Loading...
2000-06-20 ARRA PacketThe Regular Meeting of the Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Scheduled For June 7, 2000 has been CANCELED NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN A Special Meeting of the ARRA has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2000, 8:30 PM with a Closed Session beginning at 6:30 PM AGENDA Special Closed Session 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 Tuesday, June 20, 2000 Meeting will begin at 6:45 p.m. City Hall will open at 6:00 p.m. 1. CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: Alameda Naval Air Station Negotiating parties: ARRA and the Navy Under negotiation: Terms 6:45 p.m. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 5, 2000. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Lucretia Akil, 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. AGENDA Special 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 Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Meeting will begin at 8:30 p.m. City Hall will open at 7:15 p.m. 1. CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: Alameda Naval Air Station Negotiating parties: ARRA and the Navy Under negotiation: Terms 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 3, 2000. 6:30 p.m. 3 -B. Recommendation to approve continuing resolution authorizing payment of Alameda Point obligations at existing levels until adoption of the FY 2001 -2002 Operating Budget. 4. ACTION ITEMS 4 -A. Recommendation to approve a Resolution Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station, Alameda. 4 -B. Recommendation for the approval of the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Government (Navy) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for conveyance of portions of Naval Air Station, Alameda. 4 -C. Recommendation to approve the Lease in Furtherance Conveyance between the United States Government (Navy) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the Naval Air Station including East Housing. ARRA Agenda - June 6, 2000 Page 2 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -A. Oral report from APAC 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction, or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 8. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be simultaneously cablecast on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 5, 2000. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Lucretia Akil, 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. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, May 3, 2000 CLOSED SPECIAL SESSION The special session was convened at 4:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding to address the following item: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Attendees: Chair Appezzato, Member DeWitt, Member Kerr, Member Johnson and Member Daysog. Chair Appezzato adjourned the special session at 5:40 p.m. and convened the regular meeting at 5:50 p.m. He announced the Board had met in special session and gave instructions to Real Property Negotiators and obtained a briefing from staff. No action was taken. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION The Board obtained a briefing from the City Attorney and general counsel regarding Renewed Hope Housing and ARC Ecology vs. City of Alameda. He announced the Board gave instruction to Counsel. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 2000. 2.B. Recommendation to Approve CDBG /ARRA Funding Exchange for Building 7 Upgrades. Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of April 5, 2000 and the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0. -1- 3. ACTION ITEMS 3.A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager regarding the APAC's proposed restructuring and review of their advisory role status. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers on this item. Diane Lichtenstein, Vice -Chair APAC stated they have been trying for the past four years to obtain a meaningful role. With the conclusion and implementation of the Community Reuse plan, APAC has felt like they have been lost, without any information. For example the Rave Concert and the Antique Fair, never came through the BRAG. APAC had no input or information on issues that were going on with the wildlife refuge requirements of the use outside the fence, which has a huge impact on the use of Alameda Point. Ms. Lichtenstein further stated they are not allowed to discuss FISC or East Housing and communicate with other boards or commissions. The HOME project never came to the BRAG and, although it had a good completion, it is something that BRAG might have had an input on. APAC does not wish to advise other committees. They would like to use their seven years of involvement to ensure the appropriate implementation of the Community Reuse Plan. Staff's job is to lease up the property as fast as they can and APAC's job is to encourage the income, but to keep an eye on the permanent use and the impact on the entire community. The Board's job is to balance the two, as each view is equally important. The community has had no involvement in the implementation of the Reuse Plan, therefore the community should be involved in the issues which involve the policies in the development, by advising the ARRA. Ms. Lichtenstein requested the Board to retain the APAC until the General Plan is completed and requested to hold off on the "sun - setting" portion until a future time, to see if the community does have a continuing role in the development. The APAC would like to be apprised of on -going issues that affect policies and that they be allowed to communicate with other boards and commissions where appropriate and where Alameda Point might be affected. Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, #301 -C, expressed his concern over what may or may not happen at Alameda Point. There is much talk about a master developer before there is a vision for what should be done with Alameda Point. Alameda Point has the potential to bring in more money from tourists than Jack London Square. A master developer should not be picked without knowing exactly what we want Alameda Point to become. It should be a destination based around its historical roots. Richard Nevelen, Public Transit Committee member stated AC Transit voted on Saturday to extend Line 50 to Alameda Point starting in June from 5:30 am to midnight. AC transit will begin service to Alameda Point which will be effective seven (7) days a week, and will run until 8:00 pm on Sundays. He urged everyone to participate in the 7:30 PM Public Transit meeting, following the ARRA meeting. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Mayor Appezzato stated the BRAG was a community driven process which has got us to where we are now, by hundreds of Alamedans. The BRAG was instrumental in the Community Reuse Plan being formulated. All of the success and challenges with the Homeless Collaborative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife services and the Coast Guard issues has a BRAG stamp on it. We would not have been as successful as we have been without the community input represented by the Base Reuse Advisory Group. The APAC has a role, but it should continue to be advisory role to the ARRA. The APAC should be reviewing things which come to the ARRA. Mayor Appezzato stated he does not believe the APAC should be out talking to other commissions, as the Board does not allow that of other commissions. As individuals, APAC can do that. As an advisory group to the ARRA, Mayor Appezzato expressed he would like APAC to remain as long as the ARRA is in existence. APAC should not "sun -set" until the ARRA "sun- sets." Member Kerr stated when BRAG was first formed there were at least 200 members on it. It was an organization which allowed people to join sub - committees and have their say and get their viewpoints discussed with the BRAG and then was then brought forth to the ARRA meetings, as a community -wide organization. However, it is no longer true that the BRAG represents the community any longer. It is now a closed group with ten or eleven people on it. Member Kerr stated she likes option four, because the BRAG is comprised of valuable people and if they have a citizens group, they could then advocate their viewpoints much more freely and they would not be subject to the Brown Act, as they could get together whenever they wanted to. They would be free from the constraints they are complaining about now. Option four would satisfy all of our opinions. Member Daysog stated the BRAG /APAC is a vital part of the ongoing conversion of Alameda Point. Their role involves implementing a vision for Alameda Point which does exist. This vision was put in place and memorialized in the Community Reuse Plan. We are doing something really grand here in Alameda, which involves the Lord's work. President Clinton came to Alameda Point to make this conversion the model of how all base conversion processes should occur. There has been a significant amount of progress since this time. Nowhere else do you find 186 homes set aside for homeless families, skateboard parks set aside for children and families or lease terns area to the extent of 500 plus acres. Everyone has risen to the challenge of making Alameda Point a model for all communities. Whatever mistakes the ARRA has made in routing infonniation to the BRAG, requires a different method of what is being asked by the BRAG. Member Daysog stated his preference for the BRAG is to maintain what is in place now and fine -tune the issues of routing of information and pacing it to the BRAG. Member Johnson stated she agreed with the Mayor and Vice -Mayor about maintaining the status quo. With regard to the BRAG communicating to other boards and commissions, they do not wish to advise these boards, they only would like to communicate their position to them. This does not put the BRAG in an advisory role, as they are not asking for this type of role. The BRAG is different from other advisory boards or commissions, because their scope of -3- involvement is very broad. If the golf course commission has an issue at Alameda Point, it would make sense the BRAG be allowed to take a position on that issue, as it affects the redevelopment process at Alameda Point. Member Johnson asked for a clarification from the BRAG. Is the BRAG asking for an advisory role or the ability to communicate? Diane Lichtenstein responded that they are asking to remain advisory to the ARRA and be able to communicate with other boards and commissions. Member Johnson stated that as a member of the BRAG she did not see a problem with that and as a member of the ARRA she still does not see a problem with that. Member Johnson stated she developed a great deal of respect for the BRAG, as it started out with 200 members, although it is down to a core group now. However, the depth of the knowledge from the BRAG members is very amazing, as the present members have been with the group from the beginning. Member Johnson stated she is very impressed with their knowledge and dedication. Member Johnson stated she recommends allowing them to communicate, not advise or create an extra layer of bureaucracy. However, if they have a position concerning an issue on the base, they should be allowed to communicate it. Mayor Appezzato asked Member Johnson how would she envision that communication going forward? Member Johnson stated it could be by a letter from the BRAG or a BRAG representative could speak at the meeting. Member Kerr stated option four would give them that freedom. Member Johnson stated that would make them a citizen's group, which is a significant difference from what they are now. Mayor Appezzato stated he does not support option four. His concern is that the communication would become more than communication, it would become a recommendation. A board or commission could mistake that as a position of the ARRA. The Board does not get that many items and if they are not going to deal with it, why should the BRAG deal with it at another board or commission meeting ? Member Johnson stated the difference between the way the BRAG has operated versus other boards and commissions, is that BRAG would consider a project from the beginning to the end. They have a much more in -depth look at the issues that they deal with. Mayor Appezzato stated if they have a communication, they can communicate it to the ARRA Governing Body, and the Board will decide if it should go any further. -4- Diane Lichtenstein stated Mayor Appezzato's suggestion makes sense, however timing is an important issue. It would take two months to get to the Board and then the Board would have to make an immediate decision and vote on it. Mayor Appezzato responded that if the BRAG has a timing issue and the issue is important to them, then they can call a special meeting. If it is coming to the ARRA, the BRAG has a time to meet and make a recommendation to the ARRA. Ms. Lichtenstein responded hopefully there is time before the issue is finalized by the ARRA Board for the BRAG to take the Board's decision to whatever board or commission before it is finalized. Mayor Appezzato responded that this is something the BRAG is going to have to deal with, because he wants the relationship to remain with the ARRA only. Member Johnson stated that because of the timing problem, maybe staff can alert BRAG as early as possible to issues that they may want to address that are before other boards and commissions. Ms. Lichtenstein responded that sounds like a great idea. Mayor Appezzato stated that the BRAG is privy to all of the issues that are going before all the boards and commissions in this City, as it is all public information. Ms. Lichtenstein responded yes, that is true. David Berger, Deputy City Manager stated there are already two mechanisms in place for communication to the BRAG. Deputy Berger indicated he meets every month with the Chair and Vice -Chair of APAC. A variety of issues are discussed to help shape the agenda for the next meeting of the APAC. Deputy Berger and staff do an extensive oral report, in addition to any formal items on the agenda on a monthly basis to keep them apprised of what is going on. These two mechanisms with some additional consciousness of other things that are going on, can be easily achieved. In terms of the timing issue, because the Board is now the five Councilmembers, there are two opportunities per month without having to call a special ARRA Board meeting, while it would technically be a special ARRA meeting, however it would not be an extra meeting, so the BRAG could come out and support their issues. Thus, there are two opportunities to bring a timely matter to the ARRA, as staff can call a special meeting of the ARRA in conjunction with the Council. Member DeWitt stated the BRAG was formed to be an advisory group to the ARRA. The BRAG was to take matters before the citizens and to obtain the community's input and make decisions and then bring their position to the ARRA. The role of the BRAG should be as an advisory group to the ARRA. They should sunset when the ARRA sunsets. The basic idea of the BRAG was not - 5 - for the BRAG to be experts in certain fields, but to obtain information from citizens and have the citizens input on certain subjects. Member DeWitt stated he would vote to keep the ARRA and the BRAG together, as they are an advisory group to the ARRA. Member DeWitt motioned that the Board approve option one with modification to the "sun -set" question. As long as there is an ARRA, there should be an advisory group, so the two should sunset together. Discussion. Member Johnson asked Member DeWitt to incorporate the Mayor's suggestion to allow the BRAG to communicate to the ARRA and if the ARRA chooses, to forward that communication on to other boards and commissions. Member DeWitt agreed with the suggestion, but their main purpose is to advise the ARRA. Member Kerr asked the motion to be clarified as it sounded like there were several different versions of the motion. Either they are going to be advisory to this body only or they are going to be advisory to other boards. Member DeWitt stated they have no other official capacity. Member Johnson stated that BRAG is not asking to be advisory to other boards, they are asking to communicate to other boards and commissions. Member Kerr stated the BRAG would inevitably communicate recommendations. Member Johnson stated that it can be made clear that the BRAG is not acting as an advisory committee, only that they are conveying information. The boards and commissions are bright enough, that they should understand this. City Attorney Carol Korade stated the BRAG is advisory to the ARRA. Since they are advisory to the ARRA, they are limited to the same constraints of ARRA within the subject matter jurisdiction of ARRA. If BRAG wants ARRA to take a position on something that is not currently on the ARRA agenda, they could request for it to be placed on the ARRA agenda. The ARRA then could choose on whether or not to take a position and to allow BRAG to communicate their position to another body or the ARRA could decide to communicate it themselves or they may not take a position on the matter at all. Member Johnson stated that putting it on the ARRA agenda is cumbersome because if BRAG has an issue, they should forward it to the ARRA Board, who can then forward it on. -6- Mayor Appezzato stated the Board cannot forward it on, unless it has been agendized. Carol Korade stated the BRAG would have the opportunity to place something on the agenda, because they may want to communicate an issue to one of the boards or commissions. Member Daysog stated the issue is the implications of recognizing that there is going to be a process that we are putting in more and more pieces and that in the long run, this will slow down the way the Board deals with issues. Base Conversion requires staff to be fast and flexible. Any communications from the BRAG has to be subject to the timetables and the guidelines of that commission. Member Johnson responded that the Deputy City Manager indicated that if there is something they need to respond to sooner, they have two opportunities a month, as they can call a special BRAG meeting. Mayor Appezzato stated the decision the Board intends to make, is to continue to allow the BRAG to maintain as they are presently and allow them to submit communications to the Board on issues which they think are important. Member DeWitt amended his motion to include all communications must come to the ARRA before it can go out to other committees and a review of APAC's status in eighteen months. Member Johnson moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson, and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from the BRAG. Diane Lichtenstein, APAC Vice -Chair thanked the Board for taking the time to work out something that is important to them, which will be a benefit to everyone. 4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items). None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Richard Noordyk, 1209 Central Avenue, expressed to the Board that he is familiar with an organization who takes on refurbishing buildings like the ones at the base, with no cost to the City. Mr. Noordyk gave Deputy Berger a business card with the point of contact information to follow up on. -7- Christopher Webb, 895 Lafayette, expressed that the community has changed a lot in the past five years. There should be a mechanism in place which provides new members of the community and input into APAC. There are special committees to deal with certain issues for AP &T and the EDC and he would like to see a way to have their issues implemented into the City. Mayor Appezzato apprised Mr. Webb that the ARRA and APAC meets once a month and both meetings are posted. Mayor Appezzato advised Mr. Webb to contact the APAC if he would like to participate in the their committee. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Res ectfully, Lucretia Akil ARRA Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 31, 2000 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager SUBJ: Recommendation to approve continuing resolution authorizing payment of Alameda Point Obligations at Existing Levels until Adoption of the FY 2000 -2002 Operating Budget Background: In September 1999, the ARRA Governing Body approved an operating budget for Alameda Point to cover expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. Operating revenues include lease proceed grants. It is estimated that the ARRA will carryover approximately $2 million in lease proceeds in the next fiscal year. Estimated Revenue for fiscal year 2000 -2001 is $7,823,847 and proposed appropriations are $9,823,847. Discussion: The Alameda Point budget will be considered at the same time the City Council reviews the City's two -year financial plan. Budget workshops are scheduled for June 19th and June 27th. It is anticipated that the budget for 2000 -2001 fiscal year will not be approved by the June 30, 2000 deadline. Therefore, in order for operations to continue at Alameda Point, it is necessary for the ARRA Governing Body to authorize expenditures at the current level until the 2000 -2001 fiscal year appropriations are established. Fiscal Impact: Revenue sources identified in the current fiscal year are adequate to fund interim expenditures at Alameda Point for public safety, infrastructure maintenance, and administrative costs at present service levels until the budget is passed. In addition, unexpended federal grants (EDA) and local matching funds will be available for reappropriation in this interim budget. The interim proposed budget for Alameda Point has no impact on the City's general fund. Recommendation: It is recommended that the continuing resolution be adopted allowing interim expenditures from July 1 until the city /ARRA budget is adopted, in order to pay Alameda point obligations. DAB/NAB /la Attachment: Resolution No. 27 Respectfully submitted, David A. Berger Deputy City Manager Community and Economic Development By: Nanette Bad s Business & Special Project Manager C:\ LAKIL \ARRA\STAFFREP\2000tCONTINIJE. WPD ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 27 AUTHORIZING INTERIM EXPENDITURES OF ALAMEDA POINT OBLIGATIONS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2000 -2001 FY WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) approved a budget for Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 Alameda Point operations in September 1999; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that lease revenue for Fiscal Year 2000 -2001 is $7,823,847 with approximately $2 million lease revenue carryover. In addition, there are unexpended grant and local matching funds for OEA and EDA grant monies to be carried over to FY 2000 -01. Proposed appropriations for Alameda Point operations are $9,823,847; and WHEREAS, Alameda Point appropriations include public safety, infrastructure, maintenance and administration costs; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to authorize payment of Alameda Point obligations until the City /ARRA budget is adopted; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that ARRA hereby approved interim expenditures prior to the approval of the ARRA Budget for FY 2000 -01 at the levels set by the ARRA Budget for FY 1999 -00 in order to pay Alameda Point obligations until the City /ARRA budget is adopted;. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA hereby appropriates and approves expenditure of the remaining unexpended grant and local matching funds for OEA and EDA grant awards. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2000 -2002 presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority no later than the July 2000 ARRA meeting. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 Lucr 'tia Akil, Secretary Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority Date: June, 2000 ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Memorandum DATE: May 31, 2000 TO: Chairman Ralph Appezzato and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve the Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Government (Department of Navy) and The ARRA for Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda: and Related Actions Pursuant to the California environmental Quality Act. Background The following is a brief chronology highlighting the significant events leading to the recommended approval of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Navy and the ARRA for conveyance of the Naval Air Station Alameda, and the accompanying Findings required under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "): In June 1993, the Department of Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) recommended closure of the Naval Air Station/Naval Aviation Depot, Alameda (NAS), which encompasses approximately 1,734 acres of dry land, and 1,108 acres of water area. President Clinton accepted this recommendation in July 1993, and Congress confirmed the closure that October. In July 1995, BRAC recommended closure of the Oakland Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), including its 147 acre Alameda Annex, and 1996 special legislation authorized the Navy to convey it at no cost to Alameda. NAS closed in April 1997, and FISC closed in September 1998. In April 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) was formed to manage the conversion and transfer of NAS (and later FISC) from military to civilian use. In accordance with the 1994 Pryor Amendment and President Clinton's "Five Point Plan" the ARRA began a community -driven planning process that involved hundreds of citizens, coordinated by its Base Reuse Advisory Group, which culminated in adoption of the NAS Community Reuse Plan calling for a mix of residential, commercial, light industrial and recreation/open space in January 1996. Chairmand Appezzato and Members of the Alameda Resuse and Redevelopment Authority May 31, 2000 Page 2 In October 1999, the federal Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, was amended to allow the conveyance of surplus military property to the recognized local redevelopment authority (in this case the ARRA) at no cost for "economic development purposes." ARRA submitted its original application to the Navy for an Economic Development Conveyance of approximately 1094 dry land acres (plus personal property and submerged areas) of NAS in October 1997, and amended its EDC application in December 1998. Actual negotiation for conveyance of both NAS and FISC began in earnest approximately nine months ago. This negotiation was made more complex and lengthy by the Navy's desire to do an "early" transfer of the FISC, and potentially certain NAS parcels in the future, prior to the Navy's performing necessary remediation actions on contaminated portions of these properties, called Installation Restoration (IR) sites. Under Sec. 334 of Comprehensive Environmental Response Cleanup, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the applicable federal statute, "early transfer" requires the Governor of California to consent to deferral of the deed covenant which will provide assurance that the property has been remediated to the level required by State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) environmental regulators for its proposed reuse. On February 29, 2000 the Navy Department issued its Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact Statement which allows the Federal Government to transfer the NAS and FISC surplus military properties to the ARRA and City, respectively. Excluded from any transfer will be approximately 565 dry land and 413 submerged acres of NAS that the government will retain as a national wildlife refuge for endangered bird species. On March 21, 2000, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), prepared under CEQA, to enable the ARRA and City to accept the NAS and FISC conveyances, respectively. In addition to the prior certification of the EIR, under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), the ARRA, as responsible agency, must consider the environmental effects of the proposed conveyance as shown in the certified EIR, and make findings with regard to each significant effect on the environment of the proposed action. (Agenda Item 4 -A) Discussion/Analysis The following is a brief discussion of each of the actions the ARRA must take in order to approve the conveyance documents for the NAS property. (In a separate Council Meeting the City Council, will consider the adoption of appropriate Findings required under CEQA and approval of the Memorandum of Agreement for Conveyance of the FISC). Agenda Item 4 -A; (Resolution Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Chairmand Appezzato and Members of the Alameda Resuse and Redevelopment Authority Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda) May 31, 2000 Page 3 Prior to approving and executing the MOA regarding conveyance of portions of Alameda NAS, the ARRA must make findings as required under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15096, Public Resources Code section 21081 regarding each significant effect on the environment of the proposed action and Public Resources Code section 21081.6 regarding mitigation measures and adopt a mitigation monitoring program. The Resolution Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Conveyance of Portions of Naval Air Station Alameda states that the ARRA has considered the environmental effects of the proposed conveyance as shown in the certified EIR and makes findings with regard to each significant effect on the environment of the proposed conveyance, adopts mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the ARRA, adopts a statement of overriding considerations with regard to significant and unavoidable effects on the environment, and adopts a mitigation monitoring program. Agenda Item 4 -B; (Recommendation for the Approval of the Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States Government (Navy) and the ARRA for Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station, City of Alameda) The Navy and the City /ARRA have completed negotiations on separate property conveyance agreements ( "MOA's ") for FISC and Alameda NAS. The MOA between the U.S. Government and ARRA for conveyance of Alameda NAS, includes: 1) a form of quit claim deed to the abandoned East Housing parcel; 2) a deed form covering transfer of future parcels, which would have no interim land use restrictive covenants either because they have no IR sites, or because the Navy has remediated them and gained environmental regulator approval through a Finding of Suitability to Transfer; and 3) a deed form for optional Sec. 334 "early" transfer of contaminated parcels that will require additional DTSC negotiations both on interim restrictive land use covenant language and acceptable commitment from the Navy as to remediation funding and schedule, similar to the FISC process described above. A complete copy of the ARRA MOA (as well as the City MOA), including all exhibits (including the Bill of Sale for all personal property), is on file in the City Clerk's office, in the City Council conference room, and at the Public Library. Chairmand Appezzato and Members of the Alameda Resuse and Redevelopment Authority May 31, 2000 Page 4 Agenda Item 4 -C; (Recommendation to Approve the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance Between the United States Government (Navy) and the ARRA for the Naval Air Station, Alameda, Excluding East Housing Simultaneous with approval and execution of the MOA, the ARRA will need to approve and execute the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance ( "LIFOC "), which replaces the existing Large Parcel Lease between the ARRA and the Navy. The purpose of the LIFOC is to place all the NAS property, excluding East Housing (which was never included in the Large Parcel Lease), under an interim lease pending close of escrow and transfer of the deeds. Because it is anticipated that East Housing (which does not require environmental remediation) and the FISC parcel (which is being conveyed to the City of Alameda separately pursuant to an "early transfer" process) will convey within 30 days of approval/execution of the MOA, these parcels are not included in the LIFOC. It is anticipated that all NAS property which requires no prior environmental remediation by the Navy (i.e., includes no IR sites) will also close escrow within 30 days. When title to the real property which was subject to the LIFOC passes to the ARRA, the lease and fee interests "merge." Eventually, after the Navy has completed remediation of all IR sites, title to all the real property subject to the LIFOC will pass to the ARRA, the interests will "merge" and the LIFOC will terminate by operation of law. Fiscal/Budget Impact There is no impact resulting from approval of the MOA on the City's General Fund or other City special revenue or enterprise funds. The Financing (Business) Plan which accompanied the 12/98 revised EDC application projected that reuse and redevelopment of NAS (excluding FISC and East Housing) could generate net revenues of approximately $29.2 million over the next 13 years. It should be noted, however, that development market conditions, Navy remediation decisions, and many other variable and uncertain factors will significantly influence actual net revenues materialized. The fiscal impact of the FISC/East Housing property conveyance was detailed in the documentation that accompanied the proposed Catellus mixed -use redevelopment project on a prior City Council /CIC agenda. Recommendation It is recommended that the ARRA Board: 1. Adopt the Resolution Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Conveyance of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility; 2. Approve the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Government Chairmand Appezzato and Members of the Alameda Resuse and Redevelopment Authority May 31, 2000 Page 5 (Navy) and the ARRA for Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station, Alameda; and 3. Approve the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance between the United States Government (Navy) and the ARRA for the Naval Air Station, Excluding East Housing. Respectfully submitted, David A. Berger Deputy City Manager Community and Economic Development DAB:(cb:ARRAMOA.SR) Correspondence / Miscellaneous Gray Davis Governor Lon S. Hatamiya Secretary 801 K Street, Suite 1918 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3520 (916) 322 -3962 CALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY 916- 322 -1394 916- 323 -2887 FAX May 17, 2000 Mr. David A. Berger Deputy City Manager, Community & Economic Development Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 950 West Mall Square Building One, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Re: California Defense Adjustment Matching (CDAM) Grant Dear Mr. Berger: REc ovp[a MAY 19 2000 Crr-v c ; I am pleased to announce that the application submitted by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the 1999/2000 supplemental solicitation of the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program will be awarded funding in the amount of $150,000 by the California Trade and Commerce Agency (Agency). This funding is contingent upon meeting the terms and conditions of the program regulations. Mr. Jeff Lin, the Program Manager, will contact you to outline any additional information needed to develop the grant contract. Please do not hesitate to contact him at (916) 322 -3507 for any additional information or assistance you may require. The Agency welcomes the opportunity to help your organization respond to its defense adjustment challenges and will continue to use every resource at its disposal to support your future efforts in this area. Sincerely, C.V.-- LON S. Secretary ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Interim Leasing Status Report - June 2000 Revised Interimlease.xls Signed Leases & Licenses Term Building # Building Sq. Ft. 1 ACET (Environmental Tech. Incubator) long term 7 15,550 2 AC Hornet Foundation long term Pier 3 3 Alameda Aerospace (Advanced Turbine Tech.) long term 398 32,000 4 Alameda Aerospace (Tower Aviation) long term 530 82,250 5 Alameda Point Storage (Mini Storage) long term Near Bldg. 530 Ground Lease 6 Alameda Point Collaborative (Warehouse) long term 92 89,000 7 Alameda Point Collaborative (Office, etc.) long term 101 68,650 8 Alameda Power -& Telecom (Storage Yard) long term at FISC 9 Alameda Unified School District (Child Care Cntr) long term 258 12,430+ 10 AVTS (Audio Visual Technical Services) long term 22 66,000 11 Antiques by the Bay (Collectibles Faire) long term Tarmac & 405 4,880 12 Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) long term 292 2,700 13 Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair) long term 25 (Bay 1) 17,000 14 Bladium (Indoor Games) long term 40 104,000 15 Bobac (Warehouse) long term Bldg 2 FISC 110,000 16 CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator) long term 20 66,600 17 Cellular One (Cell Site) long term Near Bldg. 360 Ground Lease 18 City of Alameda (Administration) long term 1 37,084 19 City of Alameda (Dog Run Park) long term along estuary 20 City of Alameda (Ferry Terminal Parking) long term along estuary 21 City of Alameda (Fire Dept Training) ' long term 522 2,400 22 City of Alameda (Gym & Pool) long term 76 &134 58,450 23 City of Alameda (O'Club) long term 60 29,550 24 City of Alameda (Police Department) long tern 494 2,850 25 City of Alameda (Public Works storage) long term 397 17,000 26 City of Alameda (Soccer Field) long term east of Bldg 360 27 City of Alameda (Tennis Courts) long term west of O'Club 28 Container Storage (Cans) long term 338 42,000 29 CyberTran International (Test Track) short term EW Runway 30 Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays) long term 39 110,000 31 Delphi Productions long term 117 West 32,000 32 Dignity Housing (Homeless Coll.) long term 103,105,809,810 4,400 33 Door Christian Fellowship Church long term 564 8,600 34 Dunavanl of Catifomia (Storage) long term Bldg 2 FISC 170,000 35 Emerg. Svcs. Network (Office) long term 613 4,600 36 Forem Metal Manufacturing long term 114 46,133 37 Forty Plus (Career Counseling) long term 90 4,500 38 Fribei Intemat'I. (Concrete Statuary) long term 98 8,507 39 Gen. Svcs. Admin. (Maritime Museum Storage) long term 169 86,300 40 Home Auto Repair long term 459 5,400 41 Housing Units (Big White/Ranch Styte/Twnhse) long term 68 units 50,000 42 1WA Engineers (steel Fabrication) long term 113 13,100 43 JBI, Inc. long term 170 North 40,000 44 Jim Bustos Plumbing long term 612 4,000 45 Jimex Corporation long term 91 52,200 46 Kitz Corporation long term 21 66,000 47 Lexical long term 527 West 6,000 48 Manex Entertainment long term 62 16,473 49 Manex Entertainment long term 13 34,540 50 Manex Entertainment long term 19 27,650 51 Maritime Administration long term Piers 1,2,3 52 Maritime Administration (Warehouse/Office) long term 168 117,419 53 Marine Sanitation '" long term 611 1,000 54 NB Industries (aka Carstar) long term 24 - Bay 3 26,927 55 Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfg.) long term 14 31,400 56 Nelson's Marine (Boat Repair & Storage) long term 167 & piers 55,450 57 Nelson's (subletting to various businesses) long term 66 28,542 58 Operation Dignity (Homeless Collaborative) long term 816 - 821 15,000 59 Orton Development long term portion of 5 110,000 60 Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Food Preparation) long term 42 3,000 61 Performance Multihull long term 608 8,213 62 Piedmont Soccer 1 year soccer field 63 Port Distribution & Warehousing long term 117 East 22,000 64 Port Distribution & Warehousing long term 118 West 60,800 65 Port Distribution & Warehousing long term 170 South 40,000 66 Puglia Engr. (Ship Repair) long term 67 14,000 67 RCD (Homeless Collaborative) long term various units 8,000 68 Richard Miller Photography long term 621 5,770 69 San Leandro Shelter (Homeless Collaborative) long term 531,532,533 28,080 70 Simmba Systems (Records Storage) long term 9 92,817 71 Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.) long term 393 Ground Lease 72 Trident Management 1 year FISC Wharf Ground Lease 73 Trident Management long term 15 16,600 74 United Indian Nations (Homeless Collaborative) long term various units 6,000 75 University Avenue Housing long term various units 40,000 76 Waters,Caldwell & Assoc. (Environ.Consultant) long term 115 2,200 77 West Coat Novelties long term 23 65,000 78 West Coast Seaworks (Marine Construction) long term 43 10,500 79 Woodmasters (Woodworkers) long term 44 5,100 NO. OF EMPLOYEES 1,961 NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED 79 OCCUPIED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE 2,464,615 Revised Interimlease.xls 06/02/2000 17:47 510 - 748 -4504 June 2, 2000 Mr, Tom McDonnell State of California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623 Re: Dear Mr. McDonnell: ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER Post-IN Fax Note PAGE 01 lti: i� �: - :a�1 S1 .:11.l../ v m The Cities of Oakland and Alameda, along with Caltrans and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency have been studying potential transportation improvements at the SR 260/Broadway- Jackson Interchange for approximately three years. One of the constrained traffic movements identified during the process is the northbound entrance to I -880 from Jackson Street and related intersections in the City ofOaldand. Improvements to that constrained movement included channelized lanes and pedestrian improvements at 7th Street and Harrison Street and at 7th Street and Jackson Street. Caltrans is considering rejecting these alternatives because of the impacts these improvements would have on the Oakland Chinatown community. The technical staffs of both the City of Oakland and the City of Alameda have recently reviewed these various alternatives which would provide direct access from the Posey Tube to eastbound I -980 and/or I -880. While these alternatives would substantially alleviate the constrained movements related to the northbound entrance to I -880 at Jackson Street, some alternatives would also have impacts on the visual and historic resources of the City of Oakland. However, the Cities of Oakland and Alameda have concluded that some variant of the alternatives in the SR 260/Harrison/Jackson area, or other alternatives, might be feasible, provided that mitigations offsetting adverse impacts could be incorporated, and therefore the further study and development of an alternative in the SR 260/Hamson/Jackson area is justified. Consequently, the Cities of Oakland and Alameda and the CMA jointly request that Caltrans authorize the preparation of a follow -up PSR to continue to evaluate variants of alternatives in the SR 260 /Harrison/Jackson area and revise the draft PSR. to reflect these conclusions. Sincerely, Bobb a ames M. Flint City Manager City Manager City of Oakland City of Alameda Sincerely, Dennis Fay Executive Director Alameda County CMA a.