Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1995-10-05 ARRA Packet
AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Please note change in date and location Alameda High School Little Theater West Wing Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Alameda, CA Thursday, October 5, 1995 5:30 p.m. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY: 1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings. ROLL CALL II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 6, 1995 III. ACTION ITEMS B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Preferred Land Use Plan for the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan. C. Report from the Personnel Director of the City of Alameda Recommending Approval of a Proposed Policy on Benefits for the Staff of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of a Proposal to Lease Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Docking of the Hornet Aircraft Carrier as a Private Museum. IV. ORAL REPORTS E. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the ARRA on BRAG Activities. F. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on 1. Community Reuse Plan Final Plan Preparation and Adoption Schedule 2. Coast Guard Housing Request 3. CALSTART Lease Negotiations 4. AEG Lease Negotiations 5. Army & Air Force Exchange Service Reuse Property Interest 6. MBE /WBE Survey Requested by Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson 7. Miscellaneous Issues. V. 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.) VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY VII. ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 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 upon request. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, September 6, 1995 The meeting convened at 5:31 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. L ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland (arrived at 5:36 p.m.); Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda; Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:35 p.m.); Alternate Greg Alves for Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Alternate Mark Friedman for Supervisor Wilma Chan (Supervisor Chan arrived and relieved Alt. Friedman at 6:20 p.m.), Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG); Alternate Barbara Rasmussen for Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District (arrived at 5:35 p.m.) Absent: None. H. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 6, 1995. A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Alternate Mark Friedman. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Abstentions: 1 - Alternate Tony Daysog III. ACTION ITEMS A. Oral Presentation and Discussion of the BRAG Composite Land Use Plan for the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Paul Tuttle, ARRA Base Reuse Planner, gave a short presentation on the BRAG's recommended composite plan. Mr. Tuttle stated that the plan incorporates a mixed -use transit - oriented development pattern. It presents an ideal regional site for urban infill, strives to be energy conservation- minded and sustainable, and to maximize the number of jobs with a balance of open space in development areas. The four major issues to be faced are: (1) the Tidelands Trust (which will be addressed by Kenneth Taymor of Cassidy and Verges later in the meeting); (2) the number of jobs this plan could create (20,000); (3) the fiscal soundness of plan (this plan provides for no drain on the fiscal balance of City's fund); and, (4) the outcome of negotiations with Fish & Wildlife. This plan proposes a new bridge connection to increase accessibility to the site. Strategies to fund a bridge will be looked at in the implementation phase of the study. The plan assumes that the Navy will take a major responsibility in demolition of buildings not needed for interim reuse. B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Public Benefit Conveyance Review Criteria. Kay Miller stated that these criteria (approved by the BRAG) will be used to screen the public benefit conveyance requests. A screening committee, proposed to include Paul Tuttle, Kay Miller, Dena Belzer (consultant), and two BRAG members apply these criteria to business plans submitted by public benefit users. Chair Appezzato praised the reversion clause, which allows the property to revert to the ARRA if a public benefit conveyance should fail. Ms. Miller clarified that "fair share" costs pertain to the capability of the public benefit users to contribute to infrastructure costs and city service costs. The infrastructure cost figure was arrived at by dividing the number of developable acres by the known infrastructure costs; this figure was then reduced by half for PBCs. While the cost is very high, the ARRA will be working to get federal grant money, etc. to help further reduce the costs. Similarly, a public service fee was assessed on a square foot basis. There is a legal question on whether a public service fee can be legally assessed on other taxing entities such as AUSD and the EBRPD. However, all PBCs will be expected to pay a share of the infrastructure costs. Speakers: Ms. Ardella Daily raised three issues for AUSD: (1)The Department of Education (DoE) requires AUSD to sign a reversion clause back to the DoE; therefore, they cannot sign another with the ARRA. (2)The infrastructure figure quoted was $95,679 /acre, which is impossible for AUSD to pay. (3) It is illegal to charge AUSD for public service fees. Vice -Chair Swanson suggested that talks to continue between the ARRA staff and both AUSD and EBRPD to find a creative solution to the problem. A motion was made by Alternate Daysog to modify the property reversion clause to ensure that when PBC property reverts to the ARRA, the ARRA will market that property with the first right of refusal given to a like kind of user. The motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Mayor Corbett and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix to approve the Public Benefit Conveyance Review Criteria. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8 . Noes: None. Abstentions: 1— Alternate Tony Daysog. C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Amendment to the Office of Economic Adjustment Through January 1995— Completion of the Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) and the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). Kay Miller reported that in addition to the budget items presented to the ARRA in August (all of which has been approved), OEA has agreed to fund two additional items: (1) one- half of an Urban Land Institute Panel of experts to take a critical look at the plan and determine if it is marketable (the remainder of the cost to be funded by the foundation sector); and, (2) $12,000 for engineering analysis work to determine the structural repairs needed on buildings for use by AEG. A motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy and seconded by Member DeWitt to approve the ARRA budget amendment. Vice -Chair Swanson requested that a staff report be prepared on diversity in staff hiring and contracting to see whether or not the broader community is participating in the opportunities that are being developed. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement Between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) and the California State University Hayward Foundation. (CSUHF). Kay Miller reported that this MOA clearly defined the relative roles of each of the entities. Vice -Chair Swanson suggested the following minor changes: (1) MOA page 2, paragraph 4: Change "... public agencies and the community of the City of Alameda and the region" to "... public agencies and the diverse communities of the City of Alameda and the region" (underlining added for clarity); (2) page 4 (4): Advisory Board/Executive Committee members – that the Advisory Board consist of six members rather than five, adding a representative from the EBCRC. Helen Sause, Co -chair of the BRAG, requested that a clause be included to ensure that ACET cooperates with other educational groups. Mayor Corbett stated that she did not think any additional amendment to the language was needed with regard to the Advisory Board but she did want to ensure that there was regional representation. A motion was made by Vice -Chair Swanson and seconded by Alternate Leonhardy to approve the MOA with the proposed changes. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: None. Abstentions: 2— Alternate Daysog and Alternate Alves. E. Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the US. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the NAS Alameda Sewer Improvement Project. Kay Miller stated that we have the money and this MOA is the vehicle to get it to the Corps of Engineers. A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix and seconded by Mayor Corbett to authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute an MOA for the NAS Alameda sewer improvement project. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: None. Abstentions: 1— Alternate Alves. F. Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for a Port /Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study for Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Paul Tuttle stated that the port/marina feasibility study will determine how much we can develop, the cost, and potential market. A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix and seconded by Alternate Leonhardy that the Executive Director be authorized to negotiate 3 and execute an MOU for a port/marina market and planning feasibility study for NAS Alameda. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. G. Report from the Executive Director Recommending that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Adopt an Open Listing Policy Allowing Payment of Commissions to Real Estate Brokers Representing Interim Tenants. Ed Levine, ARRA Facilities Manager, stated that this item was motivated by two very promising unsolicited offers from real estate brokers. These brokers could not move forward with negotiations without assurance that they would be paid a commission by the lessor. A motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix to adopt an open listing policy allowing payment of commission to real estate brokers representing interim tenants. Member DeWitt asked whether the BRAG had looked at this; he was assured that the BRAG had. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. H. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter Proposing to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal and Authorization to Communicate this Determination to the Port of Oakland and Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Paul Tuttle stated that there is no effect to the ARRA because no proposal is being considered to reuse the runway after base closure. After discussion, a motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix and seconded by Alternate Leonhardy to approve the Port of Oakland's request to increase the heights of three container cranes at Charles P. Howard Terminal. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. I Appointment of a Chairperson for the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. Kay Miller introduced Pattianne Parker, who has been recommended by the BRAG as Chair of the Reuse Subcommittee due to the resignation of Doug DeHaan. Mayor Appezzato thank Doug DeHaan for all of his hard work and welcomed Ms. Parker. A motion was made by Member DeWitt and seconded by Mayor Corbett to approve the appointment. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. IV. ORAL REPORTS: A. Legal Briefing on the Tidelands Trust Doctrine by Kenneth Taymor from the law firm of Cassidy & Verges. Ken Taymor gave a summary of the Tidelands Trust Doctrine as outlined in a written report supplied to the ARRA. The State Tidelands Trust—which covers most of the base — restricts use of the land to navigation, commerce, fishery, public access to water - oriented recreation, and preservation of the land in a natural state. Discussion and questions followed. B. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities. Lee Perez, Chair of the BRAG, emphasized the importance of the Saturday, September 9 regional town hall meeting; and the Tuesday, September 12 San Leandro Town Meeting. 4 C. Oral Report from the Executive Director on Current ARRA Matters. Ms. Miller reported on the following: (1) The ARRA has received approval from the OEA for $250,000 to do a feasibility study of an Alameda Science and Technology ($50,000 for the University of California and $200,000 for a consultant procured through a competitive Request for Proposal to be sent out the week of September 18). (2) The ARRA will be informed by the end of September whether ACET has been funded or not. (3) Paul Tuttle has been working with the City of Alameda staff to devise a fast - tracking permit process involving a Master Lease with the Navy and a Master Use Permit with the City to cut the process down by weeks /months. (4) We have received a $16,000 grant from the San Francisco Foundation to fund a third -party neutral facilitator for the Fish & Wildlife working group. (5) Emily Ross -Brown is leaving the ARRA staff. Mayor Appezzato thanked Emily for her work on the staff. V. 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.) Speakers: Vice -Chair Swanson recognized that the President has kept his commitment to being a participant in the conversion effort in our region. Due to direct White House involvement in the grant process, the CALSTART proposal was funded. Dr. William Perry, Secretary of Defense, is planning a visit to Alameda in early October and — hopefully —will announce some additional support at that time. Vice -Chair Swanson emphasized that we need the federal government's support to make this effort work. The Executive Director was requested to draft a letter to the President expressing the ARRA's gratitude for his personal interest. IV COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY None. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was moved to closed session by Chair Appezzato at 7:13 p.m. to discuss real estate negotiations on building numbers 11, 12, 400A, 20, and 24. There were no announcements and following this closed session the ARRA was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ma ;aret E. Ensley Secretary 5 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 28, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Preferred Land Use Plan for the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan Background: The consultant team and BRAG have completed "Phase 4 – Plan Alternatives" for the reuse planning program as outlined in the consultant's scope of work. Phase four tasks included identification of plan alternatives, evaluation of plan alternatives (Long -Range Alternatives Analysis, August 1995) and the BRAG public workshop (September 9, 1995). The final task of Phase 4 is the identification and endorsement of the Preferred Land Use Plan (Preferred Plan). The Preferred Plan serves as the basis for the final plan developed in the next phase of the work program, "Phase 5 - Development of the Community Reuse Plan." Tasks for Phase 5 include refinement of the Preferred Plan, integration of the land disposition strategy and interim reuse strategy, and final adoption. Final adoption will be scheduled for the ARRA's approval in January 1996. The EIRIEIS on the Community Reuse Plan will be completed by December /January 1997. The Navy is scheduled to close NAS Alameda in the spring of 1997. A summary of the Preferred Plan is attached. The Preferred Plan is organized around three major design principles to create a mixed -use, energy conservation oriented, and sustainable neighborhood for one -third of Alameda island. The major design principles include a system of open spaces, extension of the historic Alameda street grid pattern, and a system of mixed -use, transit - oriented centers of activity. Transit centers include a major mixed -use civic core and a series of transit - linked, small neighborhood activity nodes. These nodes of activity provide for a mix of uses —civic uses, housing clusters, parks, schools, and neighborhood services — linked along a transit system. The open space system includes a major wildlife refuge on the western portion of the station, neighborhood and regional parks and recreational areas, extension of the existing historic mall in the civic core, a new major public plaza at the marina, and the extension of the Bay Trail linked to other parts of Alameda and the East Bay. The circulation pattern extends the historic street grid system and encourages alternative modes of transportation, including non - fossil fuel vehicles, buses, ferry service, bicycles, and Honorable Members of the September 28, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 neighborhoods designed within easy walking distance of transit centers. The major goals of the plan include: • Early replacement of jobs lost in the East Bay due to base closure • Maximizing the creation of open spaces for parks and recreational use, wildlife habitat, natural resource protection, and access to the San Francisco Bay ► Fostering cost - effective local and regional public transportation • Providing for reuse opportunities that do not overburden public services provided by the City of Alameda and the County of Alameda • Concentrating development into smaller, walkable neighborhood units served by transit that encourages alternatives to auto use. In summary, the plan strives to provide for a balance of land uses between places for work, play, living, education, and habitat protection. The major land use components of the Preferred Plan include employment areas for up to 20,000 new jobs, new housing and reuse of existing navy housing units, a marina, a major new public plaza that would provide a focal point for the arts and community uses and related hotel and retail activities, and preservation of more than 39 percent of the 1,700 -acre site for a wildlife refuge, open spaces, parks, and recreational uses. Discussion: There remains one major unresolved land use area designation in finalizing the NAS Alameda Preferred Land Use Plan —the north airfield (runway) area. The land use decision involves selection of appropriate land uses for the airfield area and identifying the appropriate sizes for these development sites. This decision is directly related to the proposed Fish and Wildlife Refuge and the appropriate uses allowable by Public Trust law. The final decision on the future use of the airfield areas involves two major competing values: wildlife preservation and maximizing development for job creation, community develop- ment, and economic (fiscal) viability. The area under consideration is further constrained by two legal issues: the Endangered Species Act and the Public Trust law. Community debate on this issue has been intense and conflicting. Interest groups from both sides have expressed strong concern for both preservation of the endangered species and creating areas for economic development and a well - balanced, mixed use community. How to best meet both these goals is unresolved. As of writing the of this staff report, a final recommendation on the appropriate boundaries for the wildlife refuge has not been concluded from the Regulation Department of the Fish and Wildlife Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Managers. Continued discussions are being held with both the Fish and Wildlife and the State Lands Commission to identify those uses acceptable in the airfield area and the necessary land exchanges, development conditions, and mitigation required to offset potential impacts. Honorable Members of the September 28, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 A special Least Tern study conducted by the Navy provided no scientific evidence to help determine the appropriate boundaries of the Least Tern habitat area or identification of appropriate adjoining uses. Major concerns for the Fish and Wildlife Agency are ease of predator management and predator control. The Fish and Wildlife Agency also believes that housing uses would create a situation that would make management of the Least Tern habitat burdensome and the elimination of predators (cats and raptors) extreemly difficult. Some open space uses too close to the Least Tern nesting areas could attract additional birds of prey that would also make management more difficult. The local Fish and Wildlife agency staff and the environmental interest groups have stated that the goal of preserving the Least Tern nesting area in this artificial habitat is an extremely high value. The four -acre site in the middle of the NAS runway is one of the most successful breeding colonies in Northern California. Fish and Wildlife Request To date, the exact size, location, and character of the land uses in the NAS Alameda runway have not been resolved with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, the BRAG, nor the Fish and Wildlife Working Group of the BRAG. Meetings continue with the Fish and Wildlife Agency to determine a satisfactory land use solution. A number of policy issues, however, have been agreed upon for the airfield area: 1. A large portion of the runway should be dedicated as a Wildlife Refuge with appropriate federal support (financial resources) to effectively protect species on the station (barriers, habitat enhancement, habitat management, and environmental education), to provide an attractive and well - maintained resource to the community, and to provide an educational and tourist attraction to the area. Without significant funds to operate the wildlife area, the success of the Least Tern coloney could be threatened. 2. Adjacent portions of the runway area should be designated for additional open space. Recreational uses may include parks, sports fields, a "links style" golf course, and other recreational facilities, if designed appropriately. 3. Public access through trails and park lands should be provided on the perimeter of the airfield. Portions of this trail system would provide controlled and limited access in the southern area of the airfield during the Least Tern nesting season. 4. Development permitted on the airfield area should be limited to the northeast section to reduce potential impacts on the Least Tern habitat, and should be limited to uses consistent with the Public Trust laws. 5. The south - western breakwater should be preserved as part of the wildlife refuge while reserving the free access for boats into and out of the marina. Honorable Members of the September 28, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 Further information and recommendations, based on continuing discussions with Fish & Wildlife, will be presented to the ARRA board at the regular meeting. Airfield Land Use Options: There are four major options to be considered in the selection of the preferred land use designations for the airport runway areas. In all cases, it appears that housing uses would not be permitted within the proposed runway development areas due to Public Trust and Endangered Species Act constraints. Uses allowed in the northern runway fall into two categories; Open space and marine - related international commerce zone for industrial, R &D, warehousing and offices. Open space uses could include a "links style" golf course with a club house, meeting facilities, and other ancillary uses, natural open spaces (grasslands, natural features), parks and recreational areas and sports fields. Marine- related international commerce and trade use would include light industry, office, warehousing, R &D uses related to commerce and trade, and ancillary uses to support these major uses (business support services, copy center, office supplies, and food service, etc.). Option 1. Existing Proposed BRAG Preferred Land Use Plan: This option would select the recommended BRAG alternative for the area, retaining approximately 200 acres for development and 150 acres for the golf course. Fish and Wildlife Service and the environmental interest groups have serious reservations with this alternative. Option 2. Reduced Development Area in the Northern Runway: Option two would reduce the development area in the northern runway area to 75 acres for commerce uses and allow additional open space areas for active recreational uses and more natural open space uses. (This is less than half of the existing area of the BRAG proposal.) Both the Fish and Wildlife regulators and the environmental interest groups have indicated this alternative would be acceptable. The impact would reduce the potential job creation to approximately 16,000 potential jobs. Option 3. Reduced Development in the Northern Runway and Reducing Regional Open Space in Other Areas: Option three would reduce the development potential in the runway area to 75 acres and use the regional park ares in the inner harbor to be devoted to devleoemnt to oofset the acreage lost on the Northern Runway. This alternative could reposition the regional open space into the north runway area but at a lower intensity of use (a campsite or an RV park would not be permitted in the north runway area). This alternative coupled with an increase in the intensity of allowable light industrial and R &D development in other sites would provide a potential job generation of 18,000 jobs. However, this land use solution would eliminate the opportunity for a large regional RV park in the southern portion of the inner harbor site and also eliminate approximately 45 acres of regional parks space for potential Public Trust land exchange. Honorable Members of the September 28, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 Refinement of the Preferred Plan The purpose of endorsing the Preferred Plan is to approve those portions of the Preferred Plan on which there is agreement and to give further direction to the staff, the consultant team, and the BRAG on those issues still outstanding. Once the Preferred Plan is accepted, a major task of the next phase of the planning process is to refine the Preferred Plan. From the ARRA's input and direction, the consultant team will refine the Preferred Plan with additional details, text, diagrams, tables, and maps. A number of substantive land use issues have yet to be resolved in the BRAG's recommended Preferred Plan. These unresolved issues are outlined below and discussed on the attached information sheets. These refinements are based upon comments received at the BRAG's community workshop of Saturday, September 9, 1995. In general there was considerable agreement and excitement on the overall plan concept as presented. In particular, the development concept for a mixed -use, multicentered, transit- oriented addition to the City of Alameda was well received. In general, all land use designations in the central and eastern portions of the Air Station were found acceptable. The major unresolved portion of the Preferred Plan centered around the development of the airfield area and the size and character of the fish and wildlife habitat (as discussed above). Many of the points identified in the September 9 community meeting related to the level of detail —or lack thereof —in the Preferred Plan and implementation strategies. While at this stage of the process, the purpose and intent of the Preferred Plan is to be general and conceptual in nature, further details still need to be generated and addressed in the final plan document. Endorsement of the Preferred Plan allows the consultant team to work with the community to develop and refine those outstanding issues and provide additional details, where appropriate. These details are outlined on the attached information sheets. These refinements will be presented to the ARRA for approval at their regular meeting in December. Refinements of the plan will include: • Further resolution of the Fish and Wildlife refuge request (size, adjoining land uses, development and management requirements, etc.) • Refinement of the land use descriptions and development intensity (range and type of net housing units, square footage in office and light industrial space, parks and recreational areas, etc.) • Recommendations for property disposition for Federal Conveyances, Public Benefit Conveyances, Homeless Collaborative uses, and Economic Development Conveyances • Identification of potential public and civic uses (schools, community center for the arts, potential branch library, etc.) • Analysis of the fiscal impacts of the plan and the City's ability to provide public services • Analysis of traffic impacts and improvements • Analysis of total potential jobs created • Resolution of Public Trust issues and possible land trades. Honorable Members of the September 28, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 6 The refinement of the Preferred Plan will also include an analysis and comparison of the land use plan with the existing land use pattern of the City of Alameda. This analysis will give a comparison (in acres and percentages) of the increases in various land use categories. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the endorsement of the Preferred Plan. Ultimately, approval and implementation of the final plan will have a very large fiscal and economic impact on the City of Alameda and the County and will dramatically improve the overall quality of life of the region and local community. Environmental Review: Endorsement of the Preferred Plan for further development in the Community Reuse Plan does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Preferred Land Use Plan is part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse of NAS Alameda for possible future actions and is, therefore, "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18, Section 15262). Recommendation: At this point in time, Staff recommends that we continue discussions with Fish & Wildlife and the environmentalists to see if we can come to a resolution that will satisfy all interests. At your next meeting we will report on the progress in these deliberations. However, by the November meeting, the ARRA will have to select one of the options outlined above in order to adopt a draft disposition plan. The BRAG concurs with the above recommendation and to refine this plan and resolve the ongoing issues with Fish & Wildlife. Staff recommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority consider the above options for the Fish & Wildlife refuge request and give further direction as to the most appropriate use for the area. We further recommend that the ARRA endorse, by motion, the Preferred Land Use Plan with any appropriate changes and direct the ARRA staff, the consultant team, and the BRAG to proceed with Phase 5 of the planning process —the development of the final Community Reuse Plan. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachments: Preferred Land Use Plan Exhibit A Refinement of the Preferred Land Use Plan Below is a list of major issues to be refined in the final stages of the community reuse plan process. The areas needing refinement were identified in the public meeting of September 9, 1995 and subsequent BRAG meetings. Land Use Categories and Definitions — Details of land use categories, types of allowable uses, intensity, and density of development will be defined for each subarea, including mixed use areas, residential uses and areas, open space and recreational uses, and community /civic uses. City -Wide Analysis — An analysis of the total land area and percent by land use types will be analyzed for the entire City of Alameda, including the increase in types of land uses such as work place, open space and recreation, housing, etc. Potential Public Services and Civic Uses — Further details will be developed to describe the type, location, and amount of additional community services and cultural uses, including schools, art and community centers, fire stations, public offices, churches, etc. In particular, areas for youth facilities will be addressed. Public Trust Lands Impacts — Analysis and identification of public trust lands impacts will be analyzed, showing areas of potential conflict and potential land trade areas. Housing Type and Density — Further details about the type and density of potential housing will be calculated, including the net increase in housing, and the ability to provide for a range of incomes. Parks and Recreation Uses — The size, location and number of public parks will be identified with areas specified for potential youth activities such as soccer fields, ball parks, and recreational centers. Job Generation — Total potential jobs created depend on the final allocation of open space and conservation areas. Changes in the configuration of the northern runway area land use could affect job generating uses. This could result in a change in the type and location of public regional park lands on the remainder of NAS in order to maximize the number of jobs. Fiscal Balance — Additional analysis will be provided to the ARRA to calculate the fiscal impacts on the City of Alameda. The goal is to maintain a positive balance in potential revenue to pay for public services. Traffic Impacts and Improvements — The plan will be refined in terms of the potential traffic impacts and potential transit improvements, including the necessity and goals of an additional bridge connection and other transportation access and connections. 1 Environmental Clean -Up — Additional plan refinement of the plan will be provided to identify cleanup levels, priorities, and phasing to coordinate and direct the Navy's base cleanup efforts. Ongoing Public Participation — An ongoing public participation program should be developed through the implementation phase of the reuse effort to keep the community involved. This should include tours, use of local T.V. as an information medium, additional community meetings, and provide computer online access to infomiation. Implementation Details — A considerable interest was expressed in outlining details of the plans implementation. Some of these details will be addressed in the final plan, other details will be resolved in the next phase of the project, in the application for an Economic Benefit Conveyance (EBC). With the EBC application, the ARRA will be asked to review and approve a business plan for redevelopment. Other implementation issues to be analyzed will include coordination of short and long term redevelopment, a development phasing, marketing strategy, and potential financing strategies. 2 Preliminary Preferred Land Use Plan Overview DRAFT The major theme of the land use plan for the Community Reuse Plan is to extend the City of Alameda providing a mixed use neighborhood that creates an environment where people would desire to live, work and play while enhancing the character of Alameda. This plan would look to the Naval Air Station as a major source of new jobs and industry for Alameda and the region as well as preservation of significant regional open space resources. Wherever possible development will be encouraged to reflect a mix of uses that fit the human scale and character of the Island of Alameda. Each area will provide centers of activity that focus development and provide opportunities for walking, transit orientation neighborhoods with a diversity of uses. The land use plan would maintain the existing housing areas as the Main Street residential Neighborhoods. The core of the base would be would be retained as a mixed use Civic Core and provide a center of this new neighborhood. The Southeast portion of the base, the Inner Harbor area, is reserved for primarily light industry/R &D uses. The Seaplane Lagoon at the south of the Civic Core would be developed as a marina. The northern edge of the existing airfield would provide a center for international trade and commerce including light industry/R &D and developed recreational uses and natural open space. The point at the far north - western edge would be reserved for regional park uses and trails. The major portion of the southern airfield would remain open to provide for the preservation of wetlands, refuge for sensitive species (especially California least tern, Caspian tern, and brown pelican), and for regional open space trails. Civic Core The main focal point of activity would be the Central Core area of the Naval Air Station. It is envisioned that this 336 -acre Civic Core would'develop as a mixed use "flex- zone" to accommodate a range of uses based on the interim (near- teiin) reuse of existing facilities with redevelopment and in -fill changes, additions, and demolition occurring over time. The land and structures conveyed to other users for publicly beneficial uses would be part of the mix of this central neighborhood. Reuse of the Civic Core would encompass approximately 916,000 square feet of reuse of existing structures including a self - contained campus area in the north portion of the site. The development of the mixed use core would have an emphasis on international business and commerce, research and development facilities and supporting commercial uses. At build out the site could accommodate approximately 2,187,000 square feet of office park/industrial flex uses, 240 town homes, and 50,000 square feet of supporting commercial uses. The build out job creation is estimated to result in 827 jobs from the public conveyance uses and approximately 6,700 jobs from workplace and supporting uses. Preliminary Preferred Land Use Plan Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 27, 1995 Page 2 The mixed use core would utilize existing NAS roadways wherever possible with changes in the circulation system to accommodate new, infl. development. Transit - exclusive or transit- friendly corridors would be established to provide pedestrian and public transit routes within the Civic Core and connecting neighborhood centers and other neighborhoods in the City of Alameda. A central north -south open space promenade or mall would create an extension of the existing Navy parade ground from the Oakland- Alameda estuary to the Seaplane Lagoon, opening into a public plaza at the marina. This mall would provide a central public space or green space or recreation, plazas, and public /civic activities and events. Approximately 100,000 square feet of civic building uses would occur in this area. The marina at the southern end of the promenade would serve as a focus for public waterfront area uses including water - related commercial, visitor attractions, private boating, boating clubs, ferry service, deep draft yacht facilities, boat repair, and sailing training facilities. Main Street Neighborhoods The existing residential areas of the Base would be redeveloped primarily for residential land uses. The Navy housing known as Marina Village would remain for the long term. The remainder of the existing residential areas would be redeveloped as primarily residential neighborhoods. A total of 321 acres would be devoted to residential uses. These areas would integrate a variety of housing types for a variety of income levels and include small centers of supporting civic, retail uses, or schools as well as community - focused open spaces as plazas and parks. At build out, the area east of the Civic Core of Alameda West could accommodate at least 300 town home units in the existing Navy Marina Village and approximately 1,750 new dwelling units. These new units would be developed as a mix of housing types and densities consistent with the Alameda General Plan. Inner Harbor The southeast portion of the Naval Air Station, the Inner Harbor area, would reflect the existing industrial character of the site. The Inner Harbor area has extensive constraints to early residential reuse due to surface and groundwater contamination. By designating this area for light industry/R &D uses the horizon of the environmental clean-up would be less critical in redeveloping the area. As a light industrial/R &D area, the Inner Harbor has potential for early redevelopment. It represents an approximately 90 acre site that could potentially be used to attract a larger user generating jobs. Where possible, roadway connections would be established extending across Main Street to the new marina area, eliminating the existing separation between the Base and the adjoining neighborhood. The small -scale street patterns would be used to encourage uses that establish connections with Main Street and the existing West End neighborhoods. Preliminary Preferred Land Use Plan September 27, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 The southern shoreline in the Inner Harbor area would be developed as a regional park. East Bay Regional Park District will manage a regional facility that will include opportunities for shoreline access & recreation, beach uses, dog runs, and other forms of developed recreation. North Waterfront D AFT The majority of the current Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) site would be developed as mixed use light industry workplace. The waterfront area would become a mixed use neighborhood with Office Park/R &D emphasis. The area is opposite Jack London Square and abuts Mariner Square/Marina Village waterfront area. Retail, restaurant, and other supporting uses would be part of this waterfront district. Housing uses would be strongly encouraged to create a vibrant, active neighborhood. Development in this area would continue the character of the adjoining mixed use districts. The area between the College of Alameda and the Webster Street Tube entrance would be developed with a Light Industry/R &D emphasis as an extension of the existing Marina Village industrial park to the east. It is envisioned that this area would be a site for early redevelopment. This portion of the FISC area represents an approximately 60 acres site that could potentially be used to attract a single larger user. Tinker Avenue would be extended west from Marina Village to Main Street and would transect this area and serve as a major arterial connection for new development throughout the Base. The FISC site would attempt to focus on higher transportation -need businesses as it is an area closest to existing transportation links to the Island of Alameda. The portion of the FISC Annex site between the Navy's Marina Village and East Housing areas would become part of the larger housing area described in the Main Street Neighborhoods above. Marina The Seaplane Lagoon would be redeveloped as a commercial marina. The marina would serve as a focus for public waterfront uses including water - related commercial, visitor attractions, residential uses, civic recreation and public marina- related uses. The intent is to create a mixed use neighborhood that uses the waterfront amenity brought out by the marina to attract a rich diversity of uses and create an area people would want to live, work, or bring visitors to. The open space promenade that unifies the Civic Core would open into a civic plaza as it meets the water's edge. Civic uses such as office space, a cultural arts center /theater and recreation uses could font the plaza. Marina related uses including private and public boating, boating clubs, Preliminary Preferred Land Use Plan September 27, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority p51 Page 4 ferry service, deep draft yacht facilities, boat repair, and sailing training facilities, and associated marine related services (retail uses and commercial services, restaurants, educational facilities, cultural facilities, and repair services) incorporated into a mixed -use marina design. Housing in the Marina area would be limited to the eastern shores and provide opportunities for a mix of housing types and income levels. Housing could include, artist lofts, house boats, apartments for low to moderate income families, town homes and town houses consistent with the standard of the Alameda General Plan. Northwest Territories Approximately 120 acres of the northern edge of the existing airfield is designated for developed as an international commerce and trade zone including light industrial/R &D and warehouse uses. The remainder of the area will be devoted to recreation and open space uses. Recreational uses will include a bay trail and shoreline park, and a regional Point Alameda park at the far north - western end of the runway. The bay trail will be the main feature of a 100 -200 foot wide linear park that will run the entire length of the Oakland Estuary allowing for full public access to the shoreline. Point Alameda, the tip of the island with panoramic views of San Francisco, the bay and the San Francisco Golden Gate and Bay bridges will be preserved as a regional park. Land for other forms of developed recreational activities will be available. These developed recreational uses may include a "Scottish links style" golf course, ball fields, soccer fields and related recreational buildings and meeting facilities. Feasibility of housing development in conjunction with golf course or other recreational amenities will be explored. Runway Area Open Space/Wildlife Habitat The majority of the airfield area would remain as open space to provide for the preservation of wetlands, sensitive species (especially the California least tern nesting site, the Caspian tern, and Brown Pelican roosting area on the NAS breakwater) and for regional open space /recreational uses. Open space uses would include developed recreation uses that could include ballfields, soccer fields, and a "Scottish style links" golf course. This area provides recreational opportunities and act as a transitional buffer zone between the Northwest Territories and other human uses and wildlife habitat. The southern portion of this area would be devoted exclusively for a wildlife refuge with limited/seasonal public access under the management of the USFWS. tr, 00 N co oo C., a r-- ■e, M co N N 3571 Population VI Cre sa tri IP .cr Oo r-, N NO oc CO M ■.‘) be a = A 1 240 ... Irt r...... t... 100£ CO el 0 0 rn V. ... ei. D1 co 1 364 C'0 00 '0 "." ,tr oo oo ON N • .of — .0. rn NC CO ■ro r., 4,3001 CI. 0 .4 Lel Build Out Units C 0 **0 = o dr rn -..0 0 ci- rn -45 • er VI .....'".. ell • 1:1 Sq. Ft. - R &D/ Ind ilex Sq. Ft. - R&D/ Ind flex ;Sq. Ft. - Business Park/Lt. lnd. Id.u. - Single Family 0 . d '16 4-. • 0 -0 1 ,fg . 0 , I 74. . 4 ,i. VI .... rj 't ; '4 4 ei, GO 'Si FL - Business Park/Lt. Ind. Office Park/ Ind flex ets ? V Sq. Ft. - Business Park/Lt_ Ind_ 1 = T.: o cs• sot d.u. - attached 1 ...0 .A. Job - employed resident ratio: 1 CO CO 0 VS 0' 0 0 CO C C 0 co 01 C, 401 240, 0 0 0 so .0 0 C.:. 007 en NT V:, .e) . WI - - ..... c .4•1 r"-- ....4 0 t-- 300 N ON ---. 04 00 a Se 0'0 — 6 0 cl ••••• rsi 800,000 0 6 co o .0- • g a d. <NI C, . 0 CO r--i 0 0 a 0 0 0 In 0 00 ‘o so t... en .4., C, N 00 6 ... N r 0 N E NO m M r 292 251 .. 44 L.- • '00' — • N 471 N .. O N ...■ M N -- o M 251 lour 0 v. -E g ..6 fia 03 0 0 l'... • ir 00 ut .... col .., (General Land Use campus OS !civic OS e 44 0 U Civic Core Housing 1 El, E — 4,2 —, ...a .... 6 C#2 :., s C/3 0 .s Z Attached Housing 1 0 .6 6 Gel I E ,s 0 .0 i E ■S .— E rccre ationJcommemial 1 Marina Waterfront OS CA .0. .12 6 cn 0 waterfront housing 1 6 cc 1Lt. Industry 1 0 Golf Club House/Rec. Facilities Open Space u El 0 0 I— —ci 6 GO 8 0 0. vi, EZ" 6' ,...., ci 0 Planning Areas 'Civic Core 'Inner Harbor 1 Main Street Neighborhood 1 (North Waterfront 1 'Northwest Territories a.. ,..... City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum September 26, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Elizebeth B. Kingsley Personnel Director, City of Alameda RE: Employee Benefits 1994 -95, 1995 -96 and Forward Background At your February 1995 meeting, the ARRA adopted the following: "All or a portion of the unused benefit monies could be made available to the employees through deferred comp and /or cash payment.." This allocation was within the 3096- allowed by the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) in their budget for fiscal November 1, 1993 through October 31, 1994. ARRA directed at that time that staff bring back a comprehensive benefit proposal for the staff for the succeeding years. It was directed that this proposal ensure that ARRA employees be compensated consistent with other standard City benefit packages. Discussion After examining many options, the Executive Director met with the employees to consider the options available. A number of existing employees were strongly in favor of keeping the same benefit arrangement that now exists. It was also clear that some wanted to consider those benefits now provided to the City of Alameda's Management and Confidential employees. In order to make these City benefits available to ARRA employees, several steps need to be taken. The City Attorney's office would need to provide language for ARRA's consideration which would allow ARRA employees to withdraw from Social Security and become part of the City's payroll function for benefit purposes only. An agreement could be prepared for adoption by the ARRA which would indicate that all employees hired after October 1, 1995 would be considered City employees for the sole purpose of benefit enrollment. This would provide the following benefits for those eligible employees: the Public Employees Retirement System Retirement Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System Health Plan options, the Delta Dental Plan, the Cigna Life Insurance Plan and the Cigna long term disability plan. Enrollment for these benefits Printed on recycled paper Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse September 26, 1995 and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 would be procedurally treated as if the employees worked for the City. A flexible benefit plan allowance of $475/month would be structured from which health, life and dental premium costs are charged. ARRA would then reimburse the City for the cost of these benefits. This benefit package (Retirement, health, life and dental coverage) would be the only option for all new hires. Current ARRA employees will be given the opportunity to elect this full benefit package or continue under the current arrangement. Existing employees who choose to keep their current benefit plan, will be given the opportunity to elect to individually enroll in the City of Alameda Kaiser Health Plan. Additionally, as a group, they may choose to enroll in the City's dental plan and/or City's life insurance plan and/or the City's long-term disability plan. No individual selection is possible. For the year just concluding employees will have the benefits as they had for the 1993-94 fiscal year as approved by the ARRA at the February 1995 meeting. Budget/Fiscal Implications There will be no additional fiscal impact for those employees who opt to remain under the existing plan. For new hires effective January 1, 1995, the increased cost of benefits would be approximately an average of $300/year/employee. This figure will increase slightly as other openings occur and new employees are hired or should any existing employee decide to transfer to the City benefit plans. Recommendation Staff recommends that ARRA adopt the above described benefit plans and options commencing November 1, 1995. Respectfully submitted, E ize th B g Perso el Direc o EBK:jsm FORWARDED: ARRA BENEFITS OPTION A Existing structure for 30% benefit allowance + entire employee group may opt into as a group any one or more of these three benefits - life insurance - LTD - Dental + individual option to enroll in Kaiser + benefits paid as in 1993-94 fiscal year up to 30% OEA allowance 9/27/95:jsm ARRA BENEFITS OPTION B For the sole purpose of benefit administration all ARRA employees hired after September 1, 1995 will be treated as if they were City employees. This is based on the assumption that ARRA may legally not enroll these employees in Social Security. BENEFITS (8-hour day employees) VAC per City Schedule On 1 year anniversary - 2 weeks (80 hours) Each year after that - 2 weeks 6th year - 3 weeks + 1/2 day 7th year on until 20 days 20th year - 20 days 21st year - 21 days 22nd year - 22 days 23rd year - 23 days 24th year - 24 days 25th year - 25 days Maximum carryover at end of calendar year - 2 weeks SICK LEAVE - 8 hour per month for each full month on paid status may carry over all unused sick leave HOLIDAYS - 12 holidays - City list Enroll ARRA employees in PERS Retirement - 13.335% PERS Health Dental - 56.20 ]* $475/month Life - 13.25 ] LTD - 18.50+ Those employees hired after 9/1/95 will be enrolled as above. Those employees hired before 8/31/94 may maintain their current benefit structure or switch to above. There will be no partial options available. 9/27/95:jsm Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 20, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of a Proposal to Lease Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Docking of the Hornet Aircraft Carrier as a Private Museum Background: The Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, Inc. (Hornet Foundation) has requested a lease of one of the NAS Alameda piers for docking the USS Hornet (CVN -12) to be used as a museum and tourist attraction. The U.S. Navy has shown interest in providing the ship for this purpose. However, to use the ship the Navy has also required the Hornet Foundation to secure a location to dock the Hornet. The USS Hornet (Hornet) was decommissioned in 1970 and was designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service in 1991. The Hornet has contracted for scrapping with Astoria Metals in 1994. It is anticipated this scrapping contract will be terminated in October 1995. The ship and crew played a significant role in the Second World War, was the ship used in the historical Doolittle Raid, and recovered the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 space crafts and crew —the first two manned missions to the moon. The Hornet has been docked at the NAS Alameda pier for the past four months and has been on display during Fleet Week and other local events. The Hornet Foundation and others have been instrumental in cleaning and repainting the ship over the summer. Discussion: This ship and other ships could be a great attraction as part of the proposed future Marina Development. There are many examples of historic and not -so- historic ships being used as museums and tourist attractions. Several ships (and a submarine) are now docked in San Francisco as tourist attractions. Some of these museum are more successful than others. To use the piers would require the Hornet Foundation to apply for a City of Alameda Use Permit and environmental review (CEQA), and comply with provisions for adequate parking, handicapped access and restroom facilities, and other site improvements. The Hornet Foundation should submit a detailed business plan, financing plan, and site development plan for their use permit review and approval. The operators would also have to provide the necessary insurance and operate the museum and its restoration in an environmentally safe manner. Old ships can potentially be an Honorable Members of the September 20, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 environmental hazard due to leaking fluids and peeling lead -based paint, and can present other potential environmental problems. Fiscal Impact: Fiscal impacts of leasing a pier for the docking of the Hornet could exclude other opportunities for use of the piers for commercial purposes. It is assumed that the lease of the pier for this semi- public activity (a private museum) would be less than market rate. In addition, a lease could create a burden on the ARRA and the City if the project fails and is no longer able to operate economically. It is critical that neither the ARRA nor the City of Alameda be responsible for financially supporting the Hornet preservation at this time. Also, the ARRA and the City of Alameda cannot assume responsibilty for relocating the ship if the museum is unsuccessful in meeting its financial obligations. Environmental Review: Endorsement of the Preferred Land Use Plan for further development in the Community Reuse Plan does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Preferred Land Use Plan is part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse of NAS Alameda for possible future actions, and is therefore "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262). Conclusion: Despite the financial hurtles and development concerns, preservation of the ship for a historical museum is a worthwhile goal. The proposed use has the potential of creating a tourist magnet and generating significant economic benefits to the base reuse effort as well as the community of Alameda. The proposed use is consistent with the interim reuse strategy for the station and the preferred land use plan now being considered by the ARRA. Recommendation: Staffrecommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse by motion the proposal to lease portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for docking the Hornet Aircraft Carrier for use as a Private Museum and direct the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a short-term lease for this use. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachments: Letter Proposal and Map Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director 16V.. DATE: September 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Information on Homeless Collaborative Agreement The following report was prepared in response to a request from ARRA member Charles Mannix. I feel it may help round out your knowledge of the entire homeless issue and pending legislation as well as providing information on homeless accommodations at other base closures in California. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum September 12, 1995 TO: Honorable Charles M. Mannix, Vice -Mayor City of Alameda FROM: Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director 1C SUBJ: Update on Homeless Collaborative Agreement at Alameda Naval Air Station Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act) requires that each local redevelopment authority submit its redevelopment plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Secretary of Defense (DoD) for review and approval. For HUD, the Redevelopment Act states, "The purpose of the review is to determine whether the plan, with respect to the expressed interest and requests of representatives of the homeless, takes into consideration the size and nature of the homeless population in the communities in the vicinity of the installation, the availability of existing services in such communities to meet the needs of the homeless in such communities, and the suitability of the buildings and property covered by the plan for the use and needs, of the homeless in such communities". The Department of Defense in the July 20, 1995, Federal Register, Page 37342, defines "communities in the vicinity of the installation" as the political jurisdictions that comprise the redevelopment authority for the installation. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) was faulted through a Joint Powers Agreement that includes the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, City of San Leandro, and the County of Alameda. The Rules On August 17, 1995, the interim rules promulgating the policy and procedures for implementing the Redevelopment Act were published in the Federal Register. According to the rules, HUD in its review will consider whether the homeless submission in the ARRA's redevelopment plan assesses the homeless service needs in the "vicinity of the installation" and how the reuse plan proposes to address the need. Therefore, HUD will be measuring the ARRA's homeless submission in the redevelopment plan against the homeless needs in all of Alameda County. Update on Homeless Page 2 Collaborative Agreement September 12, 1995 In its review, HUD will consider whether the local redevelopment authority's redevelopment plan promotes projects and activities that address the expressed needs within the current homeless service system. A comprehensive homeless service system is characterized as a "continuum of care," and includes: assessment, emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent housing, supportive services, and any other activity which clearly meets an identified need of the homeless. The rules state that supportive services are critical to all components of the continuum of care and include: counseling, job training and placement, day care, family violence services, etc, as well as housing. The rules from the Federal Register that clarify the Redevelopment Act also indicate HUD will review the redevelopment plan to ensure it also addresses the economic needs of the homeless. This includes the local redevelopment authority working with prospective users of the military facility to consider homeless for employment. The ARRA has already satisfied this requirement by its 15 % homeless hiring goal for long -tem,. tenants at NAS Alameda. HUD will also consider whether the homeless assistance.submission in the redevelopment plan is consistent with the needs documented in the County Consolidated Plan or with any other housing plans adopted by the jurisdictions in the vicinity of the installation. The Consolidated Plan (which includes the City of Alameda) encompasses the planning, application, and reporting requirements of four formula grant programs administered by HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development: Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships, Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids, and Emergency Shelter Grants. Alameda County has a Consolidated Plan as do Oakland and Berkeley. Standards of Reasonableness The homeless needs in Alameda County are so great that even utilizing all of the properties at the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) could not completely meet them. Each night in Alameda County between 9,000 and 15,000 people are homeless, and over a year's time 60,000 people in Alameda County are homeless. The ARRA negotiated with homeless providers to establish a maximum level of reasonable accommodation for the homeless to ensure the homeless provisions did not slow down the entire reuse of NAS and to balance the needs of the homeless with the economic development needs of the community. This level of accommodation is the "Standards of Reasonableness." Given the size of the Alameda Naval Air Station and the profound homeless need in Alameda County, it is conceivable that HUD could have opted for an even greater homeless accommodation at NAS Alameda without the Standards of Reasonableness. However, HUD has been very impressed with the fact that both sides, the ARRA and the Homeless Collaborative, negotiated in good faith to come up with numbers both could live with. We anticipate that HUD will not hold up approval of the Community Reuse Plan because the community and the homeless have signed off on the agreement. Furthermore, HUD is using the NAS Standards of Reasonableness in its guidebook for local redevelopment authorities as an excellent example of Update on Homeless Page 3 Collaborative Agreement September 12, 1995 a locally agreed upon resolution addressing the homeless need. It should be noted that prior to the ARRA's recognition of the Homeless Collaborative and the passage of the 1994 Redevelopment Act, homeless providers were interested in 900 of the 1,513 housing units at NAS Alameda. By recognizing the Alameda County Homeless Collaborative as "the" entity the ARRA would work with during the homeless screening process, all homeless groups interested in the base had to submit their claims of interest at NAS to the Homeless Collaborative. This protected the ARRA from the claims of "maverick" homeless providers. Also, the Homeless Collaborative became responsible for screening and limiting the homeless requests at NAS consistent with the Standards of Reasonableness. The Homeless Collaborative received nearly twice as many requests for property at NAS Alameda as were designated in the Standards of Reasonableness. Negotiating the number of units in advance —which set the maximum amount of space available at NAS — resulted in fewer claims being submitted to the Homeless Collaborative. This is important because the ARRA's homeless submission in the Community Reuse Plan to HUD and DoD must document "all" claims submitted —even those not met in the Standards of Reasonableness. NAS Homeless Programs The service providers selected to receive property at NAS Alameda through the Homeless Collaborative process have been screened and selected on the basis of their experience working with homeless populations and the appropriateness of the use for the site. In all cases, the teams selected include experienced ongoing service providers as well as housing developers. All uses included in the reuse plan are for transitional or permanent housing; no emergency shelters have been included at the request of the ARRA. representatives who negotiated the Standards of Reasonableness. Since Alameda County and the Homeless Collaborative supported no emergency shelters at NAS, it is anticipated HUD will have no .problem with this omission. The County and the Homeless Collaborative— sensitive to the community concern—have helped the ARRA demonstrate that while the need for additional emergency shelters remains, the need for permanent and transitional housing is greater. Impact of Programs Typically, emergency shelters, overnight programs, drop -in programs, and programs that offer food or free meals attract homeless transients and panhandlers who loiter in the area either before or after participating in the program. There will be no emergency shelters, overnight programs, drop -in programs, or programs that offer food or free meals at NAS Alameda to attract homeless street people. Program participants at NAS will only be referred by the appropriate agencies and organizations, rather than choosing to come to the base on their own. Candidates for transitional and peuuanent housing at NAS Alameda will be screened, and will already be participating in appropriate support services. Residents in housing at NAS will be maintaining their service connections. Those who do not wish to participate in appropriate Update on Homeless Page 4 Collaborative Agreement September 12, 1995 services will not be candidates for housing at NAS. Transitional housing is for people working with a support network to break the cycle of homelessness and transition to permanent housing. Permanent housing is for people who are working in job training programs and are ready to transition to permanent housing with the goal of self - sufficiency. New Legislation The pending McCain/Feinstein legislation (which only passed the Senate) would not require local reuse authorities to submit redevelopment plans for HUD review and approval. The Molinari /Bilbray legislation (the House version) would have repealed the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act) prohibiting transfer of property at no cost to homeless providers. According to the Governor's office, it appears the Molinari /Bilbray bill has no chance of passing. The final outcome of the legislation will be decided in Conference Committee, expected to meet in early October. A fmal note. According to Rob Hertzfeld, staff to Josh Gotbaum (Assistance Secretary of Defense for Economic Development), whether or not the pending federal legislation passes, the Secretary of Defense has established a task force which includes HUD to review all Community Reuse Plans. DoD has no experience in assessing the unmet needs of the homeless, so it established this task force to include HUD to provide DoD direction on homeless requests for facilities and property. Therefore, even if the McCain/Feinstein legislation is adopted, HUD's role in the process will continue. Other Base Closure Homeless Accommodations All the 1993 and beyond base closures are subject to the requirements of the 1994 Redevelopment Act. The 1993 BRAC closures began under Title V of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, and had the option of remaining under Title V or coming under the Redevelopment Act. Under Title V, the homeless had first priority on use of all surplus federally owned real and personal. property, including former military bases. The Redevelopment Act exempts base closure and realignment property from Title V, but requires that homeless providers be included in the local community reuse planning process and that reasonable accommodation be made for homeless providers. Following, is the information you requested on homeless accommodations at the following facilities: Treasure Island - BRAC 1993 Prior to the adoption of the Redevelopment Act, homeless providers had actually worked with San Francisco and had submitted a 200 page application to Health and Human Services under the old Title V. With the enactment of the Redevelopment Act, San Francisco opted to come under the new legislation. Working with the homeless providers who had submitted applications, San Francisco recognized the Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative (TIHDI) and included three homeless representatives on its community advisory board Update on Homeless Page 5 Collaborative Agreement September 12, 1995 commensurate to the BRAG. (During negotiations with the NAS Homeless Collaborative, they requested a voting membership on the ARRA which was rejected by the ARRA's negotiating team.) Treasure Island for this discussion also includes facilities at Yerba Buena. San Francisco is currently screening and negotiating with TIHDI. During Federal screening, the Veterans Administration claimed 100 of the barracks units for homeless veterans. The remaining 900 units were also claimed during the federal screening process by the Job Corps programs for unemployed youth. Of the 1,009 units of single family housing, the reuse plan discussed 20 -30% of the housing going to homeless, (200 -300 units). TIHDI has been working to secure 358 of the 1,009 single family units. Unlike the ARRA Standards of Reasonableness, no public service fee has been considered to compensate San Francisco for police, fire, and public works. San Francisco has already given TIHDI $25,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $50,000 in redevelopment funds to help TIHDI pay for staff during the homeless screening and negotiations. In discussions with TIHDI, San Francisco has been supportive of a 25 % homeless hiring goal for all jobs, similar to the hiring goals /program of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Other homeless requests include taking 2 of the 4 warehouse buildings, the officers club and restaurant, the recreational boat marina, a multi service center, public works building, land for a public garden and composting operation, and 5 office /industrial buildings. It is unclear when San Francisco will finalize its homeless accommodations with the TIHDI. Oak Knoll Hospital - BRAC 1993 Oak Knoll consists of approximately 200 acres; however, about half of that is developable because of the grade. Oak Knoll began its negotiations with the Alameda County Homeless Collaborative after the ARRA. The Homeless Collaborative is requesting consideration at Oak Knoll equivalent to what it negotiated at NAS Alameda, adjusted to account for differences in scale and building opportunities. Using the Standards of Reasonableness negotiated by the ARRA as a guide, the Oakland negotiating team from the Oakland Base Reuse Authority (OBRA) negotiated the following: 36 out of 81 housing units; 2000 square ft. for job training; a childcare center; a 15% homeless hiring goal for new business, service contracts and Oakland reuse authority staff; a hiring facility; assistance in securing financing for capital improvements and operating expenses; and a portion of the net revenue stream from the property - 20% for the first five years and 10% for the next five years. (During the Standards of Reasonableness negotiations between the ARRA and the Homeless Collaborative, the Collaborative wanted the ARRA to also provide a stream of revenue from NAS grants, Update on Homeless Page 6 Collaborative Agreement September 12, 1995 bonds, leases, etc.; however, the negotiating team rejected this proposal.) Unlike the ARRA, OBRA has not negotiated with the Homeless Collaborative to pay a public service fee for police, fire and public works. This negotiated agreement was approved by the Homeless Collaborative, but not by the OBRA. Negotiations completely broke down with the Homeless Collaborative, and the OBRA had to request delays from HUD to extend its homeless screening process to work out the problems. This has resulted in the OBRA having to push back the completion of its reuse plan from this fall to next year. To resolve the situation, the Regional Director of HUD, Art Agnos, addressed the OBRA and the community. Mr. Agnos made it clear that OBRA had to accommodate the homeless. Furthermore, if the OBRA did not do so in a fair and reasonable manner, HUD would do it for them as provided in the Redevelopment Act. A new negotiating team for OBRA and the Homeless Collaborative has just been formed, and will meet shortly. One of the new options being considered by the OBRA is a cash payout to the Homeless Collaborative and /or a portion of the net revenue stream. The Homeless Collaborative wants the 36 housing units appraised, and if it does not receive the 36 units it wants fair market value paid in cash. Representatives of the Homeless Collaborative have indicated that if they are not satisfied with OBRA's accommodation, they will go to HUD. Unfortunately, this rancor has already delayed significantly the estimated date of completion for the OBRA's reuse plan, and unless some resolution is reached soon it threatens to draw the reuse process out even longer. Mare Island - BRAC 1993 Vallejo finished its reuse plan in 1994, prior to the adoption of the Redevelopment Act of 1994. The City of Vallejo alone constitutes the local redevelopment authority. Vallejo opted to come under the new Redevelopment Act rather than Title .V. It completed its homeless screening in July 1995. During the homeless screening process, Vallejo received two token claims of interest and one very significant request from the Solano Coalition Against Homelessness. One of the two token claims dropped out and the other claim is for a chapel. The request by the Solano Homeless Coalition is very significant: 50 buildings of housing and 25 commercial /warehouse buildings. (Vallejo has 1,000 barracks units, 450 single family homes on base and 600 single family homes off base.) Dialogue with the Solano Homeless Coalition has not been forthcoming; however, a meeting has finally been scheduled this month. In the Vallejo reuse plan, it was suggested that the homeless could be accommodated by giving them the 600 units of single family housing located off base in the community; however, the reuse plan also recommended reducing the density of the off base housing to 300 -400 units rather than the 600 currently available. Update on Homeless Page 7 September 12, 1995 Collaborative Agreement Since the City of Vallejo constitutes the entire local redevelopment authority, this should help Vallejo in its negotiations with the Solano Homeless Coalition and HUD as the Solano County homeless need is greater than the City of Vallejo's homeless need. Fleet Industrial Supply Center Oakland - BRAC 1995 Two years ago legislation in conjunction with a .Presidential decree leased the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), formerly the Naval Supply Center Oakland, to the Port of Oakland. The Port has actually acquired and is utilizing much of the property already. Because of the prior actions instituted in relation to this property, it is unclear at this time whether FISC Oakland will have to go through the BRAC process or be leased under prior legislation. McClellan - BRAC 1995 McClellan is in the very early process of organizing and submitting its reuse planning grant to the Office of Economic Adjustment. It will be subject to the Redevelopment Act, but it is too early in the process to know what accommodations will be made for the homeless. Fort Ord - BRAC 1991 Utilized the old Title V McKinney process. Unfortunately, the current Executive Director has been on vacation. The current staff was not involved in this process; however, the following is a synopsis of what they believe has been provided to the homeless at Fort Ord: 5 office buildings, 6 warehouses, the cafeteria, the state of the art childcare center, one huge historic office complex /hall, 3 buildings for special use, and approximately 200 housing barracks /duplexes. California • State University Monterey Bay through a public benefit ,conveyance took 650 barracks units and 1,300 housing units from the 6,366' barracks /housing units available at Fort Ord. The Defense Language Institute and Naval Postgraduate School in the City of Monterey took 2,000 housing units. The homeless received approximately 10% of the available housing not used by the educational institutions. Other BRAC 1993 and 1991 Base Closures Other California BRAC 1993 base closures you did not request information on include Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro; Naval Training Center, San Diego, and March Air Force Base. Other BRAC 1991 base closures you did not request information on include: Tustin Marine Corps Air Station; Sacramento Army Depot; Hunters Point Naval Annex; Moffett Field Naval Air Station; Castle Air Force Base; and Long Beach Naval Station. We can also get information on these facilities should you request it. Member ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Members and Alternates Alternate(s) Chair Mayor Ralph Appezzato Office of the Mayor, Room 301 City of Alameda - City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 -4456 (510) 748 -4545 Fax: (510) 748 -4504 Councilman "Lil" Arnerich City of Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 748 - -4506 Fax: (510) 748 -4503 Mayor Ellen Corbett City of San Leandro 835 E. 14th Street San Leandro, CA 94577 (510) 577 -3355 Fax: (510) 577 -3340 Supervisor Wilma Chan Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3 1221 Oak Street, Suite #536 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 272 -6693 Fax: (510) 268 -8004 Councilmember Karin Lucas City of Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 -4456 (510) 748 -4506 Fax: (510) 748 -4503 Mr. Lee Perez Chairman of the BRAG 29 Seabridge Alameda, CA 94502 (510) 865 -7903 Fax: (510) 271 -5115 Mr. Tony Daysog 146 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 251 -2600 (wk) Fa: (510) 251 -0600 (wk) Councilmember Garry Loeffler City of San Leandro 235 Begier Ave. San Leandro, CA 94577 Hm. (510) 569 -5561 Wk.(510) 667 -3592 Fax: (510) 568 -3028 Mr. Mark Friedman Aide to Supervisor Wilma Chan Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3 1221 Oak Street, Suite #536 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 272 -6693 Fax: (510) 268 -8004 Mr. Greg Alves 1815 Clement Street Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 522 -6339 Members Albert DeWitt City of Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 -4456 (510) 748 -4506 Fax: (510) 748 -4503 Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson ( #1 Alternate) District Director 9th Congressional District 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763 -0370 Fax: (510) 763 -6538 Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix City of Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 -4456 (510) 748 -4506 Fax: (510) 748 -4503 Mayor Elihu Harris Office of the Mayor City of Oakland 505 14th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238 -3141 Fax: (510) 238 -4731 Ms. Gail Greely Alameda Unified School District 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 337 -7060 (District) Fax: (510) 522 -6926 Mr. Lee Perez Chairman of the BRAG Alameda, CA 94502 (510) 865 -7903 Fax: (510) 271 -5115 Alternates Mr. Douglas deHaan Chair, Reuse Subcommittee 1305 Dayton Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 523 -5777 (hm) (510) 263 -7988 (wk) Fax: (510) 263 -8043 Ms. Roberta Brooks ( #2 Alternate) Senior Staff Member 9th Congressional District 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763 -0370 Fax: (510) 763 -6538 Ms. Beverly Follrath- Johnson 33 Killybegs Rd. Alameda, CA 94502 (510) 865 -3484 (hm) (510) 268 -7566 (wk) Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr. Mr. Jay Leonhardy, #2 Alternate City Hall 505 14th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238 -3266 Fax: (510) 238 -6938 Ex- Officio Members Ms. Barbara Rasmussen Alameda Unified School District 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 337 -7060 (District) Fax: (510) 522 -6926 Ms. Helen Sause 816 Grand Ave. Alameda, CA 9450 (510) 521 -3940 Fax: (415) 749 -2585 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary DATE: September 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Report on Diversity of ARRA Staff and Consultants As requested by Sandre Swanson at the September 6 ARRA meeting, the attached report has been prepared on the diversity of ARRA Staff and Consultants. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum September 27, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director on the Diversity of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Staff and Consultants Background: At the September 6, 1995 meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson requested a status report on the diversity of the ARRA's staff and consultant contracts. Discussion/Analysis: ARRA Staff The ARRA has seven staff positions: Executive Director, Facilities Manager, Planner, Administrative Management Analyst, Office Manager /ARRA Secretary, Receptionist /BRAG Secretary, and Departmental Secretary. Prior to the recently approved budget amendment from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), the Administrative Management Analyst position and the Receptionist /BRAG Secretary position were funded through the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC). In the recent budget amendment, OEA agreed to add a Departmental Secretary in lieu of part-time clerical support. That position has now been filled. Five of the seven staff members are women (71 %), and two of the seven positions are from racial minority groups (29 %). Consultants Prior to the recently approved OEA budget amendment, OEA had allocated $1,083,307 for ARRA's reuse planning. EDAW is the ARRA's main consultant. From EDAW's team, 20% of the subconsultants are Women Business Enterprises (WBE) with contracts totaling $211,957, and 6% of the subconsultants are Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) with contracts totaling $60,805. Shortly after OEA approved last year's reuse planning grant, OEA authorized the ARRA's Executive Director to contract for a $40,000 building marketability analysis, and the firm utilized was not a MBE /WBE firm. Therefore, $272,762 —or approximately one quarter of the $1,123,307 consultant contracts —were awarded to MBE /WBE firms. In the recently awarded OEA budget amendment, OEA provided $15,000 for the ARRA's environmental consultant (a WBE firm) to assist the ARRA in negotiations with Fish and Wildlife. OEA also provided $25,000 to another ARRA consultant (also a WBE firm) to conduct an port/marina market and feasibility study. Honorable Members of the Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 27, 1995 The amendment increases the OEA grant for ARRA's reuse planning to $1,163,307, and increased the MBE /WBE consultant contracts to $312,762 or 27 % of the consultant contracts. OEA authorized the ARRA to utilize the existing NAS consultant team for these two studies because timely input was required to complete the plan to avoid the delay that would have resulted from a competitive solicitation. For the timely coordination of the NAS and FISC planning efforts, OEA authorized $100,000 for the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) reuse plan utilizing the ARRA's existing consultant team. EDAW and the ARRA staff have not yet allocated the $100,000 among the existing consultant team; therefore, MBE /WBE percentages cannot be reported yet on these funds. In addition, OEA has provided grant funds for the following studies for which the consultants have not yet been selected: $200,000 toward a utility study (total utility study cost $600,000); $200,000 for an Alameda science and technology center study (OEA also provided $50,000 for University of California to participate in the study); and, $50,000 to develop an interim marketing plan and prototype marketing materials. OEA also provided $42,000 Urban Land Institute review panel (total cost of the review panel $84,000 — remaining funding must be identified), and $12,000 for an engineering analysis of structural deficiencies in AEG lease premises utilizing AEG's engineering film —the diversity of this firm was not determined at the time of this staff report. All the RFPs and newspaper ads for the additional OEA grant funds will state that the ARRA encourages efforts by contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative steps to encourage participation by Disadvantaged Veteran Business Enterprises, Minority Business Enterprises, Women Business Enterprises, and Small Business Enterprises. Also, consultants are encouraged to retain businesses in the local jurisdictions represented by the ARRA. The RFP requires applicants demonstrate how they achieve diversity and /or local participation. Finally, a $400,000 grant application to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) was submitted by the ARRA for ACET (Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies). The diversity of this grant /consultant award has not been determined at this time. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: ARRA Members FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director DATE: September 18, 1995 SUBJECT: Economic Basis for Infrastructure Fees and Assessments The following memo from Bay Area Economics outlines the process used to determine the infrastructure and public service fee assessment numbers provided to PBC applicants. As the memorandum indicates, the allocation method was a simple mathematical calculation of dividing the known infrastructure costs ($217M) equally among the developable acres on the base proper ly according to the preliminary preferred reuse plan. Clearly, there has not yet been any policy discussion regarding what would constitute an equitable and sound distribution of infrastructure costs. I would suggest suspending that discussion until we have more definitive infrastructure costs based on the preferred plan. Also included for your information is a sample letter sent to all the public benefit applicants regarding fees and assessments. We are also including a summary of the facilities and property requested by the public benefit applicants. The total acreage subject to PBC requests is 293.5 (or 25.9 %) of a projected 1,134 developable acres. Bay • Area • Economics 2550 Ninth Street Suite 202 Berkeley. CA 94710 510 549 -7310 Fax 549 -7028 MEMORANDUM September 6, 1995 TO: ARRA Staff FROM: Bay Area Economics SUBJ: Fees and Assessments for Public Benefit Conveyance Request Activities at NAS Alameda Background Redeveloping NAS Alameda is a project that will take many years to implement. One key element of this process will be either replacement or reconstruction of major infrastructure systems. A second ongoing issue will be the provision of local public services, including police, fire, parks and recreation, and public works to all future activities on the Base. Both types of costs are typically financed at the local level through a number of mechanisms ranging from impact fees and special assessments to revenues generated from property and sales taxes. In considering the various alternatives for financing all of these costs, there are two accepted principals of public finance which are relevant: 1) costs should be distributed in a manner that is proportional to use or demand for services; and, 2) To the extent possible, costs should be spread over as large a base as possible to minimize the impact on each individual. While no financing strategy has been developed for the reuse process at NAS Alameda, these principals suggest that recipients of Public Benefit Conveyances should participate in absorbing the costs of both capital infrastructure necessary to support reuse and the ongoing costs to provide local municipal services. The following fee and assessment have been calculated to provide the Public Benefit Conveyance applicants with information to include in the documentation they will be providing the ARRA, as well as in the applications they will be submitting to the federal agencies who will potentially sponsor their requests. The intent of this process is to make these applicants aware of the possibility . that they may have to pay such fees and assessments. It is essential to reiterate that a comprehensive financing strategy still needs to be developed for the entire reuse process. This strategy may or may not include impact fees and other ongoing assessments. Moreover, if fees Memorandum Regarding Public Benefit Conveyance Fees and Assessments September 6, 1995 Page 2 and/or assessments are included in the Strategy, the methodology used to calculate payments will be refined to reflect better detail both on the cost side and on the use side of the equation. Capital Facilities Impact Fee This fee would be charged as a one -time amount due and payable at a time to be determined by the ARRA. Improvements to be covered by the fee include all capital improvements to major infrastructure systems necessary to support future redevelopment at the Naval Air Station. These improvements include wastewater, stormwater, water, gas, electrical, and roads. The fee would be charged to all developable acreage including land to be utilized and/or developed by the Public Benefit Conveyance applicants. Developable acreage is defined as all land which is developed either with existing buildings that will be reused at buildout, or land that will be redeveloped. Parks, open space, the wildlife refuge and the golf course have been excluded from this acreage. Based on a preliminary engineering assessment the total infrastructure cost is approximately $217 million (this cost is based on the costs for Alternative 2 in the Long Range Alternatives Analysis which is most similar to the Preliminary Preferred Alternative). A summary of costs by system is shown on Table 1. Detailed documentation on the assumptions used to developed these costs are available in Technical Appendices for the Long Range Alternatives Analysis, Public Review Draft, August 1995. The Preliminary Preferred Plan includes approximately 1,134 developable acres. The fee amount was developed in a two -step process. First, total costs were divided by the total developable acreage to determine a per acre cost. This calculation renders an infrastructure cost of $191,358 per acre. Second, this amount was reduced by 50 percent to adjust for possible over- estimates in the costs, the likelihood that some costs will be paid for through grants, and /or that some costs may be paid for through long -term debt financing rather than through impact fees. Therefore, the total Capital Facilities Impact Fee would be $95,679 per acre. Public Service Assessment Following operational closure of the Base, the City of Alameda will be required to provide ongoing municipal services to the entire area. These services will include police and fire protection, public works, and parks and recreation. Typically, a significant portion of these services are funded with property tax revenues. However, property being utilized by non - profit or public entities, like the Alameda Unified School District, are exempt from property taxes. In most communities the amount of land being utilized by non - taxing paying entities is small enough to offset the marginal cost burden imposed by this arrangement. However, because non- Memorandum Regarding Public Benefit Conveyance Fees and Assessments September 6, 1995 Page 3 profit and public entities will utilize a significant portion of the land and/or buildings at NAS Alameda, this exemption will likely create a major burden on the City's fiscal situation. The Public Service Assessment is intended to mitigate the potential adverse impact to Alameda's budget of having to provide municipal services to those tenants who would typically be exempt from paying property taxes. Unlike the impact fee, this assessment would be charged on an ongoing basis. The assessment amount, based on assumptions used in the Interim Reuse Strategy, would be $0.024 per square foot per month: Due to the very speculative nature of the assumptions used in this analysis, this number should be considered preliminary in nature. Table 1: Summary of Infrastructure System Costs (in millions) USE COST Wastewater System $15.78 Stormwater System $25.12 Water System $7.25 Natural Gas System $28.20 Electrical System $40.80 Roads $100.00 TOTAL $217.15 Source: NAS Alameda Reuse Plan, Long Range Alternative Analysis, August 1995. Alameda. Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Postal Directory, Bldg. 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 510- 263 -2870 FAX 510 -521 -3764 September 1, 1995 Ms. Ardella Dailey Alameda Unified School District 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Dailey: This letter is to inform you of what assumptions you should use in regard to the infrastructure impact fees and public service assessments. All Public Benefit Conveyance requestors will be asked to pay a one -time capital facility impact fee and an ongoing public service assessment. The capital facility impact fee is extremely preliminary in nature due to uncertainty about actual infrastructure requirements associated with the Reuse Plan. An initial assessment indicates that total capital costs would be approximately $217,000,000. On a per acre basis, this cost, using developable acreage only, would be $191,358. We recognize that this amount would significantly adversely impact the feasibility of your project. Therefore, you should assume that your one -time fee will be $95,679 per developable acre (one -half of the projected cost). The Reuse Authority staff will be exploring all means possible to reduce these fees by the use of grants, loans, and other finance mechanisms. The Public Service Assessment —an ongoing levy that will defray police, fire, and other public service costs —will be $0.024 per square foot per month. The ARRA staff is looking into the legal issue as to whether this public service fee can be imposed on taxing entities such as the school district. For those of you who are applying for a public benefit conveyance through the Department of Education, we understand they are requiring you to submit your formal application by September 15, 1995. However, by the enclosed letter, we have requested that they delay their review of your application until we have completed our local screening. Finally, we have developed the enclosed screening criteria to be used to evaluate public benefit conveyance requests. These criteria were approved by the BRAG at their August 30 meeting and will be acted upon by the ARRA on September 6. We expect to be applying these criteria to your submittals after we receive the additional materials from you on September 15. Very truly yours, K Iv iller Executive Director KM/mee Enclosure STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE MESON, Cocrrnor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION GRAY DAVIS, Lieutenant Governor KATHLEEN CONNELL, Controller RUSSELL S. GOULD, Director of Finance Alice Vilardi Office of the City Attorney City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 -4456 September 8, 1995 RE: NAS Alameda; Public Trust Uses and Land Exchanges Dear Alice: EXECUTIVE OFFICE 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202 ROBERT C. HIGHT, Executive Officer (916) 574-1800 Fax (916) 574 -1810 California Relay Service from TDD Phone 1 -800- 735 -2922 front Voice Plwne 1- 800 - 735 -2929 File: W25109 RECEIVED S E P 1 1 1995 BASE CONVERSION OFFICE CITY Or ALAMEDA This letter is written to supplement our letter to Mayor Appezzato of two days ago regarding public trust issues at NAS Alameda. Specifically, this will address how legally supportable land exchanges terminating the public trust in select parcels can occur. It has been our position that there will undoubtedly be some lands at NAS Alameda which can be freed of the public trust if the proper approach is followed and exchange lands are identified. As you know, our counsel has been that is not a wise course of action for either the City or the State to set out to terminate the trust to make way for preferred non -trust land uses such as housing. Instead, the appropriate approach is to protect the trust in NAS to the fullest and to foster public trust land uses. Then, if there are remaining parcels not necessary for public trust purposes, these can be considered for land exchange. This advice follows the direction of case law, which anticipates that government's first obligation is to protect its interest in sovereign tide and submerged lands. Some background is in order. Many of the closing military bases in the Bay Area are, to a greater or lesser degree, on filled tide and submerged lands within the historic Bay. These are the lands which are referred to as sovereign lands or as lands subject to the public trust. When it became a state, California automatically received ownership of these properties and was obligated to put them to use for commerce, navigation, and fisheries. The history of and legal obligations concerning tide and submerged lands are explained in cases such as People v. Alice Vilardi Page 2 September 8, 1995 California Fish Company (1913) 166 Cal. 576 and City of Berkeley v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal. 3d 515. The types of uses to which the properties can be put include the entire range of an active waterfront from hotels serving visitors to industry which makes use of the water to recreation and preservation of the land in its natural condition as habitat. The case of Marks v. Whitney (1971) 3 Cal. 3d 251 discusses uses of trust land. On the reverse side, these lands can not be given over to essentially private uses not benefitting the statewide public or not dependent upon a waterfront location. Housing is among the prohibited private uses. To allow housing commits the land to a private use into perpetuity. Cases such as Colberg v. State (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 408 emphasize that the lands must be used for trust purposes benefitting all of the people of the State. Housing can be permitted only where lands have been freed of the trust pursuant to a factually - supportable legal exchange showing that the lands are not necessary for trust purposes and lands of equal value can be found. In many instances, the Legislature made grants of tide and submerged lands to local governments so that they might operate their ports, marinas, and filled tidelands directly. The continuing role of the State acting through the State Lands Commission is to assure compliance with the legislative grants which entrusted public trust lands to local governments. In Alameda's case, a trust grant including the area of the Naval Air Station was made in 1913 and was amended in 1917. It is through these grants that Alameda has leasing authority over its marinas and waterfront facilities. Turning to exchanges of land, it is clear that the courts have allowed exchanges and trust termination to occur only in limited circumstances in which the several requirements listed below have been met. As recognized in City of Alameda v. Todd (1986) 632 F. Supp. 333 and 635 F. Supp. 1447 (on reconsideration), the power to terminate the public trust is limited and the courts have struck down improper attempts to do so. See Todd at page 337. A common thread through the case authority on trust termination is that the first obligation of the State or a trustee city is to protect and to foster the use of public trust lands. If, in the development of trust properties for the benefit of commerce, navigation, and fisheries, certain lands are filled and made useless for trust purposes, these lands may be considered for exchange and trust termination. County of Orange v. Heim, (1973) 30 Cal. App. 3d 694 is a prime authority regarding trust termination. The authority of the State Lands Commission to terminate the public trust through land exchange is found in Public Resources Code Section 6307. As will be discussed below, this section could be used in the Alameda situation. The Commission may relinquish the State's sovereign interest in exchange for other lands if the following criteria are met: 1. The lands from which the State's sovereign interests are to be removed must be filled, reclaimed, and excluded from public waters. They must not be useful or susceptible of use for public trust purposes. It is difficult to make this finding with regard to waterfront and near -water properties. On the other hand, a parcel removed from the water, long used Alice Vilardi Page 3 September 8, 1995 for non -trust purposes, and not required for wildlife habitat would not present the same problem. 2. The public trust lands to be freed of the trust and potentially sold into private ownership must be a relatively small part of the whole See Heim at page 711. It is likely to mean in this setting that the area to be terminated must be a small part of NAS Alameda. Some flexibility regarding this requirement would be justified in the base closure context given that these large tracts have become suddenly available to the State and to its cities. 3. The lands to be received into the trust by the State in exchange must be of a value equal to or greater than the value of the lands to be relinquished. They must be useful for trust purposes and title to them accepted by the State and its trustee city as sovereign lands subject to the trust. The underlying purposes of these requirements is evident: general trust law requires a private trustee to foster and to protect the trust asset for the purposes for which the trust was created and to keep the body of the trust whole: No less is expected when the State and one of its cities are the trustees. In order to determine whether the requisite findings may be made to support an exchange, Commission staff performs several steps which would also be applicable in the Alameda setting. First, the trust lands are located. With only a minor exception, that has already been done here through Todd Shipyards. Second, the utility of the identified trust lands for trust purposes must be established. This analysis depends in part on the characteristics of the lands in their current condition, their proximity to other public trust lands, existing or foreseeable new infrastructure to support trust industry or maritime uses, and the potential use of the lands for visitor - serving facilities. Using the land for wildlife habitat is also relevant. We have emphasized the role which a thorough land use assessment/plan can play in deciding whether land has trust utility. Third, the value of the lands to be freed of the trust in the proposed exchange must be established by a fair market appraisal. And fourth, trust utility of lands offered in exchange must be determined. In the case of NAS Alameda, we have long advocated that lands along the Oakland estuary not now subject to the trust because of the Todd ruling be brought into it and committed to trust uses. Similarly, other lands along the south basin which are not now trust lands should be made so. Even if these do not provide the economic value necessary to offset the value of the land in which the trust is to be terminated, they will assist in doing so. To the extent that these areas are converted to housing, exchange opportunities are lost. We are aware that the large amount of trust lands at NAS Alameda and the smaller amount of potential exchange lands will likely result in the trust remaining in much of the facility. This same result could occur where land behind the immediate waterfront is set aside as a possible area for trust- related industrial or maritime development. We have had conversations Alice Vilardi Page 4 September 8, 1995 with Paul Tuttle and Heather McLaughlin regarding this and have discussed the possibility of interim leases for non -trust uses so that the property is put back to use quickly but in a manner which allows Alameda as trustee to convert the property to trust uses should they arise. We have also discussed the proposed golf course which is to serve as a buffer to the wildlife habitat area. We had indicated to Paul that, at best, it is uncertain whether a golf course is a public trust use included within the purposes of the 1913 grant to Alameda. However, it may be permissible here if it is demonstrated that the particular design and function of the course is integral to habitat protection in the adjoining parcel. The golf course may not serve this function if it has housing within it. We suggest that you work closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this regard. If an exchange which meets the requirements of law can be formulated, an agreement will be drafted to implement it. The most rapid means to implement the exchange would be to use the State Lands Commission's existing legal authority found in Section 6307 of the Public Resources Code through which the Commission has been delegated the authority to make the necessary findings on behalf of the State. The parties to the agreement would be the City of Alameda, the United States, and the State Lands Commission. The agreement would describe three categories of land: 1. Land now subject to the trust which would remain so; 2. Land now subject to the trust to be freed of it; and 3. Exchange lands not now subject to the trust which are to be brought into the trust. The agreement would call for an instantaneous transfer by the City of Alameda to the State of its granted lands interests in the lands in which the public trust will be terminated. This transfer would occur only at the moment of recordation so that the City would be assured that all aspects of the agreement are fulfilled and its interests kept whole. With the transfer, the State would then exercise its powers under Section 6307 to terminate the trust and to impose it on other land at NAS Alameda, all with the agreement and participation of the United States. This new trust interest in the exchange land would either be leased immediately back to the City of Alameda at no rent or could be granted by legislation to Alameda. The net effect would be that, according to an agreed -upon plan, some land at the Station which is now subject to the trust would be free of it and would be ultimately transferred to the ARRA through BRACC procedures. The ARRA could sell it into private ownership or itself lease the property. Other land not now subject to the trust would be made trust land. This new trust land, together with land in which the trust now exists and is to remain, would be transferred to the City of Alameda through BRACC procedures. The City would administer this land as it does now other trust lands within the City, leasing it out or administering it directly. The agreement would include all of the accepted and necessary indemnifications by the federal government for toxics responsibility. A typical requirement in exchange agreements is that a title company issue a commitment to insure title based upon the agreement. This would assure the issuance of insurance policies to individuals purchasing former trust property and, also, policies to the City for what remains or becomes trust lands. Alice Vilardi Page 5 September 8, 1995 We will be pleased to continue working with your office as it assists the City and ARRA in the development of a reuse plan and the framing of solid land exchanges. Sincerely, Blake D. Stevenson Senior Staff Counsel cc: Ralph J. Appezzato, Mayor Kay Miller, ARRA Robert C. Hight, SLC Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 17 Proposed Budget Amendment August 31, 1995 ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET NARRATIVE ARRA Personnel /Office Expenses Per OEA, the salaries currently include an 8% allowance given the California cost of living. For this budget amendment period, the salaries and benefits remain the same for the Project Manager (Executive Director), Facilities Manager, Planner. Administrative Management Analyst and Receptionist /Secretary These positions were previously funded through the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC). Funding has been included to provide benefits for these positions commensurate with other ARRA and City staff positions. The salary for the Administrative Management Analyst includes the 3% annual increase allowed by OEA on each employees' anniversary date of employment. The Management Analyst was hired September 1993; however, for OEA's purposes the anniversary date is calculated from when the original OEA grant was funded which was November 1, 1993. Departmental Secretary This position was previously funded approximately two thirds by OEA under temporary clerical, and one third by the City of Alameda. With the additional workload generated by the new reuse planning area, FISC, and the additional workload generated by the ARRA, the ARRA requests that OEA provide salary and benefit funding for this position. Office Expenses Monthly Phone, equipment, supplies, outside printing and janitorial charges remain the same as in previously approved OEA budgets. Fax /Copier service contract and postage have increased due to the number of copies requested by the ARRA regional representatives, the EBCRC and the BRAG. Travel Expenses The amounts for local and long distance travel remain the same as last year's OEA grant. Administrative Services The amount for accounting services remain the same as last year's OEA grant. Public Participation Since FISC has been included in the reuse planning for the ARRA, continued funding is requested to continue public participation activities for FISC and NAS through the end of the reuse planning in January 1996. The money requested will be used for town meetings and bus tours of FISC: Page 16 ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET SUMMARY POSITION NAME ANNUAL SALARY SEPT. 95 OCT. 95 NOV. Project Manager Kay Miller 95 DEC. 95 JAN. 96 TOTAL $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 $4,450 $4,450 $4,450 $16,200 $4,450 $4,450 $4,450 $13,350 $4,450 $4,450 $4,584 $4,584 $4,584 $13,350 $3,781 $3,781 $3 781 811,342 $3,348 $3,348 $3,348 $3,348 $3,348 $11,343 $16,740 $3,348 $3,348 $3,348 $3,348 Facilities Manger Ed Levine Planner Paul Tuttle Administrative Management Analyst Jute Mantrom ARRA Secretary Margaret Ensiey Receptionist/ Secretary Josi Jose Departmental Secretary $13,392 PERSONNEL SUB -TOTAL $7,798 $11,146 $29,361 $29,361 $29,361 $107,027 BENEFITS Total Expenses (Project Manager, Facilities Manager, Planner and Administrative Management Analyst) $19,666 Total Expenses (ARRA Secretary, Receptionist/ Secretary and Departmental Secretary benefits are 30% of straight time not overtime) $10,627 OFFICE EXPENSES - Monthly Phone Facsimile and charges $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 Equipment/Fumishings $500 $500 $500 $1,500 Fax/Copier (Service Charge) $500 $500 $500 Supplies $1,500 $583 $583 Postage $750 $750 $750 $,250 Outside Printing $500 $500 $500 $22,250 Janitorial Service $1,500 Office Expenses $325 $325 $325 Sub -Total $975 $3,158 $3,158 $3,158 $12,474 TRAVEL EXPENSES Local Travel Long Distance Travel $750 $4,000 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Accounting $7,000 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EXPENSES Town Meetings, Bus Tours (FISC) $3,000 EDAW PLANNING (for December and January) Phase 5 - Community Reuse Plan Extension of Phase 5 - Community Reuse Plan $68,000 $19,000 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING NAS 1994195 FISCAL YEAR GRANT: CB Commercial - Building Marketability Analysis $40,000 ARRA Property/Liability Insurance ARRA IRS Filing $6,152 Homeless Legal Notices $465 Copier Repair Service Contract $987 ARRA Meeting Expense $1,000 BRAG Meeting Expense $3,500 Restoration of $4,000 OEA Miscalculation $2,000 $4,000 FISC REUSE PLANNING CONSULTANT BUDGET (September through January) FISC Reuse Planning $100,000 ADDITIONAL NAS CONSULTANT ACTIVITY (September through January) Environmental Consultant - Fish & Wildlife Section 7 Consultation $15,000 Development of Detailed Marketing Plan and Prototype Marketing Materials $50,000 Port/Marina Market and Feasibility Study $25,000 ADDITIONAL PLANNING REQUESTS ULI (Urban Land Institute) Review Panel $42,000 Funding for Engineering Analysis fo Structural Deficinecies in AEG Lease Premises ( Bidgs. 11/12 & 400A) $12,000 OEA BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTAL $553,648 OEA Match Requirement $184,549 ARRA Reuse Planning Budget $738,197 DETAILED UTILITY STUDY OEA Contibution . Proposed Local Match Contribution $200,000 (City of Alameda and Utilities) $400,000 Total Detailed Utility Study Budget $600,000 Total ARRA Reuse Planning and Detailed Utility Study Budget $1,338,197 Ateachment A 0 udget 95 -96 't CO 0) 0 0) 03 c 03 0 N. 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 CD 0 N. Obsoaoo 0 0 0) QS CD C7 C) CD C) CD C7 0o C) CD CD CD CD CO CD C) CD CD LO CD CD CD 01 0/ CO - C D C D D D D 00 000 CO o D C D C C QD C D C0 C5 0 c‘i* .c.r7 c - < <6 S cO i CO o- =7 c6 c\<cv cv - - CD Nt 01 01 CV 0.1 LO Eiry T. CV 69.69- c0 9. 69. 69. 69. 69 69. 69. te 69. 69 69 CD 69 (7) 69 69. 69. 69. 69- 64 6 69. N.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N. 0 N.. 0 CD CD CD CO CD CD CD . 69. 69 69 69- 69, 69 69. 69. 69 CO 0 CO 64 69. CD CD CO 0 CD N- 0 0 CD C) CD C C C to- (NI' c7 ,ct:' c6 co- •cra NI: CO 69. 64 N- LI) 69. CO 64 69. 69. 69- 69. 69. CD CD 0 0 'V' CV O4NCs . 0) cyc 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 0 CD CD C) CD CD C) CD 1.0 CD CD CD 0000 CD CD CD CD CD U, CD CO CV CD CD CD 0000 CD 0 CD CD C) CV c) o cci c,i <- 6 N4: (55 <- 6 cci c6 Lri c: CV Y- CD CO CV 01 N.- N.- QS 01 CV <- cAy ('4 6')- 64E09 69646969 69.69. 6464 US 64 69- 64 CO 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD 0 00 CD 0 CD CD 0 LLO 69. C7 CD 0 0 69. CS 00 000(00 CV CD 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 04 05 <- Le oi 0 0 0 cN" <17 tri .cr CV CV NI- N.- 69 CO b 04 69. 69- 64 64 64 69. fi4. 69. 69 CV EBCRC Activity c C 0 as "0 co ..= - ay .92 -6 o o c>,u) _cc: O) ..:.:7) 0-ca) 'iliccE 'a %- ° '4:3) a) a. g. -0; (>ri <E 7:>711:-5 (f ) -iii o o -. t... 2).:, (c)) .T.. 'Cl ) E ! ›.ra 8 i .." 0 .3, o cr, -o -J5 CL c 0 to. 8 co 03 - .- 0) - 0 1.--, i Lh. c..) 0) ,_U) Q.) 15 0-. y) io- W 0 XL' CO L- .... _1 0 -- L-. c < c E cr) 2 :E < 2 g 1= 70- E , C .1.0 1t.t. CO - ca 1-9- a) as ›..,= s ..,, 1-- to) 0) Ts 5 -c. > ..) .2 -65 < . . 0 'o „„ c . C'- Nr.e ..C) N..* 0 .E.0 .-g- .cE .r In W cca moo '5 -E, ca 0) CO Q. a. ...= tu F2 • co co 6 a. a) .8,- c W cn E 0 c 8 a 0 0. w 2 <'0 c c :- "..0 C) (71 8 co LU -1 UJ It C5 ,=( w c cn c»ij, () c 18 tf4 co BRAG /EBCRC /ARRA Meetings C) LO CO 69. CD LO Total EDAW (Original Proposal) 0 a 0 0 c c6 C) 6 CD C) CD CD CD 8888 CD ("9- 4 6 co co- .cr7 co" •tt:' NJ: 69 69- N.- 69 64 -...... En t >, ca c ,,_o .c tc-_-. „,- EL) - 0 ;E:1 .... a) 0 -2 'o 06 0 .... <(/) 2° C.) 0 ...... '..-0 0U) '5<- 0 .(/) .... 0 ■ , .. ...., c 0 0 co a) a. To 0 w ts, .E ›. a) c -sk- co Tn. c .... co o E cn --- o c >, a) 0 0 tc.• c T..- E - ti) Iti cT. +.,, < c. ... o Ts 2 ., -,--, „1.- 8 • (0 a) 8- 0) .° al *5 ...c c a) 0 0 12.• c a) - 0 0w G9 :E cl. I-- Q. z (4) (x) co 69- CO- 69- LO NN: LO 69. CC 69- u) a) to) co Ta CO CO y- CO- CO- CO QS 69. 64 0 0 CD 0 • al, CV CV 69. 69. EDAW TOTAL September 12, 1994 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter -Office Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement Between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET), and the California State University Hayward Foundation ( CSUHF). Background: On July 27, 1995, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) invited ARRA to prepare an application for funding assistance. On August 16, 1995, ARRA endorsed CSUHF as a Co- Applicant with ARRA and ACET and a final application has been submitted to EDA. Prior to disbursement of the grant award, EDA requires an approved agreement between ARRA, ACET, and CSUHF that defines the roles and responsibilities of each party. Discussion/Analysis: The proposed Memorandum of Agreement clarifies the responsibilities of each of the co- applicants. ARRA will serve as the primary contact with EDA representatives. All EDA funds will be received by ARRA and remitted to CSUHF as fiscal agent. ARRA may review all technical and business reports, budgets, audits and other materials generated by ACET to ensure EDA compliance. Leasing activities for ACET at the Naval Air Station will be handled by ARRA. CSUHF will receive EDA grant funds from ARRA and disburse them for ACET. CSUHF will complete audits and financial reports which will be reviewed and approved by ARRA before submission to EDA. ACET will also comply with EDA requirements, particularly with respect to competitive hiring and bidding practices, recruit environmental technology firms to NAS and be legally and financially liable for fiscal agent activities. In the event that ACET or CSUHF violate the terms of the agreement, ARRA may withhold remittances of EDA funds pending remedy of the deficiency, disallow all or part of the cost of activity not in compliance, or take any other remedy that may be legally available. Also, ARRA has the ability to terminate the agreement if ACET or CSUHF fail to generate the required tasks or fail to fulfill any other terms of the agreement. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Fiscal Impact: August 30, 1995 Page 2 ARRA and its co- applicants have proposed in the application that EDA fund a part-time ARRA staff position to perform the tasks indicated in the Memorandum of Agreement. Since the required local match is being provided by the CSUHF staff and in kind contribution, there is no fiscal impact on the ARRA. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve the Memorandum of Agreement with ACET and CSUHF. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director JD /mee Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the NAS Alameda Sewer Improvement Project Background: The Army Corps of Engineers is relocating the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Sewer Force Main across the Oakland Inner Harbor Estuary as part of the Port of Oakland Inner Harbor deepening project. The sewer replacement project provides a unique opportunity for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to provide adequate sewer capacity for the future redevelopment of NAS at a lower cost. It would be cheaper and more cost effective to expand the Sewer Force Main size (from 16 inches to 20 inches) while the sewer line is being relocated by the Army Corps of Engineers. By increasing the size of the sewer line segment across the harbor while the sewer line is being relocated, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the federal government can save more than two million dollars in future construction costs. At its regular meeting on October 25, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority directed the Executive Director to make the necessary Army Corps of Engineers applications and take all actions necessary to successfully accomplish the NAS Sewer Force Main sizing project. Staff made permit applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, and the Port of Oakland and prepared the CEQA Initial Study (IS -94 -001) for the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main improvements. The Army Corps of Engineers processed a separate environmental review consistent with the federal law (National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA). The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) in the Department of Defense has recently indicated that they would pay the cost of the project (approx. $300,000). However, the federal moneys cannot be transferred to the Corps of Engineers, and can only be used for engineering studies and not for construction. Thus, to pay for the sewer improvements OEA is willing to grant federal dollars to the City and the ARRA, who would then pass construction money on to the Corps of Engineers. To use these monies requires a cooperation agreement or MOA among the three parties: the City of Alameda, the ARRA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Discussion: August 30, 1995 Page 2 Without the assistance, grants, and permit approvals from the Corps of Engineers, the Port of Oakland, OEA, and BCDC, the proposed sewer improvements to enlarge the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main in conjunction the Army Corps of Engineers project will not be possible. This is a very complex project involving elaborate intergovernmental cooperation agreements and creative financing techniques to make this project work. Many of the agencies involved have been hesitant to participate in such a complex and intricate deal. However, in the last month, with the intervention of Congressman Dellums' Office and the Mayor of Alameda, we have begun to forge new relationships of cooperation between the various agencies involved. There are many conditions and agreements that must be met by all parties. In addition, all these conditions and agreements must come together in a very short time frame (30 days). Further delays could add cost to the project. Funding is now provided and permits and the easement are being processed by the Port of Oakland. ARRA staff has had several meetings with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the process and develop the MOA in a form acceptable to the City and the Corps of Engineers for transferring the necessary funds. It was determined at these meetings that the City, the ARRA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would enter into a MOA to pay for the sewer improvements. However, one major outstanding issue still needs to be resolved. The Army Corps has requested the City /ARRA to assume liability for all project cost overruns and costs incurred due to delays in the project associated with the increase in the sewer pipe diameter (16" to 20 "). OEA has approved costs for the project up to approximately $350,000. However, the City and the ARRA should not guarantee unlimited cost overruns. This issue is still under negotiation with the Army Corps and has not been completed at the time of writing this staff report. Time is of the essence. Any further delays in processing permits, MOAs, or other agreements could substantially increase the construction cost of the sewer improvements due to delays in the contractor's schedule. Fiscal Impact: Cost for the Sewer Improvements Project is estimated at $300,000- $350,000. Funds for the project have been approved by the OEA (Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment). An added complication in the funding is the limit on the use of OEA funds by the federal government. OEA funds can only be used for engineering and planning studies (O &M) and not construction projects. Thus, the sewer construction project will be included in a proposed larger base -wide utilities engineering study. The overall cost of the engineering study is $600,000 with one -third match each from the City of Alameda ($200,000), the utility companies ($200,000), and OEA ($200,000). Combining the construction project funds ($300,000) the total project cost would Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 30, 1995 Page 3 be $900,000. By co- mingling funds, the construction project would be paid by the City and utility match, and the engineering studies would be paid by OEA's match. While the project can be funded using this creative financing mechanism, it complicates the process by requiring participation from the utility companies in the overall engineering study. These additional cooperation agreements have not been made. In summary, the City, ARRA, and the Army Corps of Engineers agreement would be taking the risk that the other parties would also commit to the larger utility study. OEA funding is contingent on the participation of the utility companies. If these other agencies do not cooperate, OEA would not fund the sewer project, and the City will be held liable for the full cost of the sewer improvements. Staff has been discussing the larger utility study with the Bureau of Electricity, East Bay MUD, and PG &E. There has been some interest in the study but no formal commitments have been made. Recommendation: Staff recommends the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Agreement with approval by the City Attorney as to form, between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and the City of Alameda for the NAS Alameda sewer improvements. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt/mee cc: U.S. Corps of Engineers Port of Oakland U.S. Navy Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter-Office Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for a Port/Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study for Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Background: A major goal in all alternative land use plans under consideration for the redevelopment of NAS Alameda is the development of a major new marina in the area of the Seaplane Lagoon. In addition, two of the land use alternatives under consideration look at the development of a container port (six berths) on 240 acres of the northern runway area. The use of the northern runway for a future port is proposed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as part of their new San Francisco Port Priority Plan. The MTC/BCDC Port Priority Plan is a regional plan that supersedes local jurisdiction and planning for the Bay Area. As such, local plans should be consistent with the regional plan. Failure to conform to the regional Port Priority plan could jeopardize federal funds for other local transportation projects. ARRA staff has requested a budget modification from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to prepare a more detailed market and planning feasibility study for both port uses in the northern runway area and the development of a marina in the NAS Seaplane Lagoon. The EBRPD has also indicated interest in the development and management of public marina uses in the Seaplane Lagoon. Public marina uses envisioned could include berthing space for sailing clubs, public access, public boat launching facilities, and a public marina with boat berths. The EBRPD has already engaged a consultant firm to look at the feasibility of marina development to determine their potential participation in such a development. Discussion: The Port/Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study would provide a detailed market and planning assessment to demonstrate the demand for marina and port facilities at NAS and how they might be accommodated or developed. The study has two major objectives: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 30, 1995 Page 2 1. To determine the market demand, potential timing and absorption rates for both public and private marina uses, and outline the size, shape and extent of marina development; and, 2. To determine the market demand and feasibility for a container port (six berths) in the northern runway area. There is considerable support for the development of a new marina in the Seaplane Lagoon. However, the detailed extent and type of marina development are unknown. A key issue of the marina portion of the study is to determine the market demand and potential build -out for marina uses and the extent of public and private uses that can be accommodated in the Seaplane Lagoon. Marina development could potentially be a cornerstone of the reuse and redevelopment plan for NAS Alameda. In the current economic climate, however, marinas do not present a strong market demand. This study would also help to identify the potential phasing of marina development at NAS Alameda and more important, the type, size, and character of marina supporting industries and commercial uses surrounding a new marina. All planning studies of a container port alternative have indicated that both the physical practicality, economic viability, and environmental impacts of a port development are unsuitable for Alameda. A task of the port feasibility portion of the study is to review in more detail the market demand for port uses and the development constraints (bridge, rail access, port management) to determine the feasibility of a port development at NAS Alameda. Currently, all of NAS Alameda and the FISC site are designated for Port Priority use in the regional plan. The new plan under consideration removes the Port Priority designation from all NAS lands except for a 240 -acre portion of the northern runway adjacent to the Oakland — Alameda Estuary. The Port Priority designation would essentially "land bank" the runway area for some future, unmet port demand identified in the BCDC port planning studies. Letters and presentations have been made by ARRA staff to the BCDC Port Planning Committee requesting all Port Priority designation be removed from NAS Alameda and the FISC sites. The Port Priority Plan may be reviewed and changed by MTCBCDC every five years. BCDC staff has also assured the ARRA that the Port Priority designation would be reconsidered after completion of the NAS Reuse Plan. The East Bay Regional Parks District has indicated their willingness to share in the costs and management of the marina portion of this study if public access to the marina is a goal of the reuse plan. All alternatives have envisioned some form of public access to a new marina. This proposed study will help to determine the potential type, size, character and location of both public and private marina development in the Seaplane Lagoon. The proposed work program (draft attached) for the feasibility study has two major parts: the market study and the planning feasibility. The ARRA will be responsible for the market studies (for both the marina and port uses). EBRPD will be responsible for the planning and design feasibility study for the seaplane marina uses. Both parts of the study will be published under one cover by the ARRA. The ARRA will extend the contract with our existing consultant team (Bay Area Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 30, 1995 Page 3 Economics) to perform our portion of the study. EBRPD will use their existing consultants to prepare their portion of the study. Fiscal Impact: Total cost for the Port/Marina Feasibility Study is $40,000. The ARRA share of the cost is $25,000 to be paid for by an OEA grant (included in the Grant Amendment). The EBRPD share for the study is approximately $15,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding, with approval by the City Attorney as to form, between the East Bay Regional Parks District and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for a Port/Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study for NAS Alameda. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachment: Draft Work Program cc: Mike Anderson, EBRPD NAS Alameda Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 1995 Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the market and development feasibility of a major container Port and marina at NAS Alameda. The study includes the development feasibility of maritime uses at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) site as well as NAS Alameda. The study is intended to identify the type, size, extent and intensity, and potential build out (absorption) of potential marina uses including both those on the water (birthing slips, docks, boat ramps, sailing areas, etc.) as well as land side related uses that would support a major public and private marina (boat repair, storage, sales, retail and related commercial activity. etc). Study Organization This study will be prepared through a cooperative agreement between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD). Both agencies recognize the demand and opportunity for marina and potential port related uses that could be located at NAS Alameda (including the FISC site). By working jointly on this study a creative management and development scheme could be developed that would be beneficial to both agencies and the public they serve. The scope of work developed below is divided into four major parts. The first part (market study) and second part (development program) is the responsibility of the ARRA for funding and its staff and consultants. The third part (the conceptual design) is the responsibility of the EBRPD for funding and its consultants and staff. ARRA staff will be responsible for consolidating and formatting the two parts into one report for presentation and distribution. Part I. Port and Marina Economic Market Study ARRA This part of the work involves a market study to determine the feasibility of the development of tow major maritime activities at NAS Alameda; a six berth, modern containerized port; and, the development of a major public and private marina in the NAS Alameda Sea Plan lagoon area. The work in this phase focuses on two major use activities: 1. Container Port Facilities BCDC has proposed to designate 240 acres of the northern air field area at NAS Alameda and the FISC port side facility as Port Priority designation on the new BCDC Port Priority Plan. This analysis will analyze and summarize the available port market studies and projections to determine their continued reliability and adequacy given the changing market conditions in the area of modern container port development. 2. Public and Private Marina Activities This part of the work task involves the identification, review, analysis and summarization of available information on public and private marina development in the San Francisco Bay Area. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program Task 1.1 Market Assessment August 10, 1995 Page 2 A. Contrainer Port Market Assessment This analysis will assess the market potential for port uses at NAS Alameda including; the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) site and the northern air field site for a modern container port. The work consist of identifying, review, analysis and summarize available market information, market conditions and activity in the San Francisco Bay Area. B. Marina Market Assessment This analysis willl assess the market potential for marina development in the Seaplane Lagoon and the Southern boat amrina. It will idnetify, review, analyse and summarize avaiable market information on market conditions, maina occupancy and maina development plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. It will also assess the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed site relative to copenting maina opportunties in the reion, noting incentives and barriers to development. Uses for marina development include both those activities in the water (berths, slips, boat launching ramps, docks, etc.) and land side development activity which would be associated with a new marina (ship/boat repair and maintenance yards, boat storage and sales, sailing education center, retail sales, offices, cafes, restaurants, etc.). The analysis will project potential market absorption for marina uses and the potential market share of maritime development that could possibly be captured at the Alaemda Naval facilities. Task 1.3 Draft Economic Feasibility Study Report. This task involves the production of a draft Economic Feasibility /Market Study report for review by ARRA and EBRPD staff. Task 1.4 Staff Review. This tasks involves the review of the draft economic market study by the ARRA and EBRBD staff. Staff review comments will collected and submitted to the consultant team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 1.6 Peer Review. Concurrently, the draft market study will be reviewed by the design development team. Comments will be forwarded to the economic team for revisions or changes as necessary. Part II. Marina Development Program ARRA Based upon the findings of the market study, described above, a land use program will be developed to identify the type, extent, intensity, size, and possible phasing of build out of potential marina and adjacent uses for NAS Alameda. A key aspect of the development program is to identify the extent of both private and public uses that could be developed at NAS Alameda. These uses could including both private and public marinas, docking slips, small boat and water sports areas, boat launching areas, teaching areas for sailing, boating and other water sports, ferry dock facilities, etc. The development program will be developed in cooperatively with both the market feasibility team and design feasibility team. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 10, 1995 Page 3 Task 2.1 Development Program. Based upon the market analysis a preliminary development program will be developed by the market feasibility team. The preliminary program for a marina at NAS Alameda will include both water development uses (births, ferry terminal, sailing areas, etc.) as well as the market potential for land side development opportunities. The development program will also include a discussion of the potential marina development opportunities at both the FISC and NAS Sea Port Lagoon sites. Task 2.2 Staff Review. This tasks involves the review of the preliminary development program by the ARRA and EBRBD staff. Staff review comments will collected and submitted to the consultant team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 2.3 Peer Review. Concurrently, the preliminary development will be reviewed by the design development team. Comments will be forwarded to the economic team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 2.4 Finalize Development Program. After completion of the staff and peer review, the preliminary development program will revised and finalized as necessary. Task 2.5 Final Market Feasibility Study and Development Program. Based upon the peer review of both the market analysis and development program the ARRA consultant team will revise the draft market study and development program as needed and provide a final written report for consolidation into the final report document. Meetings. Staff meetings including the Marketing team and Design team will be held to review the development program and finalize an optimum development program for build out and potential phasing of development based upon the projected land use absorption identified in the market study. The development program will form the basis of the schematic marina planning and design plans. Deliverables: Development Program memo. A memo summarizing the development program in written form using text and spread sheets as needed to identify the recommended development program activity types, size, and development characteristics. Part III. Marina Feasibility Planning and Design EBRPD This part of the work effort evolves the planning and schematic design of a marina development for NAS Alameda. Key components of this part involve the identification of land uses, location and size for a marina in and around the NAS Alameda Seaplane lagoon. Task 3.1 Schematic Development Plans. Based upon the program outlined in Part II above, a schematic design for a marina development will be developed. This design is conceptual level site planning that identifies development sites, sizes, and infrastructure requirements for both private and public uses. These uses include both dock facilities, boat births, as well as land side development opportunities for ancillary uses and land side development opportunities for commercial uses such as boat yards, restaurants and cafes, boating outfitters, fishing and sports supplies, etc. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 10, 1995 Page 4 Task 3.2 Development and Operating Cost Estimates. Based upon the development program and schematic development plan identified above, develop an "order -of- magnitude" costs estimate for a marina development, and an "order -of- magnitude" annual operating costs for the marina. Task 3.3 Staff Review. This tasks involves the review of the preliminary work product by the ARRA and EBRBD staff. Staff review comments will collected and submitted to the consultant team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 3.4 Peer Review. Concurrently, the conceptual design development solution will be reviewed by the economic team. Comments will be forwarded to the design team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 3.5 Finalize Schematic Marina Development Plans. Based upon the staff and peer review of the earlier development schemes, a final schematic development plan will be prepared for inclusion in the final report. Task 3.6 Public Presentation of Findings. This task involves the presentation of the report findings and recommendations to the ARRA and the EBRPD Board for approval. It is anticipated that these presentations will be made by the agency staff with back -up by each agencies consultant team members. Meetings: Staff meetings as need among all participants to review and finalize the development plans and reports. Deliverables: 1. Draft Schematic Development Plan Report (8 1/2 X 11 inch format - 20 copies plus 1 copy suitable for reproduction) 2. Final Schematic Development Plan Report (8 1/2 X 11 format - 40 copies plus 1 copy suitable for reproduction) 3. Wall size maps and diagrams of the schematic development plan suitable for public presentation Part IV. Finalize Port/Marina Feasibility Study ARRA Staff The final phase of this study involves the compilation of the first three parts into one report for publication and presentations to each of the two governing boards; the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the East Bay Regional Parks District. Task 4.1 Report Production ARRA staff will be responsible for consolidating and formatting the final report for reproduction and distribution. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 10, 1995 Page 5 Task 4.2 Report Presentation Staff from both the ARRA and EBRPD will be responsible for attending board meetings of the ARRA and EBRPD to present the finding s and recommendations of the study. Meetings: Staff meetings as need among all participants to review and finalize the development plans and reports. One (1) presentation meeting to the ARRA Board One (1) presentation meeting to the EBRPD Board Deliverables: Each consultant/agency will provide one (1) copy of the finalized report (in computerized foiii.iiat, Word Perfect 6.0 or higher) of their responsible sections for consolidation into a final report document. c:\wp\officepauldocs\marinawp Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Adopt an Open Listing Policy Allowing Payment of Commissions to Real Estate Brokers Representing Interim Tenants. Background/Analysis: During the last month, the ARRA has been approached by two brokers, each representing a viable potential lessee requiring 100,000 - 150,000 sq. ft. of warehouse /industrial space. Since brokers are paid by the lessor, it is necessary that ARRA commit to pay the broker's commission as a prerequisite to moving forward with any lease negotiation. Additionally, future marketing of interim leases will be greatly enhanced if ARRA adopts an open - listing policy in which local industrial brokers are informed of our leasing program (through an upcoming marketing package) and commission schedule. The proposed commission will conform to industry standards for industrial leases. It will pay 5 percent of gross rental proceeds over the first five years of the lease and 3 percent of rental proceeds for years six through ten. The commission will be paid from the tenant's rent. Fiscal Impact: On a typical 100,000 sq. ft. lease for one of the large hanger buildings, ARRA might expect to receive a monthly rent of $10,000 or $600,000 over a five -year interim lease. The commission on this lease would be $30,000. This is well worth the payment, considering that the alternative might well be a long -term vacancy. Recommendation: That the ARRA Board approve an open- listing policy for its interim leasing program allowing payment of commissions to qualifying real estate brokers of 5 percent of rental proceeds during lease years 1 -5 and 3 percent during years 6-10. Respectfully submitted, _vl Kay Miller Executive Director l J Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum DATE: August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter Proposing to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal and Authorization to Communicate this Determination to the Port of Oakland and Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Background: The Port of Oakland has submitted a letter proposal to increase heights of three container cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal (CPHT) as stated in the attached letters. The new cranes will extend to a height of 265 feet above ground level (AGL); existing cranes extend to 213 feet AGL. Discussion/Analysis: The Navy plans to close its airfield at NAS Alameda on or around June 30, 1996. The Port's estimated installation date for the taller cranes at CPHT is November 1, 1996. Because crane construction will occur well after airfield closure, the Navy has indicated it will likely agree to the Port's proposal. While retention of the airfield has not reached a final decision through the reuse planing process, it is unlikely. A previous report by the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) consultant, P &D Aviation, found there is no favorable economic market for civilian reuse of the airfield at NAS Alameda. If the airfield were retained, the most likely uses would be aircraft maintenance, refurbishment, and training. Since future civilian aviation use of the airfield is not included in any of the draft community reuse plans and civilian use of the airfield is not anticipated, the Port of Oakland is requesting written confirmation that the increase in crane heights at CPHT as proposed would have no effect on future uses of the airfield. Financial Impact/Budget Consideration: None. Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Recommendation: August 30, 1995 Page 2 Staff recommends that the ARRA direct the Executive Director to communicate to both the Port of Oakland and NAS Alameda the ARRA's determination that the increase in crane heights at CPHT as proposed would have no effect on future uses of the airfield. Respectfully submitted, t■ta lam_ Kay Miller Executive Director /mee Attachments: (1) June 28, 1995 letter to Kay Miller from the Port of Oakland regarding a proposed increase in crane heights (2) June 28, 1995 letter to F.J. Dodge, Commanding Officer, NAS Alameda from the Port of Oakland regarding a proposed increase in crane heights I-rte• •.— l PORT ON OAKLAND June 28, 1995 Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station, Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Re: Proposal to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at Charles P. Howard Terminal Dear Ms. Miller: RECEIVED JUL 7 1995 uASE CONVERSION OFFICE CITY OF ALAMEDA This letter follows up on your recent telephone conversation with Ted Mankowski, Supervising Civil Engineer, of my staff. As discussed, the Port of Oakland proposes to replace three cranes at its Charles P. Howard Terminal (CPHT) with cranes up to 52 feet taller than the existing ones. The taller cranes will be capable of accommodating the new generation of larger and wider container ships. As shown on the attached figures, the new cranes will extend to a height of 265 feet above ground level (AGL) or about 280 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW). By comparison, the tallest of the existing cranes at CPHT are 213 feet AGL or about 228 feet above MLLW. The Port's estimated installation date for the taller cranes at CPHT is November 1, 1996, and the Navy plans to close the airfield at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda on or around June 30, 1996. On the basis of our informal discussions with you and with ACCM Norma Bishop, NAS Alameda Assistant Base Closure Officer, we anticipate that ARRA's forthcoming Community Reuse Plan will not propose any future aviation uses for the NAS. Therefore, increasing crane heights at CPHT as proposed would have no effect on future uses of the airfield. Please do not hesitate to call me at (510) 272 -1254 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the above- described proposal or any other Port activities. We look forward to continued mutual cooperation regarding future Port and ARRA development programs. Sincerely, Ralph Gin Chief of Planning cc: Lt. Deborah Scott, Air Traffic Control Officer, Naval Air Station, Alameda ACCM Norma Bishop, Base Closure Office, Naval Air Station, Alameda Attachments 530 Water Street • Jack London's Waterfront ■ P.O. Box 2064 • Oakland, California 94604 -2064 Telephone (510) 272 -1100 • Fax (510) 272 -1172 • TDD (510) 763 -5703 • Cable address, PORTOFOAK, Oakland Iti'arrsh milk. ant I 1/111a 11417, PORT OF OAKLAND June 28, 1995 F. J. Dodge, Commanding Officer Naval Air Station, Alameda 250 Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Proposal to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal Dear Sir: RECEIVED JUL . 7 1995 SE CONVERSION OFFICE CITY OF ALAMEDA The Port of Oakland proposes to replace three cranes at its Charles P. Howard Terminal (CPHT) with cranes up to 52 feet taller than the existing ones. The taller cranes will be capable of accommodating the new generation of larger and wider container ships. As shown on the attached figures, the new cranes will extend to a height of 265 feet above ground level (AGL) or about 280 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW). By comparison, the tallest of the existing cranes at CPHT are 213 feet AGL or about 228 feet above MLLW. On the basis of informal discussions between Port of Oakland staff and Lt. Deborah K. Scott, Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Air Traffic Control Officer, it is our understanding that the Navy plans to close its airfield at NAS Alameda on or around June 30, 1996. The Port's estimated installation date for the taller cranes at CPHT is November 1, 1996. Because crane construction will not occur until well after scheduled airfield closure, Lt. Scott indicated that the Navy is unlikely to oppose the Port's proposal. We further understand, on the basis of informal discussionsjwith ACCM Norma Bishop, Assistant Base Closure Officer and Kay Miller, Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), that the prospect of future civilian aviation use of the airfield is remote. The ARRA is currently developing its Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda, and is scheduled to select a preferred alternative in October of this year. it is anticipated that the City of Alameda's preferred alternative for NAS Alameda will not include civilian aviation uses. We hereby request written confirmation of our understanding of the Navy's position regarding the Port's proposal to raise crane heights at CPHT. Upon receiving your.confirmation letter we will forward our Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460 -1) to the Federal Aviation Administration. Sincerely, Ralph Gin Chief of Planning cc: Lt. Deborah Scott, Air Traffic Control Officer, Naval Air Station, Alameda ACCM Norma Bishop, Base Closure Office, Naval Air Station, Alameda Kay Miller, Executive Director, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Attachments 530 Water Street r Jack London's Waterfront • P.O. Box 2064 • Oakland, California 94604 -2064 Telephone (510) 272 -1100 • Fax (510) 272 -1172 is TDD (510) 763 -5703 • Cable address, PORTOFOAK, Oakland CAPACITIES & 5 p 1 •r Fra- II =E! Rzf?13A3 11 F fpp El VAlmv=pra=WWw. 4 II 11.1111== 4 k 1 b ai i • g hi dtd k A } i Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum DATE: August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director RE: Appointment of a Chairperson for the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. Background: In July 1993, the Alameda City Council created the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) to provide a forum for community input to the base reuse planning process. The BRAG acted in an advisory capacity and reported directly to the Alameda City Council. The BRAG consists of a chairperson and eleven members. Each of the BRAG members chairs a subcommittee. There are eleven BRAG subcommittees including Economic Development, Land Use, Reuse, Housing, Infrastructure, Recreation, Education, Employment and Retraining, Human Impact, Community Involvement, and Environment. On June 7, 1995, the ARRA, by unanimous voice vote, accepted the recommendation of the Executive Director to transfer the BRAG reporting function from the Alameda City Council to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. This action had been previously endorsed by the Alameda City Council at their April 19, 1995 meeting as well as recommended by the BRAG itself. Discussion /Analysis: At the BRAG meeting on Wednesday, July 26, 1995, the resignation of Doug deHaan, Chairperson of the Reuse Subcommittee, was accepted. At the same meeting, a motion was unanimously accepted to appoint Pattianne Parker as the new Chair of the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. The matter was then passed to the ARRA for action. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA accept the appointment of Pattianne Parker as the new Chair of the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director City of Alameda Inter-department :Memorandum CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION August 30, 1995 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Carol A. Korade General Counsel Re: Legal Briefing on the Tidelands Trust Doctrine Attached is a legal memorandum prepared by Kenneth Taymor, an attorney with the law firm of Cassidy & Verges, describing the Tidelands Trust Doctrine and its potential impact on planning for the Naval Air Station. Mr. Taymor, who is an expert in Tidelands law in California, will be present to provide an oral briefing to the ARRA at your September 6, 1995, meeting. Time has also been included at that meeting for Mr. Taymor to address questions ARRA members have about this complex and specialized area of the law, though of course Mr. Taymor will not be able to address questions that involve specific, confidential matters during this public presentation. Any such confidential matters will be addressed after the oral presentation in a separate written communication to the ARRA members. Carol A. Korade General Counsel cc: Kay Miller, Executive Director Heather McLaughlin, Assistant General Counsel Printed on recycled paper From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Cad Korade Date: 8129195 Time: 16:30:09 Page 1 of 8 CASSIDY & VERGES AProfessional Corporation 20 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415- 788 -2020 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MEMORANDUM TO: Hon. Carol Korade City Attorney, City of Alameda FROM: Kenneth S. Taymor RE: Impact of Tidelands Trust on Planning for Naval Air Station, Alameda DATE: August 29, 1995 r■ This memorandum identities the initial results of our research into the question ofthe impact of the Tidelands Trust doctrine on the reuse planning from Naval Air Station, Alameda ( "NAS "). Because ofthe short time frame in which we had to prepare this memorandum, its conclusions are necessarily preliminary. Our recommendations are based on our experience negotiating development project approvals with the California State 1 ands Commission, research into the Tidelands Trust law and federal base closure and property disposition law, research into the history of the federal acquisition of the several parcels of land that comprise NAS (including review of documents supplied to us by your office regarding the application ofthe Tidelands Trust to those parcels), and discussions with representatives of other base closure communities. In summary we suggest that while developing their proposed reuse plan for NAS, the City and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA ") (1) thoroughly analyze the history of title of all of the parcels comprising NAS; (2) analyze the legal arguments in support of the conclusion that each parcel is or is not subject to the Tidelands Trust;, (3) negotiate with the State Lands Commission staff informally and outside of the public, arena, the scope of the Trust's application to NAS; and (4) cooperate in political efforts among other pace closure communities and the State government to gain Commission approval of locally approved reuse plans. While the implications of the Trust must be a factor in consideration when preparing an overall reuse plan for NAS, there is sufficient uncertainty concerning the reach ofthe Trust to NAS and sufficient flexibility in the scope of uses permitted under the Trust, that the City and ARRA will benefit in negotiations with State Lands Commission Staff by first developing a plan that it refines to comply with the Trust rather than (i) Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 1 08 -29 -95 04:40PM P001 #22 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade Date: 8/29/95 Time: 18:31:19 Page 2 of 8 developing a plan based primarily on Trust considerations or (ii) seeking to resolve questions concerning the Trust's application to NAS parcels in the absence of a draft plan. BACKGROUND Tidelands Trust for Commerce. Navigation and Fisheries. Tidelands are subject to a public trust that limits their use generally for commerce, navigation and fisheries. This trust has been interpreted to permit uses, such as parks, restaurants and hotels, that do not directly encourage those three activities, but provided for enhanced public use of and access to tidelands. The Tidelands Trust, as this public trust often is referred to, also prevents sale of tidelands to private persons and restricts the scope and term of tidelands leases. The Tidelands Trust affects property currently and formerly below the mean high water level. Under certain circumstances, filled former tidelands can be released from the restraints of the trust. Some of the methods for releasing property from the Tidelands 'Trust are discussed below. Assemblage of NAS. NAS inoludes over 2600 acres of dry and submerged lands. Muoh of NAS is current and filled tidelands, but the installation includes some uplands (lands above mean high water and therefore never subject to the trust). The United States obtained approximately 2000 acres of NAS by deeds from the City of Alameda. These parcels were tidelands and former tidelands that the State of California oonveyed to the City in 1913, subject to the Tidelands Trust. Approximately 450 acres were obtained by condemnation actions and approximately 100 acres were obtained from private parties and the Regents of the University of California. These parcels include former tidelands and uplands. The United States leases 159 acres of NAS from Alameda (which property lies within the City and County of San Francisco). Application of Tidelands Trust to NAS - Initial Review. Based on our initial review of granting documents and the report of Rodney H. Hamblin, dated October 14, 1994, several conclusions can be made about the probable application ofthe Tidelands Trust to the parcels comprising NAS. It is important to recognize that these conclusions are tentative and should he followed by more definitive research and title analysis by a title company. The core of NAS most likely is burdened by the Tidelands Trust, notwithstanding the transfer of the fee to the United States. The United States acquired all of the interest held by the City, but that interest was subject to the Tidelands Trust as part of the original transfer of the land from the State of California to the City. ARRA and the City have a strong claim that the Trust was extinguished on those parcels that the Unitcd States acquired by condemnation, if the State of California was named in condemnation proceedings. In addition, portions of NAS on uplands were never subject to the Trust. EXTINGUISHING THE TIDELANDS TRUST Alameda and ARRA have two principal interests in identifying the proper procedures for extinguishing the Tidelands Trust. First, identification of these procedures is necessary to confirm the initial analysis in the preceding paragraphs concerning the current application ofthe Trust to NAS. Second, identification of the procedures will guide Alameda and ARRA in their attempts to free additional land at NAS from the Trust. The following discussion identifies several methods to Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 2 From: Ken Taymor To: •Esq., Cad Korade Date: 8/29195 Time: 16:3239 Page 3 of 8 extinguish the Tidelands Trust. from property and the role of the State Lands Commission and its stab in that process. Transfers to the United States. Arguments could be made that the transfer to the United States of the fcc interest in the NAS property extinguished the Trust's because the United States, once the owner of the fee, (i) could (and did) use the property in a manner inconsistent with the Tidelands Trust and (ii) may dispose of the property as it desires (as long as the disposal conforms to federal law) regardless of the strictures of state administered Tidelands Trust. These arguments are likely to fail if litigated and in any event, lengthy litigation that is inconsistent with the planning and reuse process would be necessary to establish them in the face of a challenge by the State Lands Commission. Condemnation of the Trust by the United States. Representatives of the Department of Defense have suggested that if the Tidelands Trust posed problems to disposition and reuse of former military installations in the San Francisco Bay, the United States could initiate condemnation actions against the property in question and extinguish any residual interests in installation property. This solution, however, would not facilitate the reuse planning process because the State would likely contest the aotion whioh would lead to protracted litigation with uncertain results. The State also might contest the claim the general claim that the previous condemnation actions by the United States extinguished the Tidelands Trust. The State might contend that the Trust was rendered dormant by the condemnation, but that upon transfer out of the United States, the property became subject to the Trust. This argument is not likely to prevail. Mansell Findings. The generally recognized procedure for extinguishing the Trust from former tidelands requires (i) a finding by the California Legislature that the property is no longer of value to the Trust, typically because a plan of fill and development has isolated the property from the waterfront and/or from significant transit corridors, (ii) a determination that the portion of the property being removed is only a small portion of the Trust property in the area, and (iii) compensation to the Trust in the form of cash payment into a special fund or an agreement to subject to the Trust, land of equal or greater value than the value of the land being removed from the Trust (commonly referred to as a land exchange). We have experience in obtaining urgency legislation to extinguish the Trust to facilitate approval of a development agreement land use plan for urban waterfront development. Negotiations with State Lands Commission. The staff of the State Lands Commission would negotiate the terms of such a proposed land exchange. The Commission, however, is not authorized to extinguish the trust from property subject to it. The Commission staff analyzes the value of the properties proposed to be exchanged and the impact of the exchange on overall trust values so that the necessary legislative findings can be made. Although the Commission cannot extinguish the Trust, it can determine that certain property was never subject to the Trust or that the Trust has been extinguished from the property. This power includes the ability to settle disputed claims over the application of the Trust to certain property or the acceptability of proposed uses for land under the Trust. When disputed claims are settled or questions of uses permitted under the Trust are to be resolved the staff and landowner will often present their agreement to the Commission for review and approval at a publicly noticed meeting. This procedure ordinarily will allow the landowner to obtain title insurance against Trust claims to facilitate financing and development of the property. It is possible that private litigation would seek to overturn the Commission findings regarding the Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 3 R =93% 08 -29 -95 04:40PM P003 #22 From: Ken Taymor To: 'Esq., Card Korade Date: 8129/95 Time: 18:34:07 Page 4 of 8 application of the Trust, but there is small likelihood of such litigation arising or being successful. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES You have asked for an outline of recommended procedures for addressing the Tidelands Trust in the NAS reuse planning process. The following suggestions are based on our understanding that the ARRA will present its preferred reuse plan to the pubic and the Department of Defense before the end of this calendar year. Internal Analysis of Trust Claims Against NAS. ARRA and the City should undertake a thorough internal review of the application of the Trust to each parcel comprising NAS. This analysis should include the strengths and weaknesses of possible Trust claims for each parcel. A title company, such as Chicago Title, which has extensive experience in Trust matters should be engaged to assist in this analysis. Under some circumstances, reduced fee arrangements can be made with title insurers at this preliminary stage of analysis by assuring that the company will be used to issue insurance policies when the property is transferred and developed. ARRA should also consider at this time whether to link this research with research into the application of the navigable servitude to NAS lands. Although requiring some separate research, much of the historical title analysis concerning the Trust will also shed light on the navigable servitude. As part of this internal analysis, ARRA and the City should develop a methodology for valuing lands that might be part of a Trust land exchange. This process is more complicated than a simple appraisal because of the large acreage involved, the economic impact on real estate values of NAS's closure (beyond the depression caused by the potential "flood" of surplus real estate), the absenoe of comparable sales or leases, the specialized nature of many of the improvements on the site and the distressed condition of the property (i.e., hazardous materials contamination, protected environmental habitats, and inadequate utility services). There are different methodologies that real estate valuation professionals will use in the unusual circumstances presented by NAS. It is important, for obtaining the maximum benefit from a potential exchange, to understand the alternative methodologies and have selected a preferred approach prior to negotiating formally the terms of a land exchange with the State Lands staff. ARRA. and the City should select a favorable, but professionally defensible, methodology and begin the process of appraising NAS Trust property that is a candidate to be exchanged out of the Trust. Having a rationale for a methodology and a rough (ifnot completed) appraisal prior to negotiating land exchange terms will increase the likelihood that State Lands staff will be able to approve exchanges as proposed by ARRA Undertaking Planning Process with Tidelands Trust Considerations. The planning process should continue with the goal of producing the land use plan most desired by ARRA and the City, but with the recognition that the Tidelands Trust will impose some land use constraints. The application of the Trust to many paroels at NAS is uncertain and portions ofthose paroels that are subject to the Trust may be eligible for exchange out of the Trust depending on the overall land use plan. It will not be possible to obtain certainty with respect to the scope of the Trust's application in advance of creation of a draft reuse plan. The planning process should attempt to incorporate Trust values into the land use plan, for example by plaoing public access and accommodation areas such as parks, walkways, restaurants and recreation areas along the waterfront and in areas likely subject to the Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 4 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade n —n.o/ Date: 8/29/95 Time:16:35:32 Page 5 of 8 Trust. The draft plan also should consider ways to enhance the potential for land exchanges by nhvsically linking nsea that are nermis.sihle under the Trust (such as three described in the nrecedinu sentence) with waterfront trust property. In one plan that I assisted in preparing, a network of jogging paths and roadways across non -Trust property were linked to a similar network on the Trust portion of the development. The non -trust paths and roads aggregated to substantial acreage which was then placed under the Trust in exchange for freeing Trust land closer to the waterfront for non - Trnst uses such as housing. Jnthrrnal Tlisrnssinns with State T ands Staff AR A and the city shnnld immediately undertake informal discussions with State Lands Commission staffto ascertain their position regarding matters such as the scope of the Trust's application to NAS and the desirability of land exchanges. It is imperative to avoid creating situations in which the Commission staff will make public or formal "on the record" statements concerning the application of the Trust to NAS. It is our experience that the staff's initial response to such inquiries is to assert a broad set of claims in order to protect the interests of the Trust. Through negotiation and argument, landowners and municipalities oan successfully persuade staffthat the application of the Trust is more limited. Staff will have more flexibility to negotiate if they have not made public or official statements, orally or in writing, that appear to contradict a later recommendation with respect to a land use plan or land exchange. These initial discussions should seek to gain agreement on parcels that clearly are outside of the Trust (such as uplands) and an understanding of staff positions on matters such as the effect on the Trust of condemnation actions by the United States and the use of land exchanges to free parcels from the Trust. Discussions concerning land exchanges should address methods for ascertaining land value for exchange purposes, as this issue will be crucial to successfully implementing any exchange. Informal meeting will also be helpful to introduce the staff to the rough outlines of the plan under consideration and the timing for plan approval imposed by federal property disposition processes. Coordinate with Governor's Office and Other Base Closure Communities. Because many installations slated for closure in California are on Tidelands Trust property, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and some state Legislative Committees have expressed an interest in facilitating resolution of reuse planning and Trust issues. ARRA and the City should actively encourage such State level actions to address Trust constraints on the reuse planning process. ARRA and the City also should coordinate their efforts with other communities affected by the Trust Because a land exchange is likely to be necessary to implement any final plan adopted by ARRA and the City, and ultimate approval of a land exchange rests with the State Legislature, the City and ARRA should contact kcy legislators to sock their commitment to press for quick approval of any plan approved by the State Lands Commission. In addition to Alameda's local delegation to the Senate and the Assembly, the chairpersons of the legislative committees that will oversee the legislation also should be contacted. We can assist in this process and in identifying lobbyists who have effectively worked on such legislation in the past. Analyze Draft Plan in Terms of Impact of Trust. The planning team should work in concert with the legal and title history professionals to analyze the Trust's possible impact on the draft plan. This work should be done on an ongoing basis concurrently with discussions with State Lands staff Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 5 08 -29 -95 04:40PM P005 #22 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade Date: 8/29/95 Tune: 18 :38:58 Page 6 of 8 and political efforts with the Governor's Offloe and the Legislature. By receiving feedback regarding possible Trust impacts as the plan evolves, the planners will better be able to evaluate the risks involved in pursuing certain alternatives that might conflict with the Trust rather than other alternatives more compatible with it. This process will also increase the likelihood that small adjustments with potentially large beneficial impacts can be made in the plan - for example, creating a pedestrian link between a waterfront and an upland park so that the upland park can be transferred into the Trust in exchange for tidelands property that the planners want to use for non -Trust purposes. This analysis will include not only identification of Trust and non -Trust parcels for the planners, but also identification of uses permitted under the Trust. Although the Trust does narrow the range onuses permitted on a parcel, there is sufficient flexibility under the Trust to accommodate a wido rango of aotivitioo. . o nogotiationo with Elate Lando otaff pro 000d, ARRA and tho City will find that in many oases they can reach a fruitful oompromise with the State by acknowledging the State's claim to a parcel, but having the State approve a proposed use for the parcel as consistent with the Trust. As the draft plan evolves, the team that was undertaking the valuation analysis of NAS Trust properties should he revising their appraisals to reflect the proposed plan. ultimately, ARRA and the City want to be in tho position of arguing to tho State that the proposed development plan will onhanoo the value of the parcels left in the Trust and those swapped out ofthe Trust far beyond any plan that could be implemented without a land exchange. They will also want to be able to argue that the land going into the Trust is of far greater current value on a per acre basis than the land being taken out of the Trust because of factors such as being (i) better served by utilities, (ii) better located in terms of proximity to established neighborhoods and commercial districts in the City, and (iii) uncontaminated by hazardous materials. Negotiate Plan with State Lands Staff. Once the ARRA and the City have (i) a well developed, but not finalized, draft plan, (ii) a strong understanding of the arguments concerning the Trust's application to NAS and its impact on the land uses permitted under the plan, (iii) a well reasoned appraisal methodology with a preliminary land valuation, and (iv) a land exchange proposal, they will be ready for formal negotiations with State Lands staff. If Alameda representatives have been regularly consulting with Commission staff and advising them of the proposals that ARRA and the City will make, these negotiations should proceed smoothly. Some flexibility should be built into the draft plan so that concessions can be made to State Lands if the initial proposal is unacceptable. In the event of an impasse, the City and ARRA should have established State level political support that can assist in brokering a compromise. Political support, no matter how powerful, however, cannot gain approval of a plan unless the plan is factually and legally sustainable. Once a plan has been approved by the State Lands Commission stag it will be presented to the Commission for review and, depending upon the precise nature of the proposal, approval. Although the staff will prepare the materials for the Commission and the Commission ordinarily approves staff recommendations, ARRA and the City should be prepared to brief individual Commissioners (within the limits permitted by the Brown Act) and perhaps have one of the three Commissioners identified as a proponent ofthe plan if formal Commission approval is necessary. Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 6 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade Date: 8129195 Time:18:38 :23 Page 7 of 8 lislativc Approval of Land Exchange. litho plan includes a land exchange, it will require approval by the State Legislature. Because it is so late in the legislative session, it is unlikely that approval can be obtained in this calendar year. We can work with you to determine the most expeditious process to follow to obtain any necessary legislation. Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 7 08-29 -95 04:40PM P007 #22 AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda High School Cafeteria West Wing Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Alameda, CA Wednesday, August 16, 1995 5:30 p.m. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THEAUTHORITY: 1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers. are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings. ROLL CALL A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of August 2, 1995 II ACTION ITEMS A. Report by the Executive Director Recommending Approval to Endorse the California State University Hayward Foundation (CSUHF) as a Co Applicant with the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) and CSUHF for a Grant Application to the Economic Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce. B. Report From the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team (BADCAT) Position Paper on Improving the Base Conversion Process. C. Presentation/Workshop on the Analysis of Alternatives and Development of a Preferred Land Use Plan. III. ORAL REPORTS IV. 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.) COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY VI ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 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 upon request. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 16, 1995 The meeting convened at 5:32 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice - Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District; Vice Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:35 p.m.); Alternate Gary Loeffler for Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:35 p.m.); Alternate Greg Alves for Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Alternate Mark Friedman for Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG); Alternate Ardella Dailey for Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District Absent: Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of August 2, 1995. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Mannix to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Alternate Mark Friedman. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Absent: 1. II. AGENDA ITEMS A. Report From the Executive Director Recommending Approval to Endorse the California State University Hayward Foundation (CSUHF) as a Co- Applicant with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) for a Grant Application to the Economic Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce. After a short presentation by the Executive Director and discussion by the Authority, a motion was made by Alternate Friedman and seconded by Alternate Brooks to endorse CSUHF as a Co- Applicant with the ARRA and ACET for a Grant Application to the EDA. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Absent: 1. B. Report From the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team (BADCAT) Position Paper on Improving the Base Conversion Process. The Executive Director stated that this letter was crafted as a lobbying tool to raise the level of consciousness in the Congress, to frame the issues that are impediments to the base closure process, and to recommend action steps to remove those obstacles. The BRAG has endorsed the letter with the following caveats: (1) rewrite the paper to stress the opportunity of base closure to address the entire affected local community rather than primarily focusing on special needs such as low- income and homeless; (2) recraft the paper to reflect that the primary goal of base conversion should be job replacement and not special interests; (3) present the paper with a strong emphasis on the need to return revenues gained from base reconversion for reinvestment into the properties. After discussion and questions from the Authority on the critical importance of the incorporation of the BRAG's suggestions, it was moved by Alternate Roberta Brooks that approval of the document be contingent on incorporation of the articles that the BRAG had articulated. The motion was seconded by Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix. Speakers: Mr. Neil Patrick Sweeney, a citizen of Alameda, suggested (1) ways to declare war on the NAS Alameda environmental toxic cleanup; (2) that proposals from all base conversions should be computerized on the information superhighway; and (3) that all information should be sent to every ethnic language media. Councilmember DeWitt stated that the BADCAT position paper had been in process while the ARRA was in the transition of finding a new Executive Director. He voiced the hope that the warm relationship between BADCAT and the City of Alameda continues. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: None. Abstentions: 1- Alternate Tony Daysog. Absent: 1. C. Presentation/Workshop on the Analysis of Alternatives and Development of a Preferred Land Use Plan. D. Paul Tuttle, Planner for the ARRA, stated that the workshop was being held at the request of the ARRA to brief them on the planning process and the critical decisions being faced in the near future. Jonathan Stern, Assistant Project Manager for EDAW, then made a slide presentation titled, Phase 4: Long Range Alternative Analysis. The Presentation of Findings included (1) the status of the planning effort; (2) goals and objectives; (3) the urban design framework; (4) alternative description; (5) comparative analysis of five alternatives; and (6) recommendations and next steps. In response to a query by Mayor Appezzato on flexibility in the final plan, the Executive Director stated that our Final Reuse Plan is the document that the Navy will use as the basis of their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We must make sure that it is intentionally flexible enough that as market conditions change and as we change our minds about what we would like, the plan stands the test of the EIS. Ex-officio Perez stated that the Navy will do their toxic cleanup at a level with the stated use of each parcel of land. If we want to change it later to a use that requires a higher level of toxic cleanup, there could be a problem. Mayor Appezzato stated that flexibility is the key. Kay Miller stated that there is an August 23rd meeting with EDAW, the staff, and the BRAG where the BRAG can give input into the plan that is presented to the public on September 9. She then solicited early general direction from the ARRA members. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he is interested in a choice that would provide for wildlife, a golf course, and an infrastructure that is adequate. He would like to see pieces from each plan combined for a sixth alternative. 2 Alternate Brooks asked whether Fish and Wildlife and EBRPD have leverage in their land requests or does ARRA make the decision? The Executive Director stated that the final decision is the Navy's at the Record of Decision. The Navy is anxious for all land request issues be resolved before it gets to them. If the community does not support the Fish & Wildlife request for 970 acres and a way to mitigate the effect on the endangered species is presented, the Navy will look at the plan the ARRA proposes. Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney (1) urged the public to get out to the town meeting at the Officer's Club on September 9; (2) suggested the possibility of using active duty and reserve military personnel already trained in environmental cleanup; (3) proposed walking paths and light rail to eliminate gridlock; and (4) stated that the Medical Clinic was upgraded not too long ago and should be retained for the use of any future educational consortium. Dave Ryan, EFA West, U.S. Navy, stated that the reuse authority has great weight in any decisions that are made on the Final Reuse Plan. He also stated that the Final Reuse Plan will affect the level of toxic cleanup. For instance, if an area presently used as an industrial site is slated for a child care center, it would impact both cleanup costs and the cleanup schedule. III. ORAL REPORTS: None. IV. 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.) Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney spoke further on toxic cleanup. IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY None. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A) et E. Ensley Secretary 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 1, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Public Benefit Conveyance Review Criteria. Background: The public benefit conveyance process is one of the major legal mechanisms for the transfer of federal property to local agencies and certified non - profit organizations. Public benefit conveyances can be made to local governmental agencies such as the City of Alameda Parks and Recreation Department, the East Bay Regional Parks District, or the Alameda Unified School District. Authorized non - profit agencies could include health organizations, private schools and universities, and research institutes with approved non - profit (201 - C3) status. Each authorized agency or non - profit applicant must also have approval of a sponsoring federal agency (Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Interior, etc.). The final decision on public benefit conveyances will be made by the Secretary of the Navy based upon the local reuse authority's approved Community Reuse Plan. Discussion: ARRA staff has developed a process for screening public benefit conveyance applications and making recommendations to the ARRA for approval. The screening process is based upon the enclosed set of review criteria. The screening criteria are based upon six major factors: project viability, preferred transfer mechanism (PBC vs. EDC), public benefit, location compatibility, and conflict resolution potential. ARRA previously considered public conveyances and approved them in concept subject to the following conditions: 1. Property Reversion Clause. The ARRA needs assurance that if a project fails, is unable to perform, goes into bankruptcy, or otherwise goes out of existence the property would revert to the ARRA. This could take the form of a first right of refusal or other property reversion mechanism. Details of a reversion clause may need special legislation and/or further legal clarification from the Department of Defense. Honorable Members of the September 1, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 2. Demonstrate Financial Feasibility. Each public benefit proposal should provide assurances and demonstrate to the ARRA its financial feasibility to successfully complete the proposed project within a specified time period. This could include a financial feasibility analysis, a business plan (including detailed building and site improvement costs), a pro -forma analysis for ongoing operation and management, identified funding sources, and proof of funding commitment. This could also include provisions for securing an initial funding amount by a set deadline. 3. In -lieu Public Service Fee Payments. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair share" of public service costs to cover police, fire, and other public services to their specific site or building. 4. Fair Share of Infrastructure /Utility Costs. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair share" of on -site and off -site infrastructure /utility improvements. This would include streets and circulation improvements, water, gas, sewer, electrical services, etc. 5. Site Development /Rehab Plans. Each public benefit applicant should be responsible for development costs. A detailed site development and building rehab plans should be submitted for approval. These plans form the basis of rehab costs and are a commitment to make necessary building code and site improvements at an acceptable level within a specified time period. Screening of each public benefit conveyance application will be made by a review team of ARRA staff, the consultant team, and two members of BRAG. The review criteria were endorsed by the BRAG at their special meeting of August 30, 1995. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the adoption of the screening criteria. Ultimately, approval of each public benefit conveyance for inclusion in the Community Reuse Plan could have a very large impact on the community. Public benefit conveyances remove land from the City tax base and potentially giveA property to uses which might otherwise provide economic development. However, public benefit(( conveyances provide essential public services (parks, schools, etc.) and other uses which contribute to the overall quality of life in the community. Environmental Review: Endorsement of the public benefit conveyance screening criteria does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Approval of the screening criteria does not: constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other land entitlement; and is not an activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing or grading of land, improvements to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans or elements of plans. In addition, screening criteria is part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse of NAS Alameda Honorable Members of the September 1, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 for possible future actions, and is therefore "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262). Recommendation: Staff recommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopt by motion the Public Benefit Screening Criteria. Respectfully submitted, N7(11A_. Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachments: Public Benefit Review Criteria PBC Review Criteria Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority I. Project Viability What is the overall project viability in terms of finances, experience, and ability to succeed? • Ability to Perform "Due Diligence" Development Analysis - Does the proponent have the financial and/or technical capability to perform the necessary due diligence assessment of the buildings requested and prepare the necessary financial analysis. • Current Assets - What are the current assets of the proponent (cash, property, bonds or other securities) and are these assets enough to cover the project costs and project overruns (Financial Statement). • Operating Track Record - What is the success of the proponent in fund raising, developing, and operating a project of the proposed size and type. • Fund Raising Plan - Does the proponent have funding sources, a schedule for fund raising, including milestones for securing funding, and what is the probability of success. • Public Agency/Non Profit Status - Is the proponent eligible for PBC as a public agency or non profit organization. (Evidence of status must be provided.) • Development Phasing - Does the proponent have the financial ability to pay for carrying costs of the project (including debt service on loans and maintenance on buildings not being used). • Sponsoring Agency - Has the PBC secured the required Federal Sponsoring Agency (Department of Interior, Department of Education, HUD, etc.). II. EDC Versus PBC Transfer Would the proposed project be more successful as a EDC or PBC? An Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) allows for greater flexibility by the ARRA in implementation of the overall plan and allows for greater control over project sites. • Long -Term Viability (Potential for Long -Term Success) - Based upon the above information, what is the potential success or failure of the proposed project, and the potential for land reverting back to the federal government. • Potential Need for Flexibility and Phasing - Could the proposed project site potentially be reused for an alternative use in the interim or in the future. • Effect on Overall Project Success - Would the proposed PBC status limit the overall project success due to government regulatory constraints. • Effect on Overall Reuse Plan Success - Would the proposed PBC status limit the success of the Reuse Plan. 9/1/95 PBC Review Criteria Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority III. Contribution to the Public Good What contribution does the proposed public benefit conveyance make to the public good? • Provision of Essential Public Service - Does the proposed project provide an essential public service to the community as a whole? • Public Access - What level of pubic access is provided to the public? What fees to the public are charged? • Public Served - What is the public being served by the proposed use (number of people, number of local residents, age, etc.). IV. Building, Site, and Location Compatibility Is the proposed project compatible with the surrounding uses, potential reuse of the base, the building requested, and the market potential of the building? • Land Use Compatibility - Is the proposed project compatible with areas and neighborhoods surrounding the site, both existing or planned? • Reuse Plan Compatibility - Is the proposed project compatible with the proposed reuse plan? • Potential Market Use Competition - Does the proposed building have a higher market rate use? • Appropriate Use of Building Requested - Is the proposed use appropriate for the building requested? • Demolition Compatibility - Is the proposed use compatible with future demolition plans? • Cleanup Compatibility - Is the proposed reuse compatible with required cleanup plans? V. Conflicting Use Resolution What is the potential for resolving conflicting uses for buildings and sites? • Highest and Best Use - Which use is the highest and best use for the site? 1. Site and building potential for market rate lease /sale. 2. Greatest compatibility with reuse plan. 3. Greatest compatibility with building design. 4. Greatest compatibility with surrounding or adjacent uses both existing and planned. • Potential For Joint Use - Who should manage a site if joint use is proposed? 1. Who has highest management skills, experience, and capabilities? 2. Who has the greatest financial resources to carry out the proposed project? 3. Will public access be provided to facility? 9/1/95 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 1, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Amendment to the Office of Economic Adjustment Through January 1995- Completion of the Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) and the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). Background: At its meeting of August 2, 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) authorized the Executive Director to submit to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) a draft budget amendment to coordinate reuse planning expenses for FISC with reuse planning for NAS Alameda, and to extend the current ARRA grant/fiscal year from October 31, 1995 through January 31, 1996. At that time, the ARRA will submit the completed Community Reuse Plan for NAS to the Navy. In February 1996 the ARRA will begin the implementation and financial planning phase and additional OEA funding will be sought for these activities. Discussion/Analysis: The proposed ARRA budget amendment to OEA totals $553,648. The ARRA budget amendment includes funding for ARRA personnel and office expenses, continued EDAW planning work on NAS for November 1995 through January 1996, budget amendments to the existing NAS 1994/95 fiscal year grant, funding for FISC reuse planning, and additional NAS consultant activity from September through January. In addition, $200,000 was requested for a detailed utility study. The following is a synopsis of the items included in the attached budget amendment for the ARRA through January 1996: ARRA Personnel and Office Expenses: The majority of office /staff expenditures are the same as previous expenditures approved by OEA with two significant changes. First, as recommended by OEA, the Administrative Management Analyst and the Receptionist/Secretary have been included, with benefits, in the ARRA budget rather than in the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) budget. Second, with the Honorable Members of the Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 additional workload generated by the new reuse planning area (FISC) and the additional ARRA workload, a full -time additional Departmental Secretary is requested in lieu of the temporary clerical funding previously provided by OEA. EDAW Planning for November, December and Now January 1996: In the previous grant submittal, OEA approved $68,000 for the entire scope of work for the ARRA's reuse planning budget through December of the 1995/96 fiscal year. The planning process has now been extended one additional month from December 1995 through January 1996. The funding level for November and December previously approved by OEA remains the same, but an additional $19,000 has been requested for the month of January to cover the consultant's additional expenses for public meetings and subsequent work products. Budget Amendments to Existing NAS 1994/95 Fiscal Year Grant: Several budget items were not anticipated when the ARRA prepared its grant submittal to OEA last fall. At the request of OEA, these items have been incorporated in this budget amendment rather than submitting a separate budget amendment. These items include $6,617 for ARRA insurance separate from the City of Alameda and IRS filing expenses. Last fall when the ARRA's budget was submitted, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 had not been adopted, and the new law required the ARRA to publish legal notices in local newspapers advertising the process and dates for the homeless screening and public benefit conveyances. The legal notices cost $987. Funding in the amount of $3,500 has been requested to cover the ARRA's meeting expenses at Alameda High School, and an additional $2,000 has been requested to cover the increased number of BRAG Town Meetings. The ARRA has exceeded the number of copies under the standard copier service agreement due to the massive local and regional public participation requirements of the East Bay; therefore, an additional $1,000 has been requested for an expanded copier service agreement. Shortly after OEA approved last year's reuse planning grant, OEA authorized the ARRA's Executive Director to conduct a detailed analysis of real estate potential. The analysis included a survey of 45 preselected buildings at NAS/NADEP to determine each building's marketability. The analysis provided a determination of each building's greatest interim reuse potential and potential lease rates. The cost of the consultant work was $40,000. An adjustment is requested to last year's grant to cover the cost of that additional consultant study. Finally, the budget amendment also requests the restoration of funds resulting from an OEA miscalculation in the budget approval ($4,000), and approval for the ARRA to move savings from consultant work completed in the last fiscal year to cover the costs from the BRAG "Charette." Honorable Members of the Page 5 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 The Executive Director of the ARRA will be responsible for the administration of this budget amendment, and only substantive changes to the budget will require further action or reconsideration by the ARRA. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA, by motion, approve the budget amendment to OEA, and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate the final agreement with OEA. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director KM:jm Attachment: OEA Budget Amendment Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter -Office Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement Between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET), and the California State University Hayward Foundation ( CSUHF). Background: On July 27, 1995, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) invited ARRA to prepare an application for funding assistance. On August 16, 1995, ARRA endorsed CSUHF as a Co- Applicant with ARRA and ACET and a final application has been submitted to EDA. Prior to disbursement of the grant award, EDA requires an approved agreement between ARRA, ACET, and CSUHF that defines the roles and responsibilities of each party. Discussion/Analysis: The proposed Memorandum of Agreement clarifies the responsibilities of each of the co- applicants. ARRA will serve as the primary contact with EDA representatives. All EDA funds will be received by ARRA and remitted to CSUHF as fiscal agent. ARRA may review all technical and business reports, budgets, audits and other materials generated by ACET to ensure EDA compliance. Leasing activities for ACET at the Naval Air Station will be handled by ARRA. CSUHF will receive EDA grant funds from ARRA and disburse them for ACET. CSUHF will complete audits and financial reports which will be reviewed and approved by ARRA before submission to EDA. ACET will also comply with EDA requirements, particularly with respect to competitive hiring and bidding practices, recruit environmental technology firms to NAS and be legally and financially liable for fiscal agent activities. In the event that ACET or CSUHF violate the terms of the agreement, ARRA may withhold remittances of EDA funds pending remedy of the deficiency, disallow all or part of the cost of activity not in compliance, or take any other remedy that may be legally available. Also, ARRA has the ability to terminate the agreement if ACET or CSUHF fail to generate the required tasks or fail to fulfill any other terms of the agreement. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Fiscal Impact: August 30, 1995 Page 2 ARRA and its co- applicants have proposed in the application that EDA fund a part-time ARRA staff position to perform the tasks indicated in the Memorandum of Agreement. Since the required local match is being provided by the CSUHF staff and in kind contribution, there is no fiscal impact on the ARRA. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve the Memorandum of Agreement with ACET and CSUHF. Respectfully submitted, RAJ Kay Miller Executive Director JD /mee Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter- Office Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the NAS Alameda Sewer Improvement Project Background: The Army Corps of Engineers is relocating the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Sewer Force Main across the Oakland Inner Harbor Estuary as part of the Port of Oakland Inner Harbor deepening project. The sewer replacement project provides a unique opportunity for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to provide adequate sewer capacity for the future redevelopment of NAS at a lower cost. It would be cheaper and more cost effective to expand the Sewer Force Main size (from 16 inches to 20 inches) while the sewer line is being relocated by the Army Corps of Engineers. By increasing the size of the sewer line segment across the harbor while the sewer line is being relocated, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the federal government can save more than two million dollars in future construction costs. At its regular meeting on October 25, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority directed the Executive Director to make the necessary Army Corps of Engineers applications and take all actions necessary to successfully accomplish the NAS Sewer Force Main sizing project. Staff made permit applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, and the Port of Oakland and prepared the CEQA Initial Study (IS -94 -001) for the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main improvements. The Army Corps of Engineers processed a separate environmental review consistent with the federal law (National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA). The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) in the Department of Defense has recently indicated that they would pay the cost of the project (approx. $300,000). However, the federal moneys cannot be transferred to the Corps of Engineers, and can only be used for engineering studies and not for construction. Thus, to pay for the sewer improvements OEA is willing to grant federal dollars to the City and the ARRA, who would then pass construction money on to the Corps of Engineers. To use these monies requires a cooperation agreement or MOA among the three parties: the City of Alameda, the ARRA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Discussion: August 30, 1995 Page 2 Without the assistance, grants, and permit approvals from the Corps of Engineers, the Port of Oakland, OEA, and BCDC, the proposed sewer improvements to enlarge the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main in conjunction the Army Corps of Engineers project will not be possible. This is a very complex project involving elaborate intergovernmental cooperation agreements and creative financing techniques to make this project work. Many of the agencies involved have been hesitant to participate in such a complex and intricate deal. However, in the last month, with the intervention of Congressman Dellums' Office and the Mayor of Alameda, we have begun to forge new relationships of cooperation between the various agencies involved. There are many conditions and agreements that must be met by all parties. In addition, all these conditions and agreements must come together in a very short time frame (30 days). Further delays could add cost to the project. Funding is now provided and permits and the easement are being processed by the Port of Oakland. ARRA staff has had several meetings with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the process and develop the MOA in a form acceptable to the City and the Corps of Engineers for transferring the necessary funds. It was determined at these meetings that the City, the ARRA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would enter into a MOA to pay for the sewer improvements. However, one major outstanding issue still needs to be resolved. The Army Corps has requested the City /ARRA to assume liability for all project cost overruns and costs incurred due to delays in the project associated with the increase in the sewer pipe diameter (16" to 20 "). OEA has approved costs for the project up to approximately $350,000. However, the City and the ARRA should not guarantee unlimited cost overruns. This issue is still under negotiation with the Army Corps and has not been completed at the time of writing this staff report. Time is of the essence. Any further delays in processing permits, MOAs, or other agreements could substantially increase the construction cost of the sewer improvements due to delays in the contractor's schedule. Fiscal Impact: Cost for the Sewer Improvements Project is estimated at $300,000 - $350,000. Funds for the project have been approved by the OEA (Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment). An added complication in the funding is the limit on the use of OEA funds by the federal government. OEA funds can only be used for engineering and planning studies (O &M) and not construction projects. Thus, the sewer construction project will be included in a proposed larger base -wide utilities engineering study. The overall cost of the engineering study is $600,000 with one -third match each from the City of Alameda ($200,000), the utility companies ($200,000), and OEA ($200,000). Combining the construction project funds ($300,000) the total project cost would Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 30, 1995 Page 3 be $900,000. By co- mingling funds, the construction project would be paid by the City and utility match, and the engineering studies would be paid by OEA's match. While the project can be funded using this creative fmancing mechanism, it complicates the process by requiring participation from the utility companies in the overall engineering study. These additional cooperation agreements have not been made. In summary, the City, ARRA, and the Army Corps of Engineers agreement would be taking the risk that the other parties would also commit to the larger utility study. OEA funding is contingent on the participation of the utility companies. If these other agencies do not cooperate, OEA would not fund the sewer project, and the City will be held liable for the full cost of the sewer improvements. Staff has been discussing the larger utility study with the Bureau of Electricity, East Bay MUD, and PG &E. There has been some interest in the study but no formal commitments have been made. Recommendation: Staff recommends the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Agreement with approval by the City Attorney as to form, between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and the City of Alameda for the NAS Alameda sewer improvements. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt/mee cc: U.S. Corps of Engineers Port of Oakland U.S. Navy Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the NAS Alameda Sewer Improvement Project Background: The Army Corps of Engineers is relocating the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Sewer Force Main across the Oakland Inner Harbor Estuary as part of the Port of Oakland Inner Harbor deepening project. The sewer replacement project provides a unique opportunity for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to provide adequate sewer capacity for the future redevelopment of NAS at a lower cost. It would be cheaper and more cost effective to expand the Sewer Force Main size (from 16 inches to 20 inches) while the sewer line is being relocated by the Army Corps of Engineers. By increasing the size of the sewer line segment across the harbor while the sewer line is being relocated, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the federal government can save more than two million dollars in future construction costs. At its regular meeting on October 25, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority directed the Executive Director to make the necessary Army Corps of Engineers applications and take all actions necessary to successfully accomplish the NAS Sewer Force Main sizing project. Staff made permit applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, and the Port of Oakland and prepared the CEQA Initial Study (IS -94 -001) for the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main improvements. The Army Corps of Engineers processed a separate environmental review consistent with the federal law (National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA). The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) in the Department of Defense has recently indicated that they would pay the cost of the project (approx. $300,000). However, the federal moneys cannot be transferred to the Corps of Engineers, and can only be used for engineering studies and not for construction. Thus, to pay for the sewer improvements OEA is willing to grant federal dollars to the City and the ARRA, who would then pass construction money on to the Corps of Engineers. To use these monies requires a cooperation agreement or MOA among the three parties: the City of Alameda, the ARRA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Discussion: August 30, 1995 Page 2 Without the assistance, grants, and permit approvals from the Corps of Engineers, the Port of Oakland, OEA, and BCDC, the proposed sewer improvements to enlarge the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main in conjunction the Army Corps of Engineers project will not be possible. This is a very complex project involving elaborate intergovernmental cooperation agreements and creative financing techniques to make this project work. Many of the agencies involved have been hesitant to participate in such a complex and intricate deal. However, in the last month, with the intervention of Congressman Dellums' Office and the Mayor of Alameda, we have begun to forge new relationships of cooperation between the various agencies involved. There are many conditions and agreements that must be met by all parties. In addition, all these conditions and agreements must come together in a very short time frame (30 days). Further delays could add cost to the project. Funding is now provided and permits and the easement are being processed by the Port of Oakland. ARRA staff has had several meetings with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the process and develop the MOA in a form acceptable to the City and the Corps of Engineers for transferring the necessary funds. It was determined at these meetings that the City, the ARRA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would enter into a MOA to pay for the sewer improvements. However, one major outstanding issue still needs to be resolved. The Army Corps has requested the City /ARRA to assume liability for all project cost overruns and costs incurred due to delays in the project associated with the increase in the sewer pipe diameter (16" to 20 "). OEA has approved costs for the project up to approximately $350,000. However, the City and the ARRA should not guarantee unlimited cost overruns. This issue is still under negotiation with the Army Corps and has not been completed at the time of writing this staff report. Time is of the essence. Any further delays in processing permits, MOAs, or other agreements could substantially increase the construction cost of the sewer improvements due to delays in the contractor's schedule. Fiscal Impact: Cost for the Sewer Improvements Project is estimated at $300,000 - $350,000. Funds for the project have been approved by the OEA (Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment). An added complication in the funding is the limit on the use of OEA funds by the federal government. OEA funds can only be used for engineering and planning studies (O &M) and not construction projects. Thus, the sewer construction project will be included in a proposed larger base -wide utilities engineering study. The overall cost of the engineering study is $600,000 with one -third match each from the City of Alameda ($200,000), the utility companies ($200,000), and OEA ($200,000). Combining the construction project funds ($300,000) the total project cost would Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 30, 1995 Page 3 be $900,000. By co- mingling funds, the construction project would be paid by the City and utility match, and the engineering studies would be paid by OEA's match. While the project can be funded using this creative financing mechanism, it complicates the process by requiring participation from the utility companies in the overall engineering study. These additional cooperation agreements have not been made. In summary, the City, ARRA, and the Army Corps of Engineers agreement would be taking the risk that the other parties would also commit to the larger utility study. OEA funding is contingent on the participation of the utility companies. If these other agencies do not cooperate, OEA would not fund the sewer project, and the City will be held liable for the full cost of the sewer improvements. Staff has been discussing the larger utility study with the Bureau of Electricity, East Bay MUD, and PG &E. There has been some interest in the study but no formal commitments have been made. Recommendation: Staff recommends the ARRA authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Agreement with approval by the City Attorney as to form, between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and the City of Alameda for the NAS Alameda sewer improvements. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt/mee cc: U.S. Corps of Engineers Port of Oakland U.S. Navy Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Requesting Authorization to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in a Form Approved by the City Attorney, Between the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) for a Port/Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study for Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Background: A major goal in all alternative land use plans under consideration for the redevelopment of NAS Alameda is the development of a major new marina in the area of the Seaplane Lagoon. In addition, two of the land use alternatives under consideration look at the development of a container port (six berths) on 240 acres of the northern runway area. The use of the northern runway for a future port is proposed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as part of their new San Francisco Port Priority Plan. The MTC/BCDC Port Priority Plan is a regional plan that supersedes local jurisdiction and planning for the Bay Area. As such, local plans should be consistent with the regional plan. Failure to conform to the regional Port Priority plan could jeopardize federal funds for other local transportation projects. ARRA staff has requested a budget modification from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to prepare a more detailed market and planning feasibility study for both port uses in the northern runway area and the development of a marina in the NAS Seaplane Lagoon. The EBRPD has also indicated interest in the development and management of public marina uses in the Seaplane Lagoon. Public marina uses envisioned could include berthing space for sailing clubs, public access, public boat launching facilities, and a public marina with boat berths. The EBRPD has already engaged a consultant firm to look at the feasibility of marina development to determine their potential participation in such a development. Discussion: The Port/Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study would provide a detailed market and planning assessment to demonstrate the demand for marina and port facilities at NAS and how they might be accommodated or developed. The study has two major objectives: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 30, 1995 Page 2 1. To determine the market demand, potential timing and absorption rates for both public and private marina uses, and outline the size, shape and extent of marina development; and, 2. To determine the market demand and feasibility for a container port (six berths) in the northern runway area. There is considerable support for the development of a new marina in the Seaplane Lagoon. However, the detailed extent and type of marina development are unknown. A key issue of the marina portion of the study is to determine the market demand and potential build -out for marina uses and the extent of public and private uses that can be accommodated in the Seaplane Lagoon. Marina development could potentially be a cornerstone of the reuse and redevelopment plan for NAS Alameda. In the current economic climate, however, marinas do not present a strong market demand. This study would also help to identify the potential phasing of marina development at NAS Alameda and more important, the type, size, and character of marina supporting industries and commercial uses surrounding a new marina. All planning studies of a container port alternative have indicated that both the physical practicality, economic viability, and environmental impacts of a port development are unsuitable for Alameda. A task of the port feasibility portion of the study is to review in more detail the market demand for port uses and the development constraints (bridge, rail access, port management) to determine the feasibility of a port development at NAS Alameda. Currently, all of NAS Alameda and the FISC site are designated for Port Priority use in the regional plan. The new plan under consideration removes the Port Priority designation from all NAS lands except for a 240 -acre portion of the northern runway adjacent to the Oakland— Alameda Estuary. The Port Priority designation would essentially "land bank" the runway area for some future, unmet port demand identified in the BCDC port planning studies. Letters and presentations have been made by ARRA staff to the BCDC Port Planning Committee requesting all Port Priority designation be removed from NAS Alameda and the FISC sites. The Port Priority Plan may be reviewed and changed by MTC/BCDC every five years. BCDC staff has also assured the ARRA that the Port Priority designation would be reconsidered after completion of the NAS Reuse Plan. The East Bay Regional Parks District has indicated their willingness to share in the costs and management of the marina portion of this study if public access to the marina is a goal of the reuse plan. All alternatives have envisioned some form of public access to a new marina. This proposed study will help to determine the potential type, size, character and location of both public and private marina development in the Seaplane Lagoon. The proposed work program (draft attached) for the feasibility study has two major parts: the market study and the planning feasibility. The ARRA will be responsible for the market studies (for both the marina and port uses). EBRPD will be responsible for the planning and design feasibility study for the seaplane marina uses. Both parts of the study will be published under one cover by the ARRA. The ARRA will extend the contract with our existing consultant team (Bay Area Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority August 30, 1995 Page 3 Economics) to perform our portion of the study. EBRPD will use their existing consultants to prepare their portion of the study. Fiscal Impact: Total cost for the Port/Marina Feasibility Study is $40,000. The ARRA share of the cost is $25,000 to be paid for by an OEA grant (included in the Grant Amendment). The EBRPD share for the study is approximately $15,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding, with approval by the City Attorney as to form, between the East Bay Regional Parks District and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for a Port/Marina Market and Planning Feasibility Study for NAS Alameda. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachment: Draft Work Program cc: Mike Anderson, EBRPD NAS Alameda Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 1995 Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the market and development feasibility of a major container Port and marina at NAS Alameda. The study includes the development feasibility of maritime uses at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) site as well as NAS Alameda. The study is intended to identify the type, size, extent and intensity, and potential build out (absorption) of potential marina uses including both those on the water (birthing slips, docks, boat ramps, sailing areas, etc.) as well as land side related uses that would support a major public and private marina (boat repair, storage, sales, retail and related commercial activity. etc). Study Organization This study will be prepared through a cooperative agreement between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD). Both agencies recognize the demand and opportunity for marina and potential port related uses that could be located at NAS Alameda (including the FISC site). By working jointly on this study a creative management and development scheme could be developed that would be beneficial to both agencies and the public they serve. The scope of work developed below is divided into four major parts. The first part (market study) and second part (development program) is the responsibility of the ARRA for funding and its staff and consultants. The third part (the conceptual design) is the responsibility of the EBRPD for funding and its consultants and staff. ARRA staff will be responsible for consolidating and formatting the two parts into one report for presentation and distribution. Part I. Port and Marina Economic Market Study ARRA This part of the work involves a market study to determine the feasibility of the development of tow major maritime activities at NAS Alameda; a six berth, modern containerized port; and, the development of a major public and private marina in the NAS Alameda Sea Plan lagoon area. The work in this phase focuses on two major use activities: 1. Container Port Facilities BCDC has proposed to designate 240 acres of the northern air field area at NAS Alameda and the FISC port side facility as Port Priority designation on the new BCDC Port Priority Plan. This analysis will analyze and summarize the available port market studies and projections to determine their continued reliability and adequacy given the changing market conditions in the area of modern container port development. 2. Public and Private Marina Activities This part of the work task involves the identification, review, analysis and summarization of available information on public and private marina development in the San Francisco Bay Area. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program Task 1.1 Market Assessment August 10, 1995 Page 2 A. Contrainer Port Market Assessment This analysis will assess the market potential for port uses at NAS Alameda including; the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) site and the northern air field site for a modern container port. The work consist of identifying, review, analysis and summarize available market information, market conditions and activity in the San Francisco Bay Area. B. Marina Market Assessment This analysis willl assess the market potential for marina development in the Seaplane Lagoon and the Southern boat amrina. It will idnetify, review, analyse and summarize avaiable market information on market conditions, maina occupancy and maina development plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. It will also assess the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed site relative to copenting maina opportunties in the reion, noting incentives and barriers to development. Uses for marina development include both those activities in the water (berths, slips, boat launching ramps, docks, etc.) and land side development activity which would be associated with a new marina (ship/boat repair and maintenance yards, boat storage and sales, sailing education center, retail sales, offices, cafes, restaurants, etc.). The analysis will project potential market absorption for marina uses and the potential market share of maritime development that could possibly be captured at the Alaemda Naval facilities. Task 1.3 Draft Economic Feasibility Study Report. This task involves the production of a draft Economic Feasibility/Market Study report for review by ARRA and EBRPD staff. Task 1.4 Staff Review. This tasks involves the review of the draft economic market study by the ARRA and EBRBD staff. Staff review comments will collected and submitted to the consultant team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 1.6 Peer Review. Concurrently, the draft market study will be reviewed by the design development team. Comments will be forwarded to the economic team for revisions or changes as necessary. Part II. Marina Development Program ARRA Based upon the findings of the market study, described above, a land use program will be developed to identify the type, extent, intensity, size, and possible phasing of build out of potential marina and adjacent uses for NAS Alameda. A key aspect of the development program is to identify the extent of both private and public uses that could be developed at NAS Alameda. These uses could including both private and public marinas, docking slips, small boat and water sports areas, boat launching areas, teaching areas for sailing, boating and other water sports, ferry dock facilities, etc. The development program will be developed in cooperatively with both the market feasibility team and design feasibility team. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 10, 1995 Page 3 Task 2.1 Development Program. Based upon the market analysis a preliminary development program will be developed by the market feasibility team. The preliminary program for a marina at NAS Alameda will include both water development uses (births, ferry terminal, sailing areas, etc.) as well as the market potential for land side development opportunities. The development program will also include a discussion of the potential marina development opportunities at both the FISC and NAS Sea Port Lagoon sites. Task 2.2 Staff Review. This tasks involves the review of the preliminary development program by the ARRA and EBRBD staff. Staff review comments will collected and submitted to the consultant team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 2.3 Peer Review. Concurrently, the preliminary development will be reviewed by the design development team. Comments will be forwarded to the economic team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 2.4 Finalize Development Program. After completion of the staff and peer review, the preliminary development program will revised and finalized as necessary. Task 2.5 Final Market Feasibility Study and Development Program. Based upon the peer review of both the market analysis and development program the ARRA consultant team will revise the draft market study and development program as needed and provide a final written report for consolidation into the final report document. Meetings. Staff meetings including the Marketing team and Design team will be held to review the development program and finalize an optimum development program for build out and potential phasing of development based upon the projected land use absorption identified in the market study. The development program will form the basis of the schematic marina planning and design plans. Deliverables: Development Program memo. A memo summarizing the development program in written form using text and spread sheets as needed to identify the recommended development program activity types, size, and development characteristics. Part III. Marina Feasibility Planning and Design EBRPD This part of the work effort evolves the planning and schematic design of a marina development for NAS Alameda. Key components of this part involve the identification of land uses, location and size for a marina in and around the NAS Alameda Seaplane lagoon. Task 3.1 Schematic Development Plans. Based upon the program outlined in Part II above, a schematic design for a marina development will be developed. This design is conceptual level site planning that identifies development sites, sizes, and infrastructure requirements for both private and public uses. These uses include both dock facilities, boat births, as well as land side development opportunities for ancillary uses and land side development opportunities for commercial uses such as boat yards, restaurants and cafes, boating outfitters, fishing and sports supplies, etc. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 10, 1995 Page 4 Task 3.2 Development and Operating Cost Estimates. Based upon the development program and schematic development plan identified above, develop an "order -of- magnitude" costs estimate for a marina development, and an "order -of- magnitude" annual operating costs for the marina. Task 3.3 Staff Review. This tasks involves the review of the preliminary work product by the ARRA and EBRBD staff. Staff review comments will collected and submitted to the consultant team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 3.4 Peer Review. Concurrently, the conceptual design development solution will be reviewed by the economic team. Comments will be forwarded to the design team for revisions or changes as necessary. Task 3.5 Finalize Schematic Marina Development Plans. Based upon the staff and peer review of the earlier development schemes, a final schematic development plan will be prepared for inclusion in the final report. Task 3.6 Public Presentation of Findings. This task involves the presentation of the report findings and recommendations to the ARRA and the EBRPD Board for approval. It is anticipated that these presentations will be made by the agency staff with back -up by each agencies consultant team members. Meetings: Staff meetings as need among all participants to review and finalize the development plans and reports. Deliverables: 1. Draft Schematic Development Plan Report (8 '/2 X 11 inch format - 20 copies plus 1 copy suitable for reproduction) 2. Final Schematic Development Plan Report (8 '/2 X 11 format - 40 copies plus 1 copy suitable for reproduction) 3. Wall size maps and diagrams of the schematic development plan suitable for public presentation Part IV. Finalize Port/Marina Feasibility Study ARRA Staff The final phase of this study involves the compilation of the first three parts into one report for publication and presentations to each of the two governing boards; the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the East Bay Regional Parks District. Task 4.1 Report Production ARRA staff will be responsible for consolidating and formatting the final report for reproduction and distribution. Port and Marina Feasibility Study Work Program August 10, 1995 Page 5 Task 4.2 Report Presentation Staff from both the ARRA and EBRPD will be responsible for attending board meetings of the ARRA and EBRPD to present the finding s and recommendations of the study. Meetings: Staff meetings as need among all participants to review and finalize the development plans and reports. One (1) presentation meeting to the ARRA Board One (1) presentation meeting to the EBRPD Board Deliverables: Each consultant/agency will provide one (1) copy of the finalized report (in computerized format, Word Perfect 6.0 or higher) of their responsible sections for consolidation into a final report document. c:\wp\office\pauldocs\marinawp Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Adopt an Open Listing Policy Allowing Payment of Commissions to Real Estate Brokers Representing Interim Tenants. Background/Analysis: During the last month, the ARRA has been approached by two brokers, each representing a viable potential lessee requiring 100,000 - 150,000 sq. ft. of warehouse /industrial space. Since brokers are paid by the lessor, it is necessary that ARRA commit to pay the broker's commission as a prerequisite to moving forward with any lease negotiation. Additionally, future marketing of interim leases will be greatly enhanced if ARRA adopts an open - listing policy in which local industrial brokers are informed of our leasing program (through an upcoming marketing package) and commission schedule. The proposed commission will conform to industry standards for industrial leases. It will pay 5 percent of gross rental proceeds over the first five years of the lease and 3 percent of rental proceeds for years six through ten. The commission will be paid from the tenant's rent. Fiscal Impact: On a typical 100,000 sq. ft. lease for one of the large hanger buildings, ARRA might expect to receive a monthly rent of $10,000 or $600,000 over a five -year interim lease. The commission on this lease would be $30,000. This is well worth the payment, considering that the alternative might well be a long -term vacancy. Recommendation: That the ARRA Board approve an open - listing policy for its interim leasing program allowing payment of commissions to qualifying real estate brokers of 5 percent of rental proceeds during lease years 1 -5 and 3 percent during years 6-10. Respectfully submitted, et Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum DATE: August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter Proposing to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal and Authorization to Communicate this Determination to the Port of Oakland and Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Background: The Port of Oakland has submitted a letter proposal to increase heights of three container cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal (CPHT) as stated in the attached letters. The new cranes will extend to a height of 265 feet above ground level (AGL); existing cranes extend to 213 feet AGL. Discussion/Analysis: The Navy plans to close its airfield at NAS Alameda on or around June 30, 1996. The Port's estimated installation date for the taller cranes at CPHT is November 1, 1996. Because crane construction will occur well after airfield closure, the Navy has indicated it will likely agree to the Port's proposal. While retention of the airfield has not reached a final decision through the reuse planing process, it is unlikely. A previous report by the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) consultant, P &D Aviation, found there is no favorable economic market for civilian reuse of the airfield at NAS Alameda. If the airfield were retained, the most likely uses would be aircraft maintenance, refurbishment, and training. Since future civilian aviation use of the airfield is not included in any of the draft community reuse plans and civilian use of the airfield is not anticipated, the Port of Oakland is requesting written confirmation that the increase in crane heights at CPHT as proposed would have no effect on future uses of the airfield. Financial Impact/Budget Consideration: None. Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Recommendation: August 30, 1995 Page 2 Staff recommends that the ARRA direct the Executive Director to communicate to both the Port of Oakland and NAS Alameda the ARRA's determination that the increase in crane heights at CPHT as proposed would have no effect on future uses of the airfield. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director /mee Attachments: (1) June 28, 1995 letter to Kay Miller from the Port of Oakland regarding a proposed increase in crane heights (2) June 28, 1995 letter to F.J. Dodge, Commanding Officer, NAS Alameda from the Port of Oakland regarding a proposed increase in crane heights PORT OF OAKLAND June 28, 1995 Kay Miller, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station, Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Re: Proposal to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at Charles P. Howard Terminal Dear Ms. Miller: REECEIVED JUL 7 1995 uASE CCN','ERSION OFFICE CITY OF ALAMEDA This letter follows up on your recent telephone conversation with Ted Mankowski, Supervising Civil Engineer, of my staff. As discussed, the Port of Oakland proposes to replace three cranes at its Charles P. Howard Terminal (CPHT) with cranes up to 52 feet taller than the existing ones. The taller cranes will be capable of accommodating the new generation of larger and wider container ships. As shown on the attached figures, the new cranes will extend to a height of 265 feet above ground level (AGL) or about 280 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW). By comparison, the tallest of the existing cranes at CPHT are 213 feet AGL or about 228 feet above MLLW. The Port's estimated installation date for the taller cranes at CPHT is November 1, 1996, and the Navy plans to close the airfield at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda on or around June 30, 1996. On the basis of our informal discussions with you and with ACCM Norma Bishop, NAS Alameda Assistant Base Closure Officer, we anticipate that ARRA's forthcoming Community Reuse Plan will not propose any future aviation uses for the NAS. Therefore, increasing crane heights at CPHT as proposed would have no effect on future uses of the airfield. Please do not hesitate to call me at (510) 272 -1254 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the above- described proposal or any other Port activities. We look forward to continued mutual cooperation regarding future Port and ARRA development programs. Sincerely, Ralph Gin Chief of Planning cc: Lt. Deborah Scott, Air Traffic Control Officer, Naval Air Station, Alameda ACCM Norma Bishop, Base Closure Office, Naval Air Station, Alameda Attachments 530 Water Street is Jack London's Waterfront • P.O. Box 2064 ■ Oakland, California 94604 -2064 Telephone (510) 272 -1100 • Fax (510) 272 -1172 is TDD (510) 763 -5703 ■ Cable address, PORTOFOAK, Oakland ,...1,4•4474w4iira Too. figialems mil: itre =111141 PORT OF OAKLALND June 28, 1995 F. J. Dodge, Commanding Officer Naval Air Station, Alameda 250 Mall Square Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Proposal to Increase Heights of Three (3) Container Cranes at the Port of Oakland's Charles P. Howard Terminal Dear Sir: RECEIVED JUL 1 7 1995 a ,SE CONVERSION OFFICE CITY OF ALAMEDA The Port of Oakland proposes to replace three cranes at its Charles P. Howard Terminal (CPHT) with cranes up to 52 feet taller than the existing ones. The taller cranes will be capable of accommodating the new generation of larger and wider container ships. As shown on the attached figures, the new cranes will extend to a height of 265 feet above ground level (AGL) or about 280 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW). By comparison, the tallest of the existing cranes at CPHT are 213 feet AGL or about 228 feet above MLLW. On the basis of informal discussions between Port of Oakland staff and Lt. Deborah K. Scott, Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Air Traffic Control Officer, it is our understanding that the Navy plans to close its airfield at NAS Alameda on or around June 30, 1996. The Port's estimated installation date for the taller cranes at CPHT is November 1, 1996. Because crane construction will not occur until well after scheduled airfield closure, Lt. Scott indicated that the Navy is unlikely to oppose the Port's proposal. We further understand, on the basis of informal discussionsjwith ACCM Norma Bishop, Assistant Base Closure Officer and Kay Miller, Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), that the prospect of future civilian aviation use of the airfield is remote. The ARRA is currently developing its Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda, and is scheduled to select a preferred alternative in October of this year. It is anticipated that the City of Alameda's preferred alternative for NAS Alameda will not include civilian aviation uses. We hereby request written confirmation of our understanding of the Navy's position regarding the Ports proposal to raise crane heights at CPHT. Upon receiving your confirmation letter we will forward our Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460 -1) to the Federal Aviation Administration. Sincerely, Ralph Gin Chief of Planning cc: Lt. Deborah Scott, Air Traffic Control Officer, Naval Air Station, Alameda ACCM Norma Bishop, Base Closure Office, Naval Air Station, Alameda Kay Miller, Executive Director, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Attachments 530 Water Street • Jack London's Waterfront • P.O. Box 2064 ■ Oakland, California 94604 -2064 Telephone (510) 272 -1100 • Fax (510) 272 -1172 • TDD (510) 763 -5703 r Cable address, PORTOFOAK, Oakland ma, 1-1 .K -O r0E4l y.. bd EMI 11 ► 8u• 11.1 Iru ®UU•111111 1u■ mow INN ° EMUS IMO 0111111111111 111 I INN a••i1u 11111U 113111111111 I UM 121111111101 I INN MINIM II INN 11111011111111111111 ©©©li ©l i 3o _a�r�1m II ti Pr =ii CAPACITIES dr SPEEDS: (xl) F'AL 1 6 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum DATE: August 30, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director RE: Appointment of a Chairperson for the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. Background: In July 1993, the Alameda City Council created the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) to provide a forum for community input to the base reuse planning process. The BRAG acted in an advisory capacity and reported directly to the Alameda City Council. The BRAG consists of a chairperson and eleven members. Each of the BRAG members chairs a subcommittee. There are eleven BRAG subcommittees including Economic Development, Land Use, Reuse, Housing, Infrastructure, Recreation, Education, Employment and Retraining, Human Impact, Community Involvement, and Environment. On June 7, 1995, the ARRA, by unanimous voice vote, accepted the recommendation of the Executive Director to transfer the BRAG reporting function from the Alameda City Council to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. This action had been previously endorsed by the Alameda City Council at their April 19, 1995 meeting as well as recommended by the BRAG itself. Discussion /Analysis: At the BRAG meeting on Wednesday, July 26, 1995, the resignation of Doug deHaan, Chairperson of the Reuse Subcommittee, was accepted. At the same meeting, a motion was unanimously accepted to appoint Pattianne Parker as the new Chair of the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. The matter was then passed to the ARRA for action. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA accept the appointment of Pattianne Parker as the new Chair of the Reuse Subcommittee of the BRAG. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director City of Alameda Inter-department Memorandum CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION August 30, 1995 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Carol A. Korade General Counsel Re: Legal Briefing on the Tidelands Trust Doctrine Attached is a legal memorandum prepared by Kenneth Taymor, an attorney with the law firm of Cassidy & Verges, describing the Tidelands Trust Doctrine and its potential impact on planning for the Naval Air Station. Mr. Taymor, who is an expert in Tidelands law in California, will be present to provide an oral briefing to the ARRA at your September 6, 1995, meeting. Time has also been included at that meeting for Mr. Taymor to address questions ARRA members have about this complex and specialized area of the law, though of course Mr. Taymor will not be able to address questions that involve specific, confidential matters during this public presentation. Any such confidential matters will be addressed after the oral presentation in a separate written communication to the ARRA members. Carol A. Korade General Counsel cc: Kay Miller, Executive Director Heather McLaughlin, Assistant General Counsel Printed on recycled paper From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade Date: 8129195 lime: 16:30.09 R =93% CASSIDY & VERGES AProfessianal Corporation 20 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415- 788 -2020 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MEMORANDUM TO: Hon. Carol Korade City Attorney, City of Alameda FROM: Kenneth S. Taymor RE: Impact of Tidelands Trust on Planning for Naval Air Station, Alameda DATE: August 29, 1995 Page 1 of 8 r This memorandum identities the initial results of our research into the question ofthe impact of the Tidelands Trust doctrine on the reuse planning from Naval Air Station, Alameda ( "NAS "). Because of the short time frame in which we had to prepare this memorandum, its conclusions are necessarily preliminary. Our recommendations are based on our experience negotiating development project approvals with the California State Lands Commission, research into the Tidelands Trust law and federal base closure and property disposition law, research into the history of the federal acquisition ofthc several parcels of land that comprise NAS (including review of documents supplied to us by your office regarding the application ofthe Tidelands Trust to those parcels), and discussions with representatives of other base closure communities. In summary we suggest that while developing their proposed reuse plan for NAS, the City and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ("ARRA") (1) thoroughly analyze the history of title of all of the parcels comprising NAS; (2) analyze the legal arguments in support of the conclusion that each parcel is or is not subject to the Tidelands Trust; (3) negotiate with the State Lands Commission staff informally and outside of the public arena, the soope of the Trust's application to NAS; and (4) cooperate in political efforts among other base closure communities and the State govetuuuent to gain Commission approval of locally approved reuse plans. While the implications of the Trust must be a factor in consideration when preparing an overall reuse plan for NAS, there is sufficient uncertainty concerning the reach ofthe Trust to NAS and sufficient flexibility in the scope of uses permitted under the Trust, that the City and ARRA will benefit in negotiations with State Lands Commission Staff by first developing a plan that it refines to comply with the Trust rather than (i) Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 1 '_o 08 -29 -95 04:40PM P001 #22 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade Date: 8!29/95 Time: 16:31:19 Page 2 of 8 developing a plan based primarily on Trust considerations or (ii) seeking to resolve questions concerning the Trust's application to NAS parcels in the absence of a draft plan. BACKGROUND Tidelands Trust for Commerce. Navigation and Fisheries. Tidelands are subject to a public trust that limits their use generally for commerce, navigation and fisheries. This trust has been interpreted to permit uses, such as parks, restaurants and hotels, that do not directly encourage those three activities, but provided for enhanced public use of and access to tidelands. The Tidelands Trust, as this public trust often is referred to, also prevents sale of tidelands to private persons and restricts the scope and term oftidelands leases. The Tidelands Trust affects property currently and formerly below the mean high water level. Under certain circumstances, filled former tidelands can be released from the restraints of the trust. Some ofthe methods for releasing property from the Tidelands Trust are discussed below. Assemblage of NAS. NAS includes over 2600 aores of dry and submerged lands. Much of NAS is current and filled tidelands, but the installation includes some uplands (lands above mean high water and therefore never subject to the trust). The United States obtained approximately 2000 acres of NAS by deeds from the City of Alameda. These parcels were tidelands and former tidelands that the State of California oonveyed to the City in 1913, subject to the Tidelands Trust. Approximately 450 acres were obtained by condemnation actions and approximately 100 acres were obtained from private parties and the Regents of the University of California. These parcels include former tidelands and uplands. The United States leases 159 acres of NAS from Alameda (which property lies within the City and County of San Francisco). Application of Tidelands Trust to NAS - Initial Review. Based on our initial review of granting documents and the report of Rodney H. Hamblin, dated October 14, 1994, several conclusions can be made about the probable application of the Tidelands Trust to the parcels comprising NAS. It is important to recognize that these conclusions are tentative and should he followed by more definitive research and title analysis by a title company. The core of NAS most likely is burdened by the Tidelands Trust, notwithstanding the transfer of the fee to the United States. The United States acquired all of the interest held by the City, but that interest was subject to the Tidelands Trust as part of the original transfer ofthe land from the State of California to the City. ARRA and the City have a strong claim that the Trust was extinguished on those parcels that the United States acquired by condemnation, ifthc Statc of California was named in condemnation proceedings. In addition, portions of NAS on uplands were never subject to the Trust. EXTINGUISHING TAF, TIDELANDS TRUST Alameda and ARRA have two principal interests in identifying the proper procedures for extinguishing the Tidelands Trust. First, identification of these procedures is necessary to confirm the initial analysis in the preceding paragraphs concerning the current application ofthe Trust to NAS. Second, identification ofthe procedures will guide Alameda and ARRA in their attempts to free additional land at NAS from the Trust. The following discussion identifies several methods to Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 2 R =93% 08 -29 -95 O4:4nPM Pnn ft99 From: Ken Taymor To: 4Esq., Card Korade Date: 8/29195 Time: 18:32:39 Pape 3 of 8 extinguish the Tidelands Trust from property and the role of the State Lands Commission and its stab in that process. Transfers to the United States. Arguments could be made that the transfer to the United States of the fcc interest in the NAS property extinguished the Trust's because the United States, once the owner of the fee, (i) could (and did) use the property in a manner inconsistent with the Tidelands Trust and (ii) may dispose of the property as it desires (as long as the disposal conforms to federal law) regardless of the strictures of state administered Tidelands Trust. These arguments are likely to fail if litigated and in any event, lengthy litigation that is inconsistent with the planning and reuse process would be necessary to establish them in the face of a challenge by the State Lands Commission. Condemnation ofthe Trust by the United States. Representatives of the Department of Defense have suggested that if the Tidelands Trust posed problems to disposition and reuse of former military installations in the San Francisco Bay, the United States could initiate condemnation actions against the property in question and extinguish any residual interests in installation property. This solution, however, would not facilitate the reuse planning process because the State would likely contest the action which would lead to protracted litigation with uncertain results. The State also might contest the claim the general claim that the previous condemnation actions by the United States extinguished the Tidelands Trust. The State might contend that the Trust was rendered dormant by the condemnation, but that upon transfer out ofthe United States, the property became subject to the Trust. This argument is not likely to prevail. Mansell Findings. The generally recognized procedure for extinguishing the Trust from fonner tidelands requires (i) a finding by the California Legislature that the property is no longer of value to the Trust, typically because a plan of fill and development has isolated the property from the waterfront and/or from significant transit corridors, (ii) a determination that the portion of the property being removed is only a small portion oldie Trust property in the area, and (iii) compensation to the Trust in the fonn of cash payment into a special fund or an agreement to subject to the Trust, land of equal or greater value than the value of the land being removed from the Trust (commonly referred to as a and exchange). We have experience in obtaining urgency legislation to extinguish the Trust to facilitate approval of a development agreement land use plan for urban waterfront development. Negotiations with State Lands Commission. The staff of the State Lands Commission would negotiate the terms of such a proposed land exchange. The Commission, however, is not authorized to extinguish the trust from property subject to it. The Commission staff analyzes the value of the properties proposcd to be exchanged and the impact of the exchange on overall trust values so that the necessary legislative findings can be made. Although the Commission cannot extinguish the Trust, it can determine that certain property was never subject to the Trust or that the Trust has been extinguished from the property. This power includes the ability to settle disputed claims over the application of the Trust to certain property or the aooeptability of proposed uses for land under the Trust. When disputed claims are settled or questions of uses permitted under the Trust are to be resolved the staff and landowner will often present their agreement to the Commission for review and approval at a publicly noticed meeting. This procedure ordinarily will allow the landowner to obtain title insurance against Trust claims to facilitate financing and development of the property. It is possible that private litigation would seek to overturn the Commission findings regarding the Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 3 R =93% 08 -29 -95 04:40PM P003 #22 From: Ken Taymor To: 'Esq., Card Korade Date: 8129!95 Time: 16:34:07 Page 4 of 8 application of the Trust, but there is small likelihood of such litigation arising or being successful. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES You have asked for an outline ofrccomuiendcd procedures for addressing the Tidelands Trust in the NAS reuse planning process. The following suggestions are based on our understanding that the ARRA will present its preferred reuse plan to the pubic and the Department of Defense before the end of this calendar year. Internal Analysis of Trust Claims Against NAS. ARRA and the City should undertake a thorough internal review of the application of the Trust to each parcel comprising NAS. This analysis should include the strengths and weaknesses of possible Trust claims for each parcel. A title company, such as Chicago Title, which has extensive experience in Trust matters should be engaged to assist in this analysis. Under some circumstances, reduced fee arrangements can be made with title insurers at this preliminary stage of analysis by assuring that the company will be used to issue insurance policies when the property is transferred and developed. ARRA should also consider at this time whether to link this research with research into the application of the navigable servitude to NAS lands. Although requiring some separate research, much of the historical title analysis concerning the Trust will also shed light on the navigable servitude. As part of this internal analysis, ARRA and the City should develop a methodology for valuing lands that might be part of a Trust land exchange. This process is more complicated than a simple appraisal because ofthe large acreage involved, the economic impact on real estate values of NAS's closure (beyond the depression caused by the potential "flood" of surplus real estate), the absenoe of oomparable sales or leases, the specialized nature of many of the improvements on the site and the distressed condition of the property (i.e., hazardous materials contamination, protected environmental habitats, and inadequate utility services). There are different methodologies that real estate valuation professionals will use in the unusual circumstanoes presented by NAS. It is important, for obtaining the maximum benefit from a potential exchange, to understand the alternative methodologies and have selected a preferred approach prior to negotiating formally the terms of a and exchange with the State Lands staff. ARRA and the City should select a favorable, but professionally defensible, methodology and begin the process of appraising NAS Trust property that is a candidate to be exchanged out of the Trust. Having a rationale for a methodology and a rough (if not completed) appraisal prior to negotiating land exchange terms will increase the likelihood that State Lands staff will be able to approve exchanges as proposed by ARRA. Undertaking Planning Process with Tidelands Trust Considerations. The planning process should continue with the goal of producing the land use plan most desired by ARRA and the City, but with the recognition that the Tidelands Trust will impose some land use constraints. The application of the Trust to many paroels at NAS is uncertain and portions of those parcels that are subject to the Trust may be eligible for exchange out ofthe Trust depending on the overall land use plan. It will not be possible to obtain certainty with respect to the scope of the Trust's application in advance of creation of a draft reuse plan. The planning process should attempt to incorporate Trust values into the land use plan, for example by plaoing publio access and accommodation areas suoh as parks, walkways, restaurants and recreation areas along the waterfront and in areas likely subject to the Tidelands Trust and NAT Reuse Planning Page 4 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade ■ Date: 8/29/95 Time: 16:35:32 Page 5 of 8 Trust. The draft plan also should consider ways to enhance the potential for land exchanges by nhvsically linking »� that are nermiseihle nneier the Trnct (arch as thme denerihed in the nrecedina sentenoe) with waterfront trust property. In one plan that I assisted in preparing, a network of jogging paths and roadways across non -Trust property were linked to a similar network on the Trust portion of the development. The non -trust paths and roads aggregated to substantial acreage which was then placed under the Trust in exchange for freeing Trust land closer to the waterfront for non -Trust uses such as housing. Tnfhrmal Tlisrnssinns with State T. ands Stab' ARR A and the. City chnnlrl immr.rliately undertake informal discussions with Statc Lands Commission staff to ascertain their position regarding matters such as the scope of the Trust's application to NAS and the desirability of land exchanges. It is imperative to avoid creating situations in which the Commission staff will make public or formal "on the record" statements concerning the application ofthe Trust to NAS. It is our experience that the staffs initial response to such inquiries is to assert a broad set of claims in order to protect the interests of the Trust. Through negotiation and argument, landowners and municipalities oan successfully persuade staff that the application of the Trust is more limited. Staff will have more flexibility to negotiate if they have not made public or official statements, orally or in writing, that appear to contradict a later recommendation with respect to a land use plan or land exchange. These initial discussions should seek to gain agreement on parcels that clearly are outside of the Trust (such as uplands) and an understanding of staff positions on matters such as the effect on the Trust of condemnation actions by the United States and the use of land exchanges to free parcels from the Trust. Discussions concerning land exchanges should address methods for ascertaining land value for exchange purposes, as this issue will be crucial to successfully implementing any exchange. Informal meeting will also be helpful to introduce the staff to the rough outlines of the plan under consideration and the timing for plan approval imposed by federal property disposition processes. Coordinate with Governor's Office and Other Base Closure Communities. Because many installations slated for closure in California are on Tidelands Trust property, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and some state Legislative Committees have expressed an interest in facilitating resolution of reuse planning and Trust issues. ARRA and the City should actively encourage such State level actions to address Trust constraints on the reuse planning process. ARRA and the City also should coordinate their efforts with other communities affected by the Trust. Because a land exchange is likely to be necessary to implement any final plan adopted by ARRA and the City, and ultimate approval of a land exchange rests with the State Legislature, the City and ARRA should contact key legislators to sock their commitment to press for quick approval of any plan approved by the State Lands Commission. In addition to Alameda's local delegation to the Senate and the Assembly, the chairpersons of the legislative committees that will oversee the legislation also should be contacted. We can assist in this process and in identifying lobbyists who have effectively worked on such legislation in the past. Analyze Draft Plan in Terms of Impact of Trust. The planning team should work in concert with the legal and title history professionals to analyze the Trust's possible impact on the draft plan. This work should be done on an ongoing basis concurrently with discussions with State Lands staff Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 5 R =94% 08 -29 -95 04:40PM P005 #22 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade Date: 8/29/95 Time: 16:36:58 Page 6 of 8 and political efforts with the Governor's O1Tice and the Legislature. By receiving feedback regarding possible Trust impacts as the plan evolves, the planners will better be able to evaluate the risks involved in pursuing certain alternatives that might conflict with the Trust rather than other alternatives more compatible with it. This process will also increase the likelthood that small adjustinents with potentially large beneficial impacts can be made in the plan - for example, creating a pedestrian link between a waterfront and an upland park so that the upland park can be transferred into the Trust in exchange for tidelands property that the planners want to use for non-Trust purposes. This analysis will include not only identification of Trust and non -Trust parcels for the planners, but also identification of uses permitted under the Trust. Although the Trust does narrow the range of uses permitted on a parcel, there is sufficient flexibility under the Trust to accommodate a uwido rang° of aotivitioo. An negotiation° with $tat° Lando otaffpr0000d, ARRA and tho City will find that in many oases they can reach a fruitful compromise with the State by aoknowledging the State's claim to a parcel, but having the State approve a proposed use for the parcel as consistent with the Trust. As the draft plan evolves, the team that was undertaking the valuation analysis of NAS Trust properties should be revising their appraisals to reflect the proposed plan. Ultimately, ARRA and the City want to bo in the position of arguing to tho Etato that tho propoaod development plan will onhanoo the value of the parcels left in the Trust and those swapped out ofthe Trust far beyond any plan that could be implemented without a land exchange. They will also want to be able to argue that the land going into the Trust is of far greater current value on a per acre basis than the land being taken out of the Trust because of factors such as being (i) better served by utilities, (ii) better located in terms of proximity to established neighborhoods and commercial districts in the City, and (iii) uncontaminated by hazardous materials. Negotiate Plan with State Lands Staff. Once the ARRA and the City have (i) a well developed, but not finalized, draft plan, (ii) a strong understanding of the arguments concerning the 't'rust's application to NAS and its impact on the land uses permitted under the plan, (iii) a well reasoned appraisal methodology with a preliminary land valuation, and (iv) a land exchange proposal, they will be ready for formal negotiations with State Lands staff. If Alameda representatives have been regularly consulting with Commission staff and advising them of the proposals that ARRA and the City will make, these negotiations should proceed smoothly. Some flexibility should be built into the draft plan so that concessions can be made to State Lands if the initial proposal is unacceptable. In the event of an impasse, the City and ARRA should have established State level political support that can assist in brokering a compromise. Political support, no matter how powerful, however, cannot gain approval of a plan unless the plan is factually and legally sustainable. Once a plan has been approved by the State Lands Commission staff, it will be presented to the Commission for review and, depending upon the precise nature of the proposal, approval. Although the staff will prepare the materials for the Commission and the Commission ordinarily approves staff recommendations, ARRA and the City should be prepared to brief individual Commissioners (within the limits permitted by the Brown Act) and perhaps have one of the three Commissioners identified as a proponent of the plan if formal Commission approval is necessary. Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 6 From: Ken Taymor To: Esq., Carol Korade Date: 8129195 Time:113:38:23 Page 7 of 8 —no Q/ L.cgislative Approval of Land Exchange. If the plan includes a land exchange, it will require approval by the State Legislature. Because it is so late in the legislative session, it is unlikely that approval can be obtained in this calendar year. We can work with you to determine the most expeditious process to follow to obtain any necessary legislation. Tidelands Trust and NAS Reuse Planning Page 7 08-29 -95 04:40PM P007 #22 Honorable Members of the Page 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 FISC Reuse Planning Consultant Budget (September 1995 through January 1996): In order to coordinate reuse planning for FISC with NAS, work on FISC must begin immediately. Since the reuse planning for NAS and FISC will have a tremendous impact on each other and need to be developed concurrently, OEA will allow the ARRA to utilize its existing NAS consultant team. Since FISC may need to complete the federal screening process, the final plan for FISC may not be completed until later next year; however, work can proceed now on the reconnaissance phase, the conditions and trends report, development of an interim reuse strategy, alternative analysis, and selection of a preferred alternative. Detailed utility analysis for FISC will be incorporated in the proposed utility study. Total cost of consultant activity from September 1995 through January 1996 is $100,000. Additional NAS Consultant Activity through January 1996: Environmental Consultant - The OEA budget submittal includes a request for additional consultant activity that the ARRA staff recommends be undertaken immediately. First, $15,000 has been requested for an environmental consultant. All the environmental parties interested in securing the entire 950 acres at NAS for the Least Tern have their attorneys and technical experts in meetings and negotiations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. The ARRA staff also requires its own technical experts to evaluate arguments and protect the ARRA's interest in these negotiations. Time constraints and the high level of expertise of the existing consultants, led OEA permit the ARRA to utilize its existing consultant team. This is necessary for the ARRA to complete the Community Reuse Plan by the end of January 1996. Port Marina Study - The Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) will make Port Priority determination in December 1995. The ARRA needs information on the feasibility of a port to utilize in negotiations with BCDC on Port Priority designation. Also, a major opportunity exists for the development of a marina in the NAS Alameda Seaplane Lagoon. This study will help determine the market, size, and program for a new marina at the NAS Alameda and FISC sites. Therefore, the budget amendment requests $25,000 for a Port/Marina Market Study. In the interest of time and because of the level of expertise of the existing consultants, OEA has agreed to permit the ARRA to utilize the ARRA's existing consultant team. This is necessary for the ARRA to begin the work this month. Marketing- The marketing of NAS and FISC to interim users is a significant challenge. The OEA budget amendment requests $50,000 to develop a detailed interim marketing plan and marketing materials. The ARRA will develop a Request for Proposal to go out to bid for much of the proposed work. Honorable Members of the Page 4 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 1, 1995 Detailed Utility Study: Funding is needed for an in -depth utility study to detail immediate solutions to meet the utility needs of interim users and provide detailed information on improvements needed for long -term tenants envisioned in the final reuse plan. The total proposed cost for the detailed utility study is $600,000. The OEA budget amendment requests $200,000 from OEA for the ARRA's portion of the study. The City of Alameda would provide $200,000 and the utility companies would be asked to contribute $200,000 cash and in kind. Additional Planning Requests Through January 1996: Since the ARRA approved the draft budget amendment at its August meeting, two additional budget items have been included for OEA funding. First, OEA will now share in the cost of an Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Panel. The purpose of a ULI Advisory Panel is to provide a reality check of the base closure community reuse plan being developed by local reuse authorities prior to the plan's completion. ULI convenes a panel of experts to determine the most marketable proposals for the short term and realistic phasing of the plan for the best returns given real world market conditions. In the past, OEA would not fund this program; however, now OEA will fund 50% of the service up to $45,000. It is estimated that the ULI Advisory Panel will cost approximately $84,000. Under OEA's formula the ARRA would be eligible to apply for $42,000, and staff will seek to secure the remaining funds from local foundations that support these programs. Second, ARRA's negotiations of an interim lease with AEG for approximately 280,000 sq. ft. in Buildings 11, 12 and 400A has been delayed by the discovery of serious structural deficiencies in these buildings. In order to progress with the negotiations, an engineering analysis is needed to determine the extent of the problems, recommended building upgrades, and construction cost estimates. The problems include substantial subsidence of the buildings' structural slabs following the Loma Prieta earthquake - up to 8 inches in some places, and possible seismic deficiencies in the building's structural frame. These improvements would ordinarily be the responsibility of the landlord, and are not associated with any tenant leasehold improvements. Once costs are determined, the ARRA would consider AEG making the structural improvements to be deducted from AEG's rent to the ARRA. At the end of the lease, the ARRA would have structurally sound /improved buildings. The cost of the analysis is $12,000. Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact: As with previous OEA grants, the City of Alameda will provide the 25% OEA matching requirement for this budget amendment through continued City staff and monetary contributions to the base conversion and reuse planning effort. Also, funding provided by the utility companies can be counted toward the local match requirement.