1997-01-06 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
Monday, January 6, 1997
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. Approval of minutes for the regular meeting of November 6, 1996
2 -B Approval of minutes for the regular meeting of December 4, 1996.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -C. Reportfrom the Executive Director recommending the ARRA Governing Body authorize the
Executive Director to enter into a Master Large Parcel Lease with the Navy for a term of 15
years.
3 -D. Authorization for the ARRA Executive Director to take actions necessary to lease housing
units in the Navy East Housing area.
3 -E. Report from the Executive Director regarding Councilmember Daysog's request to review
approval authority for the Executive Director to execute leases. (Daysog)
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -F. Report from the Assistant General Counsel on voting requirements for actions by the ARRA.
(Appezzato, Daysog and Alves)
4 -G. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
ARRA Agenda - January 6, 1997
Page 2
4 -H. Oral report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on:
1. Status of the Cooperative Services Agreement;
2. Status of the request to lease the commissary their current building;
3. Alameda Point logo;
4. Proposed joint ARRA/BRAG workshop to consider the EPS cashflow analysis/business
plan;
5. Status of EDA grant application.
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
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 February 5, 1997.
REVISED AGENDA
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
Monday, January 6, 1997
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. Approval of minutes for the regular meeting of November 6, 1996.
2 -B Approval of minutes for the regular meeting of December 4, 1996.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -C. Report from the Executive Director recommending the ARRA Governing Body authorize the
Executive Director to enter into a Master Large Parcel Lease with the Navy for a term of 15
years.
3 -D. Final report on the Housing Feasibility Study from Janet Smith- Heimer of Bay Area
Economics and authorization for the ARRA Executive Director to take actions necessary to
lease housing units in the Navy East Housing area.
3 -E. Report from the Executive Director regarding Councilmember Daysog's request to review
approval authority for the Executive Director to execute leases. (Daysog)
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -F. Report from the Assistant General Counsel on voting requirements for actions by the ARRA.
(Appezzato, Daysog and Alves)
4 -G. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
Revised ARRA Agenda - January 6, 1997
Page 2
4 -11. Oral report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on:
1. Status of the Cooperative Services Agreement;
2. Status of the request to lease the commissary their current building;
3. Alameda Point logo;
4. Proposed joint ARRA/BRAG workshop to consider the EPS cashflow analysis/business plan;
5. Status of EDA grant application.
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 TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER:
' CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Building 530
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Tower Aviation
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.8.
8. 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 Wednesday, February 5, 1997.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 6, 1996
The meeting convened.at 5:38 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
2 -A
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda;
Roberta Brooks, Alternate to Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th
Congressional District;
Mark Friedman, Alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors,
District 3;
Kathy Ornelas, Alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro;
Albert DeWitt (arrived at 5:46 p.m.), Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Greg Alves, Alternate to Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Tony Daysog, Alternate to "Lil "Arnerich, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Helen Sause, Alternate to Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group;
Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District.
Absent: Jay Leonhardy, Alternate to Henry Chang, Jr., Councilmember, City of Oakland
Resigned: Charles Mannix, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Chair Appezzato congratulated Al DeWitt, Barbara Kerr, and Tony Daysog on winning election to the
Alameda City Council. He also applauded Greg Alves for his effective campaign, inviting him to run
again in two years.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 2, 1996.
Alternate Alves moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Alternate Friedman seconded the
motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 2 -
(DeWitt arrived subsequent to the vote].
ACTION ITEMS
3 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Establish Priorities for a
Grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA)
for the Alameda Naval Air Station and Authorize the Executive Director to Proceed with the
Application.
Executive Director Miller stated that priority setting was done with City and ARRA staff, taking match
into account. Chair Appezzato stated that one priority is the Mitchell - Mosely road extension to make
the FISC site accessible in support of redevelopment; another priority is a discretionary pool of money
to upgrade NAS buildings that are slated for long -term use in order to attract tenants and begin
cashflow. The funding priorities also include the implementation phase of ACET (Alameda Center for
Environmental Technologies). After a short discussion and questions from the governing body, and
receiving no public comment, the vote was held. 'Alternate Alves moved approval of item 3 -B.
Member DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried unanimously: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0.
Absent: 1.
Printed on recycled paper
3 -C. Recommendation by the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) for a Bylaw Change to Create
Vice -Chair and Member -at -Large Positions. Executive Director Miller stated that the BRAG was
originally created by nominations made by various constituency groups such as the Planning
Commission, Economic Development Commission, Recreation and Parks, the Alameda Unified School
District, etc. to provide a representative advisory committee to the base reuse process. Helen Sause,
appointed by the Economic Development Commission (EDC), has served unofficially as the Vice -Chair
of the BRAG. Her term as Chair of the EDC has expired and the BRAG is requesting a new position
as Vice -Chair be created (which will necessitate a bylaw change) and Ms. Sause be appointed. In
addition, Doug deHaan has been serving unofficially as an Ex- officio member of the BRAG and the
BRAG is asking that a position be created for Member -at -Large and Doug deHaan be appointed to that
position.
Alternate Friedman moved approval of the recommended Bylaw changes. Alternate Daysog
seconded the motion. Chair Appezzato suggested that, since Doug deHaan has been appointed to the
EDC and the EDC will be appointing a representative to the BRAG to fill Helen Sause's position, he
seek that position. Chair Appezzato asked Mr. deHaan if that was acceptable and Mr. deHaan indicated
that it was. The Chair then suggested the governing body wait to see what action the EDC takes.
Alternate Brooks stated that decisions to add positions should be made in the abstract and not person-.
specific. If a Member -at -Large position is needed then it should be created whether or not Mr. deHaan
is appointed by the EDC. Mr. Alves thought the number of BRAG members should be 13 for tie -
breaking purposes. Executive Director Miller stated that the practice of Chair Lee Perez is . not to vote
except to break a tie. Chair Appezzato suggested the motion be amended to create the position of Vice -
Chair and appoint Helen Sause; create the position of Member -at- Large; and wait to see whom the EDC
appoints to fill their vacant BRAG position. In that way, the position of Member -at -Large is not
member - specific. Alternate Alves asked that the vote on the Member -at -Large position be put off until
the BRAG could address whether they want to increase to 13 voting members. Doug deHaan suggested
the ARRA vote on the Vice -Chair position and delay the vote on the Member -at -Large position until
the BRAG could address the issue.
Alternate Friedman modified his motion to vote on the appointment of Helen Sause to a newly
created Vice -Chair position and delay the vote on the Member -at -Large position. The modified
motion was seconded by Alternate Daysog and carried unanimously: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Abstain:
0. Absent: 1.
ORAL REPORTS
4 -D. Report from Peter Sun, Ph.D., Pan Pacific University on Progress Toward Fundraising
Milestone Goals. Chair Appezzato announced that item 4 -D had been held over.
4 -E. Report and Recommendations on the Housing Market Analysis from Janet Smith - Heimer
of Bay Area Economics (BAE).
Janet Smith - Heimer, principal of Bay Area Economics, gave an overview of the NAS housing study,
including its purpose and scope, the City of Alameda demographics, financial analysis, existing housing
conditions, needed improvements and their cost, residual value, and phasing.
Speakers:
Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing, spoke in favor of employing disabled and homeless persons
and informing them of the government projects and programs that are available.
Printed on recycled paper 2
Floyd Hibbitts, real estate appraiser, asked questions about parking and suggested that garages be
provided rather than carports.
4 -F. Status Report on the Utilities Study by Juanito Jamias of Moffatt & Nichol Engineers.
Juanito Jamias reported that the study was broken down into the following phases: Phase 1 of the
study — preliminary investigation of each system; Phase 2— initial assessment and field studies; Phase
3— master plan; and, Phase 4 operating plan. The following interim and long -range costs are
estimated: Storm Drainage System, $17.31 million interim/$24.53 million long- range; Sanitary Sewer
System, $6.4 million interim/$15.8 million long - range; Potable Water & Fire Protection Sprinkler
System, $7.9 million interim/$3.0 million long- range; Electric Power System, $10.50 million
interim/$7.46 million long- range. Costs are not yet available for the Gas System improvements. After
questions and comments from the ARRA governing body, the issue was opened for public comment.
Speakers:
Jim Guthrie, a consultant for BA Properties, asked if these upgrades will delay the occupation of the
housing. Executive Director Miller answered that the occupation of housing would not be delayed
because utility systems can be used as is during the interim.
4 -G. Status Report on the Building Upgrade and Demolition Study by Allan Brochier of the
Onyx Group. Allan Brochier reported that the purpose of the study is to provide recommendations
and cost estimates for required safety, ADA, and disabled access upgrades as well as cost estimates for
the demolition of the buildings with no interim reuse potential. Their end product includes
specifications and a scope of work to be distributed to contractors for the RFP process. This package
would be provided to EDA for funding of building upgrades. The cost estimates will also be used to
provide input for the other cost analyses at NAS being conducted by EPS. Mr. Brochier then described
the process followed and their preliminary findings.
On behalf of Karin Lucas, Alternate Alves asked if the power was going to go off at the Naval Air
Museum at the end of November. Norma Bishop, Base Transition Coordinator, reported that the C.O.,
Captain Dodge, would not store the artifacts in a condition in which they would deteriorate.
Speakers:
Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing, addressed the issue of earthquake safety and the possibility
of a 7.3 earthquake,
4 -H. Oral Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities. Helen Sause,
BRAG Vice - Chair, reported that in addition to its normal work and meetings, the BRAG is currently
continuing to analyze many issues, including retaining the commissary, park and recreation uses, the
possibility of a limited use airfield for interim -use, and housing. She announced a Town Hall meeting
was scheduled for November 13 from 7 -9:00 p.m. at Historic AHS Cafeteria to provide an interim
report to the community on where we are, what is happening, and where it all fits. Diane Lichtenstein,
Chair of the Community Involvement Working Group, outlined the major issues that will be addressed
at the Town Hall meeting; namely, the Wildlife Refuge, parks and recreation, environmental cleanup,
a Iimited use airfield, housing issues, and the leasing status. In addition, there will be discussion on the
BCDC and port designation, redevelopment, demolition upgrades, the utility study, FISC development,
marketing materials, the Public Trust, and a visual demonstration of the BRAG web site. Helen Sause
then thanked everyone for creating the Vice -Chair position and appointing her to fill the position.
ePrinted on recycled paper 3
4 -I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA. Executive Director Miller
reported that we expect to have an answer from the Navy and the Fish & Wildlife Service on the size
of the Wildlife Refuge sometime next week; an appraiser should be onboard week after next for the
Public Trust appraisal; Catellus, Lincoln Properties, and the Martin Group are the developer teams
picked as finalists for the FISC site development; the Developer's Panel will hold a public session on
Friday, November 22 from 10:00 a.m. -12:00 noon to present their reactions and suggestions; the Scope
of Work has been approved by the EBCRC for the Feasibility Study for port priority designation; an
agreement has been reached, in principal, with MARAD on berthing 11 ships at NAS for close to $1
million net a year (plus dredging); the Microsoft event has been postponed until February 1997,
however they will still pay $60,000 for work done by the ARRA staff to date; and, two short-term
licenses have been negotiated with Disney for "Flubber II" and Francis Ford Coppola for "The
Rainmaker." Ms. Miller then commended Julie Mantrom, in particular, as well as everyone else
involved in the intensive collaborative effort to produce a very impressive LAMBRA application. In
January, the LAMBRA recipient will be announced. However, even if we are not awarded the
LAMBRA, this effort has resulted in a very attractive incentive program for prospective tenants to
locate their businesses at NAS.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Neil Patrick Sweeney, suggested putting the day of the week on meeting notices as well as the actual
date, inviting other base conversion groups to the Town Meeting; and having more handouts available
at the meetings.
Barbara Baach asked the ARRA for a letter to the Commanding Officer at NAS Alameda stating the
ARRA's support for the Naval Air Museum and to assist them in keeping it open on weekends while
they work on the financial planning necessary to continue operations. Alternate Alves stated that he
would like to make a motion at the appropriate time to make sure there is a seamless transition and to
ensure the Museum does not close. Chair Appezzato noted that the matter would have to be agendized
because, while the ARRA supports the Museum, the current question is not support but funding.
Executive Director Miller stated that the ARRA has begun discussions with the Naval Air Museum
about how to transition to permanent leasing of those buildings. Norma Bishop stated that Captain
Dodge has urged the museum interests, in particular Marilyn York and Barbara Baach, to concentrate
their efforts on negotiating with ARRA and funding their efforts. The Navy must be assured that the
museum is financially viable and can assume responsibility of the operations and maintenance of the
building before it can turn over the artifacts. Alternate Alves requested that Executive Director Miller
call Councilmember Karin Lucas and explain the situation to her. Ms. Miller agreed to do so.
Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing, spoke in favor of an open process and public service.
COMMUNICATIONS k ROM GOVERNING BODY
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
it
M rgar E. Ensley
Se etary
®Printed on recycled paper
4
Alameda • Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 20, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
3 -C
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director recommending the ARRA Governing Body authorize
the Executive Director to enter into a Master Large Parcel Lease with the Navy for a term
of 15 years.
Background:
As a precondition to subleasing any properties at NAS Alameda, the ARRA must first enter into a
lease with the Navy for that property. Because of the complexity of the Navy's review and approval
process, obtaining a signed lease has, in the past, taken from four to six months to complete.
Obviously, this is unacceptable to most prospective tenants. In order to expedite the leasing process,
the ARRA and EFA. West have worked together to finalize a Master Large Parcel Lease. Once
executed, this lease will eliminate.the need for the Navy's Lengthy review and approval process and
thereby significantly shorten the time required to sublease space to prospective tenants. The BRAG
has concurred with this effort.
The lease has been submitted for review and approval by EFA West to Naval Facilities (NAVFAC)
headquarters in Washington, D.C. NAVFAC's approval process on this large parcel lease has been
expedited in response to the need by the ARRA and MARAD to sign a sublease as soon as possible.
MARAD's current Memorandum of Understanding with CAPT Dodge covering its interim use of
the piers expires at the end of January and cannot be extended. It is imperative that MARAD enter
into a sublease with the ARRA after this date. We have been informed by EFA West that the large
parcel lease will be approved by NAVFAC and ready for execution by mid -to -late January 1997.
(A copy of the draft Large Parcel Lease is available in the ARRA office for anyone who wishes to
review it.)
Current policy authorizes the ARRA Executive Director to enter into. leases no longer than seven
years. The length of the large parcel lease is for fifteen years, although this does not commit us to
15 -year leases with sublessees. Therefore, special ARRA Governing Body authorization is required
t� allow the Executive Director to sign this lease. Any subleases longer than seven years still require
approval of the Governing Body.
Fiscal Impact:
There will be no significant fiscal impact resulting from the ARRA entering into a Large Parcel
Lease. There will be no charge to the ARRA for common service costs associated with any property
until that property is subleased. However, by having this lease in place, the ARRA will be able to
enter into subleases more quickly, thereby generating additional rental revenues.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse, and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
December 20, 1996
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to enter into
the large parcel lease.
Respectfully submitted,
v:Jt.: rCeiLJ
Kay Miller
Executive Director
ED /KM/jcb /mee
Att: Master Large Parcel Lease map
C: \MARGARET \ARRA \STAFF- RE.PRT\MSTRLSE.1 -6
r
LEGEND
It7
. --
PARCEL
ZONE
SECTOR
WESTERN LANDFILL ZONE
2 ' 2 NORTHWESTERN ORDNANCE STORAGE ZONE
NORTHWESTERN CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENACE ZONE
RUNWAY ZONE
5 WETLAND /PROTECTED AREA ZONE
6 WESTERN HANGAR ZONE
7 CORROSION CONTROL AND AIRCRAFT TESTING ZONE
8 NORTH CENTRAL RECREATL ZONE
D ENUSTED BARRACKS ZONE
10 BUILDING 5 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE
11 SOUTHERN HANGAR ZONE
12 MEDICAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONE
13 CENTRAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE
14 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE ZONE
15 BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS ZONE
8 HOUSWG ZONE
17 ENGINE TESTING do HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
18 DOCK ZONE
$ 19 DOCK SUPPORT SERVICES ZONE
20 SERVICE STATION ZONE
21 NAVAL EXCHANGE COMMERCIAL ZONE
22 SOUTHEASTr: o�,...._. ..._
Li
4-
STORAOE ZONE
1.9
L
500 0 500 1000
SCALE; IN FEET
NAS ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
ZONES 6E1S 3,14 17OR8 192
AND PART OF 16 2
Alameda. Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 23, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
3 -D
SUBJ: Authorization for the ARRA Executive Director to take actions necessary to lease
housing units in the Navy East Housing area.
Background:
The ARRA commissioned Bay Area Economics (BAE) to conduct a residential market study and .
to evaluate a range of disposal and implementation strategies for housing at NAS. That study is
complete and the results and recommendations from that study will be presented to the ARRA
Governing Body at the January 6 meeting.
Discussion:
While most of the recommendations are for longer -term options, one recommendation calls for more
immediate interim action. The BAE report recommends that the apartment units in East Housing
be leased in the near -term (perhaps for a period of up to 10 years) to provide a revenue stream to the
ARRA.
As the attached table and graphic show, there are a total of 591 apartment and townhouse units in
the East Housing area. Of that number, 260 units are townhouses and 331 are apartment units. The
graphic indicates the layout of the units on the property. The apartments are generally clustered in
the interior of the property while the townhouses are generally on the southern and western
perimeters. As part of the homeless accommodation, 97 of the apartment units will be leased long-
term to nonprofit providers of transitional housing.
The Navy will continue to occupy the East Housing area through July 31, 1997. However, over one-
half of the units are currently vacant and after the departure of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, many more
units will be vacated by Navy families. There is a concern that as the majority of the buildings
become vacant, vandalism will occur and the units will begin to deteriorate.
Both the ARRA staff and the BRAG have considered the BAE recommendation and the prospect
of empty housing units at the entrance to the Base, and have reached the same conclusion: we should
move to establish an interim leasing program for the East Housing.
The one area where ARRA staff and the BRAG differ with the BAE report is that we both believe
that consideration should be given to leasing townhouse units as well as apartment units. Both are
sensitive to the concern that units be released for lease in a phased way over time according to
reasonable, expected market absorption.
Honorable Members of the December 20, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
The goal of staff is to have a leasing program in place by July 1997 when the Navy vacates the
housing. If given the authorization by the Governing Body to take the necessary steps, we believe
we could accomplish this goal. At its December 18 meeting, the BRAG discussed the proposition
of interim leasing of East Housing and recommended the following:
• ARRA staff should proceed with exploring the leasing of units in East Housing.
• Staff should demonstrate that the program will result in substantial revenue to the ARRA.
• Any leasing program should do everything possible to reduce the risk of future relocation
requirements or costs. (Note: An attached memorandum from Alice Vilardi, Attorney at Law,
discusses the relocation issue.)
• The leasing program should be considered only as an interim measure and not a long -term
plan for the property.
Fiscal Impact:
Leasing units in the East Housing area of NAS is expected to result in revenue to the ARRA. If that
result cannot be achieved, the program will not be pursued. The amount of revenue to be realized
will be dependent on further financial analysis, the extent of and method of financing property
improvements, and the terms of an agreement with a property manager.
Recommendation:
Given the findings and recommendations in the BAE report and the BRAG endorsement of leasing
units in East Housing if certain conditions can be met, staff is requesting ARRA Governing Body
authorization to take the following steps:
1) Consummate a master lease with the Navy for the East Housing that would allow ARRA
to sublease the property to a management company. The ARRA would not be obligated to
any expenses on the property unless and until it is subleased.
2) Initiate action with the City Planning Department to rezone the.East Housing area to allow
leasing to private tenants. This process will take 3-4 months to. accomplish. (See attached
12/18 memo from City Planning Department.)
3) ARRA staff should continue to analyze the revenue potential of the East Housing leasing
program. (Staff intends to apply for California Defense Matching Grant [DAM] money to
obtain consultant assistance in the analysis.)
4) If substantial revenue return can be projected, staff will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP)
to select a property management firm to manage and market the property. We will also seek
grant funds to obtain assistance in crafting an RFP and evaluating proposals.
Honorable Members of the December 20, 1996
3
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
5) Staff should simultaneously explore the prospects with the military for leasing some of the
housing units through a "set- aside" program or some other mechanism.
If the authorized to proceed with these actions, staff will keep the Governing Body apprised of our
progress and bring those actions such as the RFP back to you for approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/mee
A ttachments: Memo on Base Housing Rezoning
Memo on Relocation Issues
Phase I housing map
Summary of Housing Counts at NAS Alameda
KM/mee
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
August 28, 1996
To: Kay Miller
ARRA Executive Director
From: Alice Vilardi
Attorney
Re:
Questions:
Relocation Benefits for Section 8 and Other Tenants
1. If the ARRA leases East Housing and then contracts for its management with
a property management firm, would the property management firm be legally required to rent units
-to Section 8 tenants?
2. Do Section 8 tenants have any greater or different relocation benefits than other
tenants if a rental project owned by the ARRA were converted into condominiums, demolished, or
otherwise removed from the housing market?
3. What are the legal requirements for relocating tenants?
Answers:
1. No, if the ARRA leases East Housing and then contracts for its management
with a property management firm, the law would not require the property management firm to rent
units to Section 8 voucher tenants. The Section 8 program is a voluntary one. Property owners elect
to enter into contracts with a housing authority to provide units under the Section 8 voucher program
because of the benefits to them under the program.
2. There are no additional or special relocation benefits in the law for Section 8
voucher tenants. When housing occupied by Section 8 tenants is removed from the rental market
because of conversion of the units to condominium units, demolition of the units, or any other reason
for the removal the generally applicable relocation law would apply to them.
3. The relocation requirements for various situations are described in this
memorandum. Relocation requirements are subject to local and state regulation which are complex
and subject to legislative amendment in the future.
Discussion and Analysis:
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director
December 12, 1996
Page 2
1. Section 8 Program Participation
The Section 8 voucher program is a component of federal housing law. The name
derives from the statutory authority for the program that is found in Section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Section 1437f). The tenant -based Section 8 voucher program' is a
voluntary one. Owners of residential rental properties contract with a housing authority to accept
tenants who have a Section 8 voucher. The contract sets forth the conditions of participation in the
program that are required by federal law. These include such provisions as physical condition of the
premises as well as method of making rental payments. Another provision precludes termination of
tenancies for business reasons within the first year of the contract.
While there is no legal requirement for a property that is owned by the ARRA and
managed by a private management firm to contract to accept Section 8 voucher tenants, there may be
practical or policy reasons to do so.2
2. Relocation Requirements for Section 8 Voucher Tenants
There are no relocation benefits provided through the Section 8 voucher program,
though relocation benefits provided by other federal or by state law (which are discussed in the next
section of this memo) may apply to Section 8 voucher tenants.
As noted above, there is effectively a one -year minimum contract period for the
Section 8 voucher program. This means that if a property is under. contract with a housing authority
to accept Section 8 voucher tenants, the Section 8 tenant could not be asked to relocate from the
property within the first year of the contract.
3 Generally Applicable Relocation Benefits
There are different potential sources of relocation requirements, depending upon the
reason for the need to terminate a particular tenancy. Some of the more common sources of relocation
' There is more than one "Section 8" program. I have assumed your question relates to the
tenant -based program under which qualified individuals and families are provided with vouchers to
reflect eligibility for subsidies for paying their rent rather than a project -based financing one.
2 It goes without saying that if a decision not to participate in the Section 8 program was in
reality a decision to engage in some form of unlawful discrimination the decision would be actionable
under the applicable anti - discrimination law.
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director
December 12, 1996
Page 3
laws are described below. All of the laws described in this memorandum are subject to amendment
by local or state lawmakers. Relocation law has become so complicated. that most public agencies
that relocate tenants use specialized relocation consultants to develop the relocation plan and to
accomplish the actual relocation of tenants.
(a) Relocation requirements for projects undertaken by a public agency. The
federal government first adopted a comprehensive relocation act in 1970.3 California adopted its state
regulations the same year .4 The state law requires all public entities in California that cause
displacement of persons and businesses to adopt guidelines that comply with those adopted by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development.' Thus, while we commonly refer
_ to "state relocation law," in most cases the applicable law is a composite of federal statues, state
statutes, and the HCD regulations.
Persons displaced from rental housing by public projects6 that are subject to state
relocation law are entitled to be relocated to a comparable replacement dwelling unit. The term
"comparable replacement dwelling unit" is a term of art in relocation law and is subject to a number
of definitions, requirements, and regulations. Among the most significant are the following: the
replacement unit must be "decent, safe and sanitary "; the unit must be comparable and appropriate
in number of rooms, useable floor area; and features to accommodate the displaced persons (this
means that current occupancy rules must be followed, even if they were not being complied with in
the removed or demolished unit); and the rent for the replacement unit must not exceed 25% of the
person's or family's average monthly income. There are a number of other requirements, but they are
3 The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. § 4601 et seq.).
4 California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (Gov. Code § 7260 et seq.).
' Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (Ca. Code Regs., tit. 25 § 6000
et seq.).
6 If the public project is funded through certain federal agencies or federal grants additional
federal requirements may apply. In addition, if a project will displace low- and moderate - income
tenants and it is funded by Community Development Block Grant or Urban Development Action
Grant funds, special relocation provisions apply. The discussion in this memorandum assumes that
none of these special provisions applies to the project that causes a need to relocate residential
tenants.
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director
December 12, 1996
Page 4
not likely to be significant for projects undertaken in the City of Alameda.
Displaced tenants who qualify for relocation benefits are entitled to moving expenses
and replacement housing payments. Both these categories of benefits are, like the term "comparable
replacement dwelling unit," subject to numerous definitions, requirements, and regulations. For
purposes of this memorandum, however, they can be summarized as follows. Moving expenses are
(a) actual costs of moving or (b) an allowance based upon the number of rooms and whether the unit
is furnished or not (the lowest possible payment under the schedule is $300 for moving a tenant who
does not own furniture, unless the local relocation plan provides a higher payment). The current
maximum replacement housing payment is $5,250 (again, subject to the qualification of a higher
minimum being provided by the local relocation plan).
(b). Relocation requirements for projects undertaken by a redevelopment
agency. In addition to the state law discussed above, projects undertaken by a redevelopment agency
are subject to additional requirements. Principal among these are the requirements that the agency
provide "last resort housing" and that the agency create a "relocation appeals board" to hear
complaints from residents who are being displaced by a redevelopment project.' If the agency's low -
and moderate - income housing fund is used as a source of funding for the project, additional
provisions apply.
(c). Condominium Conversion Ordinance Requirements. The City of
Alameda has a condominium conversion ordinance that includes provisions dealing with relocation.
Section 30 -8.6 of the Development Regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code provides (1) a right
of first refusal for certain tenants to purchase their units upon conversion under certain circumstances
and (2) information about available apartments to which tenants who elect not to purchase units may
be able to move. The first of these rights would apply to a conversion of rental units owned by the
ARRA; the second of these requirements would be superseded by the more extensive relocation
provided by state law.
Alice Vilardi
cc: Carol A. Korade, General Counsel
Section 33410 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code.
City of Alameda
Inter-department Memorandum
December 18, 1996
TO: Colette Meunier
Planning Director
FROM: Cynthia Eliason oe,
Associate Planner
RE: Base Housing Rezoning
You requested I review the potential of rezoning the East Housing
at NAS from R-4-G (Neighborhood Residential - Government Overlay)
to remove the G Overlay designation. This rezoning would permit
the leasing of that housing without the need for the adoption of an
Interim Leasing/Use Program.
The Interim Leasing/Use Program requirement was added to the G
District regulations in 1993 when base closure was first announced.
The purpose of the requirement was to control the potential changes
of use which would be occurring with interim leases. While an
Interim Leasing/Use Program was adopted for NAS, the East Housing
was specifically excluded from the program. The reason for the
exclusion was that the housing was to remain in the same use and
that it would be more appropriate to rezone the property to remove'
the G Designation.
Because the use will remain the same as before the rezoning, I
believe that a Categorical Exemption would be appropriate for the
environmental review for the rezoning. Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act provides a Categorical
Exemption for Existing Facilities. The East Housing may qualify
for that exclusion.
Based upon the assumption that a Categorical Exemption could be
prepared (rather than an Initial Study which requires additional
time for public circulation), the following schedule for the
rezoning is reasonable:
ARRA authorization
Planning Board Hearing
City Council
First Reading
Second Reading
Ordinance Effective Date
Please let me know
time.
January 6, 1997
February 10, 1997
March 4, 1997
March 18, 1997
April 17, 1997
if you need any additional information at this
g:\specproj\nas\ehomerez.mem
file: nas conversion - interim leasing program
qty of Alameda
fanning Department
PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
roject Address: Eat }\O�Ucl1c�) NA5
lease check all applicable permits.
7 General Plan Amendment
3 Zoning Text Amendment
g Rezoning
3 Planned Development
Permit requires supplemental application.
❑ Variance
❑ Use Permit
❑ Major Design Review
O Minor Design Review
❑ Sign Permit
❑ Subdivision
❑ Historical Advisory Board
D Other
'lease describe the application request. (Please attach additional sheets if necessary).
-- '0 &-x - - "`iLJ 1 ' m o u-e mil _. ('( (Wert t r .h
Please read terms on reverse before proceeding.
Property Owner(s): t ) 5 f U°V
Phone (w):.
Address:
City: State: Zip: Phone (h):
Is the property subject to a Homeowners Association? ❑t�no ❑ yes Association Name:
Applicant (if different than property owner): AA
Address: •
City: State: Zip:
Agent (if different than applicant):
Address:
City: State: —_ Zip:
Phone (w):
Phone (h):
Phone (w):
Phone (h):
To Be Completed By City Staff
Project Address:
Date Received: k l \B - CP APN:
•''>�_ 1,�._ .;
, r�L > Received By: ( E- Zoning:
Project Name: Y' -cam- ��J"?i RN
Project Number: V — q iR—
cj Amount Paid: tJ /A GP: InD E`-"
CPO 1`Jumber.
Receipt #: BWIP: ❑y yin WECIP: ❑y, On I
Planning Department, Rm. 160 / 2250 Central Avenue / Alameda, CA 94501 / tel. 510- 748 -4554 / tdd 510- 522 -7538
Summary of East/West
Housing Counts at NAS Alameda
Existing
Total Reserved
Units Units (1)
Big Whites 19 0
CPO's 30 30
Ranchettes 32 1
Townhouses 18 0
Apartments 239 48
New Single
Family Detached N/A N/A
New Duplexes N/A N/A
338 79
Total Units
Fristng
Total Reserved
Units Units (1)
Big Whites 0 0
CPO's 0 0
Ranchettes 0 0
Townhouses 260 0
Apartments 331 97
New Single
Family Detached N/A N/A
New Duplexes N/A N/A
Total Units
591 97
Frieling
Total Reserved
Units Units (1)
Big Whites 19 0
CPO's 30 30
Ranchettes 32 1
Townhouses 278 0
Apartments 570 145
New Single
Family Detached N/A N/A
New Duplexes N/A N/A
Total Units (2)
929 176
«'est !lousing': `<
Avail.
Units
19
0
31
18
191
N/A
N/A
259
Phase I
Phase II
Vacant/ Sold/ Vacant/ Sold/
Demolish Rented Demolish Rented
East 'lousing
0 19 0 19
0 0 0 0
0 31 1 30
0 18 0 18
191 0 0 0
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
191
Phase 1
Avail. Vacant/ Sold/ Vacant/ Sold/
Units Demolish Rented Demolish Rented
68
1
81
34
Phase II
182
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
260 0 260
234 0 234
0 0
0 0
0 0
57
234
203
0
N/A N/A N/A j N/A 107
N/A N/A N/A f NIA • 86
494
lousing
0
494
29I
Phase l Phase II
Avail. Vacant/ Sold/
Units Demolish Rented
19
396
Vacant/ Sold/
Demolish Rented
0 19-• j• 0 I9
0 0 .0 ii 0 0
31 0 31 1 30
278 0 278 i 57 221
i
425 191 234 i 234 0
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A ; N/A
188
120'
753 191 562 ! • 292 578
Notes:
(1) Units reserved for homeless service providers.
(2) Does not include north housing dedicated for Coast Guard use.
Source: Bay Area Economics, 1996.
368
361
Arnold Ave-
364
U
N
Q
Hollister
Maple Ray
Brush St
Legend
T - Townhouse •
A - Apartment
Woodstock
Park
Spruce St
Reserved for homeless use
fU
cu
C/7
cssn
CD
0
A-.
Atlantic Avenue
PHASE
SCALE T • 400'
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 4, 1996
The meeting convened at 5:50 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
2 -B
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda;
Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District;
Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3;
Jay Leonhardy, Alternate to Henry Chang, Jr., Councilmember, City of Oakland;
Kathy Ornelas, Alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro;
Tony Daysog, Alternate to "Lil "Arnerich, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Greg Alves, Alternate to Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group;
Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District.
Absent: None.
Resigned: Charles Mannix, Councilmember, City of Alameda.
At the request of Chair Appezzato, item 3 -C was pulled to be dealt with at a future meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Appezzato stated that item 2 -A would be pulled for discussion.
2 -A. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Approval of the BRAG
Recommendation to Proceed with a Master Large Parcel Lease. Alternate Alves asked if there
are any significant fiscal impacts, as sometimes with a master lease agreement there is some financial
obligation on the part of the lessee. Executive Director Miller replied that in talks with the Navy,
the ARRA has always been very clear that ARRA cannot take over the financial responsibility for
this huge parcel and the buildings must remain the Navy's responsibility until they are subleased to
tenants. Dave Ryan of EFA West concurred. Member DeWitt moved that the ARRA proceed
immediately to obtain the Master Large Parcel Lease. Member Chan seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0.
ACTION ITEMS
3 -B. BRAG and ARRA Staff Recommendation to Accept Pan Pacific University's Fundraising
Report and Begin Developing a Memorandum of Understanding between the ARRA and Pan
Pacific University. Dr. Peter Sun was invited to repeat the presentation he previously made to the
BRAG, which resulted in their recommendation that the ARRA go forward in working with Pan
Pacific University (PPU). Executive Director Miller stated that the ARRA staff recommendation
goes a step further in recommending the ARRA move immediately to consummate a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) detailing long -term lease provisions and ultimate conveyance.
®Printed on recycled paper
Dr. Sun thanked the ARRA for its continuing support and reported that there are three major
financial commitments to date. He then explained that the concept for the PPU system involves an
umbrella protection of individual colleges such as an international law school, a school of
international commerce and business, and a school of physical education and sports medicine, with
each group developing their respective college. Dr. Sun likened the college to a shopping mall, with
different schools aimed toward international studies, particularly the Pacific Rim. He then discussed
the financial commitments received to date and pledges for the future to renovate buildings and
establish an international law school and an international commerce and business school, and to
renovate and develop a medical and dental clinic. Dr. Sun reported that while PPU has not reached
the $7 million goal at this time, they will comfortably reach their goal to renovate the needed
buildings and provide for security and maintenance.
In answer to questions from the ARRA governing body, Dr. Sun and staff made the following
additions and clarifications. Negotiations are ongoing with the Alameda:County Medical Clinic
regarding sharing the Base medical clinic, at least initially.
From the outset, the backbone of PPU's plan has been business, including law, language, and
international relations. The school of physical education is business - oriented in that sports develops
business. The medical school will focus on alternative or Oriental medicine, which will some day
be considered a "bonafide medical field" in this country. PPU will promote a happy marriage
between Western and Oriental medicine.
Pan Pacific University will handle all legal requirements, accreditation, the central library, etc.
When a consortium develops a college under the university umbrella, that consortium is not entirely
free. It is like Claremont University in Southern California; there are different colleges but the
central university controls everything. PPU will strictly control all legal requirements, accreditation,
and quality.
The idea of the law school and the concept of the alternative medical school are not new, as PPU has
been talking about them from the beginning. Regarding accreditation, PPU is making contact with
the appropriate state organizations and will apply for accreditation as time goes on. A catalog is
being developed and PPU is currently working on its undergraduate program in cooperation with the
College of Alameda (COA). PPU has five students at the College of Alameda campus under the
COA's supervision (this is the second year). PPU is currently negotiating with an existing law
school to either branch out or relocate here.
The consortium will have its own Administrative Board, not a Board of Trustees, because the
consortium will not hold any property; it will be owned and operated by PPU. However, it has
freedom in terms of operating its college because its Administrative Board will appoint faculties
(with PPU approval of appointments), obtain tuition, etc. The consortium will pay fees to the
University to support central services like the library.
Funding: Regarding the Cewon letter, rather than giving $2 million at once, Cewon wanted
scheduled payments. Regarding the Korean Fellowship Mission letter, Dr. Park is the Senior Vice
President in charge of the medical center. The Korean Fellowship Mission is a nonprofit group that
is certified as a 501(c)3 organization in the U.S.
6)Printed on recycled paper 2
PPU will need its funding in May or June, not now because the Navy has now rescheduled its
departure from certain buildings on April 30, 1997 to December 1996. Also, the original renovation
project is building #17, the CBQ. It is now estimated that the CBQ may not be available until the
end of September 1997. In light of this, it is necessary for PPU to be flexible on the renovation
project. The necessary funds will be available by early 1997.
In response to a concern about PPU leasing the Officers' Club, Chair Appezzato commented
despite an extensive effort to locate someone to operate the Officers' Club, the City has been
unsuccessful. The Navy has offered approximately $1 million of bowling alley equipment, bar
fixtures, etc. but the City does not have the money to acquire it to keep those facilities open. Dr. Sun
is in a fall -back position. Executive Director Miller added that from the beginning there was an
understanding between the City and Pan Pacific that whoever operated the Officers' Club would do
so as a public facility. The City issued an RFP to find an operator for the facility under the condition
it remain available to the public at a nominal cost. That RFP did not result in any bids. At that
point, ARRA asked Pan Pacific to operate it under the noted conditions.
Chair Appezzato requested the assessment and understanding of Lee Perez, BRAG Chair and Helen
Sause, BRAG Vice - Chair. Mr. Perez stated that Dr. Sun has been extremely amenable and the PPU
project is do -able and will not put the City in a liability position. While the facilities have history
and character, they do not offer much in teiiiis of proper design, utilization, etc. PPU has the
BRAG's support. Ms.. Sause added that Cewon flew three or four people here to meet with BRAG
to discuss their commitment to education both here and in Korea where they have put large sums of
money into a similar university there. There is a strong indication that this company is able to
deliver but the BRAG is in the process of obtaining the facts and figures with Dr. Sun.
Vice -Chair Swanson stated that in July, the ARRA made the decision to support the public
conveyance request from Pan Pacific University and it is inappropriate to reopen the question as to
whether or not they should be given a conveyance. The .legitimate criteria today is to ask if Pan
Pacific's objective of raising $7 million is real. It is only fair to Pan Pacific for ARRA to stick to
the July 5th request that they provide evidence of their progress toward the funding goal, adding that
a three -month extension is reasonable. He further stated that other criteria must be developed
through negotiation and a Memorandum of Understanding, and presented for evaluation. He stated
his concern with the tone of some questions as the public relations issues are important to the
fundraising effort of PPU.
Member Chan stated she would feel more comfortable proceeding with.the MOU with three things
being addressed. First, obtain basic background information on the fenders. Second, she expressed
concern with the plans for accreditation because this is different from what was previously presented.
Third, she requested ARRA, obtain the projected student recruitment and enrollment figures. Chair
Appezzato directed Staff and the BRAG to note all of those items because an MOU could not be
signed without all of those concerns being addressed. He added that he would not approve any
conveyance unless he is assured it has a chance of succeeding, that the City is held harmless, and that
the benefit is going to be attained.
Regarding title transfer, Executive Director Miller stated that the ARRA is not proceeding with the
public benefit conveyance because we .concluded with the Department of Education that, while PPU
was eligible, it is the community's preference to keep control of the property. Also, because it is
QPrinted on recycled paper 3
Tidelands Trust property, it can only be leased. She further stated that. it was made clear to Dr. Sun
t if he needs to have title to the property, he needs to pursue it himself, as it is not the City's
that
obligation to free it from the Trust.
Alternate Da Y so
relayed concerns from Councilman Arnerich regarding ' s fnders, h t PPU
has n ot met its funding obligations, and that by requesting more sufficient U we are
fulfilling our due diligence obligations.
Memn
ber DeWitt moved to accept Pan Pacific University's fundstY aisi g re port and b gin
developing an MOU between the ARRA and Pan Pacific
seconded the motion and it passed by the following vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: 2 - Daysog and Alves.
Abstain: 1- Chan. Absent: 0.
Spe--- akers' spoke a ainst Pan Pacific University, suggesting that these
Ron Basarich, Alameda resident; sp g
properties be opened to the brokerage community.
e Mitchum, Emeryville resident, suggested involving nonprofit organizations from around the
Ann was the only organization made aware of the property.
Bay Area, adding that Pan Pacific University
Bill Smith, Emeryville businessman, spoke in support of Pan Pacific University, stating it has a
viable concept, is putting its financing together, and is meeting City requirements.
The
vote was called for again and passed by the following vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: 2 - Daysog and
Alves. Abstain: 1 - Chan. Absent: 0. Base
3 -C. Proposed Amendment to the Membership Section on App R Reuse Advisory Economp
(BRAG) Rules and Procedures and Recommendation
Development and Land Use Chairs. Pulled —to be addressed at a later meeting.
3-D. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 004, Conflict of Interest Code, to Include Members
of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG). "item to amend the
Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin stated as required by t eu p FEPC rues. This is necessary
conflict of interest code to include the BRAG generally accepts the BRAG' s recommendations.
because, over the year, the ARRA Governing Body g Y
Therefore, FEPC rules require them to be included in the ARRA conflict of interest code that will
The
require the BRAG to disclose any financial interests.
Alternate Leonhardy moved to amend Resolution No. 0d0 d brie Bodo members it passed by Base
A (BRAG). Member DeWitt seconded
Advisory Group [temporarily absent].
following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 1 Swanson [temp Y
3 -E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement
the the Proposed r Economic
P
Proposal for the Alameda Fiscal Year. Redevelopment Authority
Adjustment for the 1997/98
Executive Director Miller stated that this is a request to endorse a t d n the past. o OEAA next
ARRA for t
year's funding, which is substantially less than AR requested
intention to apply for a $125,000 matching grant from the State of California with the rest of the
4
Printed on recycled paper
match to consist of in -kind contributions from the City; no cash match will be required from the City
if we get the State funds..
Alternate Leonhardy moved to endorse the proposed grant proposal for OEA for the 1997/98
fiscal year. Member Chan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously: Ayes: 8. Noes:
0. Abstain: 0. Absent: 0.
ORAL REPORTS
4 -F. Report from the BRAG Updating the ARRA on Current Activities.
Chair Lee Perez reported that the BRAG is working on the master lease. The BRAG is concerned
with the declining budget for the Navy for maintenance after they leave. While it is initially well
funded, it drops dramatically within three years, so it is necessary that we start generating some
money to pay for these services and maintenance. The BRAG is currently working on the Science
Feasibility Study, the commissary proposal, the recreation and parks requests, and the limited use
airfield. Regarding closure, with the Navy leaving in a few months, we need to decide what kind
of sendoff celebration we are going to provide. Mr. Perez added that BRAG would like the City to
have a ceremony that would honor the Base and the contribution it has provided to the community
and the United States. He proposed the closing ceremony be a joint venture between civilians and
the military, and hopes the County will assist us in presenting a memorable ceremony.
4 -G. Report from•the Executive Director Updating the ARRA.
Executive Director Miller reported on the letter received from Secretary Garamendi indicating their
decision that the wildlife refuge will be 525 acres. Staff is awaiting further guidance from the Navy
on how to proceed. An all -day session with Navy Environmental people and Fish and Wildlife
Service is scheduled December 5 to discuss how to get the EIS back on track. ARRA staff and
consultants will be investigating financial and fiscal analyses on alternative scenarios for configuring
the Northwest Territory. The Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that we could develop 75 acres
along with a golf course. The BRAG has worked with the Recreation and Park Department on an
additional acreage request. Staff will do the fiscal analysis and report to ARRA before any decisions
are made.
A motion was made by Alternate Alves to appeal the Fish & Wildlife Service's
recommendation of 525 acres and bring up the topic again with U.S. Senators. Chair Appezzato
stated that he could not support the motion, knowing that it will be a fruitless waste of time and
money. Executive Director Miller stated that the decision on the 525 acres is unchallengeable and
the best decision to be made now is what to do with the acreage left. The motion failed for lack
of a second.
Executive Director Miller reported that approximately 35 acres of the area that Fish & Wildlife is
taking for the refuge overlaps into the land that BCDC has claimed for Port Priority Designation.
Fish and Wildlife has agreed that this is an incompatible use and they have committed to be fully
engaged in discussions with BCDC on this issue.
Executive Director Miller reported that the Developer's Panel resulted in a lot of interesting
feedback. Videotapes of the public presentation will be available for checkout at the ARRA offices
and TCI cablevision taped the public presentation and will be running it on public television several
Printed on recycled paper 5
times. In the next few weeks, a summary report of the findings prepared by Bay Area Economics
will be available. The EBCRC has obtained funding for the Feasibility Study for Port Priority
Designation, the RFP has been let, and two bid proposals have been received. The interviews will
be held on December 16 and a selection will be made so that by the end of January or mid - February,
the results of the study can be taken back to BCDC. BCDC has asserted that we should be looking
at other issues and Will Travis will be invited to the January meeting to discuss them. Public Trust
Appraisal: the bids are all in excess of the amount that we have to spend for the appraisals so we
may have to send out another RFP in order to find an appraisal firm.
In January, Staff will be bringing ARRA the issue of closing the Posey/ Webster tubes for seismic
retrofits. This item will go to the Alameda City Council on December 17. Caltrans is proposing to
close one tube and run two -way traffic through the other tube. City staff will be proposing night
closures instead.
Please note that due to the January 1 New Year's holiday falling on the regular ARRA meeting date,
the meeting has been moved to January 6.
In closing, Ms. Miller introduced Norma Bishop, NAS Alameda Base Transition Coordinator. BTC
Bishop stated that the EFA West environmental staff has spent a great deal of time and effort
revising the Base cleanup plan, which is instrumental to the long -term remediation and cleanup of
the Base and its subsequent redevelopment. It discloses the condition of the property, characterizes
the IR sites, talks about proposed remediation, and provides general criteria for how that is to
happen. It also contains some very specific schedules that are important to redevelopment. The plan
will be mailed to the members of the RAB on December 13; it will also be available in the NAS
library, in the main library, and at the ARRA offices. Ms. Bishop encouraged members of the
community to take an interest in it. From December 13 until January 30, there will be a public
review and comment period, after which the Navy will rework the final report with all productive
community input to ensure that it is workable and usable for the community.
Speaker;
Mr. Floyd Hibbitts, Hibbitts Consulting, questioned the fact that the RFP asked for a bid on
appraisals without specifying the parcels to be appraised or their sizes. He asked what the budget
is and how realistic the budget is to deal with the work proposed in the RFP. Executive Director
Miller agreed that the RFP should have specified. the budgeted amount available for the work.
Consequently, all bids received were much higher than the $45,000 budget, which was based on a
grant from the State of California. She further stated that ARRA may have to go back out to bid with
a tighter RFP.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that Barbara Boxer, who is on the Appropriations
Committee, should be directly contacted regarding Alameda NAS. Chair Appezzato advised Mr.
Sweeney that Senator Boxer has already toured the Base and received a comprehensive briefing. Mr.
Sweeney requested that all ARRA and BRAG meetings be televised for community information and
that additional transportation methods, including the addition of a Bullet Train in West Oakland, be
pursued.
@Printed on recycled paper 6
COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Vice -Chair Swanson commented that Alameda can be justly proud of its open process and citizen
participation in both the BRAG and the ARRA. The BRAG is very open to any citizen who wants
to express an opinion, and the ARRA pays particular attention to the wishes of the BRAG and the
community. Given limited resources, Staff has been able solicit lease opportunities and work
through the bureaucracy. Alameda has actually been successful in changing precedent and federal
regulations to speed up the leasing process, which will help other base conversion efforts. When the
President came here in 1993, he committed $2.5 million in funding; to date, OEA has given Alameda
County more than $15 million for this planning process. Mr. Swanson stated that Congressman
Dellums' office has appreciated being a part of this process and gives a lot of credit for success to
date to the ARRA Governing Body and the BRAG.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret E. Ensley
ARRA Secretary
Printed on recycled paper 7
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 20, 1996 •
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ:
Background:
Report from the Executive Director regarding Councilmember Daysog's request to
review approval authority for the Executive Director to execute leases. (Daysog)
ARRA was fo.0 ied in April of 1994 by the execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by
the City of Alameda and the County of Alameda. The agreement, subsequent by -laws, and other
resolutions set forth rules for the operation.
Discussion:
As noted in item 4 -G from the Assistant General Counsel, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
( "JPA ") sets forth the voting requirements for action on certain items. Transfer of any real or
personal property of ARRA requires the vote of five ARRA members including the votes of at least
three City of Alameda representatives.
The ARRA, has delegated power to the Executive Director. The main delegation of power is found
in the resolution establishing powers and authority of the Executive Director. One of the powers
delegated to the Executive Director is the power:
"[t]o lease or grant concessions, privileges, franchises, permits, licenses or easements or real
or personal property of the Alameda Naval Air Station and Depot, or any portion thereof or
building or structure situated therein for a period of no longer than seven (7) years ".
Seven years was the term used in ARRA's Powers and Authorities Resolution for effective
administration of leases. The ARRA currently, and for the foreseeable future, will have a number
of leases to process. Since the ARRA only meets once a month, it was believed that a seven -year
lease term limit would allow ARRA the flexibility it needs to execute leases on a timely basis:
ARRA members are kept informed of the status of lease proposals by written reports. Staff therefore
believes the current process works well. At the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 17,
Councilmember Daysog requested that the Executive Director's authority to approve leases for seven
years or less be reviewed.
Recommendation: No action is recommended.
Respectfully submitted, •
Kay Miller
Executive Director
(AA u-uu
cc: General Counsel, Assistant General Counsel
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 20, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
3 -�1
SUBJ: ARRA response to the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation request to be included in
ARRA's priorities for EDA funding.
Background:
By way of the attached letter and packet of materials, the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation
(ACHF) has requested the ARRA incorporate a $1.4 million capital improvement request for the
Hornet in its funding priorities request to the Economic Development Administration. At its
November 6, 1996 meeting, the ARRA adopted three funding priorities and authorized the staff to
seek EDA funds for these projects. They include $650,000 for planning and engineering of the
Mitchell Mosely extension, $600,000 for the implementation phase of ACET, and $4.35 million (the
bulk of the funding request) to be used to upgrade buildings at NAS to ready them for occupancy.
These funding priorities had been arrived at by City staff and ARRA staff evaluating a number of
EDA eligible projects and detemuining which were the most immediately essential for (1) successful
conversion of the base; (2) job creation; and, (3) revenue generation. Subsequent to achieving
ARRA approval of these priorities, ARRA staff met with our EDA Program Manager and the
Regional Administrator, promoted our funding priorities to them, and submitted a pre - application
to the Seattle office for review and approval.
Discussion:
The ACHF had applied on its own for EDA funding but, as their packet indicates, the regional EDA
office has advised them that their project must be included in the reuse authority's list of priorities.
EDA's suggestion is that the ARRA include the Hornet project in its $4.3 million request for
improvements.
ARRA and City staff feel strongly that the most important project for EDA funding this year is
money to upgrade buildings in order to immediately attract tenants and generate revenue for the
ARRA. We have communicated that priority to EDA. We believe that $4.3 million would allow
us to ready from eight to ten of our largest buildings or hangars for immediate occupancy. Financing
building improvements is a large obstacle to consummating leases at NAS.
Staff is also concerned that changing our funding priorities after we have articulated and submitted
them to EDA sends a confusing message that could jeopardize our funding request to EDA. We are
competing with all the bases in the region for a very limited pot of money. Finally, we are concerned
that the Hornet capital improvement request needs a good deal of scrutiny and consideration. We
are uncertain whether all the capital improvements proposed in their request are appropriate early
Honorable Members of the December 20, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
investments given the uncertainty of the best permanent location for the ship if it remains in
Alameda.
Fiscal Impact:
To include the ACHFs $1.4 million request in ARRA' s priorities would, in essence, reduce the
amount of dollars potentially available for building upgrades. The ACHF has offered to repay that
amount but the funding source for that repayment is uncertain.
Recommendation:
ARRA staff recommends against changing our EDA funding priorities to include the ACHF request.
However, the ARRA supports the efforts of the ACHF to obtain the ship and operate it as a museum
and tourist attraction. This was made clear by the passage of Resolution #17 (attached) at the June
5, 1996 ARRA meeting. In the spirit of that support, staff recommends that the ARRA write the
NAVSEA command (from which the foundation must acquire the ship) reiterating ARRA's support
and requesting additional time be given to the foundation to raise the money needed to make the
project viable. Staff recommends that they be given until April 1997 and staff would further
recommend that the ship be allowed to remain on the NAS piers rent -free until base closure. After
that point, the ship would need to be removed if the ACHF does not succeed in obtaining the ship
or the foundation would begin to pay the ARRA rent per our lease negotiation discussions.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/mee
Attachment: Resolution No. 17
ACHF Project Initiative package
C:\MARGARET W RRA \STAFF- RE.PRTNHORNET. EDA
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 17
IN SUPPORT OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER HORNET (CV -12) FOUNDATION
Whereas it is proposed that the xUSS Hornet (Hornet) be berthed at Naval Air Station
Alameda to serve as a museum and tourist attraction; and
Whereas the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation (ACHF) is a not - for - profit corporation
incorporated in the State of California for the sole purpose of facilitating the acquisition of and
administering the ongoing operations of the Hornet as a community and national resource for the
benefit of all citizens and visitors; and
Whereas ACHF intends to operate the Hornet as an educational and community resource;
and
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 the efforts and plans of ACHE enjoy wide support by the citizens and organizations
in the City of Alameda, including the Chamber of Commerce, local business associations, and the
College of Alameda; and
Whereas ARRA will provide advice and support and endorsements as is reasonable for
negotiations between ACHF and Federal Agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority that ARRA supports the overall master plan of ACHF to renovate the Hornet and operate
it as a museum and tourist attraction; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ARRA supports the efforts of ACHF to raise the money
necessary to successfully renovate the Hornet and operate it as a viable museum and tourist
attraction that will benefit the community; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as evidence of its support for ACHF and its effort,
ARRA has agreed to enter into good faith negotiations with ACHF to execute a five -year lease with
reasonable rights of extension within its power to do so.
Revised July 30, 1996
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17 was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in a meeting assembled
on the 5th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: 9
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 0
E. Ensley
Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Date: July 31, 1996
,Alameda 'Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 20, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Heather C. Mc Laughlin
Assistant General Counsel
4 -F
SUBJ: Report from the Assistant General Counsel on voting requirements for actions by the
ARRA. (Appezzato, Daysog and Alves)
Background:
ARRA was formed in April of 1994 by the execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by
the City of Alameda and the County of Alameda. The agreement, subsequent by -laws, and other
resolutions set forth rules for the operation.
Discussion:
A question has arisen on the number of votes required in order for the ARRA to act. Section Vlli
C of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ( "Joint Powers Agreement ") sets forth the voting rules.
A copy of that section is attached. In general, action by ARRA requires a majority of the members
present to take action. This assumes that a quorum of members is present. There are two exceptions
to this rule. First, less than a quorum may vote to adjourn a meeting. Second, eight types of items
have different voting requirements. These items are listed in Section VIII C of the Joint Powers
Agreement and are as follows:
"1. Adoption of a Community Reuse Plan.
2. Formation of a Redevelopment District and adoption of a Redevelopment Plan.
3. Adoption of any plan or land use proposal in contradiction to the City's land use plan,
redevelopment, and zoning plan.
4. Delegation of any authority to another body by the Authority.
5. Transfer of any real or personal property of the Authority.
6. Adoption of or any amendments to the Authorities Bylaws.
7. Termination of this Agreement.
8. Selecting the Chairperson of the Governing Body."
Items falling within these eight categories require at least the vote of five ARRA members. Three
of those members must be representatives of the Alameda City Council. In the absence of a member,
the member's alternate has all the rights and authority of the member. Therefore, alternates for
Alameda City Council members count as City of Alameda representatives. If ARRA decides to take
final action falling into one of the eight categories such as terminating the Joint Powers Agreement,
at least three Alameda representatives and two other members (either representing Alameda or not)
must vote to end the Agreement.
Honorable Members of the December 20, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
The voting requirements for the eight categories only apply for final action on an item. Direction
to staff or other preliminary votes are not subject to the special voting requirements. For example,
at the December ARRA meeting, the Governing Body took action to accept Pan Pacific University's
Fundraising Report and begin developing a Memorandum of Understanding between ARRA and Pan
Pacific University regarding conveyance and lease conditions. This action did not need the vote of
five members including three of the City of Alameda's representatives because this action was, not
the final action to transfer real property. The Memorandum of Understanding will have to be
approved by the governing body by the vote of at least five members including three City of
Alameda representatives.
Leases are not considered transfers of property requiring the vote of the ARRA unless they are longer
than seven years. See the December 20, 1996 memorandum from the Executive Director discussing
the ARRA's delegation to the Executive Director of the power to sign leases with a teen of no more
than seven years. Leases longer than seven years require the vote of five members including at least
three City of Alameda representatives. This is different than the standard used by the City of
Alameda for lease of its property. The Alameda City Charter requires the affirmative vote of 4
Council members to lease City property for more than 1 year. Only 3 votes are required to lease
property for less than one year. The exception to these rules is the Charter restriction on transferring
park property. See Alameda City Charter section 22 -12, attached.
Staff will indicate on staff reports when the action requires a minimum of five affirmative votes
including those of three Alameda representatives.
Recommendation:
No action is required.
Respectfully submitted,
Heather McLaughlin
Assistant General Council
Attachments
cc: General Counsel
C:\ MARGARET \ARRA\STAFF -RE. PRT\V OTING
B. Subject to the provisions of paragraph IX, the Governing
Body may hire employees and contract with consultants and special
legal counsel.
C. The Governing Body shall have such other powers and
functions as are provided for in this Agreement or in the Bylaws.
VIII. MEETINGS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
A. Meetings. The Governing Body shall establish a regular
meeting date..
B. Minutes. The Secretary of the Authority shall cause
minutes of regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings to be
kept.
C. Voting. A majority of the members of the Governing Body
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except
that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. A vote of
the majority of a quorum present at a meeting shall be sufficient
to constitute action by the Governing Body, except as otherwise
specifically set forth in this Agreement or in the bylaws. Votes
shall be cast in person and may not be cast by proxy.
The vote of 5 members of the Governing Body, three of
whom shall be representatives of the Alameda City Council, is
required to take any action on the following:
1. Adoption of a Community Reuse Plan.
2. Formation,of a Redevelopment District
of a Redevelopment Plan.
3. Adoption of any plan or land
contradiction to the City's
redevelopment, and zoning plan.
4. Delegation of any authority to another
Authority.
5. Transfer of any real or personal property of the
Authority.
6. Adoption of or any amendments to the Authority's
Bylaws.
7. Termination of this. Agreement.
8. Selecting the Chairperson of the Governing Body.
and adoption
use proposal in
land use plan,
body by the
D. Brown Act. All meetings of the Governing Body shall
comply with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government
Code Section 54950i et seq.) as amended.
E. Rules and Regulations. The Governing Body shall adopt
bylaws, rules, and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and
affairs.
JPA/03.29.94 (REVISED) 8
Sec. 22 -7. Traveling expenses shall not exceed actual
cost of transportation, plus a reasonable per diem allowance,.the
latter to be fixed annually by the Council uniformly for all .
officers and employees. Traveling expenses, except for routine
duties, shall be allowed only if authorized by the Council.
Sec. 22 -8.. All public offices, except where otherwise
provided by law, shall be open for business every day, except
holidays, from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., subject to the power of
the Council to increase such hours for the necessary
accommodation of the public.
Sec. 22 -9. The compensation of elective officers of the
City shall not be increased or decreased during their respective
terms of office. This section shall not prohibit the increase or
decrease of compensation of assistants or deputies.
Sec. 22 -10. The Council and all Boards of the City
shall have power to accept gifts and trusts and control, manage,
dispose of and otherwise administer the same in accordance with
the terms thereof.
Sec. 22 -11. All real property acquired by the City
shall be held in the name of "City of Alameda."
Sec. 22 -12. Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this Charter to the contrary, the public parks of the City shall
not be sold or otherwise alienated except pursuant to the
affirmative votes of the majority of the electors voting on such
a proposition; except that the City Council may (al lease or
grant concessions or privileges in public parks or any portion
thereof or building or structure situated therein, or (b) grant
permits, licenses or easements for street, utility or any other
purposes in public parks or any portion thereof or building or .
structure situated therein or (c) sell or dispose of 'public parks
or any portion thereof if, after a public hearing or hearings in
each case, the City Council determines that another new public
park has been or w.:.11 be designated by the City Council for
public park purposes and opened to the public for public park
purposes. The City Council shall determine that said "new public
park" is of comparable size and utility and .... serves the same
service area with substantially the same amenities and
improvements. As used herein "public parks" means any and all
lands of the City which have been or will be designated by City
Council for public park purposes and /or recreational uses and
opened to the public for public park purposes and /or recreational
uses. "Public parks" also includes the Alameda Golf Complex.
City of Alameda
Inter-department Memorandum
December 20, 1996
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Robert L. Wonder
Interim City Manager
Re: NAS Alameda
Introduction
OFF-AGENDA
As you know, the Navy intends to close the base at NAS Alameda next
April 30, 1997. There are a number of actions the City Council will
be asked to take over the next few months relating to base closure.
Many of these actions will be on such tight time schedules that it
will be impossible or extremely costly to the City to continue them
or hold them over to answer questions or obtain additional
information for the public or even for Councilmembers. The purpose
of this memo is to describe several of the key actions that the
Council will be asked to consider in the next several months both
to give the Cduncil a preview of what is to come and to permit
individual Councilmembers to request additional background
information.
:ackground
Before listing the specific action items that will be presented to
the Council in the next several months, it will be helpful to review
some of the key concepts and vocabulary that are used in discussing
them.
• a. Ownership vs. Regulatory Control. The 'federal government
can both own real property and adopt laws that apply to actions
taken in defined territory. These concepts are frequently related
but they are fundamentally different and the differences are crucial
for some of the actions the Council will consider in the coming
months. As a property owner, the federal government may determine
that federal law applies to what happens on the property with
respect to some, but not necessarily all of the activities that
occur on the property. For instance, if the federal government
builds a federal courthouse in a city, federal building codes will
probably apply to the construction of the building rather than the
Honorable Mayor and December 20, 1996
Councilmembers Page 2
local city building code. If, though, the government happens to
lease some of the ground-floor space to a restaurant, the sale and
service of alcohol at the restaurant will be governed by general
state law (if the hypothetical office building is in California,
that would be the ABC law of the state). The federal government,
though can also regulate.what happens on property, whether or not
it owns the property. This, of course, is what occurs in
Washington, D.C., where federal law governs all daily activities
regardless of property ownership, as well as on most military bases
where the federal government owns as well as regulates what happens
on the property. The important point is that property ownership is
a different concept than regulation.
b. Federal Ownership of Property. The federal government has
the same obligations to manage, maintain, and secure property that
it owns as any other property owner. The federal government•must
keep its streets clear for travel, keep its roofs water-tight to
prevent interior damage, and patrol its property .to prevent
vandalism. The federal government refers to these property owner
services as.caretaket services when they are performed by government
contractors. When they are provided by a governmental entity, the
agreement is referred to as a cooperative agreement for caretaker
services.
c. Federal Jurisdiction. When the federal. government
regulates, it may do so in.several ways. Each method the federal
government can. use has its own label.
1. Proprietorial or Proprietary Jurisdiction, The
application of federal building codes to the construction of a
federal office building is an example.of federal proprietorial or
proprietary jurisdiction. This is the jurisdiction that results
when federal law preempts state and local law. The underlying
principal is that the local government can not apply its laws to the
federal activity because if such regulation were allowed as a matter
of right local governments could thwart or impeded achievement of
the federal objective. Which local laws will be preempted under
proprietorial jurisdiction is typically a matter of interpretation
and application under the facts of a specific case. The underlying
Honorable Mayor and December 20, 1996
Councilmembers Page 3
principal, though, is always the same: federal law will apply if
it is necessary to accomplish the federal purpose.
2. Exclusive Jurisdiction. If federal law applies to •
all activities in a territory, the federal government is said to be
exercising exclusive federal jurisdiction. To obtain this level of
power, the federal government asks a state to relinquish its power
over the territory in an action called a cession action. This is
a formal procedure that concludes with an Order of Cession that is
recorded in the County Recorder's Office (or Offices if more than
one county is involved) showing that the federal government has
complete regulatory control over the real property that is described
in the Order. When this Order is filed, a person stealing a candy
bar from a retaile i. is not committing a misdemeanor petty theft but
a federal crime and a person selling alcohol is doing so pursuant
to federal government authority and riot an ABC license. This is
the kind of jurisdiction the federal government exercises at most
military bases.
When the federal government no longer needs to have exclusive
regulatory control, it asks permission of the state to retrocede its
exclusive jurisdiction in an action that reverses the earlier
cession action. The latter action is called a retrocession action
and, in California, is conducted by the California State Lands
Commission. The legal standard that the State Lands Commission
applies when decidin g. whether to accept retrocession of jurisdiction
is quite broad: whether it is in the best interests of the State
of California to relieve the federal government of its obligations
with regard to the ter2:dtory. While there are other issues that
arise, the bottom-line question is whether the federal government
has provided adequate funds to the State and local government to
compensate them for the costs that will be incurred when they re-
assume jurisdiction. Examples of the kinds of costs a city might
incur are personnel and equipment costs for fire fighting crews and
equipment, police officers and the back-up services they require,
building and other inspectors that deal with land-use issues, and
other public works services. County services might include costs
incurred to appraise property and collect property taxes, prosecutor
and court services, and the costs involved in providing health and
Honorable Mayor and December 20, 1996
Councilmembers Page 4
safety services.
3. Concurrent and Partial Jurisdiction. The terms
concurrent jurisdiction and partial jurisdiction may also be used
in the coming months. As their names imply, these are concepts part
way between proprietorial and exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Concurrent jurisdiction means that both state and federal law may
be simultaneously exercised. Almost invariably this occurs whether
there is concurrent criminal jurisdiction, which permits local
police to arrest and local district attorneys to prosecute for state
law violations where otherwise only federal prosecution would be
possible. Partial jurisdiction means that the state has reserved
some aspect of state regulatory power in its cession action. A
common power that states reserve is the power to impose and Collect
state property taxes.
4. Jurisdiction at NAS Alameda. Virtually all of NAS
Alameda is in exclusive federal jurisdiction. There are, however,
several pockets of land that are in partial jurisdiction where state
property and sales taxes are collected. There. is no concurrent
jurisdiction for enforcement of criminal or any other state law
anywhere at the base.
Upcoming Council Actions
a. 'Cooperative Agreement for Police'and Fire Services.
When the base closes on April 30, 1997, the •federal government will
remain the owner of NAS Alameda but because of transfer of military
personnel will not be able to take care of the property with federal
employees. The Navy intends to contract with the City to provide
all caretaker services through a cooperative agreement. This
agreement has been negotiated on a staff level between the City's
Police and Fire Departments and their Navy co-parts. Also, the
general contract provisions have also been negotiated so that the
agreement will acknowledge and work consistently with the leases
that the ARRA and the Navy have negotiated at NAS Alameda. It is
my intention to present this agreement to the City Council at its
meeting on. January 7, 1997.
Honorable Mayor and December 20, 1996
Councilmembers •
Page 5
b. Concurrence to Retrocession of Jurisdiction. The State
Lands Commission asks any local government affected by retrocession
of jurisdiction to indicate to it whether it agrees to assume the
burdens of providing public services to the retroceded property.
The Navy policy is to have local government concurrence accompany
the Navy application for retrocession. In the case of NAB Alameda,
the costs of providing Public Works services are not yet known
because the infrastructure survey and cost estimates will not be
completed until January 31, 1997. The Navy originally asked for
unequivocal concurrence to retrocession but has very recently agreed
to accept and forward a statement from the City agreeing to
retrocession upon the assumption that the City and Navy will be able
to negotiate a cooperative agreement to cover Public Works services.
I believe that such an agreement will be negotiated successfully and
so will be asking the Council to approve my signing a letter on the
City's behalf regarding retrocession of jurisdiction. Doing so at
this time will permit the somewhat lengthy retrocession procedure
to begin at once. (The retrocession process can be accomplished in
as little as two months if a number of special steps are taken and
notices properly coincide with the Commission's meeting schedule.)
I plan to have the Council consider this action on January 7, 1997
as well.
c. Cooperative Agreement for Public Works Services. The
detailed information necessary to negotiate a cooperative services
agreement for Public Works services will not be available until.
January 31, 1997. City Public Works staff has been working very
closely with the Navy personnel assigned to negotiate the caretaker
services agreement and both parties are optimistic that they will
be able to convert the detailed information into contract form
within several days. If this proves to be true, .1 hope to have the
Public Works portion of the cooperative agreement on the agenda for
your meeting on February 18, 1997.
d. Recovery for Start-Up Costs. Underlying the timing for
presenting both the Police and Fire and the Public Works portions
of a cooperative agreement are the rules regarding recovery of
start-up costs. The general provisions of the cooperative agreement
I will be presenting to the Council authorize the Navy to pay for
Honorable Mayor and December 20, 1996
• Councilmembers Page 6
certain start-up costs such as the costs of hiring and training the
personnel who will actually provide the services. These are fairly
substantial costs in the cases of both the Police and Fire services.
Federal'regulations permit payment of these costs only after the
Navy has signed the cooperative agreement and they require the Navy
to sign the agreement only after approval by the local government.
It is therefore in the City's interest to have the two cooperative
agreement actions taken as soon as possible. A delay in Council
action on either of them could result in the loss of funds to the
City.
In summary, the purpose of this off-agenda memo is to alert you to
a very condensed time schedule to accomplish a number of actions
relative to base closure. If you have any questions or concerns,
please bring them to me at the earliest possible time so that we can
provide answers and/or solutions and still keep to this time
schedule.
Robert L. Wonder
Interim City Manager
RLW:AV:cb:355
City of Alameda • California
December 16, 1996
David R. Ryan, P.E.
Base Conversion Manager
East Bay Activities
Engineering Field Activity, West
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
900 Commodore Drive
San Bruno, CA 94066-5006
Re: NAS Alameda: Cooperative Services Agreement
Dear Dave:
I thought it would be helpful to put in writing the decisions we
reached last Friday concerning the Cooperative Services Agreement
(CSA) for NAS Alameda. If I misstate or have misunderstood any
of the decisions we reached, please let me know as soon as
possible.
1. You are putting the final touches on a reply to my letter on
the CSA. You will be sending the letter, even though some
of the information in your reply will be moot because of
decisions we made Friday.
2. The $4.5 and $8.7 Million figures we have been using for
planning purposes are net of the Navy costs for its
Caretaker Site Office. While there is no absolute certainty
that these amounts will be fully and completely available
for payment under the CSA with the City, you have confirmed
them as reasonable and probable estimates for the 1997 and
1998 federal fiscal years (FFY's [October 1 to September
30]) respectively.
• 3. Funds for FFY 1999 are expected to decrease, and not remain
consistent with FFY 1998 levels. Your current working
• projection is that $4.8 Million may be available for the 12
months of FFY 1999 compared to the $8.7 Million anticipated
for FFY 1998.
4. The term of a CSA for NAS has not been determined. You hope
to have an answer to this questions during the early part of
this week. You and the other representatives of the Navy
who attended our meeting on Friday understand how critical
it will be to the City's decision with regard to the CSA to
have the longest term that is legally permissible.
Office of the City Manager
East \Ving. Historic Alameda Hi11 School
RECEIVED
DEC 1 8 1996
David R. Ryan
December 16, 1996
Page 2
5. The CSA will be processed in two parts. The first part of
the CSA to be processed will include services that will be
provided by or through the City's Police and Fire
Departments. Processing this part of the CSA at the soonest
possible time will permit recovery of costs that these two
City departments are already incurring to provide services
to NAS and thus will minimize further burden on the City's
taxpayers. The second part of the CSA will include services
that will be provided by or through the City's Public Works
Department.
a. The Police and Fire services will be described in
attachments to a more general Cooperative Agreement
between the Navy and the City that will include the
general provisions applicable to the agreement (Navy
personnel refer to these as "GP's"). The GP's and the
Police and Fire service attachments will be transmitted
for in-house Navy administrative review by 5:00 P.M. on
Tuesday, December 17th. Navy comments will be provided
to the City by noon on January 7, 1997. If the Navy
internal administrative review does not raise any
significant issues, the general CSA provisions and
Police and Fire service attachments will be presented
to the City Council at its meeting that evening. If
approved by the Council for submission to the Navy, the
packet will be submitted for formal Navy approval the
following day. The Navy has committed to attempting to
have Navy headquarters approval of this document as
soon as possible, within a.day or two if Mr. Boyer is
available; but in no event do you expect that it will
take more than two weeks to secure his review and
approval. As soon as the CSA has been signed by Mr.
Boyer, the Navy can start to pay the city for costs
associated with hiring and training personnel who will
provide some of the Police and Fire services under the
CSA. The City fully expects reimbursement would be
available no later than the third week in January, and
possibly as early as January 9, 1997.
b. Public Works Services will be added to the CSA as a
separate attachment. The current schedule for
processing the Public Works portion of the agreement is
to have a completed attachment submitted by the City
for in-house Navy administrative review on February 1,
1997. Any in-house administrative Navy comments will
be provided to the City by noon on February 18, 1997.
Because of the close work being done by Navy and City
personnel on the Pubic Works issues and the fact that
the GP's will have been approved, we do not anticipate
David R. Ryan
December 16, 1996
Page 3
significant comments on the Public Works attachment.
Assuming this to be the case, the Public Works portion
of the CSA will be submitted to the City Council at its
February 18, 1997 meeting. (At the same meeting, the
City Council will be asked to approve calls for bids
for those Public Works services that the City would
provide to the Navy through City contracts. In
addition, the City Council will be asked to authorize
the new positions in the Public Works Department that
will be necessary to perform those services that are to
be provided by City employees.) Assuming'that the City
Council approves the Public Works portion of the CSA on
February 18th, and Navy approval is given (hopefully on
February 19th or 20th, but in any case by March 1,
1997), start-up costs incurred by the Public Works
Department would be reimbursable from the date '
following Navy signature.
6. The City Council will be asked to authorize a letter to the
Navy indicating the City's intention to consent to
retrocession of jurisdiction. The letter will refer to the
productive and highly effective work being done on the CSA
and include our expectation that the agreement will be
approved in accordance with the schedule set out in this
letter.
1 would appreciate your correcting any misstatements or
misunderstandings I may have made in this letter at your earliest
possible opportunity. Thank you again for coming to Alameda to
meet with us last Friday. It was a productive and helpful
session.
Very uly yours,
e aae-101-44/
Robert L. Wonder
Interim City Manager
RLW:jc
xc : Mayor and Councilmembers
City Attorney
ARRA Director
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Public Works Director
City Engineer
Captain Hocker
Mark Pfeiffer and Kathy Spinetti (EFA West-Contracts)
Karen Borell (EFA West-Counsel)
U.S. Department
of Transportation
•
United States
Coast Guard
Commander Bldg. 54-D; coat Gui
Maintenance & Logistics Alameda, CA 94501-5
Command Pacific Staff Symbol; ( s )
Phone: (510) 437-:
11011
13 December 1996
A
From: Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command Pacific
To: Commander, Engineering Field Activity West, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command
Subj: NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) ALAMEDA COMMISSARY
1. The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) recently requested that
the Coast Guard acquire the existing Commissary property at NAS
Alameda. They also requested that we acquire the warehouse
facility property across the street from the Commissary as a
potential future site for a new Commissary.
2. We have discussed this issue with the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). Subsequent discussions between
DeCA and the ARRA have indicated that the construction of a new
Commissary is at least 5-7 years away. Based upon this
information, the ARRA has indicated that they are only currently
considering continued operations of the existing facilty; they
will entertain consideration of a replacement facilty if/when
DeCA solidifies a project to build one. ARRA support of a
Commissary at NAS Alameda is subject to community agreement and
also subject to our using the lease-back provisions of Section
2837 of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act as the property
transfer mechanism.
3. Assuming the ARRA supports continued Commissary operations at
NAS Alameda (either in the short term or in the long term), and
assuming DeCA is committed to continued funding of all aspects of
the Commissary, we will pursue entering into a lease-back
agreement with the ARRA of suitable property to make this happen.
4. On a related issue, several months ago we requested that our
Headquarters delegate us the authority to prepare and negotiate a
lease-back agreement with the ARRA for the Marina Village and.
North housing areas at NAS Alameda. We are still waiting for a
response from Headquarters to our request, and will let you know
:when we get it.
5. I will keep you informed as this matter progresses. My
points of contact for subject project are LCDR Rod Smith at (510)
437-3531 (for planning issues), and Mr. Rob Van de Loo at (510)
437-5900 (for real property issues).
BRUCE J GOOD
By direction
Copy: COMDT (G-SEC), (G-WPX)
ISC Alameda
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
RECEPIED
DEC 1 R 1996
ARRA
r'rry
rt nn,vr-s-1 A
Correspondence
co
O
w
w '5
,
w E
ca.
o
71)
co 0
-a
• 2
111 0)
z
Fri c
• cu
E2
(1.1
E
zc
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
1000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20350-1000
RECEIVED
DEC 0 2 1996
ARRA
CITY OF ALAMEDA
November 15, 1996
Ms. .Kay .Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda; California 94501 -5012
Dear Ms. Miller:
Following up on your letters of July 3, 1996 and July 15,
1996, highlighting issues of concern to the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), and our meetings on September 13,
1996 and October 25, 1996, I wanted to give you a status report.
The Department of the Navy considering (FISC)Oaklandnpropertyof
the Fleet And Industrial Supply Center
that is located in Alameda, known as the Alameda Annex, to the
City of Alameda under the authority of Sec. 2834(b) of Public Law
102 -484, as amended. Sec. 2834(b), as amended, authorizes Navy
to convey the property to the City without consideration. If,
following the environmental analysis mandated by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Navy decides to convey the
property to the City, we would convey it under the special
legislation. Navy's decision concerning disposal of the Alameda
Annex property will be set forth in the Record Of Decision.
During the interim, Navy will consider leasing FISC property as
it becomes available and as the necessary environmental
documentation is completed.
As you know, the Department of Interior, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Navy met with ARRA on September 13, 1996
and October 25, 1996, to discuss the size of the least tern
refuge. Once this issue has been resolved, we can issue the
declaration of surplus for the remaining property and complete
our environmental documentation. I will provide you with
projected dates for completion of the Environmental Impact
Statements and the Record Of Decision when discussions concerning
the least tern refuge and the Federal agency requests for base
closure property, i.e., the Coast Guard's request for housing and
the Federal Maritime Administration's request for piers at NAS
Alameda, have concluded.
If ARRA is interested in acquiring the NAS Alameda housing
for leaseback to the Coast Guard and the piers for leaseback to
Federal Maritime Administration, that property must be conveyed
under Sec. 2905(b)(4) of Public Law 101 -510 to the Local
Redevelopment Authority rather than under the special
legislation. The Department of Defense is currently developing
guidance to implement the leaseback authority, and we will let
you know when it is issued.
Sincerely,
Willi. . Cassidy, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of t e Navy
(Conversion And Redevelopment)
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVRY, WEST
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEEFIING COMMAND
900 COMMODORE DRIVE
SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA $406&5006
Mr. Frederick D. Hess
Director, Office of Enforcement Operations
Department of Justice
1001 G Street NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Hess:
IN REPLY REFER TO:
11011
241RN/S95-094
Alameda
December 12, 1996
The Department of the Navy would like to relinquish legislative
jurisdiction over our property located in the City of Alameda to
the State of California. The property in question is known as
. Naval Air Station, Alameda, the Alameda Annex of Fleet and
Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, and the North and Marina
Village housing areas of Navy Public Works Center San Francisco
Bay. The Federal government would retain only proprietary
jurisdiction. We ask your concurrence with this action.
The need for this action is contained in the Base Realignment and
Closure acts. The Navy is in the process of closing these bases,
leasing portions to the Local Reuse Authority--the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, with the goal of eventual
conveyance. Retrocession of jurisdiction at this time will allow
the City of Alameda to provide services such as police and fire
protection to the tenants of the outleased property, and to
enforce State and local
The property involved in this action was acquired in several
parcels between 1936 and 1951, through a combination of purchase
and condemnation. It is illustrated in enclosures (1). This
retrocession will be made pursuant to Section 113 of the
California Government Code. The City of Alameda supports this
retrocession--see enclosure (2).
We ask that you coordinate your concurrence with the U.S.
Attorney's Office in San Francisco, California.
RECEIVED
DEC 1 6 1996
ARRA
r-rry fl l AMFDA
11011
241RN/S95-094
Alameda
December 12, 1996
We request you expedite your concurrence. If you have any
questions, please call me at (415) 244-3822.
Sincerely,
MERLIN E. NY
Realty Specia 1st
BRAC Team East
Real Estate Center
Enclosure:
(1) NAVFAC drawings No'. 851336 and 851337
(2) City of Alameda and ARRA letters supporting retrocession
Copy (w/o encl.):
City of Alameda
ARRA
U.S. Attorney's Office, San Francisco
NAVFAC (14)
FISC Oakland (04)
NAS Alameda (008)
PWC S.F. Bay (100)
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ENGINEERING FEW ACTIVITY, WEST
NAVAL FACILMES ENGINEERING COMMAND
900 COMMODORE DRIVE
SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 94068-5006
Mr. Jim Coda
U.S. Attorney's Office
450 Golden Gate Avenue 10th Floor
Box 36055
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Mr. Coda:
IN REPLY REFER TO:
11011
241RN/S95-094
Alameda
December 12, 1996
The Department of the Navy would like to relinquish legislative
jurisdiction over our property located in the City of Alameda to
the State of California. The property in question is known as
Naval Air Station, Alameda, the Alameda Annex of Fleet and
Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, and the North and Marina
Village housing areas of Navy Public Works Center San Francisco
Bay. The Federal government would retain only proprietary
jurisdiction. We ask your concurrence with this action.
The need for this action is contained in the Base Realignment and
Closure acts. The Navy is in the process of closing these bases,
leasing portions to the Local Reuse Authority--the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, with the goal of eventual
conveyance. Retrocession of jurisdiction at this time will allow
the City of Alameda to provide services such as police and fire
protection to the tenants of the outleased property, and to
enforce State and local laws.
The property involved in this action was acquired in several
parcels between 1936 and 1951, through a combination of purchase
and condemnation. It is illustrated in enclosures (1). This
retrocession will be made pursuant to Section 113 of the
California Government Code. The City of Alameda supports this
retrocession--see enclosure (2).
We ask that you coordinate your concurrence with the Director,
Office of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division at the
Department of Justice in Washington, DC
RECEIVED
DEC 1 6 1996
ARRA
11011
241RN/S95-094
Alameda
December 12, 1996
We request you expedite your concurrence. If you have any
questions, please call me at (415) 244-3822.
Sincerely,
MERLIN E.
Realty Specia 1st
BRAC Team East
Real Estate Center
Enclosure:
(1) NAVFAC drawings No. 851336 and 851337
(2) City of Alameda and ARRA letters supporting retrocession
Copy (w/o encl.):
City of Alameda
ARRA.
Office of Enforcement Operations, DoJ
NAVFAC (14)
FISC Oakland (04)
NAS Alameda (008)
PWC S.F. Bay (100)
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
(510) 864 -3400
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
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
.A. ameda County Board
)ervisors
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
Kay Miller
Executive Director
°Recycled paper
December 20, 1996
Peter Sun, Ph.D. .
Pan Pacific University
700 Taylor Street, #504
San Francisco, CA 94108
Dear Dr. Sun:
As you recall, members of the ARRA Governing Body asked for additional
information on funding sources and accreditation plans of Pan Pacific University.
I am writing to request you to provide us with the following information:
1) A plan of action and timetable for gaining accreditation of the various colleges
.proposed at Pan Pacific University.
2) Plans for student recruitment and enrollment.
3) Additional information on Cewon America, Inc. Specifically, the ARRA
wishes to see:
a) proof of incorporation of Cewon;
b) a listing of members of the Board of Directors;
c) audited financial statements for the past four years.
4) A letter of commitment from the Korean Medical Mission Fellowship to donate
$1 million to the PPU hospital and Medical Mission Center. We request
information on: ......
a) the composition and mission of the Fellowship;
b) evidence of their financial viability to follow through with their commitment;
c) information on the Medical Mission Center proposed for PPU.
We would hope to have this information by the end of January 1997 in order to
include it in our mailing to the ARRA Governing Body in advance of our February
meeting. Please let me know if you see any difficulty in meeting this deadline.
Finally, we need to establish a regular schedule of meeting times beginning in
January 199.7 to work out the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between ARRA and PPU regarding the conditions for leasing and perhaps, ultimate
conveyance of title. Ed Levine and I will be representing the ARRA staff in these
Dr. Peter Sun
December 20, 1996
Page 2
negotiations and. Alice Vilardi will represent the City Attorney's office. Please call me or my
assistant, Margaret at your earliest convenience to schedule these meetings.
I look forward to hearing from you on all of these items.
Sincerely,
t
Kay Miller
Executive Director
rV,
KM /mee
cc: ARRA Governing Body
Rob Wonder, Iinterim. City Manager
Alice Vilardi
NAS Alameda EIS Status /Schedule
d�.d.
E
.0
cs,
UJ
uktico
ic
u)
il.
a
E
a to
a. 0
to
E.
a
U ;.
C ❑
a
g Q c
H.
c qa No
11; -FD
,_ U
a a
a CL
2
MAE
a
z
L
ti?
w
L
as
Z .13
N = CO
cc
o
to
Lil >,
Ca to
1 1
— Internal Fina
MN
L
MINIM
.g:
a
Z
a..
a...
CO
w
c
a
2
0
0
2
a
uu
v
0
E
4-
a
zt
o
ct
z Ert
1 1
L