. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Member DeWitt at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marg t E.Ensley ARRA Secretary ®recycled paper 7 A:\MINUTES \6- 4- 97.MIN Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the governing body authorize ARRA staff to negotiate and execute a contract for a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage a part of the available units in West Housing. Background: At its June 4 meeting, the ARRA governing body directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for property management services to renovate, lease, and manage some or all of the available units in West Housing. The RFP was to call for an initial proposal pertaining to the Big Whites and single - family units only. An optional "add -on" would allow managers to make a proposal on the townhouses and/or apartment units as well. The RFP would clearly state that it is at the ARRA's option to (1) select a manager for all or some housing areas,. (2) select different managers for each of the areas, or (3) reject all proposals. The selection of the property management firm would be recommended by a selection committee consisting of members of the BRAG Housing Work Group, the City Manager or his designee, and ARRA staff. Lastly, this selection committee also would make a recommendation to the ARRA governing body on the area to be renovated, leased, and managed. Discussion: In early July, staff mailed an announcement of the RFP to approximately four dozen property management companies, including firms that had specifically expressed interest in being considered for this work. The RFP included approximately 50 single family units and six townhouse units (located in three buildings) on Lemoore Road. The townhouses were included due to their location, which is adjacent to the single family homes area. The RFP also invited prospective managers to offer one or more optional "add -on" proposals to include the remaining townhouse and apartment units. Four companies submitted complete proposals and all four bidders — Guilltone- United Alameda, Gallagher & Lindsey, Cantrell - Harris, and the John Stewart Company —were invited to interview. The interview committee consisted of the Bob LaGrone, Deputy City Manager for Alameda Point and Mike Pucci, Alameda Housing Authority, representing the City Manager's office; Malcolm Mooney representing the BRAG; and Executive Director Kay Miller and Assistant Facilities Manager Tom Havey of the ARRA staff. Fiscal Impact: The selection of the property management firm was to be based in part on the projected net revenue generated for the ARRA. However, of the four proposals received, only two (Guilltone- United Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 28, 1997 Page 2 Alameda, and Gallagher & Lindsey) provided any income and expense projections. Guilltone- United Alameda projected a net loss of approximately $1,760,000 in the first year of operation, with the subsequent years to achieve projected income of $310,000 and $570,000, respectively. The net loss in year one of Guilltone's cash flow projection resulted from assumed substantial metering costs. Gallagher & Lindsey provided figures for the first year only, projecting a positive net cash flow of approximately $700,000. Gallagher & Lindsey advised against up -front metering and suggested gradual metering over time as cash flow allows. Gallagher and Lindsey further based their cash flow projection on limited initial improvements to the properties. Rather, they recommended improvements be accomplished in two phases. Phase 1 would address all health and safety issues. Phase 2 improvements would be cosmetic (e.g., paint, floor coverings /finishing, window coverings, minor repairs, and cleaning). The total budget for both phases is approximately $137,000 with the maintenance and upgrade program accomplished over the leasing life of the property. Finally, Gallagher & Lindsey's $700,000 cash flow projections assume full lease -up of all 58 units within six months. While the selection committee viewed this as achievable given current Alameda rental market conditions, this schedule may be impacted by the Navy's requirement to abate lead -based paint in the Big Whites (18 units). The Navy's abatement program will undoubtedly slow up the leasing of the Big Whites. This fact has been discussed with Gallagher & Lindsey and they have agreed to concentrate their initial leasing program on the ranch units and bring the Big Whites on -line as the Navy completes their abatement. All of these factors will impact the cash flow. However, the selection committee is confident in the ability of Gallagher & Lindsey to generate a positive cash flow for the ARRA in the first year of the leasing program. Recommendations: 1. Based on the proposals and interviews, the committee has scored and ranked the bidders in relation to the selection criteria specified in the RFP. The selection committee is recommending the firm of Gallagher & Lindsey. This company has operated in Alameda since 1967— adding property management in 1972 —and is the only bidder with significant current operations in Alameda, which is a distinct advantage in terms of local market knowledge and experience. Additionally, the company is willing to relocate several key personnel to West Housing. The selection committee was impressed with their commitment to the project and belief in its marketability as a new Alameda Point neighborhood. A summary of the key features of the Gallagher & Lindsey proposal is attached. 2. The selection committee recommends that the term of the contract remain at one year as provided in the RFP. The length of this contracting term is acceptable to Gallagher & Lindsey. 3. The selection committee also recommends that the multi - family section (i.e., apartments and remaining townhouse units) NOT be put on the market until the results of leasing the Phase 1 properties can be ascertained. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 28, 1997 Page 3 4. Additionally, the committee recommends that the ARRA accept the recommendation of Gallagher & Lindsey to delay individual metering of units at this time. Rental income would be structured to reflect a surcharge for expected utility costs. 5. Finally, the committee recommends that the ARRA governing body immediately authorize staff to consummate a contract with Gallagher & Lindsey to manage, upgrade, and lease the Big Whites, ranch -style single - family homes, and six townhouse units in the West Housing area of Alameda Point. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/tjh/mee Attachment: Key Features - Gallagher & Lindsey Proposal C: \MA RGARET\ARRA \STAFFREP \W - HOUSNG.REC Alameda Point - West Housing Gallagher & Lindsey, Inc. Proposal - Summary of Key Features August 28, 1997 Founded: 1967 (1972, added property management) Based: Alameda Owner: Donald W. Lindsey (president) Term: one year Staffing: president (willing to live on site /market rent) marketing manager (willing to live on site /market rent) property manager (plans to live on site, incl. rental office /$1000 mo. allow.) rehab coordinator lead marketing assoc. (willing to live on site /market rent) rental agent controller (willing to live on site /market rent) Mo. Rents: Big Whites $1800 - $2000, plus $350 utility assessment Ranch Style $1400 - $1600, plus $250 utility assessment Townhouses $1100 - $1300, plus $200 utility assessment Marketing: newspaper ads and press releases company website "passport" brochure signage ($800 in operating budget) direct contact with major employers internal referral program promotional functions ($1,800 in operating budget) cooperation with other brokers (re: leasing) Occupancy: 28% in month one 56% in month two 74% in month three 81% in month four 89% in month five 100% in month six Mgmt. Fee: 6% of gross rents (effective); rental fees payable by tenants Cash Flow: net $693,473 ($742,922 from operations) in year one Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Background: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Kay Miller, Executive Director August 28, 1997 Report from the Executive Director recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize negotiations and execute a 15 -year interim lease with United Indian Nations, Inc. As required by the federal Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, the ARRA worked with the Alameda County Housing and Community Development and a group of homeless services providers, identified as the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative (Homeless Collaborative) to determine a fair share of housing at NAS Alameda to accommodate the homeless. This accommodation of the homeless was reflected in the Community Reuse Plan which was unanimously approved by the ARRA board in January 1996. The Community Reuse Plan was then approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, again, as required by federal law). The homeless service providers were expected to take possession of their housing units from the ARRA at the time of the Record of Decision by signing a legally- binding agreement of the terms of their possession. United Indian Nations (UIN) is one member of the Homeless Collaborative. It is an Indian - managed, Oakland -based nonprofit organization committed to serving Native Americans in the Bay Area. UIN currently offers adult education classes, vocational training, and employment placement services to at -risk Indian people facing multiple barriers to employment including homelessness. The 12 units of housing they were allocated include one ranch house to provide transitional housing for homeless youth in a group home setting, two four -unit apartment buildings, and three CPO units to provide transitional housing for battered women, persons in residential recovery, and veterans and their families. A map of the units allocated to UIN is attached. United Indian Nations applied for funding for this project, known as Unity Village, through the Alameda County Housing and Community Development. The grant is provided through the federal Supportive Housing Program of the McKinney Homeless programs through HUD (Housing & Urban Development Department). At the time that the County, on behalf of UIN, applied for this grant, it was anticipated that the ROD would be completed and that the Legally Binding Agreements for these properties would be signed by August 1997. The McKinney funding awarded to the County of Alameda for the United Indian Nations project specifies that all grant recipients MUST demonstrate site control no later than one year from the date of grant award. The grant was awarded on September 16, 1996. Given that the ROD is not if, Printed on recycled paper Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redeveloment Authority August 28, 1997 Page 2 completed, HUD has agreed to accept a 15 -year interim lease as site control. If site control, in the form of an interim lease, is not provided to HUD by September 16, 1997, the award will be canceled and the funds lost. There is one other program that is also at risk of losing their funding unless they can demonstrate site control through interim leases. An immediate deadline is also being faced by the Bessie Coleman project for women and children (the San Leandro Women's Shelter). In order to keep their funding for this year, they will propose a fifteen -year interim lease to the board in October or November. This lease would have identical language to the UIN lease that has been developed as a prototype. Discussion: United Indian Nations seeks a 15 -year interim lease to undertake rehabilitation, caretaking and maintenance of the 12 units of housing assigned to it in the Community Reuse Plan. An interim lease would allow United Indian Nations to acquire site control of the property and would trigger release of monies from several funding sources to be put toward rehabilitation of the property to meet life safety and building code requirements. This interim lease does not allow occupancy of the units other than as necessary for rehabilitation and caretaking. As required by the Legally Binding Agreement, occupancy of the units will not be allowed until after the property is transferred from the Navy and the provision of required support services for the residents is demonstrated. Each provider will be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Alameda before occupying the property. It had been the Homeless Collaborative's and UIN's original expectation that a Record of Decision by the Navy was to have been published by now. Because the ROD is now due to be issued sometime next year, UIN is concerned about any future deterioration of the housing stock. As such, it is seeking an interim lease in order to release funds that it has been awarded to begin rehabilitating and caretaking property to be assigned to it under the Community Reuse Plan. As part of this lease, UIN understands that it will pay the services fees associated with an interim lease. The properties to be leased are the 12 units known as 102, 104, and 106 Corpus Christi Road; 112 Pensacola Road; 128 Corpus Christi Road; and 125 Barbers Point Road. Fiscal Impact: UIN will provide protection and maintenance of their units as Base Rent. They will also pay the Common Services charge of 2.4 cents per month per square foot of building space and 0.027 cents per month per square foot of land area. There will be no fiscal impact to the ARRA. Having UIN lease the property shifts the burden from the City of Alameda Cooperative Services Agreement budget to UIN for the maintenance of the property. ®" a it Printed on recycled paper Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redeveloment Authority Recommendation: August 28, 1997 Page 3 It is recommended that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to finalize negotiations and execute the proposed fifteen -year lease with United Indian Nations, Inc. Respectfully submitted, fLl.i tl¢� J Kay Miller Executive Director Attachments: Location of UIN Housing Units Letter from HUD to Alameda County re: Site Control Printed on recycled paper Pier 'RAMP NO. 4 Location of United Indian Nations Housing Units - "'AUG 27. 19971 3:28PMx 415ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANN1 al) A Adolph Martinelli Planning Department Director County of Alameda 224 West Winton Avenue, Room 108 Hayward, CA 94S44-1220 NO. 5570 P. DeparesiorS a Malang .nd Urban DroslopT*Nt PealciAreafi OM= sSO Galan GM Awes San Frsnefoce, Caffornia 041aS-S*40 IDS"' 101 0 Dear Mr. Martinelli: SUBJECT: Demonstrated Site Control Supportive Housing Program (SHP) Project Name: unity. Village Award Number; CA39B96211200-004 Sponsor: United rndian Nations, Inc. ' This letter follows today's telephone call with Amy Hodtt of your staff and Daniel Louie of this office with reerd to site control. We are aware that the Planning Department of Alameda County is completing the interim lease fox the Board of Supervisor approval at its next meeting of September 3, 1997. A fully executed lease will be sufficient to demonstrate site control in accordance with Section 583.320 of the SHP regulations. It is anticipated that the County of Alameda will satisfy the site control requirement by September 16, 1997. As you are aware, this is the closing date by which the County is statutorily required to demonstrate site control. • Should the County of Alameda not be able to demonstrate site control by September 16, 1997, the award will be canceled as required by the atatute. In the interim, please provide a copy of the interim lease, subject to Board of Supervisor approval, to this, office for review. If you need further_assistanee or have additional questions, please'contact Yvonne L. Swift, Community Planning and Development Representative, at (415) 436-8490, or Daniel Louie, Financial Analyst, at (415) 436-8498. Very sincerely yours, Steven Director, Community Planting and Development Division cc:/my Hodgett, County of Alameda 3 RI002 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 4 -G SUBJ: Recommendation regarding interim leasing and long -term use of the "campus area" of Alameda Point. Background: The original Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda envisioned a 65 -acre area at Alameda Point to be developed as an international campus site by Pan Pacific University (PPU). PPU had applied for the site and all the buildings within the 65 -acre area through a Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC). The ARRA had endorsed the concept of a university campus but had determined to acquire the property through an Economic Development Conveyance and lease the property at no cost to PPU. PPU agreed to pay its fair share of infrastructure costs and public service fees. The ARRA had made clear that the lease could be only for educational uses and that if PPU wanted to obtain fee title to the property, it would be responsible for freeing the property from the Public Trust. The ARRA required PPU to raise $7 million by the end of 1996 and $18 million by the end of 1997. PPU failed to raise the required funds and in May 1997, the ARRA board withdrew its commitment to PPU and instructed staff to begin actively marketing the campus property. A listing of the active interest and inquiries we have received in the property is attached as Appendix A. In July, the BRAG adopted a recommendation asking the ARRA to place a six -month moratorium on leasing of the campus facilities and launch a nationwide marketing campaign to find an accredited academic institution to develop a campus on the property. That recommendation was forwarded to the ARRA governing body in August. Discussion/Issues: ARRA staff needs direction from the board on how to proceed with leasing of the campus area. The attached list lays out all of the parties known to staff who have active interest in buildings or property in the campus area. Does the governing body wish staff to proceed with marketing and leasing the property as we were instructed to do in May or does the ARRA wish to consider the BRAG recommendation of a moratorium on leasing in order to find a single higher education academic user for the entire campus area. The following issues and concerns should be considered in deciding how to direct staff to proceed. 1. One potential candidate, a nonprofit academic institution —the University ofNorthem California, has proposed to take on not just the 65 -acre campus but fully 200 acres, including the campus area, the civic core, and West Housing areas. Does the board wish staff to pursue this option Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 28, 1997 Page 2 before proceeding to lease property to other interests or conducting a national search? If the answer is yes, staff needs to know: a) What kind of financial commitment should be required of the institution? b) Should achievement of accreditation be a requirement? c) Would the board consider less than market rate leases to this institution or the type of escrow arrangement they have proposed? d) The same Public Trust conflict exists for this or any other academic use. Would the board expect the University of Northern California to be responsible for freeing the property from the trust if they desire permanent use of the site? 2. No funding has been identified that could be used to conduct a nationwide market search for a single user for the campus. Staff believes that to be done properly, this effort would require $20,000 for marketing materials, direct mailings, advertisements in higher education publications, and follow -up. ARRA staff could not handle this effort with existing staff. OEA will not fund marketing activities and we have already set our priorities for 1998 EDA funding. The EDA grant is in the process of being written. Other sources of funding would have to be found. 3. If a single accredited institution of higher education interested in acquiring the site could be identified, the same policy issues would have to be resolved in advance concerning: a) The terms of the lease (e.g., no -cost or market rate or some other arrangement). b) The question of the Public Trust—how/who would free the property from the trust? c) Who would be responsible for interim leasing and maintenance of facilities within the campus while the academic institution is growing into the campus area? Who would receive the proceeds of any interim leasing? d) What does the ARRA need to see as a level of financial commitment to consider a proposal to be earnest? Fiscal Impact: The EPS preliminary analysis indicated that the campus area could produce $16 million in income if leased at market rate. The ARRA will need to decide if we should lease at less than market rate to academic users in order to create a campus "magnet" or anchor tenant to attract other users. Recommendation: ARRA staff requests that the governing body give direction to the staff on how to proceed with marketing and leasing of the campus area properties. Respectfully submitted, G1,� Gte)tY Kay Miller Executive Director Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Appendix A Alameda Point Campus Active Interest and Inquiries August 28, 1997 Page 3 Institution I Interest Buildings Status University of Northern California - private non- profit (see attached proposal) Interest in 200 acres, including 65 -acre campus plus housing and civic core area All buildings and land in 200 -acre area Conceptual proposal just presented An established College of Osteopathic Medicine An Alameda Point campus to replace their current San Francisco campus Bldgs. 2, 3, & 4 (BEQ, galley, and surrounding property plus building 18 (theater) Active interest. Have contacted Mayor and Supv. Chan with interest. Peralta Junior College District/College of Alameda Facilities to expand existing College of Alameda campus, an international house, performing arts center, classroom space, child care facilities, and others to meet demands from Welfare Reform Looked specifically at theater, BEQ, & BOQ Initial tour conducted for Chancellor Al Harrison, College of Alameda President George Hearing, and Trustee Amey Stone South Baylo University, School of Oriental Medicine in association with Kook Min University (Korea's largest private university) Classrooms and housing for up to 1,000 students for a medical school BOQ & BEQ Serious interest; toured facilities twice California School of Professional Psychology Expansion of existing facilities Bldgs. 2, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 585, 525— phased in or a combination of buildings Second tour completed Alameda County Health Clinic An alternative to medical clinic on Park Street in building leased from City of Alameda Medical Clinic, Bldg. 16 Interest withdrawn, City may still want to pursue Various local churches Exclusive or shared use Chapel, Bldg. 94 Discussion level only City of Alameda Community worship center Chapel, Bldg. 94 Under consideration primarily at staff level Physician group An assisted living or long -term care facility Shown BOQ Preliminary only - two tours Sigi Osicki Whales Tale Restaurant A culinary arts institute (and restaurant) Top Four Club building Several tours - awaiting ARRA response High -tech companies & Alameda Chamber of Commerce A high -tech incubator BEQ Bldgs 2 or 4; staff suggested Bldg. 8 as an alternate Preliminary only —EDA grant will enable building upgrade Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 28, 1997 Page 4 Institution Interest Buildings Status Private secondary school Interest in classroom and recreational (ball fields, soccer, and play fields) No specific buildings identified— looking at BOQ, BEQ, chapel, & theater Inquiry and one tour PPU Scaled -down 800 - student campus BEQ & galley No official follow -up proposal International Language Schools (private training for foreign students) Classrooms and housing for up to 400 students in BOQ and portions of BEQ BEQ, Bldg. 2 and BOQ Preliminary interest Piedmont Soccer Club Immediate need for a soccer field Open field in quad surrounded by BEQ ARRA staff proceeding with one -year lease 08 -20 -1997 3:31RM FROM Univ. of No California TO 915105213(54 P.03 UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA NAS Civic Core Proposal Summf,ry of Key Benefits: • The University of Northern California is an established university, with State ay: proval and Immigration and Naturalization Service authorization established. • ARRA, working with a single entity for advancing a strategic site development plan, would avoid the inevitable cherry - picking, which would occur. There would be a plan for developing all of the property, not just those sites which are the easiest and most profitable. • The University would bring a higher level of scholarly and cultural enrichmer_t to the community. Of course, the University would not be a burden to the City for :t public sers ices requirements, nor other expenditures allocated to the University. • The University has, and would continue, to serve as a magnet for attracting hph -tech industry from the local, national, and international business comrnunity. Continuity in the shared purpose and mission of such firms would be monitored by the E .:ard of Directors of the University. • As the site begins to evolve as an incubator for start -up businesses, the Unit yrsity's gra ivate programs will serve as a valuable resource for highly skilled research and corporate internships for resident companies. The business incubator arm of dC, the Sct nce and Technology Innovation Center (S77C), is already serving this pujpose on its ivlarin Campus. Sequence of Commitments: • 3 months from reaching tentative agreement with ARRA, the University of l ,rthern California will produce evidence of a substantial overseas commitment Sy other schools to assist in sending paying students to the UNC- Alameda Campus. Int.:rnational students are an important source of revenue for every university. • 3 months from providing ARRA with the above information, UNC will (produce evidence that one million dollars has been set aside which is targeted to this project. • By September 1998 (Fall Semester), UNC will have students enrolled on its ikhameda Caxrnpus and will produce evidence that million dollars has been raised to car. tinue the development of the project site. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 770 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 415.749.2400 TTY 415.749.2500 August 12, 1997 Mr. Lee Perez Chairman, BRAG Commission 29 Seabridge Alameda, CA 94502 Dear Lee: WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., Mayor Darshan H. Singh. President Lynette Sweet, Vice President Mark Dunlop Leroy King Manuel A. Rosales Benny Y. Yee James 8. Morales, Executive Director 112 -04997 -021 As you know, I have been appointed as Deputy Director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. In this new role, it is believed by the Agency that my work with the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) could be a conflict of interest, therefore I am submitting my resignation from the BRAG, effective August 21, 1997. I have served on the BRAG since its inception and believe deeply in the essential role of the Group to provide focused community participation. This work is not yet finished. The BRAG needs to continue its work on Alameda Point Reuse matters by continuing to provide the cross section of Citizen viewpoints developed by each of the working groups. No other group in the City is capable of providing this community input nor responsible for overall public scrutiny. The work of the focused Task Forces is also critical. In those groups, the cross section of viewpoints comes together to analyze specific issues and to develop' positions for the entire BRAG to consider. I certainly realize that the BRAG is not a decision making group but we must continue to take seriously our role in advising the ARRA of community opinion. As the process moves forward, this next year is critical because regulatory considerations will now shape the Reuse Plan for the future. There will be increased pressure to disband the BRAG and turn over these oversight functions to the City's existing commissions. I believe that to a great degree, this will be eventually appropriate - however there is now no group that provides the citizen oversight, nor operates from the BRAG's base of knowledge. Alameda is lucky to have you and all the dedicated members who have served the Community so well over these last four years. I wish you all the best and as a citizen of Alameda, I ask you all to stay the course. If there is any way I can be of assistance, please let me know. I am grateful to you all for the time, effort, talent you have devoted to this work and for the friendship we have shared. Sincerely, Helen L. Sause Deputy Executive Director, PPM San Francisco Redevelopment Agency cc: Mayor Ralph Appezzato Kay Miller Executive Director, ARRA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 28, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Status report on current activities. Airfield and wildlife refuge management update. ARRA staff, Navy representatives, and the Base Transition Coordinator met with Ms. Marge Kolar, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Manager, on Monday, August 25, to discuss two issues: 1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife's sponsorship of an "airfield demonstration" and 2) timing of property transfer and refuge management responsibilities to U.S. Fish and Wildlife (F &W). 1. Airfield demonstration. A two -month demonstration period for a simulated operation of a restricted - use airfield has been proposed by Joe Davis, a proponent of a restricted -use airfield and interested operator. The demonstration would provide the community and F &W and with decisional information regarding a private, restricted -use airfield and its effects on the adjacent community and species within the refuge. The objectives of a demonstration would be to gather and analyze noise data for specific types of aircraft under a variety of weather conditions (e.g., prevailing winds) and at various locations, both on- station and at sites in the nearby community. Although the Least Terns have departed the area until next April, the demonstration could be useful in determining the effects of aircraft operations on other resident species and predicting whether generated noise would affect the Least Tem colony. Before requesting the Navy's approval for the demonstration, F &W must first make a policy -level decision about operation of a private, restricted -use airfield. Running a demonstration would be futile if F &W decides not to permit operation of the airfield. F &W is only now beginning to weigh the safety and potential liability issues regarding the airfield. It must decide whether it is willing to bear those risks. Fish & Wildlife has indicated that those risks will be balanced against the potential benefits, management cost savings for F &W, and increased revenues and employment for the community. Marge Kolar, the Refuge Manager, made a commitment to obtain a threshold level decision on this issue by September 15, 1997. If F &W makes a decision by September 15 to accept such risk and support the operation of a private, restricted -use airfield, they would then begin discussions with the Navy to obtain a use agreement and consult with ARRA staff to define the demonstration. With the scope of the demonstration defined, F &W would enter into an agreement with Mr. Joe Davis. The Navy and F &W anticipate that approval of the demonstration would take approximately six to eight weeks, with the actual demonstration commencing Enid- November. The demonstration would be conducted over a period of two months on a no -cost basis; Mr. Davis has offered to bring in the appropriate aircraft and sensors and provide support for the demonstration at his expense. (Two months is required in order to provide flexibility in scheduling aircraft; not all aircraft models may be available within a shorter time frame.) Working with Mr. Davis and members Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 29, 1997 Page 2 of the community, ARRA and City staff and F &W would work to design the demonstration to produce valid results. The type of aircraft, intensity and type of operations, traffic patterns, and ground operations would be as similar to the operation of a private, restricted -use airfield as possible. The results of the noise testing, any effect on species, and compatibility with other uses at the air station would be released to the public. Since many citizens have expressed an interest in the demonstration, they may be asked to participate in the monitoring process. If the demonstration produces valid data to sufficiently address relevant concerns, then all parties could decide to proceed, incorporating a private, restricted -use airfield in the refuge management plan. This would mean that ARRA would need to schedule a decision on the airfield in the November/December time frame once the demonstration is over. F &W would then prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). F &W's estimate for completion of an EIS is fall `98. Therefore, any airfield could not be operational until late 1998. 2. Transfer of property and refuge management responsibilities to U.S. Fish and Wildlife (F &W). F &W has requested transfer of the property (525 land acres) in fee title from the Navy after approval of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for contaminated properties. Environmental contamination will not be an issue for most of the acreage; however, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 2 is located in the west landfill area. The ARRA staff asked F &W if they will consider a phased transfer of property, accepting title to clean areas first, and negotiate a memorandum of agreement with the Navy to manage the refuge in its entirety. Marge Kolar indicated that F &W is receptive to this type of arrangement. This transfer of some property and management responsibility for all of the refuge could occur as early as spring of 1998. F &W believes that if its management plan calls for a refuge without an airfield it could prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with NEPA. They estimate completion of that process by the spring. If the refuge management plan includes operation of a private, restricted- use airfield, F &W believes NEPA would require preparation of an EIS, a more detailed analysis, which would not be completed until fall, 1998. ARRA staff believes that F &W could take on management of the refuge at a basic level consistent with the Navy's past management before completion of an EA or EIS and before transfer of any acreage. In short, F &W can assume management, eliminating the drain on the Navy's and City's cooperative services budget, at the earliest opportunity. Enhancing the refuge and expanding the management services will require an EA (spring `98); incorporating an airfield will require an EIS (fall `98). 3. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service development of a management plan for the refuge. On August 12, F &W conducted a "scoping" meeting on their proposed management plan for the refuge. The purpose was to inform the public about the process it will follow in the development of the management plan and to elicit issues that should be addressed in the management plan/NEPA process. F &W intends to hold another meeting in December. Written comments on the "scope" of the management plan are due to F &W on September 12. ARRA staff, with assistance from our refuge consultant Leslie Zander will prepare comments for ARRA to submit. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 4. Grant awards to ARRA. July 29, 1997 Page 3 A. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce has informed ARRA that we have been awarded a $3 million grant (item 4.A) to be used for building upgrades at Alameda Point. ARRA staff is prepared to immediately begin the process of issuing bid packages to begin construction on the first phase of buiding upgrades. B. The EDA has also informed ARRA that they have approved a $159,605 grant (item 4.B) for the final development of the the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET) Small Business Environmental Incubator Program. C. The California Trade and Commerce Agency notified ARRA that our application for a Defense Adjustment Matching Grants (DAM Grant) of $300,000 grant (item 4.C) to provide a portion of the match needed for the $3 million EDA grant for building upgrades. D. The California Trade and Commerce Agency has also approved our $92,500 grant application (item 4.D) which willl provide a portion the the match necessary for our OEA grant. ARRA can be rightfully proud that to date, we have been awarded every grant that we have applied for. 5. BCDC vote on Port Priority Designation. At our request, the BCDC vote has been delayed. It takes 18 votes to amend the Seaport Plan (remove the NAS designation) and it was uncertain whether even a quorum of BCDC members would be in attendance on August 21. We will inform the ARRA members by fax of the results of the vote as soon as it is taken. (Letters relating to the vote are attached as items 5.A, 5.B, and S.C.) Respectfully submitted, Ntil,PPA--) Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Attachments C:\MARGARETWRRA\STAFFREP4STATUS 9.3 14,e/1-6-u .A.7F ;�A. Sit 7P9R.COIV LTCTZON 3 289 Connecticut San Francisco, CA. 94107 P. 415- 864- 5151 F 415 - 864 -5141 August 4, 1997 Mayor Ralph Appezzato City of Alameda Office of the Mayor East Wing - Historic Alameda High School 2250 Central Avenue, Room 300 Alameda, CA 94501 Re: The Media and Event Industries at Point Alameda, California Dear Mayor Appezzato, It was a pleasure talking with you at last Monday night's Interim Airport Use Workshop on Point Alameda Thank you for inviting me to make a presentation to you and Kay Miller on bringing the media and event industries to Point Alameda. In preparation for that meeting, this letter summarizes the issues that I would like to discuss with you in greater detail. The Media Industry As you are probably aware, the film industry has already been using the facilities at Point Alameda on a regular basis over the past 18 months. Working with ARRA and the film commissioners of San Francisco and Oakland, our firm has brought Francis Ford Copolla, Robin Williams and various Disney subsidiaries to Buildings 24, 25, 11, 12 and 400A. In Northern California, there is a great demand for these buildings due to the growth of the film and media industries and the shortage of buildings with high ceiling heights in quiet locations. The total economic impact of the film and media industries in the San Francisco Bay Area is between $160 -240 million annually. With the shortage of production facilities in the Los Angeles area, Hollywood is beginning to look at the Bay Area as a primary film location due to the availability of production facilities on Treasure Island and Mare Island, scenic locations for filming, an increasing media labor pool as well as support housing and office facilities. We want to bring the media industry to Point Alameda on a permanent basis aid over time, believe Point Alameda can be a more successful production location than either Treasure Island or Mare Island. Each media project has a weekly budget of approximately $1.6 -2.0 million and employs 140 -260 people depending on the complexity of the project so the ripple effect on the surrounding community is substantial. The media industry is also a compatible neighbor with the adjacent housing uses as well as with the lease terns. It is not, however, compatible with an interim airport use due to the media industry's requirement for a quiet filming location. We are also in support of bringing the event industry to Point Alameda and this would include special events such as airshows. Airshows, unlike an airport use, are scheduled, short -term events and production crews can accommodate in their project schedules. Mayor Appezzato August 1, 1997 Page 2 The Event Industry To date, we have used the facilities at Point Alameda on an interim license basis for trade shows and corporate events. Over the next sixteen months, we are working to bring a home and garden show, a boat show, three other car shows and three corporate events to Point Alameda. Each trade show will draw approximately 5,00 to 15,000 visitors to Point Alameda and requires local support services and labor. Last year, we produced a $5 million product introduction for Microsoft Corporation. This budget included construction and equipment for Buildings 11, 12 and 400A and accommodations for Microsoft's employees and vendors. Next year, we are working on special events for the Sony Corporation ($500,000 budget), Sun Microsystems and Intel ($1 million budget each.) The media and event industries are compatible with other low impact users at Point Alameda and is one of the Bay Area's most dynamic (and unlimited) growth industries in terms of employment and economic growth. At my meeting with you, I would like to discuss these industries in further detail as well as the highlight why we believe that opening Point Alameda to these industries with greatly strengthen Alameda's economic base as well as create Point Alameda as a destination point. As you requested, I will be calling you within the next week to schedule a meeting with you. Sincerely, AREA 51 PRODUCTION, INC. cc: Dave Wientjes; Area 51 Kay Miller; ARRA AUG 1 1 1997 Executive Director and Members of the Board Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority Postal Directory,'Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501-5012 Ladies and Gentlemen: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Jackson Federal Building, Room 1856 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 Fax: (206) 220-7669 5-I Item 4.A We are pleased to inform you that the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has approved a Financial Assistance Award in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 in response to your application for federal assistance for construction of infrastructure and building improvements at the NAS Alameda in Alameda County, California. • The total project cost is $4,000,000 which is based on the line item estimates contained in Attachment No. 1. Enclosed are two signed copies of the Financial Assistance Award. Your agreement to .the terms and conditions of the award should be indicated by the signature of your principal official on both of the signed copies of the Financial Assistance Award. One of the executed copies should be returned to the Director, Seattle Regional'Office, Economic Development Administration, Jackson Federal Building, Room 1856, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA. 98174. • You are cautioned not to make any commitments in reliance on this award, nor to enter into negotiations relative hereto, until you have carefully reviewed the terms and conditions and have determined that you are in compliance or that you can comply therewith. Any commitments or undertakings entered into prior to obtaining the approval of the Government in accordance with its regulations and requirements will be at your own risk. Sincerely, Enclosures 47 • .. Leonar • egional Director 54 Item 4.B U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Jackson Federal Building, Room 1856 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 Fax: (206) 220-7669 August 15, 1997 206/ 220-7660 In reply refer to: Award No. 07-49-03727 Ms. Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 1 Alameda, California 94501 Dr. Frank Martino Provost and Vice President, Academic Affairs California State University Hayward and Member of the Board, California State University, Hayward Foundation, Inc. 25976 Carlos Bee Boulevard Hayward, California 94542 Dr. Samuel I. Doctors Chief Executive Officer and Secretary Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies 1889 First Avenue, Hangar 20, Room 228 Naval Air Station Alameda Alameda, California 94501 Dear Ms. Miller and Messrs. Martino and Doctors: We are pleased to inform you that the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has approved a Financial Assistance Award in an amount not to exceed $159,605 in response to your application for federal assistance for implementation of the Alameda Center for • Environmental Technologies (ACET) Small Business Environmental Incubator Program under.the Title IX Defense_Conversion Program. This assistance is provided for final development of the ACET incubator program, establishing incubator facilities at the NAS Alameda, placing new environmental technology businesses in the incubator, and supporting the development of these businesses with the ACET professional staff. The total project cost is $212,806. Enclosed are four signed copies of the Financial Assistance Award. Your agreement to the teLms and conditions of the award should be indicated by the signature of your principal officials on all four of the signed copies of the Financial Assistance Award. One of the executed copies should be returned to the Director, Seattle Regional Office, Economic Development Administration, Jackson Federal Building, Room 1856, 915 Second Avene, Seattle, WA. 98174. Award Approval Letter Award Number 07-49-03727 ACET Incubator Program Page 2 . You are cautioned not to make any commitments in reliance on this award, nor to enter into negotiations relative hereto, until you have carefully reviewed the terms and conditions and have determined that you are in compliance or that you can comply therewith. Any commitments or undertakings entered into prior to obtaining.the approval of the Government in accordance with its regulations and requirements will be at your own risk. Sincerely, A. Leonard. S R gional Director Enclosures RONALD V. DELLUMS 9TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA RANKING MINORITY COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY REPLY TO OFFICE CHECKED: 0 2108 RAYBURN H.O.B. WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-2661 ClIC 1301 CLAY STREET SUITE 1000-N OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 763-0370 Tongreoo atilt 31nttEb tats Boost of iatpreonttatittes August 19, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Friends: WASHINGTON OFFICE CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CHARLES C. STEPHENSON, JR. LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR DISTRICT OFFICE SANDq R. SWANSON DISTRICT DIRECTOR H. LEE HALTERMAN GENERAL COUNSEL I write to congratulate you upon your receipt of a grant of $159,605.00 awarded on August of 1997 by the Economic Development Agency for your work in Alameda Center for Environmental Techonologies Small Business Environmental Incubator Program. I congratulate you upon your having been chosen by your peers to receive this support for your outstanding work. I wish you the best in your endeavors. Ronald V. Dellums Member of Congress RVD:agc RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1997 ARRA CITY OF ALAMEDA 5 4 Item 4.0 Pete Wilson Governor Lee Grissom Secretary 801 K Street Suite 1700 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3520 CALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY 916 - 322 -6108 916 -322 -3524 FAX August 12, 1997 Ms. Kaye Miller Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Re: California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Dear Ms. Miller: I am pleased to inform you the application submitted by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the 1997/98 solicitation of the California Trade and Commerce Agency's Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program competed successfully and qualified for an award of $300,000. Funding is contingent upon legislative appropriation of program funds contained in the 1997/98 budget, receiving a copy of the notice confirming the Applicant's Federal Assistance Award and meeting the terms and conditions of program regulations. Mr. Tom White, the Program Manager, will contact you with any additional information needed to develop the grant contract. Please do not hesitate to contact him at (916) 322 -3507 for any additional information or assistance you may require. The California Trade and Commerce Agency welcomes the opportunity to help your organization respond to its defense adjustment challenges and will continue to use every resource at its disposal to support your future efforts in this area. Sincerely, STEVE ARTHUR Assistant Secretary Office of Economic Development Pete Wilson Governor Lee Grissom Secretary 801 K Street Suitc 1700 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3520 ALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY 916 - 322 -6108 916- 322 -3524 FAX August 12, 1997 Ms. Kaye Miller Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Re: California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Dear Ms. Miller: 5 -I Item 4.D I am pleased to inform you the application submitted by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the 1997/98 solicitation of the California Trade and Commerce Agency's Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program competed successfully and qualified for an award of $92,500. Funding is contingent upon legislative appropriation of program funds contained in the 1997/98 budget, receiving a copy of the notice confirming the Applicant's Federal Assistance Award and meeting the terms and conditions of program regulations. Mr. Tom White, the Program Manager, will contact you to outline . any additional information needed to develop the grant contract. Please do not hesitate to contact him at (916) 322 -3507 for any additional information or assistance you may require. The California Trade and Commerce Agency welcomes the opportunity to help your organization respond to its defense adjustment challenges and will continue to use every resource at its disposal to support your future efforts in this area. STEVE ARTHUR Assistant Secretary Office of Economic Development Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 9450I -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board of Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. ^',kland Councilmember ✓ing 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 €Recycled paper August 13, 1997 Chairman Robert R. Tufts San Francisco Bay Conservation And Development Commission 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102 (510) 864 -34f; Fax: (510) 521 -37:- Re: Deletion of Port Priority Use Designation from Alameda Point (Bay Plan amendment #1 -97) Dear Chairman Tufts and Commissioners: The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority asks you to delete the Po: Priority Designation from Alameda Point as recommended by the Seaport Plannirz� Advisory Committee on March 18, 1997. As you know, the Seaport Comrnitte' based its recommendation on the feasibility ,study directed by the East Ba' Conversion and Reinvestment Commission with the assistance of BCDC staff. Tlx` study, which was prepared by VZM/TransSystems for the EBCRC, found that A container terminal on the site at Alameda Point would not be economically feasible The ARRA has cooperated in the process of evaluating the need for a container terminal and Port Priority Designation on the site. We have committed t°' participating in the Dredge Spoils study conducted by the Coastal Conservancy, with stated willingness to consider the disposal of dredge spoils on the site. It is our hop(' that dredge spoils could be utilized in contouring the site for development. We havt° stated continually that we would participate voluntarily in the Coastal Conservanc\ study and with the Port of Oakland on the possibility of accepting dredge spoils At Alameda Point. Because of the transportation constraints on Alameda, neither a port operation not intensive development of the former Naval Air Station is feasible. ARRA' consultants have proposed a development phasing process and schedule that lays alit a strategy for developing the site. Their cash flow analysis clearly indicates that tilt' development revenues from the site would not support the cost of a new connection across the estuary. The likelihood of the required level of funding being mach' available from outside sources for a crossing such as a tunnel or bridge is extremely low. Therefore, the ARRA fully expects having to put a cap on development at th point that capacity is reached on the existing transportation systems connectiri! Alameda to the mainland. (We anticipate this being about 4.3 million square feet. ) We urge the commission to bring this dialogue to a close and amend the Plan t� Chairman Tufts August 13, 1997 Page 2 remove the Port Priority designation on the 220 -acre site at Alameda Point, and let the reuse process proceed. ,/ 1.11, Rat • • • . • : t�a yoorr o Alameda Ch ,Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority cc: ARRA Governing Body 08-28 -97 10:22AM FROM DELLUMS OFFICE HONALD V. „ycLLUMS 9TH OIST>ZICt. CAlIfOpNM HAN KING * M01UtY COMMITTEE ON NA1 TONAL SEt;uRt n REPL' TO OPFIGE C.ICCKEO: n 2100 RAV/JNN M.o,o. wA �2! VM226661 d+is (4,111 BET Sul.? 1000•N OAI i r O, CA 94612 1514. 763 03?0 TO 5213764 (Songrzoo oaf tte Tinittb.ftlit5 .DnWW¢ of lettprnentatiueri August 12, 1997 Mr. Robert R. Tufts Chairman F Executive Director San a Will Travis, ncisco Bay Conservation and Francisco D welopment Commission Thirty Van Ness Ave., Suite 2011 an Francisco, CA 94102 P002 WASHINGTON IIFfICI; CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT Acomke.TRATIVt A53137A147 CHARLES C. STEM HEIlsON, JH. LEGK:AtKE oincroR O1sTRIC1 OFFICE SANDAL .. p'^NANSON I1. LEE NALIfRMAN n[)tCn1H. IN::LL 5 -I Item S.B De..r Mr. Tufts! writing the Commissioners of the Bay Once again, we are wr Commission regarding the lifting of. Co- ;ses'vation and Development ion on 220 acres in the city of .th,;, port priority designation Al meda . of federal yiof to ere We have new ew asked ng comment hnt on the availability bridge or tunnel, c::tsding for Alameda a n crossing, Without having performed an e: tier of the current realit:•: i.;; nahat.ith hypothetical othetical search for funding, for experience, the chances are s1i:r t° that there is great: n our and x severe dollar shortages such ne undertakings. that money s . from the Department of o mss . nine that money would be forthcoming Federal highway Administration for such pure Transportation, ere competition for transit dollars in tie 'l;tere is airnplY too much nation, the state, and certainly the region. We hope this Opinion assists the Commissioners he making a ,•.ecision to lift the .port priority designation :20 acres in the city of Alameda. Sincerely yours, Ronald V. DellUMB Member of Congress RVD : age rths ?ArcH t= unuc ffON PCCYCLEO FIbCAS • AUG -28 -1997 10:40 FROM EXECUTIUE OFFICES TO r, PORT OF OAKLAND July 31, 1997 Mr. Robert Tufts, Chairman San. Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Thirty Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102 -6080 5213 ?64 P.01 5 4 Item 5.0 Re: Public Hearing on Bay Plan Amendment No. 1 -97, Possible Change in the Marine Terminal and Port Priority Use Area Designation at the Former Alameda Naval Air Station Dear Chaim Tufts: On. 1ehalf of the Port of Oakland, I would like to restate our position in support of lifting the Marine Terminal and Port Priority designation on the 220 acres at the Alameda Naval Air Station. We encourage the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to rove as expeditiously as possible to resolve this issue. As ::fated in our letter of July 15, 1997, we particularly urge the Commission to eliminate the Port Priority Use designation to facilitate possible disposal of dredged material at the former Alameda NAS. The Port has learned through experience how important it is to haw: landowner cooperation to succeed in any disposal on upland sites. We : ,ave been wonting closely with the City of Alameda in this effort and believe that our continued negotiations will result in mutual benefits that achieve the same end. Nye a have any questions regarding our position on this matter, please feel free ...o contact me. Thank you. Sincerely yours, osier Executive Director cc: Will Travis, Executive Director, BCDC sa, Water Street • Jack London Square a P.O. Box 2064 • Oaidand, California 94604 -2064 T,eiars-,or;• (510; 272 -1100 it Fax (510) 272 -1172 a TDD (510) 7CS-703 n Cade address, PORTOF• :.::ti, Ca :dared Correspondence National Association of Installation Developers '`) •* s. Con,/erence,