Loading...
1999-02-03 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, February 3, 1999 Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. City Hall will open at 5:1.5 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6, 1999. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special ARRA meeting of January 14, 1999. 2 -C. Receive report by the ARRA staff recommending the authorization to expend existing City General Fund appropriation for Alameda Point activities 2 -D. Receive report and recommendation by ARRA staff for approval of a six -month proposed 1999 budget for ARRA market rate housing lease revenue. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -A. Receive report and approval of the recommendations from the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and ARRA staff regarding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Management Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3 -B. Receive report of alternative recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA staff regarding the no -cost leases for Buildings 77 and 41 for the Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum. 3 -C. Receive BRAG report and recommendation regarding tourism as a means of economic development at Alameda Point. 3 -D. Receive BRAG report and recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA staff regarding the future role and responsibilities of the BRAG. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from BRAG. ARRA Agenda - February 3, 1999 Page 2 4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (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 This meeting will be simultaneously broadcast on cable channel 22. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 3, 1999. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Chair Appezzato requested a two- thirds to place a resolution on the agenda by this authority. Member Daysog moved approval to place the resolution on the agenda. The motion was seconded by Alternate Leonhardy and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 0. Chair Appezzato presented a resolution of appreciation from the Governing Board of the ARRA commending Kay Miller of exemplary service as executive director of the ARRA. He particularly noted her leadership throughout the conversion of the Alameda Naval Air Station to Alameda Point. He extended appreciation for her valued service, and best wishes for her continued success in the future. Alternate Leonhardy moved approval to place the resolution on the agenda. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 0. Roberta Brooks expressed her appreciation to Kay Miller on her leadership throughout the process, which provided a stellar example of how a base closure could work. She added that there was no guidebook to follow, and that she blazed new trails in her straightforward and consistent approach to her work. Tony Daysog thanked Ms. Miller for her patience with him, and with the neighbors of West Alameda, during the Base conversion process. Chair Appezzato complimented Ms. Miller on her poise and professionalism, and noted that she was particularly well thought of in Washington. He expressed his deep thanks for her work and the example she set. Kay Miller expressed her appreciation to the ARRA, and noted that the Base conversion was a good opportunity to see some long -term effects of a good reuse plan. She believed that was accomplished, and was happy to be a part of it. ®recycled paper 3 h: \1- 06- 99..min ADJOURNMENT The general meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 5:59 p.m., at which time the Board entered into Closed Session to consider: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: Property: Alameda Naval Air Station Negotiating parties: ARRA and the U.S. Navy Under negotiation: Price and Terms Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.8 Following the Closed Session, the Mayor announced no action was taken. There being no further business before the ARRA, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:25 p.m. The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Respectfully submitted, Cory Sims @recycled paper 4 h:11- 06- 99..min APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, January 6, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:43 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Sheila Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Roberta Brooks, alternate for Congresswoman Barbara Lee Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda James Sweeney, alternate to Councilmember Barbara Kerr, City of Alameda CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of December 2, 1998. Councilmember DeWitt advised that he did not see his name as being present at the meeting of December 2, 1998, and noted that he was present. Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes as amended for December 2, 1998, and for the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Alternate Friedman and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 1 (Johnson - minutes). ACTION ITEMS None. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from BRAG Diane Lichtenstein, Vice Chairperson of the BRAG, noted that BRAG Chair Lee Perez was out ®recycled paper 1 h: \1- 06- 99..min of town for the last BRAG meeting, and requested that she present the BRAG report. The last BRAG meeting was a joint meeting with the Department of Park and Recreation, the Golf Commission, some members of the Economic Development Commission and the BRAG. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the two different proposals for the golf feasibility study. The next task will be to report to the individual agencies, and make a recommendation to the Golf Commission as to which way each commission wished to go. The Golf Commission would then appear before the BRAG or the City. The most current business plan for Hanger 41 will also be discussed regarding the Western Aerospace Museum/Alameda Naval Air Museum. The Fish and Wildlife plan will be discussed, and a public meeting will be held on Saturday, January 16, 1999. The BRAG will discuss that meeting, as well as the continuing restructuring of the BRAG organization. 4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items). Deputy City Manager David A. Berger reported that several significant activities that were planned for January: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released the draft "Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation" plan. On January 14, 1999, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at the Historic High School cafeteria, there will be a public meeting on the draft. The deadline for comments will be February 15, 1999. Staff has been reviewing the plan, and will have a report and recommendation regarding a possible City ARRA position on the next Board agenda. The Naval Facilities Command, both in Washington, D.C. and in the San Bruno regional facility, have been engaged in an internal discussion regarding the draft environmental impact statement. The discussion could result in a delay of the certification of that document by three to four months past the mid -June target date. He noted that staff shared its strong concerns with the local Navy representatives, and he will meet with the EFA West Captain Hunter on Friday, January 8, 1999, to discuss the current status. Captain Hunter indicated that it would be the highest priority for him to expedite the process. There will be a meeting on January 19, 1999, of Navy and City ARRA engineering representatives to review the infrastructure upgrade assumptions in each party's respective valuation of the Economic Development conveyance. Both sides were in agreement that was the key issue in reaching an acceptable business term. Kay Miller will coordinate the effort in her new roll as a part-time consultant. In addition, Kay Miller will meet with outside legal council with the State Lands Commission Staff to review the assumptions in the Tidelands Trust matter. A report would be presented at the next meeting. ®recycled paper 2 h: \1- 06- 99..min MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Thursday - January 14, 1999 - 5:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Leonhardy, Ornelas, Daysog, Brooks, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 8 Absent: Friedman - 1 The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: Property: Alameda Naval Air Station Negotiating parties: ARRA and the U.S. Navy Under negotiation: Price and Terms Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.8 Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced the following actions: Approved in Concept an Agreement with the Homeless Collaborative regarding the relocation of 58 units from East Housing to West Housing and 39 units to be constructed at FISC and approved Interim Leases to both Operation Dignity and U.A. Housing for specific units at West Housing; Director Executive Director to negotiate and execute the Agreement with Homeless Collaborative and the interim leases with Operation Dignity and U.A. Housing. Adjournment There being no further business before the ARRA, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Marites Ward ARRA Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 26, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Report by the Deputy City Manager recommending the authorization to expend appropriated City General Funds for Alameda Point activities. Background: Included in the fiscal year 1998 -99 City budget are general funds totaling $513,376 for base conversion activities. While the City Council has approved this budget, the ARRA Governing Body has never given the authority for the expenditure of these funds. The action taken today will authorize staff to expend the funds in the manner budgeted. These funds cover Economic Development Conveyance negotiations and related activities, which the U.S. Navy advises may not be paid for through ARRA lease revenues or the government caretaker contract. Discussion: This action is a fiscal "house- keeping " matter. The City appropriated these funds in its 1998 -99 budget, however the authorization for expenditure was never given. Following is the detail for the allocated general funds totaling $513, 376: General Office Supplies $1,600 Periodicals and Subscriptions $1,250 Legal Services $410,806 These funds are expended by the City Attorney's Office and are used to funds all legal activities related to Alameda Point. Consultant Services $73,220 These funds are used to fund consultant services related to the Economic Development Conveyance negotiations. The Navy will not allow lease revenue funds to be used for activities that may place the City in conflict with the Navy. Therefore, the general fund is the source for funding this activity. Audit Payroll Processing $1,000 Meetings and Conferences $4, 000 Associations Memberships $1,500 Public Notice & Advertising $1,000 Base Reuse Advisory Group $20,000 These funds pay for the BRAG Secretary position and fund the public relations activities undertaken by the BRAG including town meetings and newsletters. Honorable Members of the January 26, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 TOTAL ALLOCATED BUDGET $514,376 Fiscal Impact: These funds were already allocated as part of the City 1998 -99 fiscal year budget. There will be not additional impact to the budget. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA authorize the expenditure of the City general funds already appropriated for this year. Respectfully submitted by: Nanette Banks Admin. Management Analyst NB/DB /mw H: \STAFF- RE.PTS \CITY$.WPD Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 25, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Report and recommendation by the Deputy City Manager for approval of a six -month proposed 1999 budget for ARRA market rate housing lease revenue. Background: In March 1998, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority entered into its first lease for the residential property on Alameda Point. These properties are managed by Gallagher and Lindsey. As you know, currently the only residential property on the market at Alameda Point is the ranch units. The townhouse units are currently being brought to health and safety code and will come on the Market by March 1999. The figures included in this projection do not include revenues from either the townhouses or "big white" homes. The fund balance projection for these funds uses the current unappropriated balance in housing lease revenues of $146,387. The projected revenue by the end of the fiscal year (6 months) is $210,732, for a total resource of $357,119. Proposed expenditures for these funds are estimated at $310,000 for an ending balance of $47,119. Discussion: Following is the proposed six month 1999 housing lease revenue budget. These figures do not include revenues generated from either the townhouses or the big whites. The anticipated lease revenues based on the current level of housing leases are projected to be $357,119: Property Management and Maintenance $160,000 These funds will be used to pay the property management contract, upgrade the townhouse and big white units which includes contractors, replacement fencing, city permits and other related upgrade expenses. Consultant Services $100,000 As the EDC negotiation and Record of Decision approaches, there is need for additional consultant studies and professional services to expedite the conveyance process. These funds will be used to pay for additional appraisal work for the Public Trust Trade, EDC Negotiations, or to purchase additional environmental expertise. Reserve $50,000 Fiscal Impact: It is anticipated there will be sufficient lease revenue to cover the proposed expenses. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA approve the proposed housing lease revenue budget for January - June 1999. Honorable Members of the January 25, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Respectfully submitted by: Re1 Nanette Banks Admin. Management Analyst NB/DB /mw Attachment: January 1, 1999 - June 30, 1999 Housing Lease Revenue Fund Balance Projection H: \STAFF- RE.PTS\HOUS ING. W PD Fund Balance Projection for Housing Lease Revenue Beginning Balance 12/30/98 (estimate) Revenue Projection (1/1/99-6/30/99) Total Resources Proposed Expenditures (1/1/99-6/30/99) Ending Balance 6/30/99 (estimate) $146,387 $210,732 $357,119 $310,000 $47,119 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 26, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 3 FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending ARRA approval of Base Reuse Advisory Group and ARRA staff recommendations and comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge Background: In December, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) distributed the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. Staff has prepared the following report and recommendation with input from ARRA tenants, other city departments, and the BRAG Refuge Task Force. The BRAG Task Force comments are attached as Attachment A, which the full BRAG endorsed on January 20, 1999. The CCP describes the proposed plan for managing the refuge, with particular attention to the wildlife management practices proposed for the protection and furtherment of the five endangered or threatened species known to inhabit the refuge. These species are: the California least tern, the California brown pelican, the Western snowy plover, the American peregrine falcon, and Winter -run chinook salmon. The EA analyzes four alternative for the establishment and management of the Refuge: 1) Alternative A - No Action; 2) Alternative B - Establish National Wildlife Refuge with Minimum Levels of Management by the Service; 3) Alternative C - Establish National Wildlife Refuge and Optimize Wildlife Management and Public Use; and 4) Alternative D - Establish National Wildlife Refuge and Maximize Public Use with Moderate Wildlife Management. Analysis: There are four areas of concern regarding the plan: 1. Public Access and Shipping Access Of the range of alternatives analyzed in the EA, the USFWS prefers "Alternative C ". This Alternative limits the access channel to the piers and Seaplane Lagoon to a width of 500 feet and provides no turning basin. According to Refuge staff, this Alternative is not intended to limit the port operation, but to control recreational boaters, who have a greater impact on the least tern and other species of concern. The City would prefer "Alternative D" because it provides for a 600 -foot buffer around Breakwater Island, more public access and avoids a narrow definition of the boat access channel. Alternative "D" also proposes a smaller expansion of the least tern colony, which would avoid further conflicts with development plans near the refuge. Honorable Members of the January 26, 1999 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 However, a major concern is that the 500 foot wide access corridor to the piers and Seaplane Lagoon is not sufficient for the safe operation of a commercial port for the Maritime Administration (MARAD) ready reserve fleet. The port management and MARAD have both requested that the channel remain at 1000 feet wide. The proposed plan does not accommodate for the required turning radius of these ships, approximately 1500 feet, using Army Corps of Engineers standards. In addition the port operation includes moving of large ships (up to 880 feet long) in and out of port along with barging equipment and fuel as well as daily ferries and support for the Hornet Museum. 2. Predator Control The plan does not include funding for predator management outside the refuge. Our recommendation is that the USFWS ask for these funds as part of the appropriation for the Refuge. 3. Funding and Operations The budget presented in the plan does not indicate the phasing of the project over the next 15 years. It is not clear how soon a visitors center or support services would be constructed, or when enough of the project will be in place to begin operations and allow public access. The plan also depends on the East Bay Regional Park District to construct and maintain the perimeter trail. 4. Aesthetics The Plan proposes an eight -foot high chain link fence with slats and barbed wire on top for the boundary between the Refuge and the rest of Alameda Point. We have requested to meet with the Service to look at alternatives that better meet the goals of the Reuse Plan and City of Alameda standards. Fiscal Impact: Potential impacts include a $60,000 a year cost to the City if other sources of funding for predator management are not found by the Service, and potential loss of revenue for the port if Trident's MARAD operations are curtailed by restrictions on boat traffic. Currently, the ARRA receives $1.3 million a year in payments from the operation of the port. Trident is proposing to expand its operations in the near future, which would increase the annual revenues to the ARRA/City. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the ARRA board endorse the attached letter of comment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and authorize staff to negotiate further with the Fish and Wildlife staff to incorporate our comments in the final CCP. Respectfully submitted by: /4/( Elizabeth Johnson Base Reuse Planner Attachment Attachment A BRAG REFUGE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE REPORT ON USF &WS DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA WILDLIFE REFUGE The BRAG appointed members of the Refuge Task Force met on January 13, 1999 to review the USF &WS documents and prepare a recommendation for BRAG consideration with respect to comments that should be made on the Draft Plan documents. Our comments are as follows: 1. We strongly recommend Alternative D, rather than C, as the preferred alternative because it increases public use and benefit while still providing adequately for protection of the endangered and other species. 2. The eight -foot high chainlink fence with slats and barbed wire will obstruct views and look like a prison. It is preferred to use a standard six or eight -foot high black vinyl coated fence without slats as is standard practice for security at airports. 3. The Task Force notes with concern comments that the Congress frequently fails to appropriate adequate funds to cover "in- lieu" payments due to municipalities to offset lost tax revenues. We believe all parties should make a maximum effort, by whatever means are available, to see that sufficient federal funds are allotted for this purpose. 4. The boat access channel is set at 500 feet wide. The dredged channel is 1000 feet wide. It is recommended that the width be set at 750 feet to provide more maneuverability for vessels. This should be coordinated with the MARAD and small boat people using the pier area. 5. No capital improvement or operational budget coverage is shown for the perimeter path. USF &WS should budget for this item and not depend on East Bay Regional Parks District for maintenance. Furthermore, this should be a high priority item as is has direct impact on one of the most popular public uses. 6. Concern is expressed over developing any new least tern nesting areas any closer to the east or northern boundaries of the refuge because of potential impact on city development plans outside the refuge. 7. There is no mention of any plans for public sanitary facilities inside the refuge boundary for visitors. 8. Other than educational outreach efforts the plan should speak to other publicity efforts to attract tourist type visitors and what vendor or concession type activities will be allowed in support of the tourism. 9. No details are set forth in the financial discussions of donations, fee schedules, entry fees, collection and disbursement policies or concepts in support of any self-financing efforts to defray operational costs. 10. All operations of the Wildlife Service including employee and visitor parking, office and sanitation facilities to be located within the boundary of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge. Respectfully submittgd, alcohn T. Mooney, Chair Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Point Redevelopment Center 950 W. Mall Square, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandr6 R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for 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 Shelia Young Mayor City of San Leandro Tony Daysog Councilmember City of Alameda Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Barbara Kerr Councilmember City of Alameda Beverly Johnson Councilmember City of Alameda David A. Berger Deputy City Manager January 27, 1999 Charles Houghten, Chief Planning Branch, ARW/RE U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE l l th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 -4181 Dear Mr. Houghten: (510) 749-5910 Fax: (510)769 -0694 The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge and the accompanying Draft Environmental Assessment(EA) for the Establishment and Management of the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge of December, 1998. The ARRA requests that these issues of concern be addressed in the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and EA for the Refuge. These comments incorporate the recommendations of the Base Reuse Advisory Group. Overall, the plan is sufficient to address the operation of the refuge. There remain a few outstanding issues which require the active participation of USFWS to engage in a dialogue with the ARRAJCity, bringing alternatives to the table. We have organized them in the same format as our letter of September 12, 1997. Issue 1: Public Access We would prefer the alternative analyzed in the EA as Alternative "D" (over the Service's preferred alternative "C ") because it provides more public access and avoids the narrow definition of the boat access channel. It also proposes a smaller expansion of the least tern colony, which would avoid further conflicts with development plans near the refuge. In our letter of September 12, 1997, we asked that a commitment to protecting boating access be provided in the plan. On page 9 of the Draft EA, it states: "The U. S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration would require accesses to the open bay via the 500 -foot access corridor through the Refuge. If wider access is ever needed, a special use permit would be considered." A major concern is that the proposed 500 -foot wide access corridor to the piers and Seaplane Lagoon is not sufficient for the safe operation of commercial port for the Charles Houghten January 27, 1999 Page 2 Maritime Administration (MARAD) ready reserve fleet. The port management and MARAD have both requested that the channel be left at 1000 feet wide. Nor is there accommodation made for the required turning radius for these ships, approximately 1500 feet, using US Army Corps of Engineers standards. The port is a major economic contributor to the successful reuse of the base (current revenue to ARRA is $1.3 million per year.) The operation entails moving large ships (up to 880 feet long) in and out of port, along with barging of equipment and fuel. There are also daily ferries and support for the Hornet ship museum, as well as a number of small craft and tugboats that accompany the port operations. A narrow channel that would be used by recreational boaters as well as the port would be unsafe. Refuge staff have stated that an accommodation could be made to allow greater access for port ships while regulating pleasure craft. The Refuge plan must recognize that the port, the marina, and the refuge will co- exist, that the port use will not be more intensive than the prior Navy operations, and that the refuge will continue to accommodate port operations with a shipping channel and turning basin of the required dimensions. This issue needs further discussion and recognition in the Refuge plan, with a revised proposal that accommodates the Port while achieving the objectives of restricting small boat traffic in the Refuge. The Refuge plan discusses the possibility of additional restrictions on the Long Breakwater, which is within the City of Alameda, outside of the refuge. Pedestrian access to the breakwater is currently restricted by the City of Alameda. Any additional restrictions requested by Fish and Wildlife would require more discussion. Issue 2: Predator Control The Plan does a good job of describing Predator Management actions by the USFWS; however, there is no mention that the plan will require additional predator management funding for the area outside the refuge. The ARRA and the City have requested that the appropriation request for the establishment of the refuge include this cost., approximately $60,000 a year. Issue 3: Funding and Operations The plan does not have an implementation schedule. It would be useful to know when the various components of the 15 -year phasing will take place in order for the City to incorporate the refuge into our reuse planning. Will the visitor center be constructed in the first five years? When would fencing and trail upgrades take place which would allow greater public access to the shoreline and the refuge? Will there be restroom facilities for the public other than at the visitors center? Charles Houghten January 27, 1999 Page 3 There is no funding identified for the perimeter trail. There is no commitment from the East Bay Regional Parks District to build or maintain the trail. Generally, the EBRPD will take over the maintenance of a trail that has been constructed as a mitigation for development or through grant monies. Because the establishment of the trail is so important to public access for this significant segment of Bay shoreline, the Service's appropriation request should include funds for the construction of the trail. We also are concerned with the statement in the plan that Congress may fail to appropriate adequate funds for the "in -lieu "payments to the county to offset lost tax revenues. These payments are vital in order for compensation to be made the county and city for the lost revenue the refuge represents, as well to offset the impact to providing public services and infrastructure for public access to a facility that does not generate local taxes. Issue 4: Aesthetics There needs to be more dialogue between the Refuge planners and the ARRA/City about the design of the fence surrounding the refuge before the plan is finalized. The current proposal, an eight -foot high chain -link fence with slats and barbed wire on top, is not compatible with the vision for the rest of the base, nor with the City of Alameda's zoning ordinance. We expect the Refuge to be a full partner in maximizing the economic benefits of the natural beauty of the 565 acres of the base under their management, so it can truly be the attraction and amenity described in their planning documents. The proponents of the Refuge need to develop alternative designs for the fence that better meet the criteria of the Community Reuse Plan by maximizing views of the water, vegetation and wildlife. This letter conveys the major concerns with the plan and its environmental effects. A separate letter will convey a more detailed evaluation of the Environmental Assessment. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. The ARRA will continue to work with the Service to make the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge a success and an asset for the community. Sincerely, Ralph J. Appezzato Chairman cc: Planning Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 26, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Report on alternative recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA staff regarding the no -cost leases for Buildings 77 and 41 for the Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum Background: The Community Reuse Plan reserves Buildings 77 and 41 for a naval air museum. Building 77, formerly the Naval Station's air terminal, has an area of approximately 27,050 square feet. Building 41, the southernmost of the four large hangars facing the Seaplane Lagoon, has an area of approximately 118,050 square feet. The Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) originally requested that they be given these buildings through a Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC). The Community Reuse Plan determined that in order to assure long -term control of the property, the ARRA should enter into a no -cost lease with ANAM. The lease would be subject to ANAM demonstrating financial capability to develop and operate the museum. If the museum proved to be non - viable, the Reuse Plan allowed for the ARRA to find alternative tenants for the buildings. Building 77 was opened briefly by ANAM prior to base closure under the auspices of the base's then Commanding Officer, Captain Dodge. The building was closed following the Navy's departure because it did not comply with the building code and ANAM had not yet signed a lease with the ARRA. The Western Air Museum (WAM) subsequently approached ANAM with a proposal to expand the Building 77 museum to include display of aircraft in Building 41. These discussions led to formation of a joint venture, ANAWAM, to develop an integrated museum in these buildings. During the last year, ARRA staff has had ongoing meetings with ANAWAM personnel to assess the feasibility of their proposal. Of primary interest and concern have been the high cost of upgrades to bring the buildings into code compliance and the limited sources of funds to pay for this work and subsequently operate the museum. Early in these discussions, ARRA staff determined that a museum in Building 77 will be a relatively low -cost venture which could be developed and operated in a financially feasible manner. At the same time, staff had major reservations as to ANAWAM's ability to finance the code compliance work in Building 41 and thereafter to fund operations at a sufficiently high -level to create a viable visitor attraction. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 26, 1999 Page 2 Discussion: In mid - December 1998, ANAWAM submitted a proposal and business plan to convert Building 41 to a museum. A copy of this submittal is attached. Also attached is the staff analysis of this proposal and recommendation to the BRAG Museum Task Force prepared by former ARRA Executive Director, Kay Miller. Ms. Miller's analysis identifies the following deficiencies in the business plan which raise serious questions as to ANAWAM's ability to develop and operate the museum. 1. Insufficient Funds to Upgrade Building 41 ANAWAM's proposed business plan dated December 30, 1998 shows no firm commitment for the grants needed to finance the building upgrades. The largest of these grants, $500,000 from the State of California, was turned down in the last session of the State Legislature. ANAWAM has submitted another request in this legislative session, but their chances for success are questionable. Without this money, there appears to be no way for them to finance the upgrades. The cost of these upgrades was estimated by ANAWAM as about $500,000 and by the City Engineering staff as closer to $700,000. 2. Uncertain Funding for Operation and Maintenance ANAWAM's business plan projects that it will attract 80,000 people in its third year of operation. This projection assumes that substantial attendance will be spun off from the visitors to the AC Hornet. This appears to be a flawed assumption in light of the Hornet's failure to attract anywhere near its projected attendance. If attendance and gate receipts fall substantially below ANAWAM's projections, the Museum will have to scale back its operations. The result would be an under -used facility generating limited interest and appeal to the general public. ARRA Staff Recommendation As discussed in Kay Miller's analysis and recommendation, Building 41 is highly leasable and could generate a rental income of approximately $400,000 per year as well as substantial new jobs. In light of the Community Reuse Plan commitment to establish a Naval Air Museum at Alameda Point, it would be appropriate to forego this revenue and enter into a sublease with ANAWAM, provided their proposal is financially feasible. As noted above, this is not the case. Over a three -year period, the Museum has failed to produce a viable business plan. ARRA staff believes that it would be a mistake to forego the substantial revenues and jobs which could be generated by leasing Building 41 to a private sector tenant on the unlikely hope that ANAWAM can obtain the grants needed to create a museum in Building 41. For this reason, staff recommends against reserving this building for ANAWAM and proposes that it be put back on the market for lease to a private- sector user. As indicated earlier, staff concludes that ANAWAM has a viable Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 26, 1999 Page 3 business plan for development and operation of a smaller scale museum in Building 77 and recommends that ARRA move forward with a no -cost lease for this building. BRAG Recommendation The BRAG recommends that the ARRA Governing Body approve the request by the Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum to lease Hangar 41 as follows: 1. "We reaffirm the concept of a naval museum at Alameda Point as expressed in the Community Reuse Plan of 1996, which states as an objective to "encourage and support the Alameda Naval Museum in its efforts to document the rich aviation history of the area." (NAS Community Reuse Plan, 6 -14)." 2. "We recommend approval for ANAWAM to pursue a Use Permit with the City of Alameda, with a lease between the Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority and the ANAWAM to be signed no later than July 1, 1999, contingent upon Applicant having sufficient funds, or having guaranteed commitments of funding, to effect all required building improvements. Hanger 41 to open for operation no later than January 1, 2000." Fiscal Impact: If the ARRA Governing Body authorizes staff to terminate negotiations to lease Building 41 to ANAWAM, staff will immediately market the building for lease to other tenants. Based on market interest to date, staff believes that a lease commitment on Building 41 could be obtained within two or three months. As indicated above, stabilized rental revenues from this building, following upgrades for code compliance, should be about $400,000 per year. Building upgrades would be financed from the anticipated EDA Grant for this year. Deferring a decision until July 1999 as recommended by the BRAG, would result in six months lost rent (for a total of about $200,000) assuming ANAWAM does not obtain grant commitments by that time and the property is then leased to another tenant. Ed Levine Facilities Manager Attachment: Report from Kay Miller dated December 31, 1998 Alameda Reuse and .Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: BRAG Museum Task Force FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director DATE: December 31, 1998 SUBJECT: Staff Analysis and Recommendation Re: WAM/ANAM's Business Plan for Hanger 41 Capital Cost Projections ARRA and City staff have met a number of times since the October 1998 Museum Task Force meeting with WAM/ANAM personnel and their consulting engineers and architects to review their capital cost projections. Staff believes that their final business plan comes much closer to recognizing the real costs of Code required upgrades to Hanger 41. The final business plan submitted on December 30, 1998, projects a cost of $684,000 for Code compliance upgrades, $750,000 for both Hanger 41 and Building 77 with additional amounts needed to repay loans and line of credit. These figures certainly come much closer to reality than the $284,000 projected in the October 1998 business plan submittal. A memo from Celia Karian, Construction Manager for the City Public Works Department, critiques an earlier cost estimate of $599,000 for Hanger 41, while WAM /ANAM has adjusted its cost estimate upwards to $684,000 since that memo was written. However, a number of Ms. Karian's observations and suggestions still apply. For example, VBN had factored in a $25,000 contingency, about 5% of estimated construction costs. Ms. Karian suggested this be increased to a 25% contingency based on City experience with upgrades of other hangers at NAS. While the final business plan increases the amount to 10 %, staff still believes this is inadequate. The final business plan included some estimates for electrical and other system upgrades as suggested by Ms. Karian; however, these estimates may be low and could be needed within 12 months of occupancy. These costs need to be considered in evaluating expenses. Revenue Projections While it appears that the capital cost figures have become much more realistic, our real concern is with the income /revenue projections used by WAM/ANAM and the heavy reliance on speculative sources of grant funds. The following is a brief summary of our concerns: The single largest source of money relied upon to pay for the capital improvements to Building 77 and Hanger 41 is a $500,000 grant from the State of California. WAM/ANAM was unsuccessful in obtaining that grant last year with a very committed sponsor in then State Senator Barbara Lee. We worry that this source of revenue may be a very long shot and there is no back -up plan should the Museum fail to get this grant appropriation. Recycled paper Memo to BRAG Museum Task Force Deco r)l)t 31, 1998 Page 2 • WAM /ANAM is relying on another $58,500 in grant monies from foundations and fedc„ral sources. Again, we're concerned with counting on these sources of funds. On numerous occasions, the BRAG committee has asked for letters of commitment or at least intent from potential funders. The final business plan still failed to produce such commitments. The capital improvement plan assumes a $75,000 contribution from the Alameda Bureau of Electricity for their EV Showcase. As of this writing, we were unable to confirm BOE's intent to provide this funding. We will attempt to confirm this before the January 1 l th Task Force meeting. If the Museum is instead assuming that this money would come from Synergy EV, Inc., presumably a private for -profit company, this is problematic for two reasons: 1. We are attempting to treat this no -cost lease to the Museum as much like a Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) as possible. A PBC from the U.S. Department of Education would not allow a PBC beneficiary to sublet part of its publicly conveyed property to a for - profit business. 2. The Community Reuse Plan (CRP) specifically states that "If the Museum does not require all of the space it is requesting (i.e., Building 77 and Hanger 41), the ARRA will have the ability to immediately lease these facilities to other job generating uses." The CRP anticipated that the Museum might not require all of the facility space it requested. Why should the ARRA/City, which is also looking for revenue generating leases to fund capital improvements and operating costs, forego this income in order to subsidize the Museum? The Museum's attendance projections are largely based on getting a percentage of the Hornet's projected visits. The Hornet had projected an attendance of 800,000 in its' early years of operation, leveling off to 700,000 annual visits. In fact, the Hornet's attendance has fallen far short of its projections. The Hornet calculates it needs 300,000 annual visits or 25,000 visits a month to break even financially. To date, the Hornet has experienced much lower numbers than what is needed. Its' highest attendance month was October with 10,428 visitors. Other actual visits were: August 3,781 September 6,741 November 9,034 These attendance figures are also for months when the Hornet was having its' gala grand opening and much media attention was focused on the ship. The ARRA gave the Hornet 6 months of free rent with rent payments beginning in month 7. The Hornet is now two months in arrears and has asked the ARRA to defer its rent payment. @Recycled paper Memo to BRAG Museum Task Force Decernber 31, 1998 Page 3 In conclusion, it seems imprudent to rely on the Hornet visitors to serve as the primary sourcc,of attendance for the Museum. • The Museum is anticipating an additional revenue source from Morphis ®, a "sophisticated" flight simulator. The Hornet has a similar unit on board and staff questions whether attendees, who are likely to visit the Hornet first, will pay again for a second ride in Hanger 41. The Museum also counts on substantial pro bono services and materials. VBN has pledged to donate approximately $36,500 in design and engineering services. However, no other commitments for substantial labor or materials were included in the business plan. Staff continues to be concerned that the Western Aerospace Museum (WAM) cannot support the Hanger 41 operation and displays and continue to operate the existing museum at Oakland Airport. However, since we have not received any information on the existing museum's operating and capital improvement costs and sources of income, we have no way of assessing that risk. While there are other questions regarding revenue projections (such as the source of payback from borrowing from the Museum's line of credit) these summarize staff's primary concerns about the business plan's revenue and income assumptions. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation Hanger 41 is a very valuable building and a question of whether to lease it at no cost to a non - profit, non -tax producing entity is a decision not to be made lightly. Ed Levine, ARRA Facilities Manager, estimates that Hanger 41 could produce approximately $400,000 in lease revenues for the ARRA /City, based on a stabilized rent of 30¢ a square foot. Hanger 41 is 118,050 square feet and there has been substantial market interest in Hangers 39 and 40, the two remaining large hangers. The ARRA has held Hanger 41 off the market for three years, since the Community Reuse Plan was adopted in January 1996. This deferral of leasing was based on receipt of a viable business plan from the Museum. BRAG and ARRA members may recall that the original PBC submittal was made by ANAM alone. The Western Aerospace Museum (WAM) approached ARRA staff after the PBC deadline had passed. We suggest that WAM consider partnering with ANAM and assist them in attempting to produce a viable business proposal. WAM /ANAM has been given three years to produce a viable business plan. They have requested and been granted numerous extensions to rewrite their business plan, revisit capital costs for Hanger 41, and raise grant money. The latter in particular, has not been accomplished. ARRA and City staff have spent hours in consultation with the Museum board members and their consultants to assist them in recognizing the real costs of minimal Code compliance upgrades to ®Recycled paper Memo to BRAG Museum Task Force 1 CttifIIn-t .yl, i7 9(�p jO Page 4 Hanger 41 as well as additional capital improvement costs that will eventually have to be incur.ed. Also, the Museum calculates $6,034 in annual Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges (referred to as Common Services Rate) in their Income and Expense Projection table on page 14 for Hanger 41 and Building 77. The actual amount of CAM charges for both buildings is $43,500. ARRA staff firmly believes the time has come to make a decision regarding this proposed no -cost lease to WAM/ANAM. It is no longer prudent to continue to hold Hanger 41 in limbo awaiting a viable business plan. Staff does not believe the latest "final" business plan meets the test of viability. We are therefore recommending against this no -cost deal and suggest that we move quickly to identify a market rate tenant for the building. In closure, staff would like to say we had sincerely hoped that the Museum could produce the revenues needed to make this a viable project. We share the enthusiasm for a "critical mass" of tourist producing activities at Alameda Point. However, we believe it would be unfair to set the Museum up for failure. WAM /ANAM will have its' plate full for the next few years making Building 77 an attraction for tourists and residents alike. Substantial space outside the building has been included in their Building 77 lease to allow changeable and static displays of aircraft. We would also encourage WAM/ANAM to enter into serious discussion with the Hornet Foundation to consider using portions of the Hornet's hanger or flight deck for some of the aircraft displays proposed for Hanger 41. Perhaps teaming together on joint displays can make both non- profit operations more attractive to tourists and capable of being self supporting. ARRA staff stands ready to assist in brokering that discussion. KM/jcb C: \MA RITES \BRAG\BRAGMUSE. #2 @Recycled paper Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 26, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) report and recommendation regarding tourism as a means of economic development at Alameda Point. Background: At the October 21, 1998 meeting of the Base Reuse Advisory Group, the Chair directed the Reuse /Land Use/ Economic Development Task Force to review the issue of the golf course and the goal for tourism at Alameda Point. The goal was to determine the best land use for the property and report back to the larger group. In January 1999, the Task Force presented the attached report which was adopted by the BRAG to recommend to the ARRA Governing Body. Discussion: The Task Force report raises the importance of coordinated planning when developing Alameda Point. The Reuse Plan assumes several areas of the property that are considered tourist attractions. The BRAG report urges that the Northwest Territory and Northern Shore of the Civic Core consider that broader goal for attracting tourists before plans are finalized. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA accept the recommendation of the BRAG and direct staff to consider the itemized BRAG concerns when making recommendations for the development of the Northwest Territories and North Shore of the Civic Core of Alameda Point. Respec)fully submitted David A. Berger Deputy City Manager NB/DB /mw Attachment : BRAG Reuse /Land Use/ Economic Development Task Force Report REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP Alameda now has the opportunity to developed the Northwest Territory to provide substantial revenue for the City, to create magnet enterprises and to encourage further related development. To best accomplish this, the Northwest Territory and the North Civic Core should be developed as a unit. Planning the two areas together will provide a better project for Alameda. This concept is similar to the way the FISC is being developed. The following are recommended guidelines for such planning and development. PROPOSED: The Objectives of the Development of a Golf Course Complex in the Northwest Territory and the Northern Shore of the Civic Core of Alameda Point should include the following: 1. The components of the land use such as, but not limited to, a conference center, hotel, etc. should lead to the highest and best revenue generator for the City of Alameda; 2. Tourism should be an essential key to the development of the area; 3. The development should be of at least a minimum quality consistent with the goal of Tourism; 4. The development should be planned with consideration given to the planning of the Civic Core; and 5. The development should be planned with the currently existing facilities at Alameda Point (e.g., the O'Club) in mind. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 22, 1999 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Base Reuse Advisory Group Restructuring Task Force report and recommendation regarding the future role and responsibilities of the BRAG. Background: In December 1997, the City Manager met with the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) to discuss the future role of the BRAG upon the sunset of the ARRA Joint Powers Authority (JPA). As a result, the BRAG members began discussion of their future and worked with the City for direction. In February 1998, the City sponsored an all -day workshop with a consultant to develop a mission statement and a future role for the BRAG. In March 1998, the City Manager reported to you the results of that session (Attachment A). Subsequently, the BRAG determined that the structure developed in the workshop was not what they desired and began working to develop a new plan. In October 1998 the BRAG Chairperson appointed a BRAG Restructuring Task Force to develop a new list of roles and responsibilities for the group. At its January 20, 1999 meeting the BRAG received the task force report and recommended it to the ARRA governing body for approval (Attachment B). Discussion: Throughout 1998, the BRAG has been in on -going dialogue about their future role as an advisory body to the ARRA and what happens to them when the JPA sunsets. BRAG members have met several times with the City Manager and staff to develop a future role for the BRAG in the development of Alameda Point. Most recently the City Manager has been in communication with the BRAG about their ability to advise other City Boards and Commissions. The City Attorney has opined that the BRAG can only act as an advisory body to the ARRA Governing Body, unless you expand their role on a particular issue. Such was the case with your recent action in referring the Alameda Point golf course development feasibility study to the Golf Commission, in which you also invited the BRAG (along with other city advisory commissions) to submit its input to the Golf Commission as it further analyses this project. Outside of specific direction, the BRAG may only advise the ARRA. This has been a matter of great concern to the BRAG. Attachment C is communication from the City Manager to the BRAG responding to their most recent proposed restructuring plan. The City Manager endorses the proposal, except for item 6, as he believes this could lead to conflict with the state's open meeting law and exceed the BRAG's jurisdiction as an advisory entity to the ARRA governing board. At the January 3 meeting, the BRAG requested a legal definition of "communication" from the City attorney which is included as Attachment D. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 22, 1999 Page 2 Fiscal Impact: None, as the BRAG' s activities are included in the current City General Fund budget ($20,000). Recommendation: BRAG recommendation: Staff Recommendation: Res s -, tfully submitted, It is recommended that the ARRA Board, by motion, approve the Base Reuse Advisory Group Restructuring report. It is recommended that the ARRA Board, by motion, approve the Base Reuse Advisory Group Restructuring report; with provision six limited to communication in its advisory capacity on issues which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of, and which are delegated to the BRAG by, the ARRA Governing Body. David A. Berger Deputy City Manager DB /nb /mw Attachments: City manager Memorandum to Mayor and City Council regarding BRAG Retreat BRAG Restructuring Task Force Report City Manager Correspondence to BRAG Chair regarding advisory role of the BRAG City Attorney Opinion regarding advisory role of the BRAG H: \STAFF- RE.PTS\BRAGSTR. WPD City of Alameda Inter- department Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FM: James M. Flint, City Manager DT: March 1, 1998 RE: BRAG Retreat Attachment A Attached is a copy of the summary from the retreat held by the BRAG with staff involvement (Bob LaGrone, Kay Miller, Nanette Banks and myself). I have talked with Lee Perez, BRAG Chair, and the retreat exceeded his expectations. I will also be talking with Doug DeHaan this coming week to review the retreat from his perspective. I believe that the retreat was successful because it required the BRAG to look introspectively at itself and determine if there should be a continuing role for BRAG in the base conversion process. They concluded that a continuing role would be appropriate since, there is no other board or commission which has as its sole purpose the "oversight" for the Community Reuse Plan. And, if Alameda Point is to be successful in the long term (10 -20 years), then an advisory group like the BRAG should provide such a service. The encouraging outcome from the retreat is that the BRAG concluded that it has • matured as an organization and should explore how to evolve. In this connection, it abandoned the eleven committee sub - structure that it has employed since its inception four and one -half years ago in favor of just four committees. In addition, it retained three existing task forces, since these will automatically sunset when their individual work is done. The attached report more fully presents the entire results from the retreat. If you have questions, please contact me. Thanks. cc: BA LaGrone, Deputy City Manager ay Miller, ARRA Executive Director File 1 LL CZt TASK FORCES: (terminate once issue is resolved) WILDLIFE REFUGE MANAGEMENT CAMPUS OUTREACH BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP PLANNING RETREAT February 21, 1997 -- Alameda Point, Building One 8:00 Continental Breakfast 8:30 Welcome and Purpose of the Retreat Public Comment Introduction of the Facilitator and Recorder Review the Role of the Facilitator, Recorder, Group and Public Agenda Review -- Marilyn Snider, Facilitator Introductions /Expectations of the Group Assess the Internal Strengths: What's Going Well With BRAG? Assess the Internal Weaknesses: What's Not Going as Well as You Would Like? What Are the Positive and the Negative External Factors That Will /Might Have an Impact on BRAG Between Jan., 1998 and April, 1999 When ARRA Sunsets? Identify a BRAG Mission /Purpose Statement (one sentence) Identify Future Activities /Responsibilities for BRAG e Brainstorm • By Consensus, Select Activities BRAG Wants to Pursue Discuss Structure of BRAG in Light of Limited Funding /Staff Resources as Presentation of Options- -Jim Flint, City Manager • Discuss Options Presented Identify Next Steps /Follow -Up Process Summary of the Retreat and Closing Remarks 4:00 Adjourn Please come for informal conversation and continental breakfast at 8:00. The meeting will begin promptly at 8:30 a.m. There will be a mid - morning and a mid- afternoon break with a group lunch at 12:00. No audible pagers or cell phone calls during the meeting please. P O BOX 13053 • OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 3466 t • 00058151015311200401 SACRAMENTO 1916 }1930803. BAY REUSE ADVISORY GROUP'(BRAG) PLANNING RETREAT 21 February 1998 -- Alameda Point, Building One Marilyn Snider, Facilitator -- Snider and Associates (510) 531 -2904 and (916) 483 -9802 Gail Tsuboi, Recorder -- Tsuboi Design (510) 376 -9151 MISSION STATEMENT THE BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP PROVIDES COMMUNITY INPUT AND ADVICE AND ADVOCATES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN FOR ALAMEDA POINT. BRAG GOALS (ACTIVITIES/RESPONSIBILITIES) January 1998 through April 1999 (not in priority order) INCREASE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, INPUT AND AWARENESS ADVOCATE FOR ECONOMICALLY SOUND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN FROM INTERIM THROUGH LONG TERM USE ADVOCATE FOR AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN THAT ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF LIFE INCREASE INTERACTION AND COLLABORATION WITH CITY AND REGIONAL AGENCIES SIX MONTH DRAFT ACTIVITIES /OBJECTIVES (February 20, 1998 through September 1, 1998) SIXTEEN MONTH GOAL: INCREASE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, INPUT AND AWARENESS SIX MONTH DRAFT ACTIVITIES /OBJECTIVES 1. By June 15, 1998, the Community Relations Committee (Andrine- chair, Diane, Dan) will hold a town meeting to inform the community on recent developments and provide an opportunity for the public to voice concerns and ask questions. 2. By September 1, 1998, Dan Meyers and Diane Lichtenstein, working with a career development collaborative, will complete a Career Development Resources Directory of services for job development, educational institutions, agencies etc. 3. By September 1, 1998, the Public Relations Committee, in cooperation with City Information Services, will update and expand the BRAGNET link to the City web site. SIXTEEN MONTH GOAL: ADVOCATE FOR ECONOMICALLY SOUND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN FROM INTERIM THROUGH LONG TERM USE SIX MONTH DRAFT ACTIVITIES /OBJECTIVES 1. Ongoing, BRAG, with Larry Schulz as lead, will advocate for the integrated planning and completion of the FISC negotiations by September 30, 1998. 2. Ongoing, the Economic Transition. Committee (Nancy - colead, Pattianne- colead, Doug, Larry) working with the ARRA, City staff, and consultants on the economic development conveyance negotiations will press for closure by December 31, 1998. 3. By September 1, 1998, Nancy Heastings and Pattianne Parker, working with the ARRA and City staffs and consultants, will press for closure on the Tidelands Trust negotiations. 2 SIXTEEN MONTH GOAL: ADVOCATE FOR AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN THAT ENHANCES QUALITY OF LIFE SIX MONTH DRAFT ACTIVITIES /OBJECTIVES 1. Ongoing, the RAB Liaison Subcommittee (Ardella -lead, Doug, Malcolm) will serve as liaisons to RAB and work to ensure that issues that involve the Community Reuse Plan are communicated and addressed in the final ROD document. 2. By May 1, 1998, the Wildlife Management Plan Task Force (Malcolm -lead) will complete its review of the Refuge Management Plan and submit recommended comments on the Plan to the BRAG. 3. By June 1, 1998, BRAG, with Lee as lead, will advocate to have the City incorporate the Community Reuse Plan into the General Plan. 4. By July 1, 1998, the Quality of Life Committee (Joan -lead, Larry, Ken, Beverly, Alice, Toby) will investigate the status on the public benefit conveyances supported in the Community Reuse Plan and make recommendations to the BRAG and the ARRA regarding these conveyances. SIXTEEN MONTH GOAL: INCREASE INTERACTION AND COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY AND REGIONAL AGENCIES SIX MONTH DRAFT ACTIVITIES /OBJECTIVES 1. By the May BRAG meeting, the Collaboration Committee (Ken -lead, Malcolm, Doug, Lee, Pattianne) will identify issues which will require interagency interaction and collaboration and report to BRAG. 2. By the June BRAG meeting, the Collaboration Committee will identify City and regional agencies which will influence reuse policy. 3 NEW COMMITTEES COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE Andrine -lead, Diane, Dan ECONOMIC TRANSITION COMMITTEE Nancy- colead, Pattianne - colead, Doug, Larry QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE COLLABORATIONS COMMITTEE Joan -lead, Larry, Ken, Beverly Alice, Toby Ken -lead, Malcolm, Doug, Lee, Pattianne RETAINED TASK FORCES: WILDLIFE REFUGE MANAGEMENT CAMPUS OUTREACH MUSEUM 4 WHEN NEXT STEPS AND FOLLOW UP PROCESS WHO WHAT 3 -18 -98 Lee & Kay Clarify roles and timelines of boards & commissions 2 -23 -98 Within 48 hrs. Nanette Distribute the record of the retreat BRAG & Staff Review the record 3 -18 -98 BRAG Review /revise (amend, add and /or delete) objectives as meeting needed. Adopt plan (mission, goals, objectives). Monthly BRAG Review progress on the goals and objectives and revise (amend, add and /or delete) objectives, as needed (quick check -off) September 1998 BRAG & More thorough review of progress on goals Staff and objectives and set objectives for September 1998 to April 1999 June /July 1998 BRAG Develop recommendations to transition BRAG to a comihission 3 EXPECTATIONS FOR THE RETREAT: WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TODAY FOR THIS RETREAT TO BE A SUCCESS FOR YOU? - To understand how the group envisions its role, tasks and expectations for the future - That BRAG plays some role with the City, focusing on the Base - Figure out the process to get the political side to realize that Alameda's future is tied to the Base Understand functions in the City and commissions to see how this group can stay cohesive and independent and provide a communication link wit the community Find a way to work more efficiently and expeditiously with the Navy and City departments For all of us to see how this group can remain effective; see that the plan is put into effect; keep in touch with the public; and see that the benefits of our work go beyond April 1999 - Clarity of roles; scope of responsibility with City, boards, and commissions - Clear mission statement and corresponding responsibilities - To codify our direction in a way acceptable to all regarding the waterfront; to continue intercommunication; to involve the community across the board Consensus on how to be the most effective integrating the Point with the City To see motions /actions toward seeing the City thrive; roles and responsibilities regarding integrating the Base into the City so that it can continue to thrive Quick snapshot of what we've done; to ensure the quality of life for the citizens of Alameda and future generations Definition/legitimization of our mission and responsibility; to see that we can support our mission and responsibilities Explore our accomplishments; enter a new phase, examine who we are and our mission To see a balanced, citizen- focused implementation of the Base Reuse Plan A clear picture of the reuse process and the role /direction of this group; to get the mass public more motivated, interested and informed regarding the big picture Clarity of role /function of BRAG, especially in relation to the City ASSESS INTERNAL STRENGTHS: WHAT'S GOING WELL WITH BRAG? (Brainstormed List) - Reliable attendance at meetings - Continued citizen input - Farther along and more focused on conversion than many cities - Public meetings are well attended - Interaction with environmental groups - Real ideas re: what a community should be like; overlap wit the city - Credibility - Thousands of hours of pro bona technical work -- could never have been purchased - ARRA Executive Director has knowledge of how to deal with the federal government - Listening to the community 6 - Plan for a recreation and sports complex - Cancellation of the Port priority - Redevelopment adoption of the Redevelopment Improvement Program - Redevelopment Incentive Program - Positive publicity to the Bay Area - Creative approach to transportation - Willingness to cooperate with the regional powers that be to make it a success - Revised the agenda format for the better - Community Reuse Plan - Development of a housing plan working with the homeless consortium - Consensus building for the community - Almost all recommendations taken to ARRA have been accepted - Large cross sections of citizens are represented - Public access to the base - Selection of a redeveloper for FISC - Collection of data on employment and other human impacts Reuse of existing facilities Interface with other conversion activities in the region, e.g. Educational Technology and Business Consortium Beginning of integration and coordination with city boards and commissions Ability to mobilize/lobby for specific concerns, e.g. Port situation, wildlife issues, BCDC - Creation of ad hoc task forces - Remediation of base clean up - Mixed use aspect of base as opposed to all industrial - Limited us airfield resolution - One -stop service center - Increased understanding of how the city works - Developed marketing materials - Focus on the human aspects of closing and reopening - Direct involvement in base employee transitions - Creation of an Internet web site - Tough Guy role withstanding some reuse requests -- we've drawn a line in the sand - Business survey on impact on West Alameda businesses has resulted in involvement of businesses in area development - Active BRAG representation in transition center to assist displaced workers - Public information pieces, e.g. newsletters - Brought together disparate elements of the community - Okayed a major role in dealing with the concerns of displaced military personnel, e.g. medical benefits. the commissary - Partnership with employment and jobs training in creating a directory and networking tool - Working with county and federal agencies - Maintained focus on an academic center for the Point 7 ASSESS INTERNAL WEAKNESSES: WHAT'S NOT GOING AS WELL AS YOU WOULD LIKE WITH BRAG? (Brainstormed List) - Discussions at BRAG meetings are too long - BRAG meetings go too late - Lack of involvement in groups - Lack of communication flow between City and ARRA - Lack of funding and resources - Working group attendance is waning - Not enough decisions made - Issues are too fragmented among BRAG groups - "From here to there" not addressed - Unbalanced discussion -- some members dominate - Lack of courtesy towards speakers - Lack of clear communication between Council and staff - Lack of focus -- present to future - Lack of understanding of BRAG (general) vs. Board (specific) responsibility - Meeting only once a month causes us to get out of the loop and lose continuity - Haven't revisited the Community Reuse Plan - Lack of unified political will of the City - Too many single issues not consistent with vision - Lack of a sense of urgency - Lack of clarity of connection between ARRA and BRAG - Haven't ramped up effective staff - Too many working groups - Lack of focus for City vs. Base - Too broad a focus which eliminates a positive vision WHAT ARE THE EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT WILL/MIGHT HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON BRAG BETWEEN JANUARY 1998 AND APRIL 1999 WHEN ARRA SUNSETS? (Brainstormed List) - $20 million of federal funds - Right people in office at all levels - Central location and visibility of Alameda - Completion of EIS, EIR, and issuance of ROD - Community support - Growth of high tech industry - Growth of the economy - Alameda Point marketing program - Interest from a major college or university - Funding for demolition 8 Good market for infrastructure financing, e.g. bonds, other instruments - Tidelands Trust resolution - Continuation of the hot real estate market - Leasing of facilities/buildings at Alameda Point - Better understanding of role /functions: boards, commissions, etc. - Better communication among City staff - boards - etc. - More local organizations are interested in what's going on - Technological breakthroughs in environmental remediation - Quick, successful development of the FISC - Interest from a major, financially- connected developer - Successful implementation of the Wildlife Refuge Program - Increased tourism for the Hornet and Navy Museum - Additional City resources. at Alameda Point - Securing funds for greater regional access - Accelerate environmental clean up - Increased understanding/support by Congress re: base conversion - Total team effort by Alameda City staff - U.S. Fish and Wildlife willing to spend money on the public use of land - Turnaround in East Bay Regional Parks funding push - No wildlife impact outside the refuge - Establishment of a State infrastructure loan fund - Navy living up to promises - Acceptance of Alameda as a regional park center by the East Bay Regional Parks Dist. WHAT ARE THE EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT WILL /MIGHT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON BRAG BETWEEN JANUARY 1998 AND APRIL 1999 WHEN ARRA SUNSETS? (Brainstormed List) Fish and Wildlife impacts outside the refuge City commissions cannot handle the magnitude of Base problems Navy inflexibility for spending cooperative agreement funds Negative public perception of Base redevelopment Lack of access to Base from outside Alameda -- impact on economic build -out Disagreement /delays between government agencies, e.g. FEMA and HUD Port of Oakland, e.g. turning basin Navy policy on public access Still. potential for environmental groups to pose legal challenges - Tidelands Trust issue Sunset provision of ARRA JPA 9 Slippage of the ROD - Failure of fast tracking occupancy Lack of money for infrastructure development Reduction of federal funding for base conversion Deterioration of housing due to Navy delay Lack of political will on the part of the City Total access to Alameda Point, e.g. Northwest Territory City Council split over value of the BRAG Probable development delays due to hazardous clean up Plethora of dilapidated buildings that should come down, but lack of funding to do so Lack of City strategic plan for whole community and Base Lack of a community plan City's general plan lacks addressing Alameda Point Dysfunctional relationships between the BRAG and the City's commissions Failure to achieve acceptable Economic Conveyance terms Wildlife refuge will be stark IDENTIFY FUTURE ACTIVITIES/RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE BRAG (Brainstormed List) - Seek funding from all sources Obtain community input Insist on more accountability from government agencies, local and non -local - Attend or participate in other relevant City boards, commissions and offices - Push for more environmental clean -up - Study special problems - Advocate for economically sound implementation of the Plan - Obtain approval from ARRA and the Council for the BRAG mission statement - Present findings and information to the ARRA - Improve working relations with the staff - Push the Navy to act quicker - Update the Community Reuse Plan - Increase awareness and outreach to the community - Identify resources for funding - Hold town meetings - Maximize coordination of interim and long term uses of the assets at Alameda Point - Provide information to the community - Develop a BRAG continuation strategy - Keep abreast of Alameda Point projects - Assure that the quality of implementation is maintained - Facilitate interaction between agencies to facilitate implementation - Work with Fish and Wildlife to maximize the benefits of the refuge 10 • '.i;,t+ ,;111 (le 't AGEHCYVR viiit.CEK_LER .. 414" 44-1 5-t-Z )1e4e,eetPL/. fzet,e,a: ii/s/oA) /5 ac- xp,t. 4,2_1444-1- g. Cf/ti t/tow 4,4/2 ot-4- aia4121, %Lew-I-0414y el 75 ha-e-e-e-42-e-) a 14 AtrtAx ae-ce, f4ti 'to de 65. cuc, 5‘factrx-- , Fe Ar7?J444&1, Jim Flint Bob LaGrone /Kay Miller J Nanette Banks /Lee Perez /Andrine Smith /Nancy Heastings JArdella Dailey 'Dan Meyers J Malcolm Mooney ,/Alice Garvin /Larry Schulz /Ken Hansen ,,Moan Konrad Toby Chavez ,t'attianne Parker $oug deHaan /Beverly Johnson BRAG RETREAT FEBRUARY 21, 1998 ATTENDAN SHEET 7-5„x_ AwbA__,) �t Attachment B MEMORANDUM November 18, 1998 From: Malcolm Mooney, Chair Ad Hoc Committee To: Lee Perez, Chair BRAG Subject: Report of Committee Meeting on BRAG Future Organization The Ad Hoc committee you appointed to consider the future structure and service of the BRAG met at Alameda Point, building 1, on Saturday, November 7, to discuss the issue. All appointed members, except Diane, who had other commitments, were there. After a review of previous BRAG actions on this subject and discussion of the City Manager's objections thereto, a lively interchange of ideas and comments by all members ensued. In the final analysis the following conclusions were reached and are presented for consideration by the BRAG. 1. Our name should be changed to Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC). We should not be a city commission. 2. Membership should remain as presently constituted including representation from other city boards and commissions. 3. The organization should sunset in five years or such period as the governing body shall select. 4. We should report to and serve at the pleasure of the City Council in its capacity as the Local Reuse Authority for the Alameda Point redevelopment. 5. A statement of purpose should be added to our revised charter proposal. The mission statement is OK 6. We should be permitted to communicate with other city boards and commissions and present commentary on matters related to the redevelopment of Alameda Point. 7. An appropriate representative of the city staff should be present at our monthly meetings to provide information on implementation of the Reuse Plan including planned or ongoing redevelopment and reuse activity. 8. Minimal staff support should be available for APAC meeting minutes and mailings required to facilitate the business of the APAC. A suggested purpose statement is as follows: PURPOSE: To act as an experienced, diversified interest and knowledgeable citizen organization focused on the coordinated redevelopment of Alameda Point in accordance with the approved reuse plan developed by the residents of this city. To serve as a forum for the receipt, exchange and dissemination of information and ideas between special interest groups and individuals with respect to the progress and direction of redevelopment activity. To make recommendations to the governing body with respect to matters of concern to the citizens or the APAC. MISSION: The Alameda Point Advisory Committee will provide community input and advice, and advocate for the effective implementation of the Community Reuse Plan for Alameda Point. Respectfully submitted, Committee Members: Larry Schulz, Diane Lichtenstein, Andrine Smith, Joan Konrad, and Helen Sause as citizen participant. City of Alameda California Lee Perez, Chairperson Base Reuse Advisory Group 950 Mall Plaza Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Lee: December 18, 1998 Attachment C In your August 12, 1998 correspondence, you asked for clarification regarding the Base Reuse Advisory Board's (BRAG) role as an advisory body to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), and specifically whether that role extends to providing official comment or advice regarding issues agendized by legislative bodies within the City of Alameda, other than ARRA. BRAG was originally created by the City Council in July, 1993 to provide advice to the City on the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda. In June, 1995, BRAG recommended that it become advisory to ARRA. ARRA accepted this recommendation and BRAG became an official advisory body to ARRA. BRAG's structure and mission were revised in April 1996 and approved by ARRA. Now, BRAG meets once a month, with their primary focus on: Advocating the incorporation of the Community Reuse Plan into the City of Alameda's General Plan. 2. Continuing to make recommendations on proposed interim and long term uses at NAS Alameda as to their consistency with the Reuse Plan. 3. Continuing to keep the general public informed about and involved with the NAS planning process. 4. Commenting on regulatory issues and related issues affecting the Community Reuse Plan. Office of the City Manager 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320 Alameda, California 94501 510 748 -4505 Office - 510 748 -4504 Fax - TDD 510 522 -7538 Lee Perez December 18, 1998 Page 2 These four areas of "focus" which BRAG has defined for itself are broad and generally will encompass issues which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of ARRA. Some misunderstandings regarding the role of BRAG as advisory to ARRA may have arisen in the context of the Planning Board's consideration of the land use application for "Antiques by the Bay" in May of this year. At that time, staff was informed that BRAG intended to agendize for action the development of a "BRAG position" regarding the use of NAS property by Antiques by the Bay in order to present this information to the Planning Board as part of the Planning Board's consideration of whether to approve the land use application. Because BRAG is advisory to ARRA, and not the Planning Board, it was not appropriate for BRAG to officially appear at the Planning Board meeting to express a "BRAG position" on a matter that ARRA had not even yet considered. Developing a BRAG position purely for the purpose of advising the Planning Board would clearly exceed the role of BRAG, as advisory to ARRA. In your August 12, 1998 communication, it appears that BRAG has misunderstood the City Attorney's legal opinion to be that BRAG is prohibited from officially communicating with City boards or commissions. This is not correct. As long as the issue is within the subject matter jurisdiction of ARRA and the communication is consistent with a position that has been taken by ARRA governing body, then BRAG may communicate that position to others. In 1995, the Attorney General opined that a legislative body may only act within its subject matter jurisdiction. This concept is mirrored in the Brown Act which specified that members of the public are allowed to speak to a legislative body on a matter that is not agendized where the item is within the subject matter of the legislative body. Subject matter jurisdiction is a legal constraint on the authority of any legislative or adjudicatory body. When applying the legal constraint of subject matter jurisdiction to BRAG's ability to agendize a matter or appear officially before legislative bodies within the city, BRAG's role as advisory to ARRA must be taken into consideration. As advisory to ARRA, BRAG's subject matter jurisdiction is limited to issues which are or could be within the subject matter jurisdiction of ARRA. Further, BRAG's role as advisory to ARRA does not include developing "positions" independent of ARRA and communicating "BRAG positions" to City legislative bodies, unless delegated to do so by ARRA. This is applicable even where the issue in question is within ARRA's subject matter jurisdiction. Certainly it would be inappropriate for BRAG to communicate an official "BRAG position" to any body it does not advise where ARRA has not yet acted; such conduct exceeds the role of BRAG as advisory to ARRA. Lee Perez December 18, 1998 Page 3 In conclusion, BRAG may communicate with legislative bodies within the city on issues within its subject matter jurisdiction, and on which ARRA has already acted, where such communication is consistent with ARRA's position on the matter. I hope this response clarifies the role of the Base Reuse Advisory Group. cc: ARRA Governing Body Assistant City Manager Deputy City Manager, Director, ARRA General Counsel Sincerely, J. r es M. Flint City Manager Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - department Memorandum January 26, 1999 TO; James M. Flint .Executive Director, ARRA FROM: Teresa L, Highsmith Acting Generat Counsel Attachment D RE: Clarification of "Communication" for the Purposes of BRAG's role as Advisory to the ARRA Question As follow up to an opinion dated 10 -16 -98 regarding the BRAG's role as an advisory body to the ARRA, you have requested clarification regarding the DRAG's ability to officially "communicate" with legislative bodies outside of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA "). Answer "Communication" is defined as any offici I statements, positions or inquiries, written or verbal, offered through "use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices" in relating a collective concurrence of the BRAG to any legislative or adjudicatory body outside of the ARRA. (See generally, Govt. C. §54952.2) As stated in the opinion dated 10- 16 -98, the BRAG may communicate with other City legislative or adjudicatory bodies as long as the matter is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the ARRA and the communication is consistent with an action or position that has been taken by the ARRA, or the ARRA otherwise requests such communications be made by the BRAG. DisctJSSIQn As an-advisory body to the ARRA, the BRAG's rule is to review and make recommendations regarding matters which are within the subject mater jurisdiction of the ARRA Board of Directors. (79 Ops. Atty. Gen. 69, 73 (1996)). This role does not extend to officially communicating, either verbally or in writing, a BRAG position to any other City legislative or adjudicatory body, unless delegated to do so by the ARRA. James M. Flint January 26, 1999 Page 2 This does not preclude individual members from expressing their persona] opinion as a part of any municipal hearing or meeting or other public testimony. Teresa L. I4ig smith cc: Assistant City Manager Deputy City Manager Management Analyst, ARRA 1014c.: lattice \wpwinlwpdocslmjones \brr9.wp4 CORRESPONDENCE/ MISCELLANEOUS ;Bldg. Sq. Ft. Term Building #1 !long term 621 16,473 long term ( 398; 10,0001 Tong term j 611 i 1.0001 !long term ! 167 & piers; 5574501 . long term j 6211 5, -'70 . !long term ! 15 16,(-03 I 1 ■ I I 1 ! 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 it !Signed Leases & Licenses IManex Entertainment 1Manex Entertainment 'Marathon Pallet (Polyethylene) 'Maritime Administration (Maritime Administration Marine Sanitation 'Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfg.) Nelson's Marine (Boat Storage/Repair) 'Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Crepe Mfg.) Piedmont Baseball Fdn. 'Piedmont Soccer Fdn. Richard Miller Photography 1Simmba Systems (Records Storage) 1Tower Aviation 'Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.) 1United Indian Nations (Homeless Coll.) Woodmasters (Cabinetry) eleel<tvl\Ohoo0\0*Nen en rn en en en en en en f kn ‘.0 I- 00 !Bldg. Sq. Ft. ;Term I Building# ! — !long term 1 7 15,550 'long term j Pier 3 'long term near Bldg. 5301 258 12,430 0 0 0 4,880 0 0 N., c V 0 0 O., 0 ^-, 0 0 %O., ‘.0 ‘.0 0 0 •ct --. N C4 a% v5 cl 0 ■el "It 00 ,./ 1 0 tn kn cr; N 0 0 0 N •-■ • t 110,0001 41111111111•MINIIIMINIMIll 0 0 ‘.0... oo 0 0 0 O e.-- 4,6001 20,0001 l005`b 0 0 --. ..... 47,1771 fl rn —. Joo0`8 00 V' ... C) vz, en e4 ,..1 0 00 ,-1" itri 00 1..1 long term ! 25 j long term 43 long term ! tarmac & 405 long term 292 long term � Bldg 2 FISC !long term at FISC 00 = 16 months long term - long term 24, 25 long term long term en %.c) r-- OA long term i 60 long term 397 long term I long term short term long term 1 391 long term 564 long term j Bldg. 2 FISC1 long term 1 6131 long term 114! long term 901 long term j 4591 long term long term i 1131 est .— 0 = = 0 E NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE !CURRENT EMPLOYMENT 1 j 1 !PROJECTED FUTURE EMPLOYMENT 1 I i Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) 161 City of Alameda (Gym & Pool) 17 j City of Alameda (O'Club) 181 City of Alameda (Public Works) J 191 City of Alameda (Soccer Field) 20ICity of Alameda (Tennis Courts) 1 21 CyberTran International (Test Track) , . 23Door Christian Fellowship Church 24;Dunavant of California (Storage) I 25!Emerg. Svcs. Network (Homeless Coll.) 261Forem Metal Manufacturing 27' Forty Plus (Career Counseling) ! 28iHome Auto Repair 29 ;Housing Units (31) 301IWA Engineers (Steel Fabrication) 1 31 !Love Center Ministries 11