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