Loading...
1996-04-09 ARRA PacketAGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda High School Cafeteria West Wing, Historic Alameda High School Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Tuesday, April 9, 1996 5:30 p.m. Alameda, California 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Support State Legislation for Use of Redevelopment Law at NAS Alameda (AB 3129 - Lee). 2 -B. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Support State Legislation for Use of Redevelopment Law at Closing Military Bases Generally (AB 2736 - Weggeland). 2 -C. Report and Recommendation that the ARRA Endorse the NAS Alameda Base Commander's Plan to Open the Officer's Club to the Public Beginning in May 1996. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending that a Letter Be Sent from ARRA Requesting the Secretary of the Navy to Convey the FISC Alameda Property Under the §2834(b) Authority of the 1995 Defense Authorization Act Allowing a No -cost Conveyance of the Property. 3 -E. Recommendations Regarding the Structure and Budget for BRAG April 1996 to April 1997. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -F. Briefing by CAPT Christiansen, Navy Public Works on Request for Additional Military Housing. ARRA Agenda - April 9, 1996 Page 2 4 -G. Briefing by Mike Petouhoff on Status of Hazardous Materials Cleanup Effort. 4 -H Briefing by Doug Sidon, District Director; Mike Anderson, Chief Planner; and Peter Sama, Chief of Public Safety for the East Bay Regional Parks District on Proposed Plans for a Recreational Vehicle Park at NAS Alameda. 4 -1. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on: 1. Status of Fish & Wildlife Section 7 Consultation 2. Status of BCDC Port Priority Designation 3. Date for Development, Investment, and Financing Workshop 4. Miscellaneous Issues. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY 7. 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. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 3, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 2 -A SUBJ: Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Support State Legislation for Use of Redevelopment Law at NAS Alameda (AB 3129 - Lee). Background: The closure of NAS Alameda offers an opportunity for significant development in the Alameda, Oakland, and San Leandro areas of Alameda County. However, the Base presents daunting challenges to fully successful development. Among these challenges are deteriorated and obsolete infrastructure, impractical land use patterns for non - military uses, and lack of adequate financing mechanisms to address all of the planning, capital, and other development needs at the base. The use of redevelopment law would assist in addressing these concerns, primarily by providing an effective tool for financing the necessary physical improvements. While existing redevelopment law is potentially available as authority for these purposes, that law is not perfectly suited to closing military bases. It is for these reasons that during its January 11, 1996 meeting, the ARRA authorized staff to pursue special legislation suited to the unique circumstances presented at NAS Alameda. Assembly member Barbara Lee has prepared AB 3129 in response to the resulting request from the ARRA. Discussion: Redevelopment law in California provides a powerful and effective mechanism to facilitate development and revitalization. General redevelopment law, though, was drafted for use principally within portions of the State's cities affected by urban blight. Many of the definitions and procedures in the general redevelopment law do not fit the circumstances presented at closing military installations very well. One example of the difficulty of using existing law for closing bases is that the definitions in general redevelopment law apply only to private property in a proposed redevelopment area and, of course, all of the property at a closing base is in public ownership. This fact has been recognized by the adoption of a special set of general rules for the use of redevelopment power at closing military bases. Unfortunately, while the concept of a generally applicable law for the redevelopment of closing military bases is sound, the statute that is in effect does not address the situation at NAS Alameda or many other bases. It is for this reason that most bases using redevelopment powers are doing so under legislation that was drafted and passed specifically for a particular base. This is true, for instance, at Mather Air Force Base, Mare Island, Fort Ord, Castle Air Force Base, and March Air Force Base, among others. Special legislation written specifically for NAS Alameda has been introduced by Assembly member Lee. This legislation is modeled upon the bills that have been adopted at other bases but addresses some specific issues present at NAS Alameda. Among the specific issues present at NAS Alameda that are not present at many other closing bases is the fact that the Homeless Assistance process has Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 4, 1996 Page 2 been concluded at NAS. This fact leads to the need to include in the special legislation some provisions to tie the housing that will be provided under the Homeless Assistance Act into the housing requirements of California's redevelopment law. Another difference between the need for special redevelopment legislation at NAS Alameda and other bases is that many other bases need to include non -base property into their redevelopment areas to make those areas function appropriately. This is not the case at Alameda. The major features of the NAS Alameda bill, AB 3129, include: (1) Deferring the 20 percent low- and moderate - income housing set -aside for 10 years. This feature recognizes the substantial contribution to low- and moderate - income housing that is provided through the Homeless Assistance provisions of base closure law and maximizes the early use of tax - increment financing for infrastructure improvements that are essential for successful low- and moderate - income housing developments as well as other housing and nonresidential, commercial development. (2) Deferring the payments to affected taxing entities (the "pass- through payments ") until $100,000 in tax increment funds are reported rather than from the year in which the first dollar of tax increment funds are reported. (3) Deferring the requirement to certify an EIR for the establishment of the redevelopment area for 18 months, though any individual project proposed during that time would require full compliance with CEQA, including preparation of an EIR if one is required under the law. This provision will facilitate use of the EIR/EIS being prepared in conjunction with the property disposal ROD and thus will avoid costly duplication of environmental analysis and review. (4) Deferring the requirement for general plan conformity findings until such time as tax increment funds are actually proposed to be spent on an implementation project. (5) Authorizing the Redevelopment Agency to count units used by qualifying homeless - service clients to meet the low- and moderate - income housing requirements of existing redevelopment law. This will guarantee that the Agency is appropriately "credited" with housing used by homeless service providers and reduce the number of such housing units required to be provided under general redevelopment law. (6) Allowing the Low and Moderate Income Fund for the NAS project area to be used to reimburse homeless providers for capital improvements they have made to base infrastructure (e.g., installing new sewer laterals) or payments of Facility Fees that they have paid. (This provision is an amendment to the copy of the bill attached to this report; a copy of the bill reprinted to include this amendment will be provided to ARRA members as soon as it is received.) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich Councilmember City of Alameda Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 ameda County Board — Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving for Elihu Harris Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda'; Charles M. Mannix Vice -Mayor City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director ® Recycled paper April 10, 1996 The Honorable Barbara Lee State Capitol Room 5150 Sacramento, CA 95814 (510) 263-2870 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 RE: ARRA Endorsement of AB 3129 Dear Ms. Lee: The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority voted at its meeting last night to endorse AB 3129 and has directed me to sign this letter of support on its behalf. As you know, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is the joint powers agency created to direct the conversion of the Naval Air Station Alameda from military to civilian uses. The ARRA believes that use of California's redevelopment powers is critical to effective conversion of closing military bases. Existing military base redevelopment law has not proven to be useful for closing military bases. Your bill, AB 3129, would address the issues that are unique at NAS Alameda and permit the base to use the authorities of California's redevelopment law to facilitate the successful conversion of the base. Some features of AB 3129 that are particularly significant for NAS Alameda relate to the specific agreement the ARRA has reached with the Homeless Collaborative in Alameda County. As you are aware, this agreement is the result of a lengthy and successful negotiation process to meet the requirements of the federal Homeless Assistance. Act in a way that is best suited to the physical conditions at NAS Alameda and is most appropriate for the Alameda community generally. Among the special features of your bill that are of particular importance to the ARRA are those that would help implement this Homeless Assistance agreement. A representative of the ARRA will be present at the hearing on AB 3129 before the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development should you or the Committee have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Kay Miller Executive Director Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Fiscal Impact: April 4, 1996 Page 3 The financial powers of a redevelopment agency are effective tools for facilitating development. They include the power to use tax increment financing to "front -end" infrastructure improvements necessary to attract private development. Redevelopment powers also include special authorities to provide programs for commercial loans and grants, apply for state and federal grant funds, and arrange parcels of property in economically effective layouts. Thus, while there is an impact on the general funds of the affected taxing entities as most property tax revenues are credited as tax increment funds instead, the net effect of forming a redevelopment project area at NAS Alameda has a positive fiscal impact. This is principally because redevelopment facilitates the early development by public and private parties that brings new jobs and may generate other tax revenues. Budget impacts of pursing special legislation are no different from the impacts of using general redevelopment authority, though there are the costs of drafting and supporting legislation that the ARRA has previously considered and authorized. While there will be costs involved in establishing a redevelopment project area, those costs will be the same whether the authority is general or the result of special legislation. Environmental Compliance: The recommendation to endorse AB 3129 does not constitute a project under the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA endorse AB 3129, authorize the Executive Director to sign the attached letter of support, and direct that it be delivered to Assembly member Lee. Respectfully submitted, PjAm AAZ (1UA---) Kay Miller Executive Director Attachments: Letter of Support to the Honorable Barbara Lee Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 3, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 2-B SUBJ: Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Support State Legislation for Use of Redevelopment Law at Closing Military Bases Generally (AB 2736 - Weggeland). Background: As noted in the companion report concerning AB 3129, current state law includes provisions for the use of redevelopment at closing military bases generally. The current provisions have never been used. Assembly member Weggeland is carrying a bill (AB 2736) to revise the general law to make it more useful for military bases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research has asked the ARRA to support these revisions. Discussion: The provisions of redevelopment law for closing military bases that were adopted in 1993 have never been used. A number of reasons have been cited for this fact, but principal among them are the fiscal provisions of the law. The fiscal provisions of the military base redevelopment law render use of redevelopment under this law much less effective than regular redevelopment law. The military base redevelopment law requires a pass - through of a much greater amount of the property taxes generated after formation of the project area than regular redevelopment law. This, of course, results in much less tax- increment to use for financing essential improvements at the bases. Instead of providing a powerful and effective mechanism to jump -start development and revitalization at closing bases, the fiscal provisions of the military base redevelopment law are less helpful than normal redevelopment. AB 2736 is an attempt to make general military base redevelopment law more useful for redeveloping the closing military bases. It would replace the current unfavorable fiscal provisions with provisions that mirror California's regular redevelopment law. In addition, it would permit inclusion of off -base property only if that property independently meets the general definition of blight. The inclusion of off -base property using the special military -base definition of blight was a very sensitive issue for some legislators. The concept of a general law is one that the ARRA can approve without being inconsistent with its proposal for special legislation for NAS Alameda. There is a need for the use of redevelopment powers at closing bases generally. If such legislation were in effect and met all of the issues presented at NAS Alameda, it would no longer be essential that special legislation for Alameda be proposed. However, the history of efforts to write general military base redevelopment law argues Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 3, 1996 Page 2 for adopting the parallel track of actively pursuing special legislation for NAS Alameda while lending support for amendments to the general law. Fiscal Impact: No fiscal or budget impacts would result from support of the Weggeland amendments to the military base redevelopment law. Environmental Compliance: The recommendation to support the Weggeland amendments to the military base redevelopment law does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA endorse AB 2736 and authorize the Executive Director to sign the attached letter of support and direct that it be delivered to Assembly member Weggeland. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director U�,l_i LlD1�J Attachment: Summary of AB 2736 (Weggeland) Letter of Support to the Honorable Ted Weggeland Provisions of AB 2736 Overview AB 2736 (VVeggeland) amends the military base redevelopment (MBR) section of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). MBR was intended to facilitate the use of redevelopment tools to upgrade the infrastructure at closing military bases. Just as traditional redevelopment was designed to finance improvements to outdated and deteriorated infrastructure in blighted urban areas, redevelopment is also an appropriate tool for financing improvements to inadequate infrastructure on former military base sites. MBR was enacted in 1993 (Chapters 943 and 944), but has not been used by any military base reuse authority because of severe limitations in the enacted provisions. AB 2736 is an attempt to remedy these limitations and to add additional provisions that have been.approved in special legislation for individual bases and for disaster areas (Chapter 186/1995). Although the summary which follows details the current provisions, we are flexible on the final bill and will negotiate as necessary to obtain passage of acceptable legislation. Summary of key provisions of AB 2736 (2122196 version) 1) Revises and simplifies the definition of blight for MBR, to more appropriately match conditions on closing military bases. 2) Aligns the allocation formula for tax increment to match the statutory formula in AB 1290 (standard CRL). 3) Allows inclusion of off-base property in the base project area only if it meets the standard (AB 1290) definition of blight. 4) Repeals the requirement for a fiscal review committee (unnecessary, since pass-through would be statutory rather than negotiated). 5) Allows deferral for up to 10 years of payments to the low- and moderate- income housing fund. Any deferral must be repaid by the 20th year after the deferral begins. 6) Allows deferral of CEQA for the redevelopment plan for up to 18 months. During this period, individual projects will be subject to CEQA if they may cause an effect on the environment. Defer the requirement for a finding of general plan conformity for the redevelopment plan, thereby allowing the plan to go into effect more quickly (modeled after Chapter 186, Statutes of 1995). Alameda Reuse and itedevelopinent Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandr1 R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich Councilmember City of Alameda Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 Alameda County Board of Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving for Elihu Harris Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda April 10, 1996 The Honorable Ted Weggeland State Capitol Room 2130 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Endorsement of AB 2736 Dear Mr. Weggeland: (510) 263-2870 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority has voted to and has directed me to sign this letter of support on its behalf. endorse AB 2736 The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is the joint powers agency created to direct the conversion of the Naval Air Station Alameda from military to civilian uses. The ARRA believes that use of California's redevelopment powers is critical to effective conversion of closing military bases. Existing military base redevelopment law has not proven to be useful for closing military bases. Your bill, AB 2736, would address the issues that have made existing law unhelpful for most closing bases.` As you are aware, Assembly member Barbara Lee has introduced AB 3129, a special redevelopment bill for NAS Alameda. Should the Assembly prefer to go with your generic military base redevelopment bill, we hope it will incorporate all of the features of the Lee bill that are especially important to Alameda. your legislation. Sincerley, Charles M. Mannix Vice -Mayor City of Alameda Kay Miller Executive Director t Recycled paper ■ Kay Miller Executive Director KM/mee Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 3, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director 2 -C SUBJ: Report and Recommendation that the ARRA Endorse the NAS Alameda Base Commander's Plan to Open the Officer's Club to the Public Beginning in May 1996. Background: Over the past two years, the City of Alameda (City), the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) and the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) have discussed the acquisition of selected Federal surplus properties at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Procurement of these properties will be through Public Benefit Conveyance for public park and recreation purposes. One of the potential sites is the Officer's Club, located on A Avenue between 4th and 5th Avenues. Built in 1941, the Officer's Club consists of nine rooms, including two large rooms, two medium - sized rooms and five small rooms. At total capacity, this facility can accommodate approximately 1,190 people seated and 1,550 people assembly. Presently, the Officer's Club is operated by the Moral, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Division of the Navy. Over the years, public use of this facility was limited because of demand by military personnel stationed at Alameda. Restricted public use has been permitted on a space available basis; however, the requesting party had to be sponsored by active duty or retired military staff. Recently, the Base Commander proposed to rescind military sponsorship for public use of the Officer's Club to promote nonmilitary use of this facility prior to formal closing of NAS Alameda. Discussion: In preparation for the scheduled NAS closing, City staff is trying to determine the best and most appropriate public uses for the Officer's Club. Based on previous research of similar facilities, it appears a market may be developed in Alameda and throughout the East Bay Area for the following uses: (1) conferences and meetings, (2) banquets, (3) wedding receptions and religious events, and (4) education classes. Because this facility has small, medium, and large rooms, it seems realistic to assume that several different activities can be scheduled simultaneously, which apparently occurred when the NAS was in full operation. As the NAS downsizing continues, the Officer's Club has been used less frequently by the Navy and public access to this facility has further diminished because fewer Navy representatives are available to provide sponsorship. On March 11, 1996, the Base Commander met with the ARRA Executive Director and City staff to discuss the feasibility of opening the Officer's Club to the public without military sponsorship Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 3, 1996 Page 2 beginning in May 1996. It was noted that such a request is unprecedented and would require Navy approval in Washington. The City supports the concept of unrestricted public use of the Officer's Club through December 1996 to: (1) evaluate the public's interest in using the facility, (2) chart the types of usage and peak use periods throughout the week, (3) analyze the potential revenue stream, and (4) ascertain the operation costs per event to better understand if this facility can be sustained through public use. Fiscal Impact: There are no direct costs to the ARRA or City to open the Officer's Club for public patronage. Daily operations,including a marketing program to promote public use,will remain the responsibility of the MWR Division through December 1996. Environmental Compliance: The recommendation to endorse the proposal of the Base Commander, NAS Alameda to open the Officer's Club to the general public through December 1996 does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation: It is recommended that the ARRA and City endorse the NAS Alameda Base Commander's proposal to open the Officer's Club to the general public through December 1996 and waive military sponsorship for public use during this period, and authorize the Executive Director to send a letter to the Base Commander indicating-its support. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 3, 1996 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director SUBJ: Background: 3 -D Report from the Executive Director Recommending That a Joint Letter Be Sent from ARRA and the City of Alameda Requesting the Secretary of the Navy to Convey the FISC Alameda Property Under the §2834(b) Authority of the 1995 Defense Authorization Act Allowing a No -Cost Conveyance of the Property. The FISC Alameda property, along with the Oakland and Richmond portions of FISC, was part of 1995 BRAC. Prior to that decision, special legislation had been enacted allowing (permissive) the Secretary of the Navy to enter into long -term leases for the FISC properties with the respective jurisdictions. The City of Alameda supported the FISC property being placed on the BRAC closure list arguing that a long -term lease arrangement was not in the City's interest. If the property were on the BRAC list, it would provide a mechanism for conveyance of title to the BRAC property. Subsequent to the FISC property being placed on the BRAC list, Congress enacted the 1995 Defense Authorization Bill which contained a provision, §2834(b), that allows the Secretary of the Navy to convey the property to the respective jurisdictions for "no consideration" (no cost). Staff recommends that the ARRA and the City of Alameda use this conveyance authority to obtain the FISC Alameda property. Captain Larry Wynne, JAG Corps officer in Assistant Secretary William Cassidy's office, has advised us that if we wish to use the Section 2834(b) authority for conveyance of the property, a specific request should be sent to Deputy Assistant Secretary Cassidy. A draft of the proposed letter is attached. Discussion: There are several advantages to using the §2834(b) authority for conveyance of the property. First, it is our understanding that if the Secretary accepts our request to convey the property under §2834, no further screening would be done. Federal screening at FISC has already been completed. Two agencies— the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES)— submitted requests. AAFES has withdrawn its request and the ARRA has registered its opposition to the MARAD request. Under the regular BRAC process, the Navy would next announce the property as surplus and the ARRA would screen for the homeless and public benefit conveyances (PBCs). ARRA staff does not expect any requests from members of the Homeless Collaborative for property at FISC. So, if there were no additional screening at FISC, only potential public benefit users would be precluded from applying for FISC property. However, PBCs are discretionary and it is highly unlikely that any would be supported or approved as compatible with our Reuse Plan given the nature of the property and the high -end, mixed -use plan for the property. Avoiding additional screening at FISC could cut three to six months off the planning process, save valuable ARRA and federal resources, and potentially result in earlier conveyance of the FISC property. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 4, 1996 Page 2 Secondly, the "no- consideration" conveyance of the FISC property would allow the City to keep all of the proceeds from the sale or lease of FISC properties. The City could then elect to put all the revenues earned from FISC into base conversion of FISC and /or NAS Alameda. This conveyance mechanism gives the City much more discretion in the use of the proceeds than would the normal BRAC conveyance mechanisms: the negotiated sale or Economic Development Conveyance (EDC). A negotiated sale assumes that the City or ARRA would have to pay the Navy for the property. The EDC also assumes a sharing of the revenues with the Navy. It should be noted that because OEA assumed we would be using the no- consideration conveyance mechanism for FISC, they did not fund us to prepare an EDC application or a business plan for that property. These are the two principal advantages for using the §2834(b) conveyance authority. Staff does not see any disadvantage to this method. We are assured that it will not affect the environmental cleanup of the property. Since it is BRAC property, the priority for the cleanup will not be affected by the method chosen for disposition. An EIS/EIR will be needed for the property whether it is disposed of through normal BRAC methods or using §2834(b). If we can forego additional screening of the property, we can ensure that the FISC EIS/EIR can be done concurrently with NAS Alameda. Additional screening could delay the EIS/EIR. Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of this action could be substantially positive for the City of Alameda and the ARRA if the Secretary honors our request for a no- consideration conveyance. Any other traditional BRAC conveyance would undoubtedly require some form of payment or revenue sharing for the FISC property. Environmental Review: This recommendation to request a no- consideration conveyance does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the ARRA governing body authorize Mayor Appezzato, as Chairman of the ARRA, and the City Council authorize Mayor Appezzato, on behalf of the City of Alameda, to send the attached letter to Deputy Assistant Secretary Cassidy requesting the Secretary to exercise his authority under §2834(b) to convey the FISC Alameda property to the City of Alameda at no cost. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director Attachments: Letter to Deputy Assistant Secretary William J. Cassidy, Jr. Letter from Mark Bonino, EFA West Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Alameda Postal Directory, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Ralph Appezzato Chair Mayor, City of Alameda Sandre R. Swanson Vice -Chair District Director for Ronald V. Dellums 9th Congressional District Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich Councilmember City of Alameda Wilma Chan Supervisor, District 3 uneda County Board ur Supervisors Henry Chang, Jr. Oakland Councilmember serving for Elihu Harris Mayor, City of Oakland Ellen M. Corbett Mayor City of San Leandro Albert H. DeWitt Councilmember City of Alameda Karin Lucas Councilmember City of Alameda April 10, 1996 William J. Cassidy, Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion & Redevelopment) 1000 Navy Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20350 -1000 Dear Mr. Cassidy: (510) 263-2870 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 With the recent enactment of the 1995 Defense Authorization Act (DAA), the Secretary of the Navy now has the authority not only to lease but to convey the FISC /Alameda site to the City of Alameda under §2834(b) of that Act. The City of Alameda wishes to exercise the option now provided under that section. The City would like to proceed to early lease of the property as soon as the appropriate environmental studies have been completed and the property is available. The City then desires the earliest possible conveyance of title to the FISC property. It is our hope to have the disposal ROD on the FISC property concurrent with the NAS ROD in the spring of 1997, if not before. It is our understanding that conveyance under 2834(b) will require an EIS just as any other disposition decision would. A plan for the FISC property as a mixed -use development was included as part of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan submittal as we have always considered these two properties inextricably linked from a planning standpoint. As a result, the FISC reuse plan is being considered with the Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda) EIS/EIR. Charles M. Mannix Vice -Mayor City of Alameda Our request for conveyance of the FISC property appears to have support from NAVFAC and EFA West. An early March meeting between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) staff and representatives of both Navy entities concluded that this method of conveyance ought to be the method pursued. Indeed, OEA—who attended the same meeting — assumed a no -cost conveyance to Alameda and, therefore, did not fund ARRA to prepare an EDC application and accompanying business plan for that property. Kay Miller Executive Director Recycled paper The ARRA staff have discussed this conveyance approach with the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Collaborative with whom we negotiated the Standards of Reasonableness for NAS Alameda. The Homeless Collaborative did not intend to request property at the FISC Alameda site for two reasons: (1) their needs have been adequately addressed at NAS Alameda, and (2) there are no facilities at the FISC site that are suitable for homeless housing. William J. Cassidy, Jr. April 10, 1996 Page 2 The ARRA considered and endorsed this mechanism for conveyance directly to the City of Alameda at its April 9, 1996 meeting. The City Council considered and endorsed this mechanism for conveyance at their April 9, 1996 meeting. It is the City's expectation that early, no consideration conveyance of the FISC property will lead to its early redevelopment. Revenues and proceeds from the development of this property can be used as an important source of financing, for sorely needed . infrastructure at NAS Alameda. Alameda is indeed indebted to our Congressman, Ron Dellums, who made this conveyance mechanism available to Alameda as part of the 1995 Defense Authorization Act. I would like to thank you in advance for your immediate consideration and acceptance of our request for conveyance through the §2834(b) authority provided the Secretary. An early decision from you to utilize this conveyance mechanism will allow us to proceed expeditiously with implementation planning for FISC. Very truly yours, Ralph Appezzato Mayor of Alameda Chairman, ARRA cc: ARRA Governing Body Alameda City Council Mark Bonino, Base Conversion Manager, FISC, EFA West Mark Braly, Project Manager, Office of Economic Adjustment Bob Brauer, Professional Staff Member, Congressman Dellums' office, Washington, D.C. William C. Norton, City Manager, City of Alameda Samuel Rosenblatt, Ph.D., Base Closure Chief Economist, NAVFAC Dave Ryan, Base Conversion Manager, East Bay, EFA West Mark Wagner, Special Assistant to the ASDES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY, WEST NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND 900 COMMODORE DRIVE SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 9406 6-6006 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Attn: Kay Miller Naval Air Station Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Dear Ms. Miller: -`r- 'r} \ /rf „291 IN -REPLY REFER TO: 26 March 1996 The Local Redevelopment Authorities working on reuse of the FISC properties have all asked questions on the application of the special legislation giving the Secretary discretionary authority to convey FISC properties at nominal consideration. Notwithstanding other discussions you may have heard, we have made no recommendation concerning whether reuse should proceed in accordance with BRAC law or the special legislation. We have made some recommendations considering the use of the discretionary authority granted the Secretary under the special legislation. Primarily, we have recommended that any LRA wishing the Secretary to exercise this discretion should forward a specific request. Some staff have expressed concerns regarding the use of special legislation, bypassing some of the processes established in BRAC law. We have suggested that including in the LRA's request an economic rationale for a no cost conveyance (similar to a public benefit conveyance), a discussion of how the public will participate in the reuse decision, and a discussion of community homeless assistance might address those BRAC process concerns. Please keep in mind that these were only recommendations for consideration, and, as far as we know, no decision has been made regarding implementation. Higher level review may result in modifications to or changes from this approach. Should.you have any questions; please feel free to contact- me .at (415) 244 -3044. Copy to: LRA for Point Molate FISC Oakland Sincerely, MARK e. BONING Base Conversion Manager Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum April 2, 1996 TO: The Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJECT: Recommendations Regarding the Structure and Budget for BRAG April 1996 to April 1997. 3-F, Background Since the adoption of the Community Reuse Plan in January 1996, the BRAG has been considering what the role of the BRAG should be for the next year, what should be its primary mission and how it should be funded and staffed between now and the closure of NAS Alameda in April of 1997. What follows is the recommendation that BRAG is making to the ARRA and the budget and staffing which ARRA Staff believes will be necessary to support the BRAG. The Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) was created by the Alameda City Council in July 1993 to provide advice to the City on the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda. The Council appointed 11 members who were to serve as Chairpersons for 11 committees representing particular areas of interest such as education, land use, environment, etc. Advice on appointments of BRAG members and committee membership was sought from various constituencies and agencies such as the Alameda Unified School District, the Planning Commission, etc. Membership on the 11 BRAG subcommittees was voluntary and membership from outside of Alameda was allowed and invited. In April of 1995, the BRAG recommended that it become advisory to the ARRA. The ARRA accepted that recommendation and the BRAG continued as it was currently constituted with 11 members with open public participation. When the ARRA made BRAG an official advisory body in June 1995, it asked BRAG to revisit the structure and mission of BRAG once the Reuse Plan was completed. The BRAG has done that and made a preliminary report to the ARRA on March 6, 1996. What follows is the BRAG recommendation on mission and structure and the accompanying staff recommendation on budget and staffing. Discussion The BRAG is recommending that they continue as constituted with the 11- member core committee. The BRAG would meet once a month (the third Wednesday of the month) and their primary focus would be on: 1) advocating the incorporation of the Community Reuse Plan into the City of Alameda's General Plan; 2) continuing to make recommendations on proposed interim and long- term uses at NAS Alameda as their consistency with the Plan; 3) continuing to keep the general public infouned about and involved with the NAS planning process; and, (4) commenting on regulatory issues and related matters affecting the Community Reuse Plan. The BRAG recommends that the 11- member core committee continue to solicit new public participation. The public participants would provide input to each of the BRAG members on their Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 2, 1996 Page 2 particular area of interest (i.e., reuse, infrastructure, etc.). Individual core committee members could meet with the public as needed. It is anticipated that members would want to meet monthly. These members would be responsible for their own mailings and minutes. The meetings would be advertised through the BRAG notes provided to the media. ARRA staff would not be responsible for any meeting an individual core committee member called. It is the goal of BRAG that over the next year the work of the BRAG (and of interested parties) will be integrated into appropriate boards and commissions of the City. Some areas of interest such as Education may evolve into an Education Consortium which would seek its own funding and support. The current ARRA budget contemplates one town meeting and one newsletter to update the public on the status of planning for FISC Alameda. The BRAG is recommending that an additional community meeting be budgeted for and one additional newsletter to keep the public apprised on the status of planning, closure, and reuse activities for both NAS and FISC Alameda. Fiscal Impact Upon completion of the Community Reuse Plan, Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) funding for Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group ceased. The budget to support the BRAG this past 12 months was approximately $70,000 (secretarial staff time and BRAG expenses). OEA has indicated it will not fund a citizen advisory/public participation effort beyond the completion of the Community Reuse Plan. Any funding for the continuation of BRAG would have to be made available by the City or other sources. Given OEA's current policy it is unclear if this expenditure of funds can be counted toward the OEA required local match. Required BRAG Meeting Expenses The BRAG proposes to meet once a month instead of twice a month. During the past year, it cost an average of $125 in postage for each BRAG meeting. (This includes mailing full packets to the 59 people on the A List and mailing just agendas to people on the B and C lists.) Assuming the BRAG will have four special meetings in addition to the 12 regular meetings, the cost of BRAG mailings from May 1996 through April 1997 will be $2,000. To cover the ARRA's cost of paper, envelopes, BRAG meeting supplies, copier service and the BRAG's request for postage stamps for subcommittee mailings, $2,500 has been budgeted. Currently, the ARRA budget contains funding for one FISC Town Meeting and newsletter. The BRAG does not think that is sufficient and recommends conducting a second Town Meeting. The average cost of a Town Meeting, including the room rental, equipment rental, preparation of notices, postage, and staff time is approximately $3,000. The BRAG also recommends preparing a second newsletter. The cost of layout and printing for a professional newsletter, plus postage and staff time, is approximately $4,500. The BRAG recommends hosting a reception to solicit public participation and to thank current members. Rental of the O'Club with light refreshments (coffee /cookies) is $500. BRAG meeting expenses total $12,500. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority April 2, 1996 Page 3 BRAG Secretarial Expenses The following staff budget would be used to hire a part-time temporary employee to work three to six days a month on BRAG tasks. The ARRA would then not be short a Receptionist/Secretary and the BRAG would have a regular point of contact. Josi Jose has resigned effective April 26, 1996. The new ARRA staff person would not be familiar with the BRAG; therefore, now would be a good time to retain the new part-time temporary employee to work a few days a month exclusively on BRAG. The ARRA would then utilize the BRAG budget money to bring in a temporary employee to assume the ARRA Secretary's duties when she or he is working on BRAG tasks. Staff proposes an hourly wage of $20 an hour. Assuming 12 regular BRAG meetings and four special BRAG meetings or mailings, the staff time would total approximately $8,000. This assumes three staff days are needed for each BRAG meeting and includes: preparing agendas, posting agendas, copying and preparing information for meeting packets, preparing packets, mailing packets, attending the BRAG meeting, and preparing minutes. A temporary employee would be hired under contract with monthly costs not to exceed $640 dollars /32 hours a month. Miscellaneous BRAG Expenses The BRAG has also requested some funding for unanticipated expenses. The BRAG anticipates there may be additional mailings required beyond the normal mailings — perhaps to agencies outside the BRAG (such as the BCDC and publicity mailings). In the past, miscellaneous expenses have included the cost of parade floats, door prizes for contests, invitations, etc. This funding could also be used to pay for legal advice if requested by the BRAG. Therefore, $5,000 has been recommended for unanticipated expenses. Expense Budgeted Amount BRAG Meeting Expenses $ 2,000 Supplies 2,500 Town Meeting 3,000 Professional Newsletter 4,500 BRAG Reception 500 BRAG Secretary 8,000 Miscellaneous Expenses 5,000 TOTAL BRAG BUDGET $25,500 Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Environmental Review April 2, 1996 Page 4 The recommendation to continue the BRAG and provide a budget and staff to support that effort does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that if the ARRA accepts the BRAG proposal, a formal request be made to the City of Alameda to provide the $25,500 budget required to support the BRAG through April 1997. Staff will work to encourage OEA to allow the City contribution for the BRAG and the BRAG time to be counted as part of the City's local match. Respectfully submitted, Kay Miller Executive Director a) c C m C • C O 0 U c > N U 0 E o c TU > E m 0 0 U a) o°) c W • Q Community Reuse Plan a- c "E" .2 a) m 0) c c 0 co 0 c 0 5. 0) NEPA ROD EIS, Section 7 Consultation 0 • O 0 0 cc cn w a3 U a) Z 0t o i U) 0 '0 0 • ors, CO o)) a W mU °) E O 0 t 002 co�n� a) 0 a E oX E Q H C � 0 v o m CO 2 0 .0 Y CO 0 0 CO m 0 Basewide EBS Report EBS /FOSL for Interim Lease Requests Interim Leases w w w. v a w Z w U m w FOSUFOST IN REPLY REFER TO: United States Department of the Interior 1- 1 -96 -TA -641 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Sacramento Field Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room E -1823 Sacramento, California 95825 -1846 RE0E1\'Fz P MAR 2 5 1996 4 -I Item 2 March 21, 1996 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Thirty Van Ness Avenue Suite 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment for the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan: A Report to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Dear Sir: On February 20, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received the Draft Environmental Assessment for the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan: A Report to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission dated February 16, 1996 (Draft EA). Because of office constraints, we have been able to only conduct a preliminary evaluation and assessment of this document. However, we understand a public hearing will be held on March 21, 1996, to discuss this document. Therefore, we are providing these comments to your office to be entered into the record for this public hearing. These comments shall not supersede any further comments resulting from the completion of a section 7 formal consultation for any project identified in the Draft EA and implemented in the future. The.Draft EA proposes port priority use designation on 220 acres along the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel for a future five -berth container terminal, while also proposing to remove 1,500 acres of adjacent land from any future development activity. All of this land currently is part of Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda) which is scheduled for operational closure by the U.S. Navy in the Spring of 1997. The. western end of NAS Alameda supports one of the most significant breeding colony sites for the endangered California least tern (Sterna antillarum (— albifrons) browni) and an important roosting site for the endangered California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidental's californicus). The continued success of this breeding colony site is crucial to sustaining the overall population of the California least tern. The Service has serious concerns and reservations about proposed port priority use designation for NAS Alameda from the standpoint of conserving the California least tern colony currently on the western end of NAS Alameda. Future port development of the proposed area at NAS Alameda could result in a reduction of the existing buffer space surrounding the colony site and potentially significant increases in predation pressure on the colony. Because of these concerns, we are unable to support port priority use designation at NAS Alameda at this time. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Browning or Cay C. Goude at (916) 979 -2725. Sincerely, 6e/ (!, Joel A. Medlin Field Supervisor U.S. Department of the Interior Coordinator CC: Reg. Dir., (ARD -ES), Portland, OR SFBNWR, Project Leader, Newark, CA U.S. Navy (D. Pomeroy), San Bruno, CA Dir., CDFG, Sacramento, CA Reg. Mgr., CDFG, Reg. III, Yountville (C. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda, CA Congressional Office of Ronald V. Dellums Oakland, CA Wilcox) (Kay Miller), (R. Brooks), 2 CORRESPONDENCE 04/03/96 16 : 23 V510 4375753 03/25/96 13:54 e202 267 4744 U.S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard MLCPAC(S) CCM GPIM Commandant unread States Coast Guard a 001 61456( L1/3/4no Gboc.12 2100SacondSt.S.W. Washington,DC20593-0001 StaftSymbott (11.4WIA Phone: 12023 267-0725 7010 MAR 25 996 The Honorable Edwin Dorn Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 4000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-4000 Dear Mr. Dorn: Following the closures of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Department of Defense Housing. Facility at Novato, California, the Coast Guard will have the largest contingent of active duty* members in the San Francisco Bay area. We are in the process of acquiring DOD housing units at both of these activities and would like to provide our Coast Guard members With the same retail benefits offered to current residents. TO that end, I request you authorize the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) to continue commissary operations at both of those locations. Once we have received assurances that DeCA intends to continue operations, the Coast Guard will add the current commissary buildings or other suitable parcels of land to our requests for transfer of property. Enclosed is the demographic information that DeCA requires to justify continued operations. Your favorable consideration of this important quality of life issue will be most appreciated. Sincerely, . C D0g5LL Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard Chief, Human Resources Encl: (1) Alameda and Novato Housing Area Demographics 04/03/96 16:23 2T510 4375753 03/25/98 13:35 11202 267 4744 MLCPAC(S) CGHQ GPXM ALAMEDA AND NOVATO HOUSING AREA DEMOGRAPHICS 2002 IA 003 This table lists the numbers of Coast Guard active duty gersonnal and dependents who will reside in the two areas. It accounts for each individual one timA only, assigning that person to the commissary closest to his or her residence. Almada Novato Range (miles) Active .DJLt4, pendent Active Puty Dependent 0 -10 775 556 575 234 10 -20 278 218 899 467 20 -30 70 35 175 149 30 -40 0 0 169 394 Following the transfer Of fOrmsr DOD housing to the Coast Guard, our inventory of housing.upits;will samed_a Range i . > Smiles). ,lfiber of U,nitS 0 .581i 0-10 0 -10 ' 5 , . ., 10 -20 0 Novato Number of Unit, 2E12 127 40 num nto+irorf. CONSULTANT SELECTION - PLANNING STUDIES Consultant teams selected to provide planning studies as outlined in the ARRA Consent Calendar include: 2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a Consultant Team to Prepare a Market Study, Detailed Development Plans, an Economic Development Conveyance Business Plan, and a Port Development Conveyance Application and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract. Lead Consultant: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Subconsultants: ROMA Design Group; Moffatt & Nichol Engineers 2 -C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a Consultant Team to Prepare a Street Improvement Plan for NAS Alameda and the FISC Sites and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract. Lead Consultant: Rajappan & Meyer Subconsultants: EDAW; Korve Engineering; Helson- Nygaard; Racht Hausrath & Associates 2 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a Consultant Team to Prepare Building Improvement Study Specifications and a Building Demolition Study and Specifications and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract. Lead Consultant: WBA/The Onyx Group Subconsultants: Moffat & Nichol; YEI Schirmer Engineering; Versar; ADA Compliance; Duenas -Lenda 2 -E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a Consultant Team to Prepare a Housing Feasibility Study and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract. Lead Consultant: Bay Area Economics Subconsultants: Kava Massih Architects; James Vann, AIA Sub - Consultant Team Funding Source co a) E as o U (n a) 0 w m w 0 w 0 0 0 0 o co 00 0 00 co c o t6 o co U) N LO 04 6 c" t ER O O 0 L N O 64 U 0 L t0 ro (B L i c L c J 1 ot) ) ro L c a) c_ �N0 ai w .GM a •i)CK L L c -c }N N w O < O O c c o z a z z n. Z o5 u) ot3 0 `N EO tt, d o (ti �d wz 2c 2cnd 0. 0. � O O O L /L. 1� a) 0 0 N C C «s < 0 0 a a c 'F n. a a. a_ op c w c c w w w w D CO D -o a) O 0. a m >- 0 z 0) Q) rn w op 0 0 0 Not Yet Approved o o o o co 0 0 0 000 o 0 O to N O O to- ,- M ' tf) t() M MFG} 64 64 64 4 EA 6 0 0 w w CD 00 0 0 0 o 0 0 N O O - co N 69- 64 64 -0 'o -o o > 2 GL CL d < d >- >- 0 0 0 z zdz d 0 w a) w C0 0 cn `O c) 00 0 00 0 0 0 O o tf) LO r ER 64 i- N To To w a) c 0 0 O c H H c C c 0 N o 0 c o ro - 0 O CO ti) 2 1- c E a. E E > >, to co O Q) .-. 73 ors as w O Tii > O >-. Lt O - a L) u) ro 0 c O U) '� c. O (1) 0) w a) a) O _ a 2 > d O c E O c ca c c in '� 0 d Lt m r Cl. U t6 c (13 O a) N C 0 m• Z_, c Y > -o' > O 0 2 y E m a) .- > 'J a) m _ 0) N ►- N U as E W d crn m > m U • op W 0 in 2 Z cnn 2 0 ww co c as m m 0 z n O O O L 64 0 O O N_ O EH TOTAL BUDGET O a) E (a) b 92 as a) 5 g CS) al v O 0 N_ < <C U