The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-11-05 ARRA PacketAGENDA 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, November 5, 1997 Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. City Hall will open at 5:15 p.m. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY: (1) Please file a speaker's slip with the secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to three minutes per item. (2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. (3) Applause or demonstrations are prohibited during ARRA meetings. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of Thursday, October 9, 1997. 2 -B. Resolution commending Norma Bishop for her contribution to the ARRA and the community in her capacity as Base Transition Coordinator for Naval Air Station Alameda. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -C. Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize and execute a ten - year lease for building 39 with Delphi Productions. 3 -D. Report recommending approval of the construction bid specifications and authorization to call for bids for building 39 upgrades, project number #07 -49- 03698 -39A. 3 -E. BRAG recommendation regarding the business plan submitted by the joint Western Aerospace Museum/Alameda Naval Air Museum. 3 -F. Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize and execute a five - year, no -cost lease for building 77 with the joint Western Aerospace Museum/Alameda Naval Air Museum. 3 -G. Report recommending that the ARRA not pursue an airfield operation at Alameda Point, notify airfield users of that decision, and pursue other tenants for airfield - related buildings. 3 -H. Report regarding an outreach marketing effort for the Alameda Point campus area and staff recommendation to continue to pursue current lease prospects. ARRA Agenda - November 5, 1997 Page 2 3 -I. BRAG amendments and additions to their recommendation regarding Alameda Point housing. 3 -J. BRAG recommendation that the use of East Housing be included in the master planning for the adjacent FISC property. 3 -K. BRAG recommendation that ARRA write to EFA West to urge the Navy to open the Northwest Territory to public access. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -L. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities. 4 -M. Written status report from the Executive Director on ARRA activities: 1. Status of ex- HORNET donation; 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife plans for the refuge; 3. Update on building upgrades process - EDA construction grant; 4. Update on public trust appraisal; 5. Lead -based paint abatement (LBP). 4 -N. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT Notes- • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary, at 864 -3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. This meeting will be broadcast live on cable channel 22 and replayed on November 13 at 7:30 p.m. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 3,1997. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thursday, October 9, 1997 SPECIAL SESSION The special session was convened at 5:30 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding to address the following: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR 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 Attendees: Chair Appezzato, Vice -Chair Swanson, Alternate Ornelas, Alternate Friedman, Member Daysog, Member DeWitt, Member Kerr, Alternate Sweeney. Absent: Alternate Chang. Chair Appezzato adjourned the special session at 6:35 p.m. Chair Appezzato convened the regular meeting at 6:48 p.m. He announced that the board had met in closed session and gave instructions to its negotiating team to begin negotiations with the Navy on the Economic Development Conveyance. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Ken, Councilmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda James Sweeney, alternate to Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (relieved by Supervisor Chan at 7:10 p.m.) Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro Absent: Henry Chang, Jr., alternate to Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland Ex- officio: Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group Ardella Dailey, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District CONSENZCALENDAR 3 -A. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting and the regular meeting of August 6, 1997. 3 -B. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of September 3, 1997. 3 -C. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of September 25, 1997. 3 -D. Recommendation that the ARRA become an associate member of the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business Consortium. @recycled paper 1 H:\ARRA \MINUTES \1997 \10- 9- 97.MIN Alternate Friedman moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Absent: 2 - Member Swanson had left the room momentarily and Alternate Chang was absent. ACTION ITEMS 4 -E. Rep ort recommending authorization for the Executived?ireclor to_ nalizeand execute _a ten- year lease for the Officers' Club with_the_City_of_Alanieda Speakers: Charles Millman, Alameda resident, asked if this was "a finalization between the City and the Navy or the Navy and a sublessee." Executive Director Miller explained that this is an action between the ARRA (who leases the property from the Navy) and the City of Alameda. Mr. Millman stated that this action was repetitious because on April 17, 1997, Addendum 3 to the Large Parcel Lease was signed between the Navy and the ARRA. The Executive Director clarified that the addendum to the large parcel lease was the document by which the ARRA leased the land from the Navy. This current action is for the ARRA to sublease the O'Club to the City of Alameda. Mr. Millman closed by admonishing the ARRA to take their position seriously because they have made agreements with the Navy to adhere to certain rules and regulations and stipulated certain rules and regulations with subleasees. He further stated there have been infractions of rules in the double - digits. He admonished the ARRA to stop the infractions with the Navy and the City of Alameda. Chair Appezzato offered Mr. Millman the opportunity to meet with the City Attorney's office. Ann Mitchum, an interested citizen, cited her interest in leasing Building 75, the former bath house next to the Officers' Club. She had been told that it was not for lease because it would be part of the City's sublease of the O'Club and she was unclear whether this action included that building. Member DeWitt motioned that ARRA authorize the Executive Director to finalize and execute a ten -year lease for the Officers' Club with the City of Alameda. The motion was seconded by Alternate Sweeney and passed by unanimous voice vote: 7. 4 -F. Report recommending _authorization_for_the Executive Director to realize and execitte_a_ten- yearleaseior building 530 with Tower_Aviation Services„ Chair Appezzato welcomed Tower Aviation, whose president lives in Alameda, clarifying that the flan repairs spare parts and would not be flying in any aircraft. They will bring 100 employees and will expand to 250 employees within five years. He complemented staff and BRAG for bringing this company from Oakland Airport to Alameda Point. In response to questions posed from Member Daysog regarding the equipment appraisal, Ed Levine, ARRA Facilities Manager, answered that the appraisal has been done on a large portion of the equipment with some additional appraisal work to be finished before executing the lease. The practice is to establish the value of the equipment based on the appraisal. The lease allows for adding and deleting equipment over the term of the lease and is a dynamic process for amortizing the appraised value of the equipment over the term of the lease. Member DeWitt stated that this is going to be one of our major tenants and is the first opportunity for former Depot employees to work at the base again in their trade and skill. Member Daysog motioned that ARRA authorize the Executive Director to finalize and execute a ten -year lease for building 530 with Tower Aviation Services. The motion was seconded by Alternate Sweeney and passed by unanimous voice vote: 7. 4 -G. Report_from the_Executiv Dir ector _recommending_uthoxization_to finalize negotiations. _and execute_a15_-y_earinterimlease with _the_SanLeandro _Sheltenfor_Women and Children. Executive Director Miller stated that this is identical to the action taken the previous month for United Indian Nations. Having been accepted for funding from HUD, the San Leandro Women's ®recycled paper 2 H:\ARRA \MINUTES \1997 \I0- 9- 97.MIN Shelter must demonstrate site control to receive the funding. The property includes the Navy Lodge and its associated parking lot. Member Daysog motioned that ARRA authorize the Executive Director to finalize and execute a 15 -year interim lease with the San Leandro Shelter for Women and Children. The motion was seconded by Member Swanson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 1 - Kerr. 4 -H Recommendation_to theAR_R A on prioritizing Navy environmentaLcleanup projects to support the Economic Development Conveyance business plan/application Executive Director Miller stated that this does vary from the Navy plan in order to synchronize it with the development phasing plan contained in the EDC business plan. It gives formal notice to the Navy the order of cleanup needs to be changed slightly to correspond to development. Specifically, cleanup of Operational Unit #2 is not as high a priority to ARRA as Operational Unit #3 and those two priorities should be switched. Also, the refuge landfill cleanup should be undertaken after some of the development priorities. Chair Appezzato added that this was an action to ask the Navy to clean up those areas which we want to develop first. Member Daysog stated that he preferred the Navy's timetable in large part because of its proximity to the neighborhoods, which he would like to see cleaned up first. Member DeWitt moved the recommendation, which was seconded by Member Chan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 1 - Daysog. 4 -I. BRAG recommendation to the ARRA osa✓the appointment of_ a_new_BRA.C_Vice=Chairand Community InvoLvement_Work Group Chair Member Daysog motioned acceptance of the appointments. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt and passed by unanimous voice vote: 8. Diane Lichtenstein, new Vice -Chair of the BRAG and Andrine Smith, new Chair of the Community Involvement Work Group accepted their appointments and expressed their appreciation for the opportunities presented. Chair Appezzato expressed his regret over the resignation of Helen Sause because of a possible conflict of interest presented by her recent promotion. He restated that the ARRA would not be where it is today without the BRAG and thanked them for their continuing commitment. ORAL REPORTS 5 -H. OraLreport from the_BRAG updating_the ARRA_onsaurrent activities. BRAG Chair Lee Perez thanked the governing body for accepting the BRAG's recommendation on the two position replacements. He stated that Helen Sause will continue her input as a citizen and the BRAG wishes her every success in her new position with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. This month, several BRAG members met with Jim Flint, City Manager and Bob LaGrone, Deputy City Manager, Alameda Point to discuss where the BRAG is and how to improve communications, as well as to discuss the future role of the BRAG in relation to City boards and commissions. Work Groups continue to work on the airfield and concerns with Fish & Wildlife and are working on a recommendation regarding the museum proposal. The September 25 Town Meeting was the best town meeting thus far. Mr. Perez ended by stating that the BRAG feels very comfortable with where they are and look forward to redefinition of their role. erecycIcd paper 3 H :\ARRA \MINUTES \I 997 \10- 9- 97.MIN 5 -I. Written repot from the Executive Director Speaker: Gary McAfee, an interested citizen, stated that the base is a very unusual site for tourism not only in the area but in the world. He has submitted applications to test his theory that museums can come together to form a central entity to use most, if not all, of the base for ships, planes, trains, household artifacts, etc. but has received no cooperation the BRAG and the ARRA. He has also had no cooperation from labor or non - profit groups with a high quality of artifacts because they are uncertain about working with other groups in a commercial venture. He stated that developing the FISC would cripple any potential for tourism on the base. Executive Director Miller offered to answer any questions on her written report. She stated that the letter from Fish & Wildlife mentioned in item 3 —their response to our use of the airfield— had been received today and copies were distributed to the ARRA. Chair Appezzato stated that he and the Executive Director had met with Deputy Secretary of the Interior John Garamendi and officials of the Fish & Wildlife Service, who had indicated that they will not allow aviation activities on the refuge runway. They indicated that if we wish to use the East/West runway parallel to the Estuary (runway 7 -25), they would work with ARRA on determining leasing arrangements for the portion of the runway that falls within the refuge. In conjunction with item 6, the BCDC designation, the seaport designation has been lifted from that 220 acres so that it is now available for the City of Alameda to develop, with the possibility of a golf course or other uses. At this point, aviation use for aircraft at the base is non - existent. Member Kerr mentioned that there might be a serious objection to use of the east -west runway because the planes would have to come in very low and loud along the estuary. Member Swanson indicated that if there is a public and political will to push this issue, the Fish & Wildlife Service position does not necessarily have to be the final decision. However, if there is no will to pursue this, then a final decision on the airfield issue must be made so that we can go forward with a leasing strategy. Member Kerr stated that Fish & Wildlife based their analysis on a maximum of 30 flights a day and 727s and 737s leasing the hangars. She feels that there is some "wiggle room" in the letter and agreed that a decision needs to be made. Member Chan requested that staff write thank you letters to Congressman Dellums, Senator Lee, Assemblyman Perata, and the Port of Oakland because it was a very difficult year- and -a -half battle for all involved and their participation should be recognized. Member DeWitt asked that EBCRC, who conducted the study that showed a port was infeasible, also be thanked. Executive Director Miller agreed that without this tremendous collaborative effort, we would not have succeeded in getting the port priority designation lifted. Member Daysog moved to send a letter of thanks to all parties involved in the collaborative effort to get the seaport designation lifted. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by unanimous voice vote: 8. Vice -Chair Swanson requested a friendly amendment that the BRAG also receive a letter of thanks for their work and support in helping get the seaport designation lifted. Member DeWitt asked for an update on the status of the application by the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation (ACHF) to obtain the Hornet from the ship donation program. Executive Director Miller stated that she had heard from the Hornet Foundation that NAVSEA has informally told ACHF that their recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy will be for approval of the Hornet donation. The question of whether they can get a waiver from the 60 -day Congressional Review is yet to be el recycled paper 4 FI:\ARRA\MINUTES \1997 \10- 9- 97.MIN resolved. Vice -Chair Swanson indicated that staff in Congressman Dellums' Washington, D.C. office is working with ACHF to obtain the waiver. 5 -J. Oral report_frosn_the Fxe_cutive Director _(non- discussionitems). Executive Director Miller introduced Nanette Banks, the ARRA's new Sr. Management Analyst (replacing Julie Mantrom), who will be working on the OEA, EDA, and other grants and tracking budgets. Ms. Miller expressed her regret that Norma Bishop, our Base Transition Coordinator, was not at the meeting to officially say goodbye to the ARRA. The Executive Director proposed that a resolution be presented for board approval at the November meeting. The Base Transition Coordinator position has been invaluable in problem - solving with federal agencies and running interference with the Nay. Even though Ms. Bishop is gone, her contribution should be recognized. Chair Appezzato requested that a resolution be prepared. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Speakers: Richard Neveln, co- founder of Nimitz Airfield Society and environmentalist, stated that it is human activity on the most active runway (runway 3 -1) that has contributed to the safety of the least terns by keeping the raptors away. Due to the inactive airfield, Golden Eagles were able to decimate the canadian gosling population this year. He suggested that minimal use of the airfield was necessary for preservation purposes. Ann Mitchum, Alameda resident, stated that base closure is besieged by politics, urged citizens to attend the ARRA meetings the first Wednesday of each month to participate in the decision - making process, and asked why the City is getting into the catering business with the O'Club sublease. Bill Smith, interested citizen, addressed the problem of East Housing, recycling and reuse, and fixing up the units to provide alternative housing for employees working on the base. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Chair Appezzato read a commendation from Clifford Archer, President of Tower Aviation Services, expressing his appreciation for the outstanding effort, innovative leadership, problem - solving, and "dogged determination" of Ed Levine in negotiating and putting together Tower's lease at Alameda Point. Vice -Chair Swanson stated that the EBCRC has been working actively to help base workers become business owners and the commission has helped start twelve businesses to date. Continuing that effort, EBCRC has won a grant to assist other base workers to become business owners. He announced that tomorrow morning, October 10 at 10:00 a.m. at the Oakland Federal Building, there will be a bidder's conference for those business planners who would be interested in working with this project. There is about $350,000 in contracts available for business planners. Member Sweeney indicated that he would like an agenda item and staff report concerning an aggressive national search for a well - funded, accredited educational institution. This might include using the internet or a slick brochure. Chair Appezzato requested a staff report be prepared. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:49 p.m. Respectfully sub fitted, y M g et E. Ensley ARRA Secretary ®recycled paper 5 H:\ARRA\MINUTES \1997 \10- 9- 97.MIN ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 022 COMMENDING NORMA BISHOP FOR HER OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE COMMUNITY IN HER CAPACITY AS BASE TRANSITION COORDINATOR FOR NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA / ALAMEDA POINT WHEREAS, Norma Bishop served as Base Transition Coordinator for Naval Air Station Alameda from September 1, 1995 through September 30, 1997; and WHEREAS, Norma Bishop was exemplary as a Base Transition Coordinator in assisting the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the City of Alameda, the County of Alameda, the Base Reuse Advisory Group, and other community groups to understand the base closure and conversion process; and WHEREAS, Norma Bishop showed herself to be a highly effective problem- solver and tireless advocate and ombudsman for the community in working with the Navy and the myriad federal and state agencies and regulators; and WHEREAS, Norma Bishop's special expertise in environmental and aviation issues made her uniquely valuable to the ARRA; and WHEREAS, Norma Bishop exhibited an extraordinarily high level of professionalism and competence in her position and won the respect and confidence of those who worked with her; and WHEREAS, Norma Bishop will be solely missed by the ARRA, the City of Alameda, and the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority hereby commends and honors Norma Bishop for the distinguished leadership, direction, heroic effort, resourcefulness, energy, and expertise she provided to the base conversion process on behalf of NAS Alameda/Alameda Point, the City of Alameda, and the community -at- large; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority officially thanks Norma Bishop and extends its deepest gratitude for her significant contribution as Base Transition Coordinator in making a very complex base conversion process more understandable; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, staff members, and her many friends and colleagues throughout the area extend to Norma Bishop their sincere appreciation, gratitude, and thanks for a job well done and best wishes for her continued success, good health, and happiness. •00 000 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular meeting, assembled on the 5th day of November, 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Margaret E. Ensley Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Date: November 5, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize and execute a ten -year lease on building 39,with Delphi Productions. Background: Delphi Productions wishes to enter into a ten -year lease on building 39 and adjoining property. Since the term of this lease exceeds seven years, the ARRA governing body must authorize the Executive Director to execute the lease. Delphi Productions designs and manufactures state -of -the -art exhibit space for trade shows, museums and special events. Their clients include IBM, Apple Computers, Ascend Communi- cations, Pacific Bell, Macy's and Nike. Delphi currently employs 50 people and expects to grow to 100 employees within two years after their move to building 39. Discussion: Building 39 is one of the large hangars adjacent to the airfield. The gross leaseable area of this building is approximately 105,000 square feet. Delphi's first year base rent will be $27,800 per month. This increases to $33,100 per month in year 5. In year 6, the rent shall be adjusted to what is then 90% of fair market value. Delphi's gross rent over the first five years of this lease will be approximately $1,827,000. Even with a nominal rental increase in year 6, the gross rent for the ten - year lease period will be in excess of $4 million. EiscaLlmpact: In addition to rental revenues, Delphi will generate substantial sales tax revenues for the City and County of Alameda. Delphi expects revenues of about $5 million subject to sales tax within two years following occupancy. This will result in approximately $100,000 per year in sales tax to the City and County. This amount will increase annually during the lease term. Substantial repair and upgrades will be required to bring building 39 into full code compliance. These include provision of new gas, electric and water services (including a new fire water pump that will also serve buildings 40 and 41), ADA and office upgrades, new lighting and alarm systems, asbestos and lead paint abatement, waterproofing work, major retrofit of the building's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and sprinkler systems, and associated permitting fees. The anticipated cost of this work is about $950,000. This expense will be paid for from the $3 million EDA grant and $1 million matching funds approved earlier this year. Honorable Members of the October 29, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Recommendation' It is recommended that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to finalize and execute the proposed ten -year lease for building 39 with Delphi Productions. Respectfully submitted, _✓� 1/1.li ./QA_J Kay Miller Executive Director EL /jcb/ KM/mee H:\ARRA \STAFFREP \1997 \DELPHI. LSE Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director eJ SUBJ: Report recommending approval of the construction bid specifications and authorization to call for bids for building 39 upgrades, project number #07- 49- 03698 -39A. Background. As described in agenda item 3 -C, Delphi Productions wishes to enter into ten -year lease on building 39. Substantial upgrades are required to make this building code compliant and to make it suitable to lease. These upgrades will be the first of several projects to be funded by the EDA construction grant awarded August 1997. Discussion. The improvements to building 39 include provision of utility services consisting of gas, electric, and water (including a new fire water pump which will also serve buildings 40 and 41), ADA and office upgrades, new lighting and alarm systems, asbestos and lead abatement, waterproofing work, and major retrofit of the building's HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) and sprinkler systems, and associated permit fees. Estimated cost to upgrade this 105,000 square foot building is $950,000. Architectural and engineering plans and specifications are available for review at ARRA's office during normal business hours. Fiscal Impact. These improvements are required to comply with code requirements and allow the building to be leased. Projected gross rental revenue during the ten -year lease with Delphi is in excess of $4 million. EDA grant funds will cover 75% of construction costs, approximately $712,000. The required local match will cover the remaining 25% of construction costs, approximately $238,000, from ARRA lease revenues as approved by the board. Recommendation. It is recommended that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to issue invitations to bid for construction contracts to upgrade building 39. Respectfully submitted, V\/Ai. Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee H:\ ARRA\STAFFREP \1997\B- 39UPGR.ADE Base Reuse Advisory Group Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Lee Perez, Chair SUBJ: BRAG recommendation regarding the business plan submitted by the joint Western Aerospace Museum/Alameda Naval Air Museum. The Museum Task Force has reviewed the business ,plan of the joint Western Aerospace Museum/Alameda Naval Air Museum (the "Museum') and the recommends to the ARRA the following:, 1. BRAG recommends to ARRA that a long -term lease for Building 77 be negotiated between ARRA and the Museum at nominal cost; and 2. Hangar 41 be reserved for a negotiated length of time for future Museum expansion, the specific reserved time to be finite and the eventual lease to be dependent upon the Museum meeting predetermined operating criteria; and 3. BRAG endorse and recommend that ARRA endorse the awarding of State of California and other non - profit and grant funding to help assure the success of the Museum. Respectfully submitted, Lee Perez Chair LP /ca Ata H:WRRA\BRAG STF.RPT\MUSEUM.BRA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize and execute a five -year, no -cost lease for building 77 with the joint Western Aerospace Museum/ Alameda Naval Air Museum. Background. The Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM), a non -profit 501C3 organization, applied for a public benefit conveyance (PBC) for building 77 and hangar 41. The PBC application was to the U.S. Department of Education. The ARRA supported the concept of the museum but in the disposition chapter of the Community Reuse Plan, recommended that the property be conveyed to the ARRA and then leased to ANAM at a nominal cost. Discussion. The BRAG formed a special task force to review the ANAM business plan. ANAM and Western Air Museum (WAM) joined in a museum collaboration (the consortium) to jointly operate the "Alameda Air, Sea, Space Museum" (museum). The consortium presented several versions of a business plan for detailed review by BRAG task force members and ARRA staff. We have asked the consortium to provide greater detail to demonstrate the financial viability of the venture and certify that resources are available for the phased takeover, renovation, and upgrade of these facilities. Both BRAG and ARRA staff believe that the latest plan submitted by the consortium demonstrates the current financial resources and a viable business plan for a gradual move into building 77. By the end of the year, the consortium will submit a separate plan for hangar 41, which will be reviewed and a recommendation transmitted to the board. The consortium business plan calls for a phased improvement of building 77 beginning with the upgrades required to comply with City code and receive a certificate of occupancy. They will make improvements to the building starting with the first floor and working their way up to the third floor. The consortium expects to begin these building upgrades as soon as they have a lease from the ARRA and the necessary City permits, with the goal of opening the museum to the public early next year. Fiscal Impact: While the ARRA would receive no lease rent for the lease, the consortium will be responsible for all the upgrades to building 77 and ARRA will bear no expense. This is the same procedure that would have been used for a PBC. The consortium will be responsible for any utility hookups and metering on building #77 and monthly service charges. The consortium will also be responsible for the common services charge that the ARRA must pay the Navy whenever a building is leased. The charge is $.025 per square foot for building 77, which will total $528 per month. The museum board members also understand that there will be a long -term obligation for them to contribute to infrastructure and public service fees at Alameda Point. Honorable Members of the October 29, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Recommendation. Staff recommends that the governing body authorize ARRA staff to proceed with executing a five- year lease with ANAM/WAM for building 77 at zero rent but with the consortium responsible for the costs and charges described above. Once the EDC is consummated with the Navy next year, the ARRA/City can consider extending the term of the lease when "leases in furtherance of conveyance" are available. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee H:\ARRA\STAFFREP\ I997\ANAM.LSE Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report recommending that the ARRA not pursue an airfield operation at Alameda Point, notify airfield users of that decision, and pursue other tenants for airfield- related buildings. Background. For the past year, the ARRA has been considering the pros and cons of restricted use of the north -south runway 13 -31 located almost wholly within the refuge property scheduled to be conveyed to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). At a meeting held on August 25, 1997 attended by ARRA staff, the Navy, the City of Alameda, and the office of Congressman Dellums, the USFWS was asked to make an initial determination regarding the viability of continued airfield operations within the refuge. On October 9, 1997, the ARRA received the attached letter from the USFWS indicating that it would not be prudent to allow daily airport operations or air shows at the refuge. They did leave the door open to allow very limited use of the east -west runway 7 -25 (a part of which is located within the refuge) for a few flights per month. In return for that approval, USFWS would require an airfield operator to maintain all runway areas and provide vegetation control throughout the entire airfield (excepting the wetlands), provide full-time security, and carry significant liability insurance. The bulk of runway 7 -25 is located in the Northwest Territory, which is programmed for a golf course and parks and recreation use with possible development of industrial or R &D uses consistent with the Public Trust. Discussion. For the past year and more the ARRA has intentionally held a number of airfield - related buildings in abeyance in anticipation of a final decision regarding the use of the north -south runway for restricted use. This moratorium on leasing airfield- related buildings was initiated because earlier studies had indicated a certain amount of square footage would likely be needed to support the operations and maintenance of an airfield. The specific buildings that have been held off the market for long -term leases include: • building 24, the remaining two bays of the paint facility • building 25, the stripping facility • hangars 22, 40, and 41 (41 is still under consideration as part of the Naval Air Museum) • buildings 5 and 5A • building 400A- 11 -12. This property represents over 1.3 million square feet of leasable space at Alameda Point. In addition to identified airfield- related users for each of these properties, ARRA staff has received applications or is aware of interest in all of these properties for non - airfield- related uses. Following is a list of the types of interest that have been expressed. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 29, 1997 Page 2 Bldg. No. 1 Expression of Interest by Use Type 22 Electric car manufacturer 24 Film production studios / auto painting 25 Film production studios 41 Naval Air Museum as an aircraft display area 5 Subdivide for multi -tenant industrial use 5A Trade shows and special events 400 -11 -12 Film and commercial production or special events or used car repair and auction operation Use of the_east -west runway 7 -25 for very restricted airfield operations. The USFWS left the door open for the ARRA to consider the limited use of runway 7 -25 for a few - flights per month. This concession was apparently made to allow the ARRA to consider a proposal to use building 5A to retrofit 727s and other large planes, which would necessitate occasional landings and take -offs. The . company proposing this use, ITG, and representatives of the Machinist's Union have met with members of the ARRA and the City Manager; however, no formal proposal has been received for this use. The use of the east -west runway presents numerous obstacles: • It would virtually eliminate or severely impact/restrict the golf course and other parks and recreation uses as well as possible industrial or R &D use of the property. • Noise level problems are much greater with the east -west runway than with the north -south runway. • Safety and air traffic control are much more problematic. • Interference with the operations of the Port of Oakland and from Oakland and San Francisco airports may pose insurmountable problems. • The use is incompatible with the City's planned sports complex to the east of the runway and could constitute a safety risk for its users. • The financial conditions imposed by USFWS for use of runway 7 -25 are onerous. Fiscal Impact: The precise impact of a decision to forego a limited use of a runway at Alameda Point is difficult to determine. Initial economic analysis has failed to demonstrate the economic advantage of airfield - related use of hangars and other buildings over other uses, particularly without the additional revenue from air shows, which the USFWS has expressly declined to entertain. Any incremental rents generated by airfield- related use of the hangars would be offset by operating costs. Also, the expense of meeting the conditions specified by USFWS for use of the east -west runway may make its use fiscally infeasible. The use of runway 7 -25 would likely preclude or restrict the use of the Northwest Territory for other revenue producing activities such as a golf course, small conference center, R &D, or light industrial uses. Honorable Members of the October 29, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 Re oc mmennd ion• For all of the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the ARRA governing body eliminate the use of runway 7-25--the east -west runway —from consideration as a limited use runway. Staff further recommends that the board accept the preliminary ruling of the USFWS that the north -south runway 13 -31 is incompatible with the refuge. Staff recommends that the board direct staff to notify all potential airfield users of this decision and proceed with active discussions with other potential users of those buildings. Respectfully submitted, G-1 Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Attachment: October 7 letter from USFWS 1U/08/97 18:25 V15107925828 10/07/97 14:47 V503 231 2364 114 REPLY REFEILTOI USFWS SF BAY NWR Q002/007 REG 1 ARW ,-,-, SF BAY NWR Q002/007 United States Department of the Interior FWS/ARW-CAJNV FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 911 NB. 11111 Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4183 Mayor Ralph Appezzato Chairman, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda., California 94501 COT TT Dear Mayor Appezzato: I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on September 26, 1997, to discuss an airfield at the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. As we discussed, I am providing further information regarding our analysis of safety and liability issues for an airfield on the proposed refuge. At an August 25, 1997, meeting between staff from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), the Navy, the City of Alameda, the U_S_ Fish and Wildlife Sezvice (Servick ), and the Office of Congressman Ron Dellums, the Service was requested to make an initial d :!.ermination concerning the viability of continued airfield operations at the refuge. Safety concerns for airfield operations had been raised because proposed refuge management activities would increase wildlife use of the area and, hence, increase the potential for wildlife hazards to aircraft. The Service had planned to make the decision on airfield operations following completion of analyses required under the National Environmental. Folic..? Act (NEPA). However, to reduce ARRA's need for expensive economic analyses of numerous airfield alternatives prior to completion of NEPA studies, ARRA staff asked the Service to make an initial determination based on the safery-related liabilities of operating an airport on a wildlife refuge. A final determination would still be made following completion of environmental analyses. This letter summarizes the results of our analysis of aafety and liability issues related to airport operations at the proposed wildlife refuge. In this analysis, we consulted with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division (CalTrans), the Naval Safety Center, and several independent aviation insurance brokers. We reviewed information submitted to the Service as part of the envisonmental scoping process, reports on bird strike hazards at Alameda prepared by the Navy, accident data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board, as well as FAA and CalTrans regulations and guidance on airport design and operations. 10/08/97 18:26 $15107925828 10/07/97 14 :48 $503 231 2364 USFWS SF BAY NWR REG 1 ARW SF BAY NWR U003/007 003/007 Mayor Ralph Appezzato Although no final airport proposal has been presented to the Service, we based our analysis on a maximum of 30 flights per day and several air shows throughout the year, which was the maximum use envisioned in the various proposals presented to the ARRA.. We used the tentative airport design plan in the Addendum to the Airfield Reuse Study, prepared for the Fast Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission by P&D Consultants, as a general guide for the area necessary to support operations by Boeing 727s (see enclosure). This is based on our understanding that the AIZRA is considering leasing hangar space for retrofitting Boeing 727s and 737s. We consider the P&D design to be tentative and the taxiways would likely need to be reduced or realigned to accommodate refuge needs. However, the design does display the minimum FAA runway and associated safety zone requirements for airports supporting large planes. Please note that the safety zones extend into the existing endangered California Least Tern nesting; colony, as well as into the Northwest Territories, outside the proposed refuge boundaries. In our analysis, we looked at: both the benefits of an airfield to the refuge and the community, as well as the liabilities. The benefits to the refuge would include a reduction in the Service's operations and maintenance frosts, since the operator would provide fencing, security, and vegetation management. In addition, the Service would benefit from an undetermined amount of funding from the airport lease. The benefits to the community would accrue from providing aircraft access to existing hangars, with subsequent job development, higher building leases, etc. In particelar, we under,,tand a recent proposal to use Building 5 for large airplane retrofits could result in 3,001) additional jobs in the community_ The liabilities would arise from potential property damage and/or injuries due to accidents_ The financial costs to the Service would be above and beyond insurance coverage provided by an aircraft operator. An operator would be required to none insure the Federal Government in the insurance policy; however, the potential for additional liability could be exacerbated by our management goals for increasing wildlife use of the airfield. In particular, our preliminary management plans for the proposed refuge appear to conflict with several FAA regulations and advisory circulars, as well as with specific recommendations made in a 1992 report by re ,earchers at University of California, Berkeley, for reducing bird strikes at Alameda Naval Air Station. The specific concerns are as follows: (1) A recent FAA advisory circular on hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports recommends a minimum separation of 5,000 feet between wetlands and aircraft movement areas for piston - powered planes and 10,000 feet for turbine- powered planes. If this separation is impossible, the circular advises the operator to develop a plan to control the wildlife hazards. The Service proposes to maintain and enhance the two existing wetlands at the airfield which are within 2,000 feet of the runway, and to protect the breakwater which is 4,000 feet from the landing edge of the runway and recently has supported 1,200 brown pelicans. 2 16/03/97 14:27 Q15107925313 10/07/97 14 49 tS503 231 2364 Mayor Ralph Appezzato U6k4J 5r tirt.c A u\ REG 1 ARW SF BAY NWR lip 004/007 (2) Federal aviation regulations direct that objects which are not directly related to airfield operations (e.g., landing !lghts) and which do not easily break -away should not be located in an airfield safety area. In addition, debris, sand, and other materials must be removed from all aircraft operating areas. The Service intends to maintain and expand the Least 'Tern nesting colony, as well as to establish alternate colonies in the future, which will require that fences, fence posts, shells, clay tiles and other materials be placed in these areas. (3) The 1992 report prepared by University of California, Berkeley, researchers identified numerous bird movements from the wetlands, breakwaters, and tarmac areas to feeding sites in the Bay, particularly across or near runway 13/31. Fewer bird - aircraft conflicts were identifier) at runway 7/25, although runway 13/31 has been, to date, the only runway proposed for future airport operations. (4) The report noted that more birds were present in the winter and recommended reducing winter flights and increasing summer flights for safety purposes. The Service would propose the opposite, scheduling to protect the endangered Least Tern colonies during the nesting season from April through August each year. (5) The same 1992 report recommended keeping vegetation in grassy areas at 8 to 12 inches in height to reduce flocking birds, whereas the Service would propose to keep the vegetation shorter to reduce predator cflver. (6) Finally, both FAA general recommendations and the 1992 report recommend improving drainage to prevent standing water on the tarmac, as well as in grassy areas- Standing water usually occurs seasonally, during the winter rains. However, the Bay area has lost most of its seasonal wetlands to urban development and the Service is working with other agencies to increase the amount of vegetated seasonal wetlands in the area. Navy personnel reported 57 bird strikes at Alameda between 1981 and 1996, with no human injuries involved. The number of flights during that period was higher than the number being considered under any restricted use proposal. However, more birds will likely be present in the future with proposed refuge management activities. The National Transportation Safety Board reported 65 accidents at commercial air shows throughout the country between May 1983 and July 1997, resulting in 42 fatalities and 7 serious injuries. None of the latter accidents were shown to involve bird strikes, but the data indicates general safety concerns related to air shows that could be exacerbated by large avian populations. Based on the above information, I believe it would not be prudent for the Service ;o allow daily airport operations or air shows at the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. Daily 3 10/08/97 18:27 $15107925828 10/07/97 14:50 $503 231 2364 USFWS SF BAY NWR 41/005 /007 REG 1 ARW -»-i SF BAY NWR ®005/007 Mayor Ralph Appezzato operations would involve too many recurring risks and air shows would place too many visitors, flight crews, ground crews and vendors at risk. However, operations limited to a few flights per month and located, away from the higher hazard areas would involve fewer risks, particularly if flight operations were flexible enough to avoid periods of intensive bird use. We understand the recent proposal to use Building 5 for large airplane retrofits would require only a few flight operations per month. From a safety/liability standpoint alone, and not considering the environmental issues at this time, I believe this type of limited use may be viable at an alternate runway; the "east-west' runway (7 -25). Runway 7 -25 provides fewer potential wildlife haiards to aircraft than Runway 13 -31 due to its location away from the two wetland sites, the Least Tern colony, and the breakwater. The few flights per month could be timed to coincide with wind conditions appropriate for this runway. If this runway were utilized, we would work with ARRA to determine the appropriate leasing arrangements for the portion of Runway 7 -25 which the Service plans to acquire. The remainder of the runway is within the Northwest Territories. We did -got prepare economic:- analyses to determine whether this limited airfield use would be econorn tally viable. However, to assist in preparation of your planned economic analyses, we are providing the following tninimum requirements for airfield operations at Alarm da National Wildlit Refuge. The Service would require the following of any airfield operator. TTo maintain all aircraft operating areas (runway, taxiways, safety areas, a tc.) to meet CalTrans and FAA standards, including pavement, signage, markings, lighting, etc. - -To carry sufficient liability insurance to cover the total loss of the most expensive aircraft proposed to be retrofitted, and to name insure the Federal Government in that policy. —To provide all required vegetation maintenance throughout the entire airfield, with the exception of wetland areas. —To provide full -time security for the airfield beyond the period of flight operations. Finally, ARRA staff also asked the Service to consider sponsoring a 2 -month airfield demonstration period, in order to collect environmental, data for our decision process. With the extremely limited use of the airfield now being considered as a result of our safety analysis, a 2 -month demonstration period during the fall or winter months may not be needed. Fall or winter tests would not provide much information about the effects of aircraft on Least Teats which are only present in the spring and summer. We believe we could acquire similar 4 10/08/97 18:28 V15107925828 USFWS SF BAY NWR 10/07/97 14:51 e503 231 2364 REG 1 ARW SF BAY NWR Mayor Ralph Appezzato n006/00 Q006/0( environmental information from other sources. However, we would be willing to discuss this further with you if you believe information is needed on aircraft noise impacts to surrounding neighborhoods or for other puzposes. Thar* you for your assistance and interest during our refuge planning activities. I look forward to working with you throughout the 13ase Reuse process. If you have any questions related to the proposed Alameda airfield, plrase contact Marge Kolar, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Manager, at 510/792-0222. Sincerely, Enclose cc: .:Kay Miller, ARRA Aoberta Brooks, Congressman Ron De Rums Bill Carsillo, Navy, an Bruno Jamie Henderson, Senator Boxer Cynthia Eliason, Alameda Planning Dept. Leora Feeney, Friends of Alameda NWR Sacramento Ecological Services (FWS) San Francisco Bay NWRC 5 10/08/97 18:28 '$`15107925828 10/07/97 14:51 $503 231 2364 USFWS SF BAY NWR REG 1 ARTY •). SF BAY NWR Enclosure 2 to w =i! 1 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report regarding an outreach marketing effort for the Alameda Point campus area and staff recommendation to continue to pursue current lease prospects. Background. At the October 9 ARRA meeting, Jim Sweeney, alternate for ARRA member Karin Lucas, requested that staff prepare a report on what it would take to attract a well - established, accredited college or university to the campus area at Alameda Point. Because a lot of activity has been occurring around the campus issue, we will take this opportunity to update the ARRA on related activities and events. Discussion• At the September 1997 ARRA meeting, ARRA staff asked for board direction on interim leasing and long -term use of the campus area. In a staff report dated August 28 (attached), staff forwarded the BRAG recommendation that a six -month moratorium be placed on the campus area in order to conduct a comprehensive marketing outreach for a single campus -user. The staff report also provided a list of prospective tenants who had expressed interest in leasing and long -term tenancy of individual properties in the campus area. After discussion, the board directed staff to pursue all the options for tenants in the campus area —both a large single user and a variety of smaller users who might occupy parts of the campus area and make up a consortium of tenants within the campus. uii II • - • II - • $ • . ARRA facilities management staff has continued to meet with potential campus tenants. The user that represents the most promise for long -term tenancy in the campus area is the San Francisco College of Osteopathic Medicine, an accredited, well - funded institution whose parent organization is Touro University in New York. The college's interest is to create a college of osteopathy and health sciences at Alameda Point using the following buildings: • bldg. 525 – bowling alley – for classroom space • bldg. 585– Top Four Club – as a cafeteria • bldg. 17 – BOQ – as a dormitory • bldg. 16 – theater – to be subdivided as lecture halls • bldg. 101– currently slated for the Homeless Collaborative for job training, office & meeting room space – for classroom space The college dean and COO from New York have indicated a firm desire to be operating at the Alameda campus by September 1999. Their total space requirement is approximately 260,000 square feet. The California School of Professional Psychology is also seriously interested in leasing the base's former clinic building as a site for their expanded program. Also, the Life Chiropractic College West, currently located in San Lorenzo, is looking for a larger campus site and has toured and is enthusiastic about the possibilities at Alameda Point. Finally, we have received a formal proposal from Pan Pacific University for a ten -year lease of building 3 (the galley) and building 4 (the north wing of the BEQ) for use as classrooms, library, dormitory, and cafeteria for the university. The college would initially consist of a department of foreign languages, a department of science & environmental technology, and a department of finance & insurance. The PPU proposal, currently Honorable Members of the October 29, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 under review, commits PPU to $2.7 million of building improvements prior to the start of the programs in the fall of 1998. • .11 • The BRAG has formed a task force that was expressly set up to review campus proposals and develop a strategy to market the campus area to academic users. The task force is co- chaired by Ardella Dailey and Larry Schultz. A list of the task force members is attached. The task force met several weeks ago and ARRA Facilities Manager Ed Levine briefed them on current "hot prospects" for the campus area—notably the Schools of Osteopathic Medicine and Psychology. The Pan Pacific proposal has not yet been reviewed by the task force. (No formal proposal has yet been submitted from the Life Chiropractic College West and no further submittals have been received from the University of Northern California.) The task force agreed with Mr. Levine that a concurrent path should be followed —Mr. Levine will continue lease discussions with current campus user prospects and the task force would develop a strategy to market the campus to other established colleges and universities. The task force formed a subcommittee that is developing criteria for a marketing package. They are also in the process of defining the type of assistance needed from an outside higher education consultant and how they would finance that effort. Members of the task force are looking for sources of foundation money that could pay for a consultant for this marketing/outreach effort. 14 • , • • • • • Of • . 1. .1. 00-11 In response to Alternate Sweeney's request for information on what it would take to attract a well - established, fully accredited academic user to the site, staff offers the following observations: 1. ARRA staff does not have the internal expertise or resources to conduct a comprehensive marketing effort for a major campus user. An outside consultant with knowledge of higher education institutions and how colleges and universities make decisions regarding new site location decisions would be needed to assist in this effort. 2. There are a variety of methods that could be employed to conduct an outreach effort: • Direct mailings of letters of invitation to selected institutions to request proposals. A higher education consultant might offer suggestions on targeting such a solicitation (e.g., California institutions only, institutions known to be seeking satellite or expansion campuses, etc.). • A solicitation could be directed through the Internet that would complement a direct solicitation or act in lieu of such an effort. Again, a consultant might advise on networks that are most likely to attract the attention of institutions of higher education that are in search of campus sites. • Advertisements could be placed in publications targeted to the higher education community. Again, a consultant specializing in higher education siting could assist in identifying the appropriate publications in which to advertise. • Follow -up to inquiries and site tours would need to be managed. Proposals would need to be evaluated based on some preestablished criteria. Finally, the same questions and issues which were raised in the August 28 memo still remain unresolved. Honorable Members of the October 29, 1997 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 Where would funding come from to underwrite such a marketing effort? As noted previously, OEA monies cannot be used for marketing and our EDA pre - application for 1998 funding has already been approved and committed. Our 1997 lease revenues are already committed in an ARRA- approved budget. We will shortly be putting together a revenue projection and expenditure budget for 1998 lease revenues. In our August 28 memo, we indicated that a marketing outreach effort could cost $20,000. The cost could be much greater depending on the level of outreach proposed (i.e., just in California, nationwide, etc.). Costs would need to include (1) a consultant to design and conduct the effort; (2) printing color maps, brochures, etc. to be included in the RFP or direct mail solicitation; (3) newspaper or magazine advertising space for the RFP or other marketing efforts; (4) mailing costs; and, (5) analyzing and evaluating proposals, financial statements, etc. The cost to conduct a thorough nationwide effort could cost well in excess of $50,000. 2. The policy issues raised in the August 28 memo would still need to be addressed. They include questions of the lease terms we would be proposing to a campus user: Are we offering free rent or market rate? Who would be responsible for building upgrades? What kind of financial . commitment would need to be made for a proposal to be seriously considered? (See issue #3 in August 28 memo.) Staff has had a preliminary discussion with Bruce Kern of EDAB about assisting in funding an outreach effort. He believes an outreach effort is unlikely to result in a single user who could develop the entire campus. He supports the efforts of ARRA staff to attract a variety of academic and related users to occupy the campus area and in fact has sent several potential users our way in furtherance of that effort. EscaLImpact. Consummating leases with currently interested tenants for the campus area could result in immediate revenue generation for the ARRA. To delay this in anticipation of finding a single or primary user could result in losing smaller academic users who could serve as the foundation of a consortium of academic and related users sharing the campus site. Recommendation• Staff recommends that we continue to aggressively pursue leases with users of the campus area such as the College of Osteopathic Medicine, California School of Psychology, etc. Each of these leases would be brought to the ARRA board for approval as to consistency of purpose with the campus concept, lease terms, etc. This effort could be conducted concurrently with the BRAG's outreach effort, should they be successful in finding funding for that effort. Respectfully submitted, kati Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Attachments: August 28 staff report Campus Task Force membership list H:\ARRA\STAFFREP\ 1997\CAMPUS 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: 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 of Northern 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, Kay Miller Executive Director ttek_Y Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Appendix A Alameda Point Campus Active Interest and Inquiries August 28, 1997 Page 3 Institution 1 Interest 1 Buildings 1 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 130Q 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 1 Interest 1 Buildings 1 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 Denise Blackman Sch. Psych. AUSD 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Joan Konrad BRAG 42 Invincible Court Alameda, CA 94501 Larry Schulz First Congregational Church 1912 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Bill Garvine, Exec. Dir. Chamber of Commerce 2447 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Jim Sweeney 212 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Doug deHaan 1305 Dayton Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Diane Lichtenstein BRAG Vice -Chair 633 Sand Hook Isle Alameda, CA 94501 Dennis Taylor BRAG 1510 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 • BRAG CAMPUS TASK FORCE 10/14/97 Carol Fairweather Employment/Job Training 920 Walnut Street Alameda, CA 94501 Dan Meyers Employment/ Job Training 136 Tynebourne Alameda, CA 94501 Peggy Withrow Stu. Set-v. AUSD 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 George Herring Pres. College of Alameda 555 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Bill Withrow 133 Cumberland Alameda, CA 94502 Iry Hamilton Aviso Advertising 1150 Marina Village Pkwy Alameda, CA 94501 Pattianne Parker Reuse BRAG 154 Basinside Way Alameda, CA 94502 Nancy Heastings Economic Development 3277 Liberty Alameda, CA 94501 Lee Perez BRAG Chair 29 Seabridge Alameda, CA 94502 Ardella Dailey Ass't. Supt. AUSD 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Kats Sakamoto Chancellor Calif. School Prof. Psych. 1005 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Gregory Beattie 1023 Morton Street Alameda, CA 94501 Karen Keegan MC/ML AUSD 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Helen Sause 816 Grand Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Base Reuse Advisory Group Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Lee Perez, Chair SUBJ: BRAG amendments and additions to their recommendation regarding Alameda Point Housing. llackzround. A number of months ago, the BRAG submitted a recommendation regarding the use and disposition of housing at Alameda Point. The BRAG has added sections to that recommendation to address new issues and circumstances that have arisen. Discussion. The BRAG wants to express its desires and recommendations on a number of housing issues that have surfaced since the adoption of the original BRAG recommendation on housing. The new additions emphasize mixed -use development, ensuring the economic viability of the reuse plan, meeting various design guidelines, including diversity of lot sizes and the grid street pattern, encouraging distinctive neighborhoods with mixed housing densities and available services, etc. Attached is the amendment to the BRAG housing strategy; the changes and additions are italicized for your convenience. Fiscal Impact. Undetermined. Recommendation. The BRAG recommends that the ARRA accept their housing strategy amendment and consider its recommendations in any future deliberations or decisions regarding the housing at Alameda Point. Respectfully submitted, Lee Perez Chair KM/LP /mee Attachments: BRAG Housing Strategy: Amendment to January 15, 1997 Housing Strategy for East Housing at Alameda Point H:WRRA\BRAG STF.RPT\BRAGHSNG.EAS BRAG HOUSING STRATEGY AMENDMENT TO JANUARY 15, 1997 HOUSING STRATEGY FOR EAST HOUSING AT ALAMEDA POINT Note: Additions are in italics bola VISION: Between now and the year 2020 Alameda will integrate NAS (Alameda Point) property with the City and will realize a substantial part of the base's potential. Revenues will have increased and a healthy local economy will have resulted from the implementation of a coordinated, environmentally sound plan of conversion and mixed -use development. While building upon the qualities which make Alameda a desirable place to live; efforts for improving recreational, cultural, educational, housing and employment opportunities for the entire region will have been successful. OBJECTIVES: Provide diversity in housing opportunities. Reflect the existing density and housing characteristics of the City, Develop housing consistent with City policies, standards and Charter Promote a jobs - housing balance to the extent practicable Emphasize mixed -use development as the overall redevelopment vision. Ensure that the Community Reuse Plan is economically viable. Meet the design guidelines specified in the Community Reuse Plan, including diversity of lot sizes and the grid street pattern. Create a series of neighborhoods, each with a central focus of mixed -use development including local - serving commercial and recreational uses and a mixture of housing densities. Encourage development of distinctive and individualized neighborhood character emphasizing walkable streets, restricting traffic circulation to specific major access routes. CONCERNS: Financial Feasibility: the City must not be placed in a position of financial liability Consideration of the impact on current and long term housing market Consideration of the known housing to come on market in the next five years including: • Build -out at Harbor Bay • Northern waterfront property • FISC housing to be built as part of Alameda Point development • Heritage Bay • Units at Alameda Point • Bruzzone property along Atlantic Avenue Assure that City will not incur unforeseen liabilities, such as tenant relocation costs Potential vandalism of vacant buildings creating an "attractive nuisance" and a negative marketing impact. NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. All New Housing including any future private development of Coast Guard land should be in accordance with the objectives of the Community Reuse Plan, i.e., a mixture of housing types to accommodate varied income persons and housing densities. Particularly of importance are the design guidelines and accommodation of housing similar to other neighborhoods in Alameda. All housing must meet all zoning ordinances, all City Codes and building and use codes. All housing, including Coast Guard units, must conform to the Community Reuse Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Lease Townhouses on interim basis (5 -10 years only). This premise is predicated on: • Completing analysis to determine feasibility on short term basis and impact on City housing market, economic viability and consequences at end -of -term. • If assured of the feasibility, the City should contract with a private property management company to rehabilitate and lease on an interim basis. • Units to go at market rate rents with no liabilities for relocation fees. • Include site in long term planning for such matters as design, zoning, street configuration, and utility placement Apartments: Assign to a private investor and if economically feasible and approved, rehab and rent at market rent with no liability to the City. BRAG prefers that the apartments be demolished However if potential revenues could be realized for the improvements at Alameda Point, they could be rented on an interim basis with minimum expenditures. This premise is predicated on completing analysis to determine feasibility on short term basis and impact on City housing market, economic viability and consequence at end of term. All RFP's should clearly specify the requirements of the objectives of the Community Reuse Plan. COMMUNITY :: Launch a rigorous educational program so that a broader spectrum of citizens understand this complex issue and the possible long -term effects on the City. Base Reuse Advisory Group Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Lee Perez, Chair SUBJ: BRAG recommendation that ARRA write to EFA West to urge the Navy to open the Northwest Territory to public access. Background. During the final year of the operation of NAS Alameda, the base "commander opened the entire base, including the Northwest Territory, to the public on weekends Since base closure, EFA West has closed the Northwest Territory to publid acbess, "largely due to environmental concerns. Disc_ cusssion• The BRAG is of the opinion that the entire Alameda Point property should be accessible to the public. The public needs to experience Alameda Point as a part of the City of Alameda and become familiar with the property and consider the possibilities for reuse and redevelopment. The BRAG believes this can only be accomplished through giving the public access to all of the property. The community is perplexed at the closure of the Northwest Territory as it was open for 1' /2 years while the base was active, even though IR sites were on the property. Fisc 1 Imp Opening the Northwest Territory to the public will require the Navy to fence the IR sites or otherwise prevent public access from remediation sites. It would also require EFA West to allow cooperative service dollars to be spent for the City and its contractors to police, protect, and maintain the site There would be no fiscal impact on the ARRA. Recommendation. The BRAG intends to write the commander of EFA West, Captain Hunter, to urge him to open the Northwest Territory to public access. The BRAG urges the ARRA governing body to take the same action. Respectfully submitted, Lee Perez Chair KM/LP /mee H:IARRA\BRAG STP.RPT\OPEN NW.TER Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 29, 1997 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Written status report from the Executive Director on ARRA activities. 1 Status of ex- HORNET donation - The Secretary of the Navy has informed the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of the Navy's intent to donate the ex- HORNET to the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation (ACHF). Attached is a fax copy of that letter, along with a fax copy of § 1024 (contained in Conference Report on HR 1119 filed 10/23), to reduce the Congressional review period and finalize transfer after 10 days of continuous session of Congress. If, however, the bill that contains this provision is filibustered in the Senate or vetoed by the President (which is likely according to George Withers of Congressman Dellums' DC office), time until donation may drag on into the next Congress. 3. • • • • • • • In June, Congressman Dellums wrote to John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Depai (anent of the Interior, requesting information on their plans for funding and transfer of the refuge at the former NAS Alameda. Attached is Secretary Garamendi's response. 1 • . - • • • •. i! • J . • - • • - •• 11 • 1 !J . 1 The building upgrades —which are being funded by the $3 million EDA grant and $1 million ARRA match —will be approached one building at a time. The board is being asked to approve the bid specifications for building 39 at the November 5 meeting with a subsequent approval of the low bid contractor in December. The next bid package the board will be asked to approve is for building 530, which is being leased to Tower Aviation. In order to keep the bid process moving, the board may be asked on occasion to hold special meetings to approve the bid packages or bids. Whenever possible, we will hold these meetings prior to regularly scheduled Alameda City Council meetings. 4. Upd nn public trust appraisal Charles Bailey & Associates, the firm selected to conduct the appraisal of the properties identified for public trust land exchanges at NAS has just about completed its appraisal. A joint meeting will be held with State Lands Commission staff and ARRA and City staff to review the draft appraisal in November. The next step will be to receive board direction on the negotiation with the State Lands Commission for the exchange. This will likely be done in closed session in December or January. 5. 1.ead -based : • In response to our request, EFA West has provided the attached letter outlining the LBP abatement process, cost, and timeline for completion. As you will see, this $2.25 million abatement program, to include the 19 Big Whites and 30 CPO Quarters units, is anticipated to be undertaken from January–April 1998. •• • .•. n-• Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director 10/27/1997 18::.8 5107480502 10/24/1997 ,4:03 5105218327 16,•'21'47 14:48 ACHF G. LUTZ ACHF 2o22257120 HN9l,. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY °FFIC/ OF ISE S$CREtaRV 1000 NAVY /UNTAOON WA6I1INGTON.O,C e0350•I000 The gone =able Newt Gingrich Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 PAGE 01 -fat bi 24 October 1997 Deal Mr. Speaker: under the authority of Title 10, United States Cede, erction 730C, 1 'rarn pleased to notify you that the Navy plans to fia1ize requirements to transfer the aircraft carrier ex- HORNET (c'/ :.Z; to a iweprofit group in Alameda, Ca] ifornia_ The Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, Alameda, California', a c(a:pora` ion whose charter denies it the right to operat" fcr a pro+.t, has requested donation of ex- HORNET for use as a naval museum and has completed a donation application. The Foundation has agreed to take delivery of the ship "aa is, where is," pay all coats incident to delivery, use ex- HORNET only as a naval museum and nai,nta.in the vessel in a condition satisfactory tc the 34c.t uterCy of the Navy. The Navy has received no other dons :ior: app: )ea.tions for ex- HORNET. Ex- HORNET has been declared or telete and lrnfit for further naval service- The Chief of Naval Ope.;eti©ns certifies that •x- HORNET is not essential to the det:nse of the United States_ We have determined that the Foundation's applic;at.on ex- HOR eT naatisries the Navy's requirements for donation. we ant a_ipate the donation will honor the Nervy, and in part ict:lat, the strew members who served on ex- HORNET during her proud history riot:es of the proposed transfer is submitted to Congress in earn; :.i,ance with Title 10, United States Cods, Section 06 ' d' as may be amended. The proposed transfer is subject to the Corttleti.Of Of all required actions preceding a donation cont_x,act between the Navy and the Foundation. Sincerely, John H. Dalton Secretary of the Navy 10/27/1997 18 :08 5107480502 10/24/1997 14:03 5105218327 ACHF G. LUTZ ACHF 10,14,17 15144 2G222S7120 KNSC F:\RWC•,AMCR9131.ASCRI0 (Title Y-- General Provisional 13.L.i'. 1.0-17 SEC. 1024. CONGRB98IONAL REVIEW PERIOD WITH RE. 2 SPELT TO TRANSFER 07 FZU.S.S. BORNET 3 (CV -19) AND 11141.1.9 .8. MEDWAY (CV -41). 4 (a) ]tumcwriox r c CON(4RESSIt►\AL RFt'1Ctt" PERIe 1I:. -I�e s applying section 7306 of title 10. 'United Staten Oak. with es apect to the transfer ofd vessel arec:ificd in subvertiuu (r), sub- 7 section (d)(1)(3) of that section shall be applied by NU �tltnt- S ing "30 days for 'r6O days". 9 (b) WAIVER 1P ONLY ON-it QuAt r-rED ENTITY APPLIES 10 mil TICANSFSR OF VS$.'SL. -.4f in the case of a vessel *peeei- 11 fit.'d its subsection (c) nn1y s single qn* iM r3 emit', xa drrt.►r. 12 mined by the Secretary Of the Nary, applies for transfer of the 13 vessel, the Berxetary May carry out the transfer of the vest ) 14 under mention 7306 of title 10, 'United Stater Codas wt.hnut ew. is g*rd to 1ubsec:tion (d)(1)(B) of that seot►on hi Hu( ►11 a cease. the .16 traivat'er may be made only after 10 dugs of continuous seddion 17 of Congress (dettrr tined in the manner specified in section is 7*0(i(d)(2) of tide 10, United States Code) have expired l9 tc►tlow- l9 ing the date on which the See'ret11ry anhn►it3 to ('-ongre s a r @1- 20 fititiwtion that only i single qualified entity applied for tr;+usfitr 2) of the vessel. 22 (e :) ('WERE[) VEH 1A —This sCe'tion uppliks to tin! NI- 23 lowin t vessels (each of rvhi 4I is n dcc:turuui$.ivrrt'd aircraft oar- 24 rier); 75 (1) Ex- t'.S -8. HORNET (C\' —I2). 26 (2) bx- t'.H.S. MIDWAY (VV-4I). O 1cb,c a:r t007 (a:03 p.m PAGE 02 WAlit lititii►2 10/Z6/Vs 1.:40 1.4-101U/04J040 10/28/97 1a427 '5032316161 09/25/97 08:2$ t:703 358 2223 OL USFWS REALTY 1JSSIS Ra REALTY TJSFWS SF BAY NWR Iiboo2 002 — REGION 1 RE United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE DEPtTrY SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240 Sti j7( Rotatable Ronald V. De Iluzns Member, United Stares House of Reprosontnives 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000-N Oakland, California 94612 Dear Mr. Dell3MS: Thank yet: for your letter of June 20, 1997, concerning the proposed national wildlife r,...fuge at the former idznieda Naval Air Statical_ You requested information on the status of plat:ling for the new r&ugt , the funding needs for this facility, and the proposed schedule for the land transfer_ The Fish aild I Vildlife Servict had developed an internal draft conceptual management plan for the site as 1.urt of the acquisition documentation needed prior to acceptance. However, because of the stroz.g public interest in the management options for the facility, as expressed by cornrnenty, fl'Or3 the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and letters Cram the leneral public, the ex vice has decided to defer completion of the MIlceptual management plan .in favor of develop, :tg a comprehensive management plan with greater public input. The next s.ep is this process wa:.; a -)ublic scraping rueeting on August 12, 1997, to address both the environmental documentation required for the acquisition process, as well as proposed management strategies. A surrunary of our draft conceptual management plan was distributed prior to this meeting to encourage infenned discussions. For plainly. purposes only, an optional budget would include up to $423,000 for start ..? costs (etz.)..; up it. $225,000 in potential wildlife observation platforms and habitat improvera=t; and annual operations and maintenance costs of approximately $235.000. However, this funding would have To be evaluated against the priorities of the 51 1 existing national wildlife refuges in future budt :ts. OPTIONAL FORM 99(7-90) FAX TRANSMITTAL 01 )airee To 4•1626.zt From Acc. • Dept./Agency • Fax 0 Phrrno Fax NSN 7540 01 317-7368 5089-101 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION — — 10/28/97 11:35 ''15107925828 10/28/97 10:27 VS032319161 09/25/97 e :30 '$703 358 2223 USFWS SF BAY NWR USFWS REALTY USFWS SF BAY N VR USFWS R9 REAM --+-► REGION 1 RE Honorable :.onald V. Del lums The schedule 'Gr transfer of the property is contingent upon on. the Navy's completion e: f an acceptably tentediation plan for contaminated areas. The Service anticipates complex, o ; of its acquisition do:umentation and management planning by spring of 1998. The Service would consider a ?arial transfer of the property at that time, if it could be assured that the transferred property is clean and /or the Navy has committed to an acceptable remediation plan for these lands. We hope t :s :nfarmation is useful to you and we look forward to your continued participation in the development of this national wildlife refugee. Ifyou have additional questions, pleaae contact me_ Z002/002 fa 003 Q003 2 Copy To : <' our Wachington Office John aramendi Deputy Secretary OCT. 29. 1997 2:13PM EFA WEST DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ENONEERNO FELD ACTIVITY, WEST NAVAL. FACUTE, ENONEESN0 COMIMAND 100 COUNODOIN OANE SAN WWNO, CALIFORNIA *i0064000 Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 950 W Mall Square, 1st Floor Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Kay, NO. 0420 P 1 11010 Ser 61/8004 October 29, 1997 Per your request, this is the approach we plan to use to abate lead based paint (LBP) in the West Housing area at Alameda Point. The housing includes the 18 Senior Officer's and one Flag Officer's quarters housing units referred to as the "Big Whites," and the 30 housing units or "CPO Quarters" to be used by the Homeless Collaborative. All these units w tre constructed prior to 1960. We will: • remove LBP from all friction surfaces to include frames, sills and doors, • abate any asbestos present per approved guidelines, re- paint/encapsulate the interior and exterior with 20 -year paint. We cureently anticipate this work will cost about $2.25 million. Upon review and acceptance of a work plan, we anticipate commencement of fieldwork in January 1998. The work will include soil sampling, LBP surveys, and subsequent abater nt action. The completion of work is estimated as early as April 1998 depending on the rainy season, which will obviously impact any exterior painting. For questions and concerns please contact H., Brown at (650) 244 -3076. Sincerely yours, D. R. Ryan Base Conversion Manager, East Bay Correspondence Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Point/NAS Alameda 950 W. Mall Square - Building 1 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair • Mayor, City of Alameda Sandr+s R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 . Alameda County Board of Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving for Elihu Harris Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Tony Daysog Councilmember City of Alameda Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Barbara Kerr Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director . @Recycled paper October 21, 1997 James M. Flint City Manager Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Jim: (510) 864-3400 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 As you are aware, when I originally signed on as Executive Director of the ARRA, my commitment to then City Manager Bill Norton was to remain for two years, through completion of the Navy's EIS and ROD. However, due to delays in the process, completion of the EIS and the ROD continue to be a moving target. This letter serves as official notification of my intention to terminate my tenure as Executive Director of the ARRA no later than the end of August 1998. During this time, I would like to concentrate my efforts on assisting you, the City, and the ARRA to complete a smooth transition from land use and implementation planning to the actual initiation of redevelopment at Alameda Point. My goal has always been to leave the project poised to begin actual implementation of the plans and studies I have overseen. The planning for this transition (from the ARRA to the City or a successor agency) and the hand -off of ongoing ARRA projects and studies will require my full -time attention. I would like to complete numerous projects currently underway such as the golf course feasibility study, the Public Trust appraisal, the regional park financing plans, and any other efforts you would want me to see through to completion. I am apprising you of my August 30, 1998 departure goal so that you may begin the process to reassign my responsibilities or initiate a search for a successor. I stand ready to assist in any of those activities. After my full -time duty as ARRA Executive Director has ended, I would consider continuing as a consultant or as manager of selected projects or activities. Sincerely, Kay Miller �,.ti ucti� cc: ARRA Governing Body Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Point/NAS Alameda 950 W. Mall Square - Building 1 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Apperzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Delimits 9th Congressional District Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board of Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving for '+ lihu Harris 4ayor, 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 October 15, 1997 Ms. Danelle McGrue, Associate Director BADCAT 2201 Broadway, Suite 303 Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Ms. McGrue: (510) 864 -3400 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopted Community Reuse Plan calls for and relies on a variety of alternative modes of transportation such as ferries, water taxis, etc. As you know, Alameda is an island with limited access across three (3) bridges and a tunneL Therefore, the successful conversion of Alameda Point (the former NAS, Alameda) is very dependent on well planned and reliable water transportation. For this reason, the ARRA is very supportive of the Regional Ferry Transportation System study being undertaken by BADCAT. We would be most interested in being active participants. The initial Point of Contact would be Cheri Sheets, the City ofAlameda's Traffic Engineer. Ms. Sheets can be reached at (510) 748 -4515. My appreciation to BADCAT for undertaking this study. We look forward to being active participants and beneficiaries of the study. Very Truly Yours, Karin Lucas —� _ " 1 Y Vim, L'1— '' -`,_ _ -/ Councilmember City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Kay Miller Executive Director $Recycled paper cc: ARRA Board Jim Flint, City Manger Cheri Sheets