1996-08-07 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular 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
Wednesday, August 7, 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 Iimited 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. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 5, 1996.
2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Approve a Four Month No-
cost Extension of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grant for the Alameda
Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET).
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -C. Authorization to Participate in Trip to Korea at Pan Pacific University Expense and
Selection of Attendees.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -D. Preliminary report on restricted use airfield operation at NAS Alameda by Mike McClintock
of PDD Engineering.
4 -E. Preliminary Report on Interim Marketing Plan and Materials by John Guillory of Guilltone
Properties, Inc. and Jill Young of Miilhauser and Young.
4 -F. Status report on Science Center Feasibility Study by Jim Gollub, Bill Bennett, and Helen Birss
of Information Design Associates (IDeA).
4 -G. Presentation on Education/Technology and Business Consortium by Doug .deHaan and
Andrea Safir.
4 -H. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities.
ARRA Agenda - August 7, 1996
Page 2
4 -I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on
1. EIS /EIR Report — Status of Wildlife Refuge Discussions and Coast Guard Housing;
2. BCDC Update— Container Cargo Forecast Roundtable on September 17;
3. RFP from the City of Alameda to locate an operator for the 0' Club;
4. Renaming streets at NAS Alameda;
5. RFP for port services;
6. Status of RFQ for FISC redevelopment site;
7. Status of Public Trust appraisal;
8. Interim leasing status report;
9. Prospects for leasing Navy housing for civilian use;
10. Consultant work program update;
11. ARRA invitation to attend EURONAVAL 96.
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. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9:
Number of cases: One.
7. READJOURNMENT TO PUBLIC SESSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION
TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY
8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
9. ADJOURNMENT
Notes:
* Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley,
ARRA Secretary, at 864 -3400 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
* Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
* Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
* Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
Next ARRA meeting scheduled for September 4, 1996.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present: / Chair Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Brooks for Vice -Chair
Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District (arrived at 5:43 p.m.); Vice -Mayor
A Charles Mannix, City of Alameda;'IAlternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember
1 Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland;kouncilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of
AlamedaNAlternate Sheila Young for Mayor Ellen Corbett; Councilmember
Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate'JGreg ALT for Councilmember
T artu Lucas, -tity of AlamedNupervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board
of Supervisors, District 3; Doug deHaan for Ex- officio Lee Perez, Chair, Base
Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and Ex- officio Ardella Dailey, Alameda
Unified School District.
2 -A
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Appezzato stated that Items 2D and 2F would be pulled for discussion.
Alternate Leonhardy moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.Alternate Alves
seconded the motion, which carried the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0.
Absent: 1 - Member Swanson.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
*2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of April 9, 1996, Special Meeting of May 1, 1996,
and Regular Meeting of May 1, 1996. Approved.
*2 -B. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Approve the Extension
for Consultant Contracts with EDAW Inc. for Continued Work on the FISC Alameda Annex
Community Reuse Plan and with Zander Associates for Environmental Assistance on the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Consultation Process. Approved.
*2 -C. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Request Immediate
Funding for Base Cleanup of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center — Alameda Annex for its Early
Reuse and Redevelopment and Direct Staff to Communicate the Request to the Department
of Defense, U.S. Congress, and President of the United States. Approved.
*2E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorizing the ARRA Executive
Director to Represent the ARRA and Apply for LAMBRA (Local Area Military Base Recovery
Act) Designation. Adopted.
Printed on recycled paper
2 -D. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Approve a Policy for the
Transfer of Certain NAS Alameda Properties to Pan Pacific University for Educational Uses
Through the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Process.
Executive Director Miller explained that this is a an attempt to clarify the ARRA's policy on this
conveyance to Pan Pacific University (PPU). PPU needed to show they will have title in order
to effectively raise funds. Chair Appezzato asked if the property could be conveyed with a
reversion clause to the City of Alameda, to which Ms. Miller responded "yes." Alternate Alves
voiced his opinion that he preferred the previously discussed 25 -year lease with 25 -year options.
A discussion followed among the governing body that included questions on whether or PPU was
owned by a foreign entity, if PPU could sublease their buildings, and concern regarding the
change from the intent to lease for 25 years with 25 -year options to a title transfer.
Ms. Miller explained that PPU was a duly incorporated USA non - profit entity eligible through
the Department of Education for a no -cost federal conveyance; however, PPU had agreed to let
the ARRA take the property as an Economic Development Conveyance, which would allow the
property to revert to the City of Alameda in the event that PPU was unsuccessful in obtaining
funding. ARRA Planner Tuttle explained that PPU had participated in a thorough Federal Public
Benefit Conveyance (PBC) screening with all other federal conveyance applicants. Alternate
Leonhardy stated that the title transfer was consistent with our previous intent.
Speakers:
Bill Garvin; Alameda Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of PPU and reminded the assembly
that UCSF medical school had declined to apply for NAS property.
Dr. Peter Sun, President of Pan Pacific University, clarified that PPU is an American institute and
that he is an American citizen. He added that PPU had agreed to an Economic Development
Conveyance in order to provide the City of Alameda with a guarantee that the property would
revert to the City if PPU no longer existed. However, their original Public Benefit Conveyance
request had not been withdrawn and he was asking nothing more than PPU could get through the
PBC process.
Neil Patrick Sweeney spoke in favor of Pan Pacific University, the computerized superhighway,
and televising meetings.
John Thayer Fee spoke in favor of Pan Pacific University.
Member DeWitt questioned whether a Public Benefit Conveyance through the Department of
Education could be granted on Public Trust Lands. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin stated
that it was a hard question and it was her impression that title could not be given on the land
unless there was an act of the State Legislature.
Member Arnerich asked if, after PPU gets title to the lands, they can sell that title and if so, to
whom? Executive Director Miller stated that the title transfer would contain a reversion clause
guaranteeing an automatic reversion to the City of Alameda should PPU no longer exist. Member
Arnerich stressed that the reversion clause must be included. Alternate Brooks stated that it is
2
necessary for PPU to possess the title in order to find funding and that they must given the
opportunity to succeed.
Alternate Alves made a motion to maintain the agreement for a 25 -year lease with a 25 -year
option and that a title of transfer not be pursued at this time. Member Arnerich seconded the
motion. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: 3 - Arnerich, DeWitt, Alves.
Noes: 6 - Leonhardy, Young, Brooks, Appezzato, Mannix, Chan. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0.
A motion was made by Member Mannix that the properties designated in the Community Reuse
Plan for use by Pan Pacific University will be leased to PPU at no cost and that title to these
properties will transfer to PPU when they are freed from the Public Trust. The motion was
seconded by Alternate Brooks. Alternate Leonhardy added a friendly amendment that it be made
explicit that the title conveyance include reversion clauses and title restrictions that limit transfers
only between the City of Alameda and Pan Pacific University and no third- parties. The friendly
amendment was accepted. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2 -
DeWitt, Alves. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0.
2 -F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending that the ARRA Authorize the
Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement with the City of AIameda's Bureau of
Electricity for Reimbursement of Modification Costs to the Trunk System Extension.
A motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Member DeWitt to authorize the Executive
Director to sign the letter of Agreement with the Bureau of Electricity as requested. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0.
ACTION ITEMS
3 -G. Report and Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA Endorse a
Proposal to Lease Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Berthing the Aircraft Carrier Hornet
as a Private Museum and Execute a Resolution of Support.
Executive Director Miller gave a short introduction, after which Chair Appezzato requested that
speakers who speak in support of the USS Hornet do not cover the information that has already been
presented and keep their remarks to two minutes or less. Gerald Lutz of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet
Foundation(ACHF) introduced Admiral Sieberlich. Admiral Sieberlich, who was the last
Commanding Officer of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet, was present at the Apollo 11 retrieval and the
decommissioning of the USS Hornet. Chair Appezzato welcomed Admiral Sieberlich. Mr. Lutz
stated that the main focus of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation was to provide a community
resource to the City of Alameda and "a national asset of significant magnitude that will achieve
national recognition and associated economic, social, and cultural benefits to the local community."
Mr. Lutz presented plans for the Hornet, including the preference of ACHF that the Hornet be
berthed at the Seaplane Lagoon. He stressed that the ACHF must have the support of the ARRA and
that several senior federal officials felt that ACHF did not have local support; therefore, a Resolution
of support was imperative. Mr. Lutz requested that the ARRA modify its proposed Resolution to
include two items:
3
1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA recognize and endorse the ACHF's
economic requirements outlined in the plans as presented to the BRAG and ARRA, and
which is consistent with the ARRA's reuse Plan. (item #1)
2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA provide advice and support as is
reasonable to ACHF and endorsements as requested by ACHF for its negotiations with
Federal Agencies that have expressed interest in providing economic support for ACHF
and its master plan. (item #2)
Peter Knudsen of ACHF then offered to answer questions. Alternate Brooks asked for clarification
on the meaning of "economic requirements" as it was very open - ended. Mr. Knudsen answered that,
in order to qualify for some base closure funds, ACHF must have ARRA's endorsement that their
plans are consistent with the reuse plan—ACHF is not requesting any specific monies from ARRA.
Executive Director Miller made the following comments: She suggested that rather than a `BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED" clause, a new "WHEREAS" clause be added that the plan for the Hornet
is consistent with the Community Reuse Plan. Her concern with item #2 was that one of the sources
of funding UCHF might be eligible for is EDA money. Any EDA money for base closure has to be
under the ARRA, which would have to submit the application. Demands for EDA money over the
next couple of years are going to be enormous. ARRA will probably get $4 million this year and
a fairly large EDA grant will be applied for next year to help with infrastructure improvements, as
well as money for streets and demoltion. ARRA will be hard - pressed to prioritize demands and she
wanted to be clear that if the requested language is adopted, it does not automatically mean that
ARRA would endorse a proposal for EDA funding for the Hornet.
Alternate Alves felt the Seaplane Lagoon was unsuitable for berthing the Hornet, as it would block
the views. Alternate Brooks voiced her concern that the competition for EDA money is incredible
and that item #2 is a strong statement that seems to imply more than the ARRA may be able to do.
Alternate Leonhardy stated that the phrase in item #2 "... support as is reasonable to ACHF" be
clarified. Peter Knudsen, ACHF, stated that "to ACHF" is a typo and would be eliminated from the
sentence. Alternate Leonhardy continued that the Resolution is not specific to any location. Further
discussion ensued regarding berthing sites, projected visitor statistics, transportation concerns, and
financial risk. Alternate Alves and Member Chan voiced their preference that an initially the lease
term be limited to five years.
Alternate Brooks asked that the following language be used for item #2: "That the ARRA provide
advice and support and endorsements as is reasonable for negotiations between ACHF and Federal
Agencies. Mr. Lutz indicated his acceptance of that language.
A motion was made by Member Arnerich that the Resolution (also called Tab B) as drawn by Kay
Miller be adopted with the addendas of Tab C with clarifications as stated regarding item #2. The
motion was seconded by Member Mannix.
Speakers:
Iry Hamilton, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the Hornet, stating that it is a great historic asset.
4
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the Hornet and that we must "think
regionally."
Douglas Haines, Alameda resident, voiced his total support for the carrier and the benefits it will
bring to the City of Alameda.
Richard Nevelyn spoke in favor of the Hornet; however, he stated that he did not support the ACHF,
stating that it was a seven - member closed corporation, not a non - profit organization.
Jerry Lutz, ACHF, stated that ACHF is a 501 C3 corporation that, by law, must have a Board of
Directors and Bylaws. There are seven Trustees and a total of thirteen voting Board members, of
which seven live in Alameda.
Bill Garvine, Chamber of Commerce and School Board, spoke in favor of the Hornet and the ACHF.
Norma Bishop, NAS Alameda Base Transition Coordinator clarified that Naval Sea Systems
Command runs the ship donation program with stringent oversight. They closely examine the
Foundation, the formation of their Board of Directors, their sense of ethics, and how they operate.
She stressed that they look for a 10-15 (long -term) berthing commitment and if ARRA is serious
about supporting they Foundation, the agreement must be phrased to be flexible within the
regulations as they evolve to permit longer longer lease terms. Upon an inquiry from Chair
Appezzato, Executive Director. Miller stated the BRAC restriction of five years may shortly be lifted.
She was hearing Alternate Alves and Member Chan arguing for a limit of five years; however,
NAVSEA is looking for a longer term commitment from the community. The present wording was
intended to recognize there is a five -year restriction now but if that restriction is lifted, we could
enter into a longer term lease. Chair Appezzato stated that we would know within five years if it was
going to be successful.
'Alternate Alves stated he was thinking of a maximum term of five years only and he would like it
to state that it would definitely not include the western shore of the Seaplane Lagoon. Ms. Miller
stated that the lease would be for one of the NAS piers, probably pier 3. Alternate Alves asked for
wording specifically ruling out the Seaplane Lagoon. Alternate Leonhardy stated that the location
would be the responsibility of the land use process.
Mr. Knudsen, ACHF, stated that in any reasonable business transaction, a five -year or maximum
lease on the date of execution with normal provisions for renewal of that lease if certain conditions
are met, are acceptable. Member DeWitt stated that he believes the use of the piers is consistent with
the Community Reuse Plan and he was hoping that Alternate Alves would join together with the
governing body to support the Hornet to help make an economic go of the ACHF.
Executive Director Miller asked for clarification on the motion. Member Arnerich said it included
the ARRA Resolution and the ACHF language contained in item #1 and item #2 with the additions
and deletions presented.
5
Whereas ARRA recognizes and endorses ACHF's economic requirements outlined in the plans
as presented to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), and finds it consistent with the Community Reuse Plan; and
Whereas ARRA will provide advice and support and endorsements as is reasonable for
negotiations between ACHF and Federal Agencies.
The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0.
ORAL REPORTS
4 -H. Oral Report from the Executive Director on the Developer Selection Process for the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC).
Executive Director Kay Miller presented the process and timeline for developer selection for the
FISC site. An ad hoc working group is being assembled from members of the EDC, BRAG,
Chamber of Commerce, and West Alameda Business Association to help in the selection process.
4 -I. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities.
Doug deHaan reported that the NAS Alameda weekend tours are very successful; on July 20, BRAG
Appreciation Day will recognize the BRAG volunteers and solicit new members; the RV park is a
concern to the BRAG and they have requested the EBRPD to present their modified plan; and he is
glad ARRA accepted the Hornet, which is a business opportunity.
4 -J. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA.
Executive Director Kay Miller reported there is not a quorum available for the July 3 ARRA
meeting; therefore, unless there is some pressing item, there will be no meeting in July.
There is an active lease proposal to continue operation of the airfield as a restricted use airfield.
EBCRC has agreed to fund the consultant that conducted the original study of a commercial airport
(which was found to be unfeasible) to analyze the suitability of a restricted use airport at NAS.
An RFP for port services will be released in July; the recommendation for an operator will be
submitted in September. Three new staff people have been hired: Brian Kalaharn (temporary) for
the EIS/EIR review; Ken Bowman, Assistant Facilities Manager; and Gretchen McDonald (who
could not attend the ARRA meeting) as Receptionist/ Secretary to replace Josi Jose.
The redevelopment legislation introduced Barbara Lee (AB 3129) and the general bill has passed
the Assembly. Status of negotiations for Rysher Studios, Carstar, and Giannotti were discussed. We
now have a master or prototype lease agreement with the Navy that should accelerate the leasing
process. Chair Appezzato requested that once a week a "Base Reuse Update" press release be sent
to the press outlining current lease activity.
Executive Director Miller then gave a "heads up" that she, Chair Appezzato, and Reuse Planner Paul
Tuttle have received invitations from Pan Pacific University to travel to Korea at PPU's expense.
6
Assistant General Counsel Heather McLaughlin is looking into whether this is allowable and a
recommendation will be made at the August meeting.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an Alameda citizen, announced the new ARRA telephone number, 864 -3400
and spoke to advertising, transportation, and base cleanup issues.
Bill Smith spoke about various base reuse issues.
Richard Nevelyn asked that the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation incorporation documents be
examined; endorsed the weekend tours of the base; and suggested that a free electric shuttlebus be
sought to take visitors on base tours. Chair Appezzato suggested ARRA staff look into the matter
and report back.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER:
At 7:45 p.m., the meeting adjourned to closed session for Conference with Legal Counsel -
Anticipated Litigation:
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: 1 case.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 54956.9: 1 case.
READJOURNMENT TO PUBLIC SESSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION
TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY
At 8:38 p.m., readjourment to public session occurred and it was announced that direction was
given to staff in both matters.
COMMUNICATIONS r ROM GOVERNING BODY
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
pzLd
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
7
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
July 31, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
2 -B
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Approve a Four
Month No -cost Extension of the Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Grant for the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET).
Background:
In September 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) was awarded a
$400,000 grant for the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET).
Discussion:
Various organization and management problems have delayed ACET utilizing the EDA grant;
therefore, ACET is requesting the ARRA support its request for a four month no -cost grant
extension. (See attached letter from Dr. Sam Doctors, CEO of ACET.)
Fiscal Impact:
There should be no fiscal impacts assuming ACET's expenditures comply with the EDA grant
award, and California State Hayward has provided the match as agreed in the Memorandum of
Understanding between the ARRA, ACET, and California State University, Hayward.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA support ACET's request for a four month no -cost extension for
its EDA grant award.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Attachment: ACET Letter Requesting Extension
' P z3'dx`1d101
Board of
Directors:
Cori Anthony
F-anh island
Inssiture
Samuel L Doctors,
l.D, D.B.A.
ACE,, CEO
C Judson raw,
PhD.
University of
California
ddtchael Lakin,
Ph.D.,
olcr— 'hair
tcl` .'er
Engineers
UlichLascher,
Ph.D., P.E.
Woodward-4%1e
4obberrt MacDonald
nvAVnmenud
7zernical
:orporation
'eliciaMarcus
;PA Region IX
VorntaRees, Ph.D.
.:alifornia State
Lniversity,
faywarrd
Marks Shank
%t}
awrence Berkeley
taaonalLabs
'ali}ornia F.-PA
'd".,,...z3e
trig. _ Associates
wme
Nright-McPeak
AEF
Aeam €eF e t j aioveze tmea 4d _
July 26, 1996
Kay Miller, Executive Director
ARRA
'NAS
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear Dr. Kay:
We are requesting a four month no -cost extension of our EDA Grant till January 31,
1997. As you may remember, an agreement on our Memorandum of Understanding
was not concluded until almost February lst. We were not permitted to spend any
resources on the project until that time, nor were allowed to start the hiring process, as
required by EDA, for staff defined as required to complete the work plan. We were not
. able to hire our first full time "senior associate ", Ray Noel, until the middle of March.
There have , of course, been numerous other delays. Some of these delays caused by
our inexperience in dealing with EDA and some by delays in EDA's response to our
requests for items such as the purchase of a computer to open our office in Hangar #20.
We have also had to spend an extraordinary amount of time on administrative matters
such as communicating to our Board the need for discretionary funds to carry on ACET
business.
However, we have now overcome many of these problems. Since we have been
assured by John Doll, we believe we are up -to -date on all of the paper work
• requirements of the Grant. We will complete the additional documentation requested by
ARRA, to accompany our third Quarterly Report, as soon as possible. We are moving
ahead in a timely manner on the Task Plan and are on schedule to complete the work by
the end of January, a year from the time we were able to start work on the Grant. We
are also well within budget for the amount of work accomplished to date, having
expended less than 35% of our ,pant funds.
•
We have requested support from our Board for this no -cost extension and anticipate no
problems in this regard, We would Iike to request that the ARRA Board consider this
request at its next Board meeting so we can make a timely request to EDA in early
August for this four month extension.
Most Sincerely,
•
•
Samuel L Doctors, CEO
cc: Keith Carson, Sandie Swanson, A.Leonard Smith, Bill Lewis, Norma Rees, file.
1889 First Ave. NAS, Hangar 20, Room 226 Alameda, Calrjnrnia 94501 Phone: 510- 263 -9874 Fax: 263 -0261
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-department Memorandum
August 1, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Carol A. Korade
General Counsel
3-C
RE: Authorization to Participate in Trip to Korea at Pan Pacific
University Expense and Selection of Attendees
Pan Pacific University extended an invitation to certain
officials to travel to Korea to support the University. The Fair
Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") has opined that any public
official accepting the invitation would be receiving a gift which
would create a conflict of interest. A copy of the FPPC opinion is
attached.
The FPPC is in the process of preparing a supplemental
opinion. This opinion will analyze whether the invitation may be
made to ARRA, with ARRA appointing the officials and/or employees
who may receive the travel and accommodations. This supplemental
FPPC opinion has not yet been received.
It is possible that the FPPC will require that procedures be
adopted to avoid any appearance that the appointments are
pretextual or are a subterfuge to avoid the Political Reform Act or
the FPPC Regulations. These procedures may require Pan Pacific to
rescind the invitation and reissue the invitation so that the
selection of attendees is within the sole discretion of ARRA.
Alternatively, the procedures may require the appointment of a
subcommittee to make the selection or to advise the Authority on
appropriate attendees and their qualifications for attending.
Upon receipt, the supplemental FPPC opinion will be
forwarded to ARRA.
arol A. Korade
General Counsel
Attach.
vi MEHTA
CHAIRMAN
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
July 8, 1996
Heather C. McLaughlin
Assistant City Attorney
City of Alameda
East Wing, Historical Alameda High School
Room 320
2250 Central Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
Dear Ms. McLaughlin:
RECEIVt,
CITY OF ALAMEDA
96 JUL -9 10: 06
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE •
Re: Your Request for Advice
Our File No. A-96-199
This is in response to your request for advice regarding the
ethics provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").1
OUESTION
Are payments from the Pan.-Pacific University to three members
of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, for travel to
Korea, considered gifts or income?
CONCLUSION
Under the facts you have provided, the payments will be
considered gifts to the individual public officials, subject to
the conflict-of-interest provisions in the Act.
FACTS
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency (the "ARRA") is a
joint powers authority formed under California law and created to
direct the reuse and redevelopment of the Naval Air Station (the
"Station") in Alameda. One of the proposed developers of the land
at the Station is Pan-Pacific University, which proposes to
develop a university at the Station. The University's title will
1
Government Code Sections 81000-91015. Commission regulations
appear at Title 2, Sections 18000-18995 of the California Code of
Regulations.
File No. A-96-19g,
Page 2
contain a reversion clause requiring the land to return to the
City of Alameda, if the land ceases to be used as a university.
In order to aid in financing the University, the University
is proposing to sponsor the ARRA Chair, the executive director,
and the planner on a trip to Korea to express the ARRA's support
of the project.
The invitation to the Alameda officials contains a "Tentative
Schedule for September Trip to Korea", the "Goals of Trip to
Korea" and "Invited Team Members of Trip to Korea." The goals of
the trip are identified as:
o Generate support from President of Republic of
Korea and U.S. Ambassador;
o Hold press conference for Pan-Pacific University;
demonstrate East Bay community support of Pan-Pacific
University project;
o Build contacts with business community in Korea;
o Make "people-to-people" contacts; announcement of
"Scholarship 100."
The invited team members identified in the invitation include
Ralph Appezzato, Mayor of Alameda, Kay Miller of the ARRA Board,
and Paul Tuttle of the ARRA Board. Several decisions regarding
the University may come before the ARRA Board. These include.
decisions such as authorizing execution of long term leases and
approving land or personnel property transfers.
ANALYSIS
I. It is unlikely that the payments are income.
"Income" is broadly defined in Section 82030 to include
virtually any payment received where consideration of equal or
greater value is provided to the source of the payment. Thus, if
the ARRA officials provide consideration of equal or greater value
to the University in exchange for the travel payment, the payment
would be considered income rather than a gift.
While we have no exact formula to determine whether
consideration of equal or greater value has been provided by an
official, the following general guidelines may be of assistance.
The value of services rendered may be proven by evidence as to the
customary rate of compensation for such services, irrespective of
official status. (Tassi v. Tassi (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 680, 690-
691.) Also relevant in the determination might be the length of
time spent rendering the services, or whether the services are of
the type not readily available from others. Ultimately, however,
the determination of whether equal consideration has been provided
is necessarily a factual one.
File No. A-96-195
Page 3
If an official claims that the payment or payments are income
and not a gift, the official has the burden of proving that the
consideration provided was of equal or greater value than the
payment or payments received. (Section 82028.) Previously, we
have advised that such activities as preparing reports on
laboratory facilities and regularly attending board meetings to
make decisions regarding substantive matters were income earning
activities (Fessler Advice Letter, No. 1-93-408; Glaser Advice
Letter, No. A-96-045.) In this case, it does not appear that full
and adequate consideration will be received by the University in
exchange for the travel. The goals of the trip as stated in the
invitation do not require substantive work or participation by the
public officials. Rather, the officials will take part in contact
meetings with Korean officials and business leaders and largely
ceremonial events such as the announcement of a scholarship
program. Therefore, absent other facts, it is our conclusion that
full and adequate consideration will not be received for the
travel payments.2 If the travel payments are not income, they
will be considered gifts under the Act.
II. The payments appear to be gifts but are not
subject to the statutory gift limit.
Section 82028 provides:
• (a) "Gift" means, except as provided in
subdivision (b), any payment to the extent that
consideration of equal or greater value is not
received and includes a rebate or discount in the
price of anything of value unless the rebate or
discount is made in the regular course of business
to members of the public without regard to official
status.
Generally, free transportation, lodging, and subsistence
provided to a public official are considered to be gifts.
2
The statutory definition of income in Section 82030(b)(2)
exempts "reimbursement for travel expenses and per diem received
from a bona fide educational, academic, or charitable
organization." This exception, however, does not apply in this
case where full and adequate consideration will not be received
for the travel payments.
File No. A-96-199:
Page 4
A. Gifts to an Official
Section 89503(a) provides that no elected officer of a local
government agency may "accept gifts from any single source in any
calendar year with a total value of more than two hundred fifty
dollars ($250)."3
Section 89503(c) provides:
No member of a state board or commission or
designated employee of a state or local government
agency shall accept gifts from any single source in
any calendar year with a total value of more than
two hundred fifty dollars ($250) if the member or
employee would be required to report the receipt of
income or.gifts from that source on his or her
statement of economic interests.
B. Gifts of Travel
Section 89501(e)(1) states that where a public official
receives a gift of travel, Section 89506 controls. Section 89506
provides:
(a) Payments, advances, or reimbursements,
for travel, including actual transportation and
related lodging and subsistence which is reasonably
related to a legislative or governmental purpose,
or to an issue of state, national, or international
public policy, are not prohibited or limited by
this chapter if either of the following apply:
* * *
(2) The travel is provided by a
government, a governmental agency, a foreign
government, a governmental authority, a bona
fide public or private educational
institution, as defined in Section 203 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, a nonprofit
charitable or religious organization which is
exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code, or by a person
domiciled outside the United States which
substantially satisfies the requirements for
tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code.
3 The annual gift limit is adjusted biennially and the gift limit
for all officials and candidates is currently set at $280.
(Regulation 18940.1.)
File No. A-96-199'
,
Page 5
Gifts of travel described in Section 89506(a) are not subject
to the gift limits in Section 89503. (Section 89506(b).) You
indicated in a telephone conversation that it is your
understanding that Pan-Pacific University is domiciled outside the
United States and substantially satisfies the requirements for
tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3). In addition, the
university will probably qualify as a bona fide public or private
educational institution pursuant to Section 203 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code. As noted above, these gifts would not be subject
to the statutory gift limit. If these exceptions apply, however,
the gifts would still be subject to the conflict of interest
provisions of the Act as described below.
C. Gifts to an Agency
Under some circumstances, however, a gift is deemed to be
provided to a public official's agency, and not to the official.
To determine whether a gift has been made to an official's agency,
and not to the official who uses it, Regulation 18944.2(a)
provides that the following criteria must be satisfied:
(1) The agency receives and controls the
payment.
(2) The payment is used for official agency .
business.
(3) The agency, in its sole discretion,
determines the specific official or officials who
shall use the payment. However, the donor may
identify a specific purpose for the agency's use of
the payment, so long as the donor does not
designate the specific official or officials who
may use the payment.
(4) The agency memorializes the payment in a
written public record which embodies the
requirements of subdivisions (a)(1) to (a)(3) of
this regulation set forth above and which:
(A) Identifies the donor and the
official, officials, or class of officials
receiving or using the payment;
(B) Describes the official agency use
and the nature and amount of the payment; and
(C) Is filed with the agency official
who maintains the records of the agency's
statements of economic interests where the
agency has a specific office for the
maintenance of such statements, or where no
specific office exists for the maintenance of
such statements, at a designated office of the
File No. A-96-19
Page 6
agency, and the filing is done within 30 days
of the receipt of the payment by the agency.
(Regulation 18944.2 [emphasis
added].)
These gifts do not meet the requirements of this regulation.
The materials you have submitted indicate that the donor of the
gift, Pan-Pacific University, has made the gift to specific
officials, rather than to an agency. The "invited team members,"
according to the invitation, are the mayor of Alameda and two
board members of the ARRA. The University has designated not only
the purpose for the agencies' use of the payment, but also the
specific official or officials who may use the payment. This is
contrary to the provisions of Regulation 18944.2(a)(3).)
Therefore, the gifts to an agency exception will not apply.
III. The payments will be subject to the conflict of
interest provisions.
Section 87100 prohibits any public official at any level of
state or local government from making, participating in making, or
in any way attempting to use his or her official position to
influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or
has reason to know the official has a financial interest.
(Section 87100.) Public officials are also required to disclose
all economic interests that could foreseeably be affected by the
exercise of the official's duties. (Sections 81002(c), 87200-
87313.)
An official has a financial interest in a decision within the
meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the
decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable
from its effect on the public generally, on (among others) any
source of gifts of $280 or more, or any source of income of $250
or more to the public official within 12 months prior to the time
when the decision is made. (Section 87103(c) and (e).).
Consequently, if the Pan-Pacific University is a source of
$280 in gifts or income of $250 or more, it would need to be
disclosed on the officials' statements of economic interests and
the officials would be required to disqualify themselves from any
decision which would have a foreseeable and material financial
effect on the UniversitY.4 The Commission has adopted a series
of regulations which provide guidance concerning whether the
foreseeable financial effects of a decision are material,
depending on the specific circumstances of each decision. For
4 An effect is considered reasonably foreseeable if there is a
substantial likelihood that it will occur. Certainty is not
required. However, if an effect is only a mere possibility, it is
not reasonably foreseeable. (In re Thorner (1975) 1 FPPC Ops.
198.)
File No. A-96-199'
Page 7
example, where the University is directly before the ARRA, such as
authorizing execution of long term leases and approving land or
personnel property transfers, as described in your facts,
Regulation 18702.1(a) provides that the effect of the decision on
a source of income or gifts is deemed material and
disqualification is required.5
Where the University is not directly before the ARRA, but may
be indirectly affected by a decision, either Regulation 18702.2 or
18702.5 apply depending"on whether the University is a nonprofit
organization or a for-profit business entity. Please consult
these regulations for decisions which do not directly involve the
University.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact me at (916) 322-5660.
Sincerely,
Steven G. Churchwell
General Coun el
By: Liane Randolph
Counsel, Legal Division
SGC:LR:ak
5
The University is directly before the ARRA when it initiates
the proceeding by filing an application, claim, appeal, or similar
request, or is a named party in, or the subject of, the
proceeding. The University would be the subject of a proceeding
if a decision involves the issuance, renewal, approval, denial or
revocation of any license, permit, or other entitlement to, or
contract with, the University. (Regulation 18702.1(b).)
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
July 31, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
4 -G
SUBJECT: Presentation on Education/Technology and Business Consortium by Doug deHaan
and Andrea Safir.
The Alameda Education/Technology and Business Consortium has asked the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to join the
Consortium. Because the Consortium has yet to draft by -laws, they have agreed to make a presentation
to the ARRA prior to requesting the ARRA to take action on the MOU.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Attachment: Presentation outline
Memorandum of Understanding
®Recycled paper
ED/TECH
ALAMEDA
EDUCATIONAL/TECHNOLOGY
and
BUSINESS CONSORTIUM
BACKGROUND
• Four facilitated WORKSHOPS
• numerous working groups meetings
REUSE PLAN
imminfismown
• EDUCATION
- AUSD
- PAN PACIFIC
- EAST BAY REGION
PARK DISTRICT
- COLLEGE OF
ALAMEDA
- ALAMEDA NAVAL
AIR MUSEUM
- ALAMEDA PARKS
AND RECREATION
- DEPT. OF INTERIOR
• TECHNOLOGY
- ACET
- CALSTART
- TECHNOLOGY
CENTER
PARTICIPANTS
• AUSD
• CAL STATE
HAYWARD
• PAN PACIFIC
UNIVERSITY
• LLNL
• ACET
• ALAMEDA C of C
• COLLEGE OF
ALAMEDA
• EBRPD
• EBCRC
• PERALTA COLLEGE
DISTRICT
• ARRA
• CITY of ALAMEDA
• BRAG
• EDAB
NEED
• Closure of six military facilities in Bay
Area
• Conversion of Alameda Naval Facilities
- NASALAMEDA
- NADEPALAMEDA
Fl SC ANNEX ALAMEDA
• Employment/Economic generation
• Reuse of facilities
• Establishing new industries
IOW
.PURPOSE
• SERVE AS CLEARINGHOUSE
- EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
- DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS
- PROVIDE TRAINED EMPLOYEES
- DESIGN FUTURE EDUCATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
- ADDRESS EDUCATION CONCERNS
-WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT
- CONTINUING EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
1
ED/TECH
ORGANIZATION
NEXT STEPS STRUCTURE
• GOVERNING MEMBERS
• ASSOCIATE MEMBER
• ADVISORY MEMBER
mgew=giMISIZZ=L..-.1=
• ESTABLISH CONSORTIUM
- ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
-ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH
ORGANIZATION
-REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING
-SELECT BOARD of DIRECTORS
DEVELOP BY- LAWS
GOVERNING MEMBERS
• AUSD
• PAN PACIFIC
UNIVERSITY
• COLLEGE of
ALAMEDA
• PERALTA
COLLEGE
DISTRICT
• CAL STATE
HAYWARD
• U.C. BERKELY
• ACET
• CALSTART
• LLNL
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
somanommzumsgsaii-z -=uf=um.ow■immo,A1=
• BUSINESS
• OTHER RELATED ORGANIZATIONS
ADVISORY MEMBERS
• ALAMEDA C of C
• EBRPD
• CITY of ALAMEDA
• ARRA
• EDAB
• EBCRC
2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Introduction
The impending closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station, and its occupancy
by other organizations, has resulted in the need to establish a body to define
and oversee the joint activities of the new associates, with the understanding
that each organization will continue to pursue its own activities as well.
The closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station gives these organizations the
opportunity to support local economic development and provide for
educational and technical training needs.
This Memorandum of Understanding will establish a Consortium called the
Alameda Education/Technology and Business Consortium between Alameda
Unified School District, College of Alameda, Pan- Pacific University,
California State University at Hayward, University of California, National
Research Laboratories, ACET, CALSTART, East Bay Conversion and
Reinvestment Commission, and the East Bay Regional Park District.
Purpose
The Alameda Education/Technology and Business Consortium will serve the
City and the region as a resource center and clearing house of information and
educational training services for business tenants, prospective business
clients, and the general public. It will provide for a full range of educational
and training services, coordinating service delivery among the member
service providers, and addressing gaps in services needed by the
Consortium's clients.
II. General Roles and Responsibilities
Each of the members of the Consortium will provide one representative to the
Consortium's governing board which will convene regularly scheduled
meetings to plan and oversee the execution of agreed -upon Consortium
activities. The first task of the Board will be to select officers and establish
by -laws. Once these by -laws are approved by the governing boards of each
participating agency, they will be delineated in Consortium by -laws.
The Board will:
• provide policy and advisory functions for the Consortium,
• guide overall program development and implementation and
recommend resource development and development strategies,
including pursuing available grants through government and
other bodies,
• establish educational and training priorities and explore new
avenues for expanding the educational and training roles of the
member organizations,
• establish an effective liaison with business and industry to
support their activities and enhance the mission of the
Consortium, and
• establish connections with other service providers, including
educational institutions, to coordinate resources for their mutual
benefit.
III. Terms and Conditions
The Consortium's by -laws will reference areas where member organizations
function jointly. It will not supersede or override operating principles of any
of the members or limit their operational autonomy. Provisions for the
addition of new Consortium members will be delineated in the by -laws.
IV. Termination of Agreement
Membership in the Consortium, as defined by this Memorandum of
Understanding, may be terminated by giving notice in writing to the Board.
2
The Consortium can be disbanded by agreement of the Board with a 60 -day
notice.
Hold Harmless Clause
The Consortium shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless its officers, agents
and employees, and their respective organizations from any and all liabilities
and claims of any nature or damages of any character whatsoever, including
death, sickness, or injury to persons or property from any cause whatsoever,
arising from or connected with the operations or services of the Consortium
or resulting from the conduct, negligence, or otherwise, in whole or in part, of
the Consortium, its officers, agents, representatives, or employees to the
extent permitted by law.
(Organization)
Education/Technology and Business Consortium as an associate member.
agrees to participate in the Alameda
Signed:
BRAG.MOU
(Name)
(Title)
3
(Date)
INTERIM LEASING STATUS REPORT
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
**
*
Carstar (Vehicle Painting)
Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair)
Rysher Entertainment (Film Studio)
Nelson's Marine
6,000
Portions of. 24 & 25
ow
Now
200
113
Portions of 24
34,250
13.150
Now
4/96
Now
4/96
40.000
Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.)
ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator)
Military Storage Units
167 & finger piers
22
55,450
ow Now
6/96 10/96
10
100
Real Estate Development Co:
* Richard Miller.(Photooraphy).,,
Tower Aviation (Avionics)
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
* MARAD
* ATS LHVAC Ducting Mfgr.
* Del Gavio,(Ship
EnviroRents (Water Filter Systems)
UARCO
FNS (Catalytic Converters)
Bladium ro. erblade arena
Alpha Document Storage
Aviation Advisory,Group ,(Airplane Hangar).
* Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfgr_)
Dynamic Business Dev, (Boat Production)„
Any Location (film location company)
Puglio.(Ship: Repair) :............................... ......................:.. : ::...
Delphi (Exhibit Displays)
PIVCO Electric Cars
* Shrader Scientific
:TOTAL POTENTIAL LEASES
12 (1/2 of bldg.)
750 Mini - storage
units near Bldg. 530
360 ::::...........................
...........................
621 ..,.,.,.,..
530
66,000
55,000
0
180,000
5,770
82.250
10/96 10/96
Now Complete
Now
ow
32
& 612
Piers 1, 2, 3;168,
21
56 640
2,700
117,000
66.000
162
23
107,000
Portions of 24& 25
........ ..............
372
23
9
39
14
66,000
84,250
18,000
66,000
82,000
110,000
40.000
166
Portions of 24 & 25
67
40
40
66
55 000
84,250
14,000
110,000
110 000
30,900
1,883,610
*Very probable leases
** Signed lease or license
** *Employment estimates based on company's projection or industry standard
7/31/96
10/96
10/96
10/96
Now Complete
Now Complete,
.::.:.:.........:::.:..:.
2/97 10/96
1/97 10/96
Now Complete
9/96 10/96
4/97 . 4/97
Now Complete
Now 10/96
4/97
4/97 4/97
9/96 10/96
9/96 10/96
9/96. 10/96
Now Complete
4/97 4/97
9/96 10/96
9/96 .
10/96
10/96
35
25
175
183
1.00:
25:
45
5
5Q
7.5'
2:5
140:
525:
2681:
Tenant
Building Number
Area
(square
feet)
Building
Vacancy
Date
Projected
FOSL
Completion
Date
** *Est,
Employment
** r:AL RTAAT
,...
**
*
Carstar (Vehicle Painting)
Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair)
Rysher Entertainment (Film Studio)
Nelson's Marine
6,000
Portions of. 24 & 25
ow
Now
200
113
Portions of 24
34,250
13.150
Now
4/96
Now
4/96
40.000
Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.)
ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator)
Military Storage Units
167 & finger piers
22
55,450
ow Now
6/96 10/96
10
100
Real Estate Development Co:
* Richard Miller.(Photooraphy).,,
Tower Aviation (Avionics)
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
* MARAD
* ATS LHVAC Ducting Mfgr.
* Del Gavio,(Ship
EnviroRents (Water Filter Systems)
UARCO
FNS (Catalytic Converters)
Bladium ro. erblade arena
Alpha Document Storage
Aviation Advisory,Group ,(Airplane Hangar).
* Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfgr_)
Dynamic Business Dev, (Boat Production)„
Any Location (film location company)
Puglio.(Ship: Repair) :............................... ......................:.. : ::...
Delphi (Exhibit Displays)
PIVCO Electric Cars
* Shrader Scientific
:TOTAL POTENTIAL LEASES
12 (1/2 of bldg.)
750 Mini - storage
units near Bldg. 530
360 ::::...........................
...........................
621 ..,.,.,.,..
530
66,000
55,000
0
180,000
5,770
82.250
10/96 10/96
Now Complete
Now
ow
32
& 612
Piers 1, 2, 3;168,
21
56 640
2,700
117,000
66.000
162
23
107,000
Portions of 24& 25
........ ..............
372
23
9
39
14
66,000
84,250
18,000
66,000
82,000
110,000
40.000
166
Portions of 24 & 25
67
40
40
66
55 000
84,250
14,000
110,000
110 000
30,900
1,883,610
*Very probable leases
** Signed lease or license
** *Employment estimates based on company's projection or industry standard
7/31/96
10/96
10/96
10/96
Now Complete
Now Complete,
.::.:.:.........:::.:..:.
2/97 10/96
1/97 10/96
Now Complete
9/96 10/96
4/97 . 4/97
Now Complete
Now 10/96
4/97
4/97 4/97
9/96 10/96
9/96 10/96
9/96. 10/96
Now Complete
4/97 4/97
9/96 10/96
9/96 .
10/96
10/96
35
25
175
183
1.00:
25:
45
5
5Q
7.5'
2:5
140:
525:
2681:
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
July 31, 1996
To: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Kay Miller
Executive Director
Re: Consultant Work Program Update.
4 -I
Item 10
After some delays in ARRA's grant approvals from EDA and OEA, the final contracts with the
various consultant teams have been signed and are now underway. Attached is a list of the
consultant work now under contract and a schedule of the work to be completed.
The major work effort is to complete the ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance (EDC)
application to the Navy at the end of November and begin formal negotiations. All the work now
underway provides the necessary detailed planning and financial analysis as the basis of ARRA's
EDC application.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Attachments: Table 1 Planning Studies — 1995 -96
Table 2 Proposed Schedule
Table 3 Consultant Studies Work Schedule —1996
cc: City Manager
recycled paper
Sub - Consultant Team
Lead Consultant
Funding Source
• a
0
o
to
<
.c ca
0
cn iii 9
co
0 1 a) (a
0
us ...: > c
.4'C' o
us - o .c - ci) S
1...
< cz
c C at o -u.G a
CO = 0)Q Z
'2 o
as >- w p. = If 2 2
.6 0 as
m .c 'En cti
-, (. ........ gi 0
Li
cri
o>
a) (,)
" C
.... =
a) - a)
C L. al _ , .......
'''. E0
CLI L.
:
(1) CO E --E < u) E 2
F L ' 4 3 c t . . 0 = c ) T o ' 0 0 0 o 0
>- > w 0:5 w z 't"), 2 cn < W
(I)
6 o) co c
a) c c O. 0. ,..... 0
C - .E c c 0 o
.5, 6. c 2 2
w so
a) t- To)
>, CL 0 0
CD 0 c
-0- --' 't7; CD 0 X X .-(3 0 (I)
.0 0 c 0. 2 °45 >. >,
Li 0 2 c c 0 0 .(.0
co 0
Z E "c; a. 06 t. 0 0
0 a) (6 W 0,
< as .cc
1.) (L) 0 E
as
0. 2 s
a. 112 42._
w :=--- al - w w u) :I= >, ca-
7') <
w w
o _0 < 5 5' o a_
2 " CO 0 c w w w w U) CC1 Lt
al
0
a)
5
45
O
+di
a) >-
W
co t")
< < < < < < < <
O wwww 0 0 W as cts
w 0 0 0 0 w w 0 u)
0
2>
ta.
« < <
W 0 W W
0 w 00
C) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
6' 6 LO 0
cc (0 CV 10
C.4 .V). 69.
69. 6
cj
I0c\J
cs)
0 0 0 0 0
o 0 cc cc cc
o o cc o
• t.6 t.6
• co (0 Lo ()
co 69. 69. 69 69
69.
cc cc
cc o o
o o o
6 0 d
o
69
o o 0 0
o 0 0 0
o q o
o 0 10
‘0.• 10 •t 10
1.- T... 69- 69.
69. 69.
1- 0 as Tci
w a) °
0 o c 12 F2
0 c 0
D >,
CO a) >
> c
C 0
(,) < 0 0
>, 'Fa i-- 0 ,. .-
a.
ca u) a) 5 I-.0-.- a := 0
(7 H
)
-0 .-c.- o
= 0 H .5 (I)
Z‘ ›.. 2 u) c 5 °-
C0 0. 0 >, LL. = 01) cn
o E 2 5
co
CM .- '0 06 C (1. 0 CD '0 .t., 5 1-1- ,,,U)
11) CD = >,
u E = ii5
.....c o 0 (1)
a) a) 0
C0 -•E' 5 o 0 .- ac _ c,a .. cc L 0 o
c o
-5 0 <
L D a) a) a. o _ .c _ 8 E. c 2(/) - 0 a) 5 t
a) 733 E as o 5 a) . _1
3 3 E -
>
,- , 2
-0 0 0 .2 0 .
o 0.
a. 0 0 0 8- _e:a
(1 ) 12 in D 0
o .n..'
_
▪ 5 w ID w u) eL cn 0) CD Tu Cla CD 1-
0 0 01 5 co .5 S'2 , , c c 0
iki a) *c. ". 3 +6 'Fa' 0 m 0 'II -o a, c szs
• 0 c .- i:-) '5 CD V) :..-
'6 T.5 CO -,T. a) .,_,E) 5 15 0 2 0 2 = =
= = 0).0 =
w 0 u) 2 ,_.5 Z (/) 2 0 w co CL. ca cC) on 2 I a.
ci .,-
c
.-. . c-si c 4 tri cri N- cci oi .,- ('3 , r „
0
0
0
Table 3 Consultant Studies Work Schedule 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Planning Study
Budget
State Base Closure Grant
Housing Feasibility Study
Appraisal for Public Trust Lands
Total
Contract BRAG /ARRA Completion
Start Date Update Date
$45,000 July 1, 1996
$55,000 Sept 1, 1996
$100,000
EDA Base Closure Grant
Street Improvement Plan $310,000 July 15, 1996
Demolition Study & $140,000 July 15, 1996
Building Improvement Study July 15, 1996
Total $450,000
OEA 1995/96 BUDGET
Redevelopment Area Formation
Market Analysis NAS/FISC (EDC Scope)
Detailed Development Studies (EDC Scope)
Economic Development Conveyance Application
Mini ULI Panel Round Table
Port Development Conveyance Application
FISC Background Report
FISC Reuse Plan
FISC Detailed. Development Plans
Section 7 Consultation (EIS/EIR)
Section 7 Predator Management Plan
OEA 94/95 Budget Amendment
Interim Marketing Plan and Materials
Utility Study (Total = $600,000)
Science Center Feasibility Study
Total
Total
TOTAL ALL GRANTS
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
c:\123r4\doc\sch96.wk4
$150,000
$30,000
$50,000
$50,000
$20,000
$35,000
$100,000
$60,000
$15,000
$30,000
$540,000
$50,000
$200,000
$250,000
$500,000
$1,590,000
June 15, 1996
June 15, 1996
June 15, 1996
June 15, 1996
Aug 1, 1996
June 1996
January 1, 1996
July 1, 1996
July 1, 1996
November 1995
June 1, 1996
June 1996
Sep 1996
Nov 1996
Sep 1996
Sep 1996
Sep 1996
Sep 1996
Sep 1996
Sep 1996
November 199
Sept 1996
November 199
Aug 1996
Aug 1996
Aug 1996
October 1996
Aug 1996
July 1996
Oct 30, 1996
Nov 1996
Oct 30, 1996
Oct 30, 1996
Oct 30, 1996
June 1997
Oct 30, 1996
Oct 30, 1996
Jan -Apr. 1997
Oct 30, 1996
Jan -Apr. 1997
Aug 30, 1996
Oct 30, 1996
Oct 30, 1996
April 1997
November 1996
Oct 1996
co
SPONDENCE
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
July 30, 1996
To: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Kay Miller
Executive Director
Re: Pan Pacific University Funding Requirements
The following memo from the Alameda City Manager is provided for your information regarding
the funding requirements for Pan Pacific University for its reuse of property at NAS Alameda. The
memo outlines the required minimum funding commitment by the University.
To provide further clarification, there is no "requirement" in the conveyance agreement as outlined
in the Community Reuse Plan for spending of resources on specific buildings. The development
expenditures outlined in the City. Manager's memo are the proposed improvements in the
University's business plan. Building reuse may vary depending on the level of success of the
University's fundraising efforts, enrollment, or exact building conditions. Priorities in building reuse
could change over time.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Attachments: 7/23/96 Memo to Karen Lucas from William C. Norton.
7/5/95 letter from Kay Miller to Peter Sun, Ph.D. w/PPU's Major Projects list
cc: William C. Norton, Alameda City Manager
Dr. Peter Sun, President, Pan Pacific University
L,
recycled paper
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Inter-Department Memorandum
Date: July 23, 1996
To: Karin Lucas
Councilmember
From: William C. Norton
City Manager
Re: Pan Pacific University
Rc ITIEroCF 4Et •
I4Viv:DAD
JUL 2 4 1996 _-
ARRA
You called today to ask about the requirements of Pan Pacific
University. You were concerned about inadequate investment in
the project.
The attached letter from the Executive Director, Kay Miller, to
Dr. Peter Sun dated July 5, 1995, spells out the requirements of
$7 Million to be raised by December 31, 1996 and an addition $7
Million to be raised by December 31, 1997 and $4 Million by
December 31, 1998. This alsorequires-that the funds be expended
as shown on the attached proposal from Pan Pacific University:
$6,759,000 in 1997 for buildings #17 and #2; $7,618,000 on
Buildings #3 and #4 in 1998; and, $1,356,000 on Buildings #60,
#525, #585 and #1 during 1999. If the monies are not raised and
expended as proposed, the property reverts back to the Reuse
Authority or the City of Alameda.
If you have any additional questions regarding this, please so
notify.
William C. No ton
City Manager
WCN:jc
xc: Mayor and Council
Kay Miller
attachment'
JUL 22 '96 02 :16PM BASE CONVERSION OFFICES
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg, 90
Alameda, California 94501-5012
510 - 263 -2370
FAX 510 - 521.3764
- July 5, 1995
Peter Sun, PhD
Executive Director
Pan Pacific University
330 Ellis Street, Rm. 508
San Francisco, California 94102
Re: Pan Pacific University Public Benefit Conveyance Request, NAS Alameda
Dear Dr. Sun,
P.1
I am pleased to inform you that your application for the Pan Pacific University public benefit
conveyance at NAS Alameda was endorsed in concept by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) at their special meeting of June 28, 1995.
The ARRA's action, approving the Pan Pacific University in concept, is a clear indication
of the community's acceptance of the University concept as part of NAS Alameda reuse planning.
Furthermore, this approval is a clear direction to the staff to work with you to make Pan Pacific
University a reality.
Pan Pacific University was approved in concept subject to the University demonstrating its
ability to finance the project. The amount of space and costs of rehabilitation of existing buildings
for University use is a major undertaking. In this regard, the ARRA has required that Pan Pacific
University provide proof of its funding sources, (availability of funds, bonding, or other securities)
in the amount of $7 million dollars, by December 31, 1996. We also understand additional securities
need to raised in the amounts of $7 million dollars by December 31, 1997 and another $4 million
dollars by December 31, 1998.
We strongly believe that Pan Pacific University will be a great asset to the community of
Alameda, the base. reuse effort and the entire San Francisco Bay-Area. Pan Pacific University
success could be the center piece of our redevelopment efforts, and will contribute greatly to the
ultimate success of Alameda West.
We look forward to our continued close working relationship.
Sincerely,
y Miller
Executive Director
cc: William C. Norton, Alameda City Manager
Wordt 'crfcctiwpdocAlcttcnAltr7.5.93
Post.1r Fax Note
7671
• '
DV_ .y, ..�, ►
Ta X71 l
From ,sr . 1J, 7` i ge^`?
p
-.+
CoJCept.
Co
Phone*
Phone r .
Fax to
l=ax i
8 � i
_
s3
r6 I
l!A-u( 119
ft4—
0111; It] ilg
r $ 1
gli Ali
lidai WI fAil
i 71
, r.
YY 11
1;i1141.1
11111;2
gin! tli
AN
21
11 du
ililiti
litgii!
f4t Wu,
14.
1
1 11
zwi
X111
3
T114 ; IA
12/fal 1 I 11
IT ; *Di h341
i e !
i� Hihii ip
u � $ flsh
4”.• „ 11
�1=1 HflIlillliIi
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
July 30, 1996
To: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Kay Miller
Executive Director
Re: Pan Pacific University Funding Requirements
The following memo from the Alameda City Manager is provided for your information regarding
the funding requirements for Pan Pacific University for its reuse of property at NAS Alameda. The
memo outlines the required minimum funding commitment by the University.
To provide further clarification, there is no "requirement" in the conveyance agreement as outlined
in the Community Reuse Plan for spending of resources on specific buildings. The development
expenditures outlined in the City Manager's memo are the proposed improvements in the
University's business plan. Building reuse may vary depending on the level of success of the
University's fundraising efforts, enrollment, or exact building conditions. Priorities in building reuse
could change over time.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Attachments: 7/23/96 Memo to Karen Lucas from William C. Norton
7/5/95 letter from Kay Miller to Peter Sun, Ph.D. w/PPU's Major Projects list
cc: William C. Norton, Alameda City Manager
Dr. Peter Sun, President, Pan Pacific University
recycled paper
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Inter-Department Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 23, 1996
Karin Lucas
Councilmember
William C. Norton
City Manager
Pan Pacific University
RECEIVED
JUL 2 4 1996
4RRA
Y OF ALAMEDA
You called today to ask about the requirements of Pan Pacific
University. You were concerned about inadequate investment in
the project.
The attached letter from the Executive Director, Kay Miller, to
Dr. Peter Sun dated July 5, 1995, spells out the requirements of
$7 Million to be raised by December 31, 1996 and an addition $7
Million to be raised by December 31, 1997 and $4 Million by
December 31, 1998. This also.requires-that the funds be expended
as shown on the attached proposal from Pan Pacific University:
$6,759,000 in 1997 for buildings #17 and #2; $7,618,000 on
Buildings #3 and #4 in 1998; and, $1,356,000 on Buildings #60,
#525, #585 and #1 during 1999. If the monies are not raised and
expended as proposed, the property reverts back to the Reuse
Authority or the City of Alameda.
If you have any additional questions regarding this, please so
notify.
William C. No ton
City Manager
WCN:jc
xc: Mayor and Council
Kay Miller
attachment
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
::ity of Alameda
Wilma Chan
upervisor, District 3
Alameda County Board
)f Supervisors
fenny Chang, Jr.
)akland Councilmember
erving for
:Iihu Harris
rlayor, City of Oakland
:lien M. Corbett
layor
:ity of San Leandro
,ibert H. DeWitt
'ouncilmember
ity of Alameda
:arin Lucas
ouncilmember
ity of Alameda
haries M. Mannix
ice -Mayor
ity of Alameda
ay Miller
cecutive Director
Stec }•cled paper
July 23, 1996
The Honorable Barbara Lee
State Capitol
Room 5150
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblywoman Lee:
• (510) 364 -3400
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
On behalf of the ARRA and the City of Alameda, I would like to express my sincere
and profound appreciation for your sponsorship and leadership on AB 3129, the
special redevelopment legislation for Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. You are
to be congratulated for reading the political climate and advising us well on when
to hold `em and when to fold `em and helping to build support for the bill and
eliminate opposition. Simply stated, you were a wonderful bill sponsor and we are
indebted to you for your willingness and adeptness at carrying the NAS bill.
We would also especially like to thank two members of your staff, Clyde McDonald
and Yolanda Stevens, who were extremely helpful and professional in working with
the ARRA and City staff on the details of the legislation. They kept us informed
and their strategic advice was invaluable to us.
You and your staff are to be applauded. Well done! I would also like to thank you
again for your willingness to assist in making the civilian use a reality.
Sincerely,
C
Ralph Appe77ato
Chair, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Mayor, City of Alameda
cc: ARRA Governing Body
Clyde McDonald
Yolanda Stevens
kLEGIS\96LEGIS.DOC
Current Legislation Concerning
Military Base Closures
07/12/96
REDEVELOPMENT
AB 2736 (Weggeland). This bill would establish special optional provisions for
creating a redevelopment area on a former military base. It would modify blight
findings, eliminate negotiated pass-through agreements, specify the same tax
allocation formula used for standard redevelopment projects, permit deferral of
contributions to the low- and moderate-income housing fund, and permit deferral
of CEQA and general plan compliance until after a base reuse plan is completed.
Location: Governor's desk.
AB 3129 (Lee). This bill would authorize the adoption of a redevelopment plan
covering all or a part of the Alameda Naval Air Station and Fleet Industrial
Supply Center, establishing special housing provisions. It would fit into the
generic base redevelopment provisions of AB 2736.
Location: Governor's desk.
AB 1089 (Olberg). This bill would allow the Victor Valley Economic
Development Authority to establish an alternate base year for the redevelopment
plan for George Air Force Base.
Location: Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1861 (Johnson). This bill would authorize the adoption of a redevelopment
plan covering all or a part of the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. It would fit into
the generic base redevelopment provisions of AB 2736.
Location: Governor's desk.
REGULATORY RELIEF
SB 1640 (Marks). This bill would change the January 1, 1997 sunset for the
provisions of SB 81, enacted in 1995, to January 1, 2000. SB 81 authorizes a
local government to adopt an alternative building code for structures on base
closure properties, permitting graduated compliance over a period of up to 10
years (reduced to 3 years by SB 1640), so long as use of the structure is not
hazardous to life safety, fire safety, health, or sanitation. Such an ordinance is
limited to property leased from the federal government.
Location: Assembly floor.
AB 1621 (Alby). This bill would permit a county board of supervisors, by 4/5
vote, to enter into a contract to sell, lease, or manage property acquired from the
federal government as a result of a base closure without following the
procedures otherwise required by law.
Location: Senate Local Government Committee.
FUNDING & INCENTIVES
AB 2421 (Baca). This bill would add "assistance to communities experiencing
military base downsizing and closures" to the missions of the California
Community Colleges Economic Development Program.
Location: Assembly floor, for concurrence in Senate amendments.
AB 3002 (Granlund). This bill would modify the LAMBRA program by increasing
the number of areas to 10, permitting the 5 additional areas to be selected on a
statewide basis. It would also make a number of technical changes to the tax
benefits accruing to a LAMBRA designation.
Location: Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee.
AB 3352 (Weggeland, Aguiar, et al). This bill would enact the Local
Infrastructure Bond Act of 1996 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize
sale of $100 million of state general obligation bonds, the proceeds of which
would be deposited with the State Infrastructure Bank in the Trade & Commerce
Agency. Legislation establishing the Bank specifically includes former military
base infrastructure needs as an allowable Bank expenditure. The Bank is
authorized to operate grant, loan, loan guarantee, credit enhancement, and
other programs to assist with infrastructure development.
Location: Assembly floor.
DISTRICT BILLS
AB 37 (Pringle). This bill, which is a carry-over from the 1995 Session, would
designate the local redevelopment authority recognized by the Department of
Defense as the single local authority for reuse of MCAS El Toro, rather than the
El Toro Reuse Authority, as specified in current law.
Location: Senate floor.
AB 1240 (Bordonaro). This bill would exempt from regulation by the State Air
Resources Board and regional air pollution control districts any facility that
manufactures launch vehicles or satellites for purposes of space launch for
commercial purposes.
Location: Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1820 (McPherson). This bill would exempt the City of Marina and its
redevelopment agency from the replacement housing requirements and
relocation requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law with regard to
the housing units located on the former Fort Ord.
Location: Senate Appropriations Committee.
Nimitz Field Project
August 1, 1996
Dear ARRA Member:
As you know, the ARRA is funding a study to determine the feasibility and benefits of a limited use
airfield at NAS Alameda. We will know more about the findings of that study after the August 7
meeting, however the preliminary presentation at the BRAG meeting was positive. The John Gillory
marketing study, which is being funded by Congressman Dellum's office, indicates a resounding pro -
airfield stance. Undoubtedly, we are at a point where a limited use airfield is a very real possibility.
As the primary proponent of the Nimitz Field Project, I am concerned about our leasing policy. The
current policy is to lease the hangars, like all other structures, to the first qualified lessee who comes
along. This made sense when we thought there would never be an airfield, however, I am concerned
that when an airfield plan is adopted, all of the hangars will already be leased for non- aviation uses. I
would like to see a moratorium on long term leasing of the hangars until the airfield issue is settled.
This does not, of course, pertain to temporary leases to the movie companies, and other very short term
situations that will bring instant revenues into the City.
So what is wrong with leasing the hangars to non - aviation users? What is wrong is that when the
hangars go for non-aviation uses there will be little or no cash flow into the City coffers for two or three
years, or more. Whereas, leasing the hangars to aviation related businesses will produce a cash flow by
the end of the first year. And, there is potential for higher lease rates.
The reason the hangars will produce a quicker cash flow from aircraft is that the hangars were built for
airplane storage and they can be ready for occupancy almost immediately for this use, which means
quicker revenue for Alameda. If used for other purposes, the hangars will have to be modified, as was
the case with CalStart, who spent nearly $400,000 preparing Hangar 20 for their manufacturing
business. As I understand the leasing policy, all monies spent to modify or repair the structures for
occupancy comes off the top before the Cite receives any lease payments.
Airplanes do not necessarily require a heating system, and the currently installed fire sprinkler systems
will not have to be modified for aircraft, therefore, the capital expenditures for this use could be
considerably less than for other applications. Keep in mind, if Hangar 20, the CalStart building, ever
again becomes available for aviation uses, the deluge sprinkler system for aircraft will have to be re-
installed at considerable expense. Since all money spent modifying the structures comes out of City
revenues, it is a big, big issue which should be addressed.
It is becoming more apparent that the airfield will add value to all of the real estate at NAS, not only
the hangars. In other words, having an operating airfield will make all of the structures, including office
buildings, shops and warehouses, more attractive to potential lessees. Even the president of the
university which will occupy the center portion of the base has said that the airfield is a tremendous
asset to his school, and certainly more compatible than an industrial park. Mr Levine, of ARRA, has
said that many of the non - aviation businesses which have inquired about NAS have expressed a very
strong interest in keeping the airfield open on a limited basis.
Aviation related businesses, such as aircraft instrument companies, aircraft engine rebuilders, aviation
insurance companies, a very large aviation technical school and many others have expressed a strong
interest in NAS, and even though they do not need to be in hangars, they would like to be located on
an active airfield. I can guarantee that as soon as the first press release is printed regarding the airfield
being re- opened, there will be more serious inquiries for leases than we can deal with. It all gets back
to the fact that the airfield adds value to the facility.
Given proper marketing, the hangars, especially those overlooking San Francisco, could lease for
much more than the .17 to .20 rates we are getting from light industry. The three most important things
in real estate are location - location - location, and with the west side of the office portion of Hangars 20
to 23 facing the Bay, these structures could become very upscale hangar/office complexes which would
be suitable for corporate offices for major aviation enterprises. The view from these west facing offices
is something that no amount of money can buy, and we are giving it away. Also, the more hangars we
turn into light industry, the less ambience we'll have.
In order to have an airfield,.there haq to be hangars, and a hangar is only a hangar if airplanes can be
kept in it. If we modify all of the structures such that the cost of retrofitting them for aviation use is
prohibative, then by default, they are no longer hangars. It will only be a few months before we know
one way or the other about the airfield issue, so why don't we wait and see what happens before we
dispose of all the hangars. It is a gamble, but it is a small one, and the payoff will be large if we win.
Because of the Least terns there is legally no other economy boosting use for the runway portion of the
property, except an airfield. The land in question will either remain the property of the Navy or
ultimately become the property of the Department of Interior, and either will sanction an airfield if the
City is STRONGLY behind it. An airfield will provide as many as a thousand aviation related jobs for
Alameda with it's a large aviation trained job pool, and the Federal Government will find it very
difficult to justify not allowing an airfield under these circumstances. We may have to fight for it, but
we can get it, if we are committed to keeping the airfield open and to providing those jobs.
In summary, my points are: We need to halt the leasing of hangars until we know for sure about the
airfield; The City, ARRA and the BRAG need to jump on the bandwagon and begin overtly supporting
the airfield. Those that don't want an airfield can sit on their: hands, but the rest need to stand up and
be counted, and very soon, because the window of opportunity is quickly closing.
For a full understanding of the financial repercussions of closing an airfield, all someone has to do is
call the City managers of communities near Hamilton Air Force Base and ask them if we should close
the airfield.
I will be attending the August 7 meeting and will be available to answer any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph Davis
CEO, Nimitz Field Project
Nimitz Field Project, 3705 W. Beechwood Ave., Fresno, California 93711 (209) 392 -8264
Nimitz Field Fact Sheet
1. Because of the least terns, the ONLY legal use of the runways and taxiways which will produce any
financial value for the City, is an airfield. This is a plain and simple fact. In actuality, the only other use of
any kind that has been proposed is a refuge, which in itself is very noble, but not income producing. Actually,
the refuge has coexisted with the airfield for years, and it could be expanded and enhanced.
It is not a matter of using the land for an airport, or something else; It is a matter of using it for an airport,
or NOTHING ELSE. The point is that the airport is not competing with other potential uses for the land,
because there are none. I guess you could say: "An airfield is better than nothing!"
2. At many of the town meetings, and in many of the base closure brochures, we are made aware of the
concern for putting the NADEP workers back to work. Well, it will take an airfield in Alameda to put them
back to work doing what they do best, and at the highest wages. Sure, they can get a job at CarStar painting
cars and trucks, but they will make a heck of a lot more money in an aviation shop that installs new high -tech
radar in P -3 Orion aircraft for foreign militaries, which is a potential tenant.
3. Evidence points to the fact that a better cash flow and higher square foot rates can be gleaned from. aviation
related companies versus non - aviation. This means more money for the City.
°I-. Many non-aviation tenants would prefer to have an active airfield, versus not having an airfield, which
means the airfield adds value to even the non - aviation structures. Existing tenants, such as the university,
CalStart and the museum are, for example, hoping the airfield re- opens.
5. The concerns that the community originally had about a full blown public airport in Alameda were justified,
as we don't need another Oakland or Hayward airport in the Bay Area, especially right next to Alameda. A
low-use private airfield is an entirely different issue and should to be evaluated as such.
6. The airport will work very well with the contemplated golf course and/or park. Many who have played golf
at the Monterey Course can attest to the fact that it is directly off the end of the runway at the municipal
airport, which has jet airline service.
7. Obtaining permits for a private airport from the FAA and CalTrans, and obtaining approval from the
Alameda County Airport Lands Commission is not a big deal, as long as the City supports the idea.
8. A low -use private airfield will not produce a lot of noise, especially compared to the Navy fighter aircraft
the locals are used to hearing., The fighters were built for high performance combat missions, and have no
noise restrictions. Yes, the price we will pay for a private airport is a little noise once in a while; But, on the
other hand, if all the hangars are used for industry and warehousing there will be the presence of more large
trucks, with the attendant diesel smoke, engine noise, road wear and in -town traffic. So, unfortunately there
are no alternatives without a few glitches.
9. A limited use airfield opens up opportunities for the future, many of which we have no clue about now. If
we let the airfield go, it is gone for good: We will never have an air show; The planned aviation museum will
not be world class; Tourism will not be an option; Fleet Week will either not happen, or the Blue Angles will
not participate; NADEP workers will find few local aviation jobs; The California Department of Forestry
aircraft will have no local base for operations during fires such as in the Oakland Hills.
Alameda 'tense and Redevelopment ituthorl
tY
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
}overning Body
lalph Appezzato
:hair
Mayor, City of Alameda
andre R. Swanson
rice -Chair
)istrict Director for
:onald V. Dellums
th Congressional District
.nthony J. "Lil" Arnerich
'ouneilmember
ity of Alameda
Vilma Chan
3r, District 3
Ian, .. _ County Board
['Supervisors
:enry Chang, Jr.
akland Councilmember
Irving for
lihu Harris
[ayor, City of Oakland
lien M. Corbett
[ayor
ity of San Leandro
Ibert H. DeWitt
ouneilmember
ity of Alameda
:arin Lucas
ouncilmember
ity of Alameda
harles M. Manrriu
ice -Mayor
ity of Alameda
ay Miller
cry' ""'7e Director
Recycled paper
July 5, 1996
Mr. Peter Wang
Encinal Terminals
1521 Buena Vista Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501 -0251
Dear Mr. Wang:
(510) 864 -3400 _
Fax: (5I0) 521-3764
You have expressed concerns to me about the commitment the ARRA has made to make
property available to Pan Pacific University at NAS Alameda. On the August 7 ARRA
agenda, there will be an agenda item relating to Pan Pacific University. You are welcome
to raise your concerns about Pan Pacific University during the Public Comment period on
this item.
The ARRA meeting convenes at 5:30 p.m. on August 7. The meeting will be held in the
cafeteria at Alameda High School.
Very truly yours,
Ral p Ape
pP
Mayor of Alameda
Chairperson, ARRA
RA/KM: gdm
C ::WPDOCS \WONG.DOC