1997-03-05 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * * **
Alameda High School Cafeteria
West Wing, Historic Alameda High School
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
Wednesday, March 5, 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 or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings.
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting of February 5, 1997.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -B. Report from the Executive Director recommending authorization for the Executive Director
to finalize negotiations and execute a five -year lease with Quality Assured Products, Inc.
(QAP) with a five -year option to extend.
3 -C. Proposed amendments to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Rules and Procedures and
recommendation on the appointment of the Economic Development Chair, Land Use Chair,
and City board and commission representatives.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -D. Oral report from David Vandeveer, VZM and Linda Hausrath, Hausrath Economics on the
results of the Container Port Feasibility Study.
4 -E. Oral report from Neal Fishman on the Coastal Conservancy's Dredge Material Reuse Project.
4 -F. Oral Report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
4 -G. Oral report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on
1. Update on OEA budget negotiations;
2. EDA grant status;
3. Reminder of the March 15 EDC workshop;
4. Results of recent meetings in Washington, D.C.;
ARRA Agenda - March 5, 1997
Page 2
5. Status of Pan Pacific University;
6. Airfield status report;
7. Public Trust appraisal.
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.
This meeting will be taped for broadcast on cable channel 22 on the following
evening, Thursday, March 6 at 7:00 p.m.
Next ARRA meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 2, 1997.
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda High School Cafeteria
West Wing, Historic Alameda High School
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
,Wednesday, March 5, 1997
7:30 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 or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings.
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Authorizing the Chaimian of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to
write a letter indicating the ARRA' s interest in participating in the Coastal Conservancy's
Dredge Materials Reuse Project.
4. ORAL REPORTS
None.
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.
This meeting will be taped for broadcast on cable channel 22 onThursday,
March 6 at 7:00 p.m.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 5, 1997
The meeting convened at 5:39 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda;
Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th
Congressional District;
Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (left at 6:40 p.m. and
replaced by Mark Friedman, alternate);
Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro;
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Greg Alves, alternate to Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda;
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:39 p.m.);
Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group;
Berresford Bingham, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District
Absent: Henry Chang, Jr., alternate to Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland
- CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Appezzato stated that both consent calendar items were being removed from the consent
calendar for discussion.
Approval of minutes for the regular meeting of January 6, 1997.
Alternate Alves referred to page 5 of the January 6 minutes, under Original Recommendation:
"Alternate Friedman moved to accept recommendation 3. The motion was seconded by Alternate
Alves. Alternate Alves then made a friendly amendment to the motion to change the first sentence
to read `ARRA staff should continue to analyze the revenue potential of the East Housing. '
Alternate Alves made a motion that the wording be changed to read: "... ARRA staff should
continue to analyze all potential revenue possibilities of the East Housing, including rental,
lease option, and outright purchase." Member Chan seconded the motion.
Alternate Alves also asked for clarification on Original Recommendation 4, the sentence that read:
"Alternate Friedman made a motion that if substantial revenue return can be projected, and it is
deemed that the leasing option is preferable. . . ." Alternate Alves questioned whether
"leasing "meant lease options or renting, and that if it meant renting the units, that the word "leasing"
be changed to "renting." Alternate Friedman clarified that he meant the option of leasing (renting),
not lease options.
The governing body agreed with the intent of the two sentences as suggested by Alternate Alves.
Supervisor Chan stated that since there was no disagreement over the intent of both items 3 and 4, ,
that this discussion be reflected in the minutes for this meeting.
Alternate Alves restated his motion to change the wording of recommendation 3 to "ARRA
staff should continue to analyze all potential revenue possibilities of the East Housing,
including rental, lease option, and sale to private owners /developers." Chair Appezzato made
®Printed on recycled paper
a friendly amendment to read "... all potential revenue possibilities, including but not limited
to, rental...." Alternate Alves accepted the amendment. Member Chan seconded the motion,
which passed with the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: 1- Kerr. Absent: 2.
Member Chan moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6, 1997 with
the discussion of item 4 to be included in the minutes of this meeting. Alternate Alves seconded
the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Absent: 2.
Report from the Executive Director recommending the adoption of a resolution by the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority authorizing the Executive Director to represent
the ARRA and submit the application for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant.
Julie Mantrom, ARRA Management Analyst, explained that because the state grant is used as match
for a federal grant (in our case, the Office of Economic Adjustment—OEA), the state requires OEA
approval of our DAM grant submittal. Unfortunately, last week the OEA Technical Review
Committee reviewed the ARRA's OEA budget request and denied all but two consultant studies,
including the studies that ARRA intended to use DAM grant funds for, on the grounds that they were
"implementation" and not eligible for application. The two studies approved were the consultant
studies for the Fish & Wildlife Management Plan and the Long -term Marketing study. In this OEA
budget proposal, ARRA had also requested 100% funding for this fiscal year, with 50% next year,
and no funding in 1999. DEA had asked ARRA staff for revenue lease projections for the next three
years. The lease projections are: $1 million in 1997, $2.5 million in 1998, and $3 million in 1999.
Based on these lease projections, OEA has proposed 75% funding this year, 50% in 1999 and 25%
in 2000. Executive Director Miller and staff are continuing negotiations with OEA to reconsider
maintaining ARRA funding at 100% this year. This is essential because most of the $1 million in
projected 1997 lease revenue is needed as match for the pending $3 million EDA construction grant
application to upgrade eight buildings on the base. These upgrades will ensure the continued success
of the leasing program and the successful conversion of NAS Alameda. Staff proposes to go back
to OEA to pursue funding for the Airport Feasibility Study, the East Housing Development Strategy,
and the Gold Course Feasibility Study. Executive Miller requested the governing body to approve
the resolution to go forward with the DAM grant application.
Alternate Alves made a motion to adopt the resolution to authorize the Executive Director to
represent the ARRA and submit the application for the California DAM Grant. Alternate
Brooks seconded the motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0.
Absent: 1.
ACTION ITEMS
Report from the Executive Director recommending the ARRA approve the videotaping and
televising of ARRA meetings.
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that every meeting should include information for
the community such as RFPs, meeting and special meeting dates, and videos and publications
available at the library and ARRA offices.
Kurt Peterson, AIRR, thanked the Executive Director for recommending the meetings be televised.
@Printed on recycled paper
2
Member Kerr made a motion to approve the videotaping and televising of ARRA meetings.
Alternate Ornelas seconded the motion. Alternate Ornelas requested staff to contact TCI
Cablevision of Hayward to see if they will agree to broadcast the ARRA meetings. The secretary
indicated that she would do so. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes:
0. Absent: 1. The Chair thanked Member Kerr for her efforts. Member Kerr thanked the Interim
City Manager for informing her that the TV time was available and the Executive Director for
recommending it. Chair Appezzato announced that in July or August at the latest, the proceedings
will move back into City Hall with state -of -the -art facilities for live telecasting of all City Hall
meetings.
ORAL REPORTS
Final report on the Science Center Feasibility Study by Jim Gollub of Information Design
Associates.
Mr. Gollub summarized the phase three report, "Concept Development." His discussion included
(1) a low intervention approach for a collaborative development initiation and (2) a high intervention
approach involving a bio- collaboratory initiative. The implementation plans included requirements,
key features, demand characteristics, feasibility scenarios, alternative funding options, and next
steps. Questions and comments from the governing body followed.
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the concept, citing UCSF Research
Hospital statistics.
Bill Smith, Emeryville resident, recommended private /public partnering for economic development.
Alternate Friedman made a motion to accept the report. The motion was seconded by Member
Kerr and passed by unanimous voice vote.
Briefing on the Navy Cleanup Plan by Norma Bishop, Base Transition Coordinator.
Nouua Bishop, Base Transition Coordination for NAS Alameda, gave an overview of the proposed
environmental cleanup plan and proposed schedule and stating that the environmental cleanup plan
is a living document, and as such, is subject to change as priorities and circumstances change.
Speakers:
Bill Smith, Emeryville resident, stated he was "mad as a Hornet" that children might eat
contaminated dirt around the lagoon area near the Carrier Hornet. .....
William J. Smith, Sierra Club, stated that environmental groups would be against early conveyance
as the Navy cannot be bonded.
Alternate Friedman made a motion to accept the report. The motion was seconded by Member
Daysog and passed by unanimous voice vote.
Oral Report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
Ex- officio Lee Perez, Chair of the BRAG, wished Heather McLaughlin, Assistant General Counsel
to the ARRA, great success in her new job as City Attorney for Benecia. Chair Appezzato also
congratulated Ms. McLaughlin on her promotion and wished her every success. Ex- officio Perez
stated that Diane Lichtenstein of the BRAG and Hadi Monsef will be coordinating the base closure
OPrinted on recycled paper 3
activities on behalf of the City. The activities are scheduled for April 19, with actual Navy closure
ceremonies being held on April 25. The BRAG is meeting with Pan Pacific University to address
concerns, is reviewing plans for lay up of buildings to ensure it is done correctly, and is awaiting
further information in order to make a determination on the airfield issue. Chair Appezzato stated
that it was his hope that Pan Pacific University would be judged on its merits only and with no other
considerations. He added that at the next City Council meeting there would be a report of the ARRA
and BRAG achievements.
Oral report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA.
(1, 2, & 3) Executive Director Miller reported that the summaries for the Street Improvement Plan,
the Utility Study, and the Developer's Panel Workshop were available at the ARRA offices and the
City's main library. In addition, a videotape of the Developer's Panel Workshop is available at the
ARRA offices and the City main library. Alternate Alves voiced a concern with the Street
Improvement Plan's plan to place Fifth Avenue along the shore, stating that we do not want to have
another Shoreline Drive. Chair Appezzato noted his concern. Alternate Alves stated a concern with
the Developer's Panel Workshop recommendation that the Big Whites be torn down. Chair
Appezzato noted his concern.
(4) Executive Director Miller announced that the LAMBRA designation had been granted to NAS
Alameda. She thanked all the county agencies, city departments, and ARRA staff, especially Julie
Mantrom for this accomplishment. Chair Appezzato and Alternate Friedman thanked ARRA staff,
noting that it was a very competitive process and ARRA defeated Willie Brown and Hunters Point.
_ (5) Ms. Miller noted that the OEA budget request had been addressed in discussing the DAM grant
earlier.
(6) Alameda Naval Air Museum is collaborating with the Western Aerospace Museum to submit a
business plan to cover the cost of common services, infrastructure, utilities, etc. The artifacts are
safely stored while the Navy performs its one -time compliance on the building.
(7) The five -year lease for MARAD to berth eleven ships at the piers should be consummated in a
couple of weeks and should net about $1 million this year. The contract for port services is in the
final negotiation stages. In response to a question on whether there are piers available for visiting
ships, Ms. Miller replied that all piers are committed, so it depends on whether or not the Hornet
will be berthed at pier 3 (a final decision will be received in October). She added that a formal
request has never been received from the Navy. Chair Appezzato mentioned that there are other
possibilities, such as berthing the Hornet inside the seaplane lagoon.
(8) The Financing Workshop scheduled for March 15 at the Chipman Middle School Media Center
is being held to present the financial model that will be used to look at the cashflow implications of
alternative scenarios. •
(9) City staff is still in intense negotiation with the Navy on .the Cooperative Services Agreement.
(10) The BRAG continues to look at the limited use airfield issue.
(11) ARRA response to the base cleanup plan was covered in the presentation by Norma Bishop.
Speakers:
Barbara Baack, Alameda Naval Air Museum, thanked their dedicated volunteers, who have worked
more than 3,000 hours and assured the ARRA that they are working to complete their business plan.
Chair Appezzato wished them continued success.
Ronald T. Reuther, Western Aerospace Museum, stated that the history of NAS aviation covered
a broad spectrum and the Naval Air Museum will enhance concepts blending past, present, and
future.
Printed on recycled paper 4
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Neil Patrick Sweeney, concerned citizen, stated the importance of using the internet to disseminate
information and gather ideas.
Bill Smith, Emeryville citizen, spoke on the need for jobs at NAS and using shared facilities for
economic development.
Ann Mitchum, concerned citizen, spoke in favor of removing any military presence from the base
and organizing a public /private task force to develop a marketing strategy.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Member Kerr introduced her alternate John Abrate. Executive Director Miller announced that the
BRAG's Airfield Task Force scheduled for Thursday, February 6 had been canceled. It would meet
after financial information was received from the Financing Workshop on March 15.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
eatt
Margare E. Ensley
ARRA Secretary
@Printed on recycled paper 5
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
Interoffice Memorandum
February 26, 1997
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
3 -B
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director recommending authorization for the Executive
Director to fmalize negotiations and execute a five -year lease with Quality Assured
Products, Inc. (QAP) with a five -year option to extend.
Background:
Quality Assured Products, Inc. (QAP) wishes to enter into a five -year lease on building 21 with a
five -year option to extend. Since the combined term of this lease and option exceeds seven years,
the ARRA governing body must authorize the Executive Director to conclude negotiations and
execute the lease.
QAP manufactures large valves and fittings used in power plants, refineries, and other large
industrial operations. They currently occupy approximately 35,000 sq.ft. in Oakland and employ
about 60 people. QAP is affiliated with the Velan Corporation, a large Canadian company with
international operations in valve manufacturing and related business. QAP expects to expand their
employment at NAS to about 150 within the next three years.
Discussion:
QAP wishes to lease building 21, a 66,000 sq.ft. former aircraft hangar adjacent to Calstart. The
average rent on this space over the initial five -year lease period will be $13,200 per month
($0.20 / sq.ft.). QAP will pay the ARRA an additional $1,650 per month in common service fees to
cover the cost of police and fire service, utility and street maintenance, etc. QAP will also be
responsible for building maintenance and insurance costs and possessory interest tax. QAP's rent
will be adjusted to 90% of the prevailing market rate for the option period.
QAP has requested that a number of machine tools and other equipment be incorporated into their
lease. The appraised value of this equipment is approximately $400,000. QAP will pay for this
equipment over a ten -year period on a straight -line amortized basis. They may purchase the
equipment at the unamortized cost following its acquisition by the ARRA. Like Calstart, QAP will
incur substantial costs to upgrade this hangar in order to provide basic building services and comply
with applicable building codes. The estimated cost of the upgrades is approximately $450,000. As
in the Calstart lease, QAP has arranged to finance the cost of these improvements and will be
reimbursed for these costs over a ten -year period through rent rebates. Because of this large front -
end investment, QAP needs the option to lease this building for ten years.
®Recycled paper
Honorable Members of the February 26, 1997
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Fiscal Impact:
This lease was negotiated prior to the ARRA obtaining advance approval of a $3,000,000 EDA grant
for building upgrades. This grant has been designated for the upgrade of about eight other buildings
and does not include building 21. The EDA funds will not be available to begin construction until
July or August of this year. These funds cannot be used to improve buildings to benefit specific
tenants such as QAP who already have commitments to lease the building.
Since grant money is not available to improve building 21, the best alternative is the financing
approach utilized in this lease. By amortizing the cost of improvements over the full ten -year term,
the ARRA will realize a significant rental stream over the first five years of the lease. QAP's
average rent (including common service fees and the amortized cost of improvements and deducting
rebates for building upgrades) will be $14,433 per month during the initial five -year lease period.
This will increase substantially during the option period when the rent is adjusted to 90% of the
prevailing market rate.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA governing body authorize the Executive Director to finalize
negotiations and execute the proposed five -year lease with Quality Assured Products, Inc. with a
five -year option to extend.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
EUmee
Recycled paper
Base Reuse Advisory Group
February 26, 1997
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Lee Perez, BRAG Chair
Helen Sause, BRAG Vice -Chair
3 -C
SUBJ: Proposed amendments to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Rules and
Procedures and recommendation on the appointment of the Economic Development
Chair, Land Use Chair, and City board and commission representatives.
Background:
The BRAG was originally formed as an advisory group to the Alameda City Council in 1993. The
BRAG was composed of members representing various • interests such as housing, land use,
environment, and economic development. Members to the BRAG were appointed by the City
Council after nomination to the BRAG by a group representing the particular interest. For example,
the Land Use Chair was originally selected by the Planning Board. The BRAG's Rules and
Procedures (or Bylaws) required approval of the City Council for amendments.
The BRAG was made an advisory body to the ARRA in 1996. ARRA and BRAG recognized the
individual Chairs serving at the time of the transfer as the officially recognized members of BRAG.
BRAG's Rules and Procedures were not changed.
The individual Chairs may, at their option, hold working group sessions or other gatherings in order
to obtain the information they need. Over time, Chairs have changed because of the passage of time,
work priorities, or other changes which have affected an individual's ability to fill the position. As
a result, there have been resignations of some BRAG Chairs. A process has been developed by the
BRAG whereby the working groups organized by the individual Chairs have chosen subsequent
Chairs based on the person's interest and participation in the issues. The BRAG has concurred in
nominations and recommended them to the ARRA for confirmation. This has been considered by
the BRAG as the best method of achieving effective leadership by persons able and willing to serve.
Naval Air Station Alameda 0 Postal Directory, Building 90 0 Alameda CA 94501 -5012 0 (510) 865 -3412 0 FAX (510 521 -3764
Honorable Members of the February 26, 1997
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Discussion:
The BRAG wishes to continue its close liaison with the City's boards and commissions to more
closely coordinate their activities with those of the BRAG. We believe the City boards and
commissions most directly linked to the BRAG activities are the Planning Board, Economic
Development Board, Recreation and Park Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission. BRAG
proposes to create specific positions for these entities as voting members of the BRAG. Effective
communication between the city boards and commissions and the BRAG is provided by routinely
having a report on base closure issues on the agendas of the boards and commission and offering an
open invitation to members of the boards and commissions to serve on working groups or attend
other BRAG and ARRA forums. This change would provide a more formal link to the BRAG.
Because the reuse process is moving quickly from the planning stage to the implementation stage,
this link is important to provide a smooth transition to incorporating the Naval Air Station and Fleet
Industrial Supply Center land into the entire City. Representatives of the City boards and
commissions will bring knowledge of the internal processes to the discussion.
The BRAG believes that experience in and knowledge of the base closure process must be
maintained in order to allow the reuse process to continue smoothly. The BRAG, therefore, believes
that it is useful to have Chairs representing particular areas of interest such as economic development
or land use who have demonstrated interest in the BRAG process and are willing to commit the
necessary time and energy to be a BRAG Chair. Because the BRAG works directly with members
of the public it is uniquely qualified to recommend individuals who have demonstrated that they will
take the time and have the interest and experience to serve as a BRAG Chair.
In order to combine these two goals of maintaining an effective link with City boards and
commissions and the effectiveness of the BRAG, the BRAG recommends that its membership Rules
and Procedures be amended to expand its current membership to incorporate seats for the City
boards and commissions. The BRAG would be made up of Chairs who represent the interests of the
community and representatives who integrate the views of City boards and commissions. In order
to accomplish this while maintaining the BRAG at a workable number, it is recommended that
ARRA appoint up to four representatives from the specified City boards and commissions that are
not already serving on the BRAG as Chairs (as provided for in section B.1.b. of the membership
section of the BRAG Rules and Procedures). These new BRAG members would have the same full
voting powers as do the present BRAG Chairs. Because these members are already on a City board
or commission, BRAG does not anticipate that they would be holding any working group meetings
or other gatherings.
The BRAG is recommending the ARRA appoint Nancy Heastings as the Economic Development
Chair and Joan Konrad as the Land Use Chair. The proposed expansion of the BRAG by four
members will also allow the appointment of Beverly Johnson as the Planning Board representative
and Doug deHaan as the Economic Development Commission representative. These individuals
Honorable Members of the February 26, 1997
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
have been recommended by these entities for appointment by the ARRA. This would allow up to
two additional City board or commission representatives to be appointed in the future should their
current representatives resign or their terms expire.
Finally, the BRAG is recommending that Vice - Chairs of working groups of the BRAG be considered
non - voting, ex officio participants on the BRAG. This practice is consistent with the operation of
other City of Alameda boards and commissions.
Attached is a copy of the BRAG's Rules and Procedures with the proposed modifications indicated.
As this is the first revision of the Rules and Procedures since the BRAG was formed, many minor
"housekeeping" modifications are also proposed. Changes have been suggested to reflect the
transfer of the BRAG as an advisory body to the City Council over to the ARRA in 1993 and to
clarify and update procedures. Attached is one copy of the Rules and Procedures which shows the
proposed changes and one updated "clean" copy for your review.
Also attached is a memo from Colette Meunier dated February 26, 1997 outlining the Planning
Board's concern that the rules do not, as proposed, require representation of the Planning Board on
the BRAG. It is the City Attorney's interpretation that the BRAG Rules and Procedures, as
amended, do insure representation of the specified City boards and commissions, including the
Planning Board, in the BRAG.
Recommendation:
BRAG recommends that the ARRA:
1. Approve amendments to the BRAG Rules and Procedures as shown in the attached copy.
2. Appoint Nancy Heastings as BRAG Economic Development Chair and Joan Konrad as Land
Use Chair.
3. Appoint Doug deHaan as the Economic Development Commission Representative and
Beverly Johnson as the Planning Board Representative.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Perez
BRAG Chair
Attachment: BRAG Rules and Procedures with additions and deletions indicated
BRAG Rules and Procedures with changes incorporated
February 26 memo from Colette Meunier
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. These rules of procedure shall be known as "Rules and
Procedures of the Base Reuse Advisory Group, City of
Alarneda." A copy of these rules and amendments thereto
shall be filed in the Office of the Base Conversion
ire ° Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse
& Redevelopment Authority "ARRA," for examination by the
public.
2. These rules, and any amendments thereto, shall be
effective on the date of the adoption hereof and shall
govern the conduct of the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
3. These rules of procedure may be amended hereafter by
majority vote of the Base Reuse Advisory Group except for
the rules of membership which require City Council ARRA
action.
B. MEMBERSHIP
1. Appointment. Base Reuse Advisory Group shall consist of
12 members appointed by the City Courci1
Members. Shall, be appbinted.',in the following
manner
a.
02/27/97
Thirteen Members shall be appointed by ARRA after
recommendation by the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
These thirteen Members are: BRAG Chair, BRAG Vice
Chair, , Ecoriornic Development chair,. Community
Involvement Chair, Education 'Chair, Employment and
Job Training Chair Environment Chair, Housing
Chair, Human Impact and Resources Chair,
Infrastructure chair, Land Use Chair, Recreation
Chair and Reuse Chair.
Up to four additional Members shall be appointed by
ARRA. These additional Members shall be
representatives from the Economic Development
Commission, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board
and Recreation Commission unless already
represented on the Base Reuse Advisory Group. The
Base Reuse Advisory Group shall solicit a
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 2
recommendation for membership from any of h se
four boards and e
commissions that are not already
represented on the Base Reuse Advisory Group and
scIlialilrZtr.ward the recommendation to the ARRA for
ol
c. Members that have a working group may appoint a
Vice-Chair from the working group. The Vice-Chair
shall be confirmed by the Base Reuse Advisory
Group. The Vice-Chair shall be considered an ex
officio Participant. Ex officio participants may
ParticiPate in meetings but may not vote.
2. Term of Office. Members serve at the pleasure of -the
Y CounCil ARRA.
3. Maintenance of MembershiP. Persons appointed as Members
shall continue to serve except for:
a. Expiration of their term and appointment of their
successor.
b. Voluntary resignation.
c. Failure of a Member to attend 75% of meetings held
during any 12-month period, whether excused or not
excused.
d.
In the case
of City of Alarneda Board or CommiSSiOfl
Represefltatives , xpira their term on, and
appointment of their successor to, the City of
Alameda Board or Commission which recommended their
appointment to the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
In accordance with 3.c. above, the BRAG Chair is
authorized to communicate with individual Members whose
absences exceed the 75% standard to seek their
resignation if they cannot attend the prescribed number
of meetings and, if unsuccessful, to remind them that one
subsequent missed meeting will mean an automatic
dismissal from the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 3
C. OFFICERS
1. The officers of the Base Reuse Advisory Group shall be:
Chair: who shall preside at all meetings of the Base
Reuse Advisory Group, call special meetings, appoint
committees, and perform other proper duties of a
presiding officer.
Vice-Chair: who shall perform the duties of the Chair in
the absence or incapacity of the Chair; and in case of
the resignation or other permanent absence of the Chair,
the Vice-Chair shall perform such duties as are imposed
on the Chair until such time as
a new Chair is appointed-
2. Secretary. The Executive Director
shall serve as Secretary to the Base Reuse Advisory
Group. The Secretary shall keep a written record of all
business transacted by the Base Reuse Advisory Group,
notify members of meetings, maintain the official records
of the Base Reuse Advisory Group, and perform such other
duties as the Base Reuse Advisory Group may direct.
Except as otherwise authorized by the Base Reuse Advisory
Group, the Secretary shall sign all correspondence,
reports and other instruments approved by the Base Reuse
Advisory Group.
A- 3. Additional Duties. The officers of the Base Reuse
Advisory Group shall perform such other duties and
functions as may from time to time be required by the
Base Reuse Advisory Group.
D. MEETINGS
1. Regular Meetings. The Base Reuse Advisory Group shall
meet at 5:30 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th third Wednesday of
each month. When the meeting falls on a holiday, the
Chair may schedule an alternate date consistent with
procedures for Special Meetings. In compliance with the
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 4
Brown Act, all meetings shall be open and public. An
agenda will be prepared and posted 72 hours prior to a
regular meeting.
2. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the
Chair or by three or more a majority of Base Reuse
Advisory Group Members if determined to be necessary for
discharge of the Base Reuse Advisory Group's
responsibilities. The Secretary shall poll Base Reuse
Advisory Group Members and attempt to arrange a date and
time convenient to all Base Reuse Advisory Group Members.
A minimum of 48 hours notice shall be given each Base
Reuse Advisory Group Members, unless Base Reuse Advisory
Group Members have unanimously consented to date and time
of the special meeting. If When all Base Reuse Advisory
Group Members agree to date and time of a special
meeting, the public will be given a minimum of 24 hours
notice, consistent with Brown Act requirements.
3. Meeting Location. Meetings shall be held in Building 90,
Naval Air Station Alameda or other locations as
determined by the Base Reuse Advisory Group. The meeting
location shall be noted on the Base Reuse Advisory
Group's agenda.
E. AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2- 1-A. Minutes
2-
3.
4.
5.
Report from the Chair and Vice-Chair
ge
s Pre s ent at i_oris
111 •
Discussion/Action
Report from the Executive Director
Reports from Task Forces
7. Reports from BRAG Work Groups (as needed)
8.
02/27/97
Public Comment
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 5
Adjournment
F. MINUTES
1. General Policy Statement on Minutes of Meeting. It is
the general policy of the Base Reuse Advisory Group to
prepare draft minutes of the deliberations of the Base
Reuse Advisory Group. Minutes must be finalized and
adopted by the majority of Base Reuse Advisory Group
Members in order to be regarded as an official record of
the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
2. Public Comment. Any member of the public during Otal
Cornrnunications Public Comment may request that
corrections or deletions be made to the minutes. These
requests may be acted upon by the Base Reuse Advisory
Group with appropriate review and deliberation and in
accordance with the Brown Act.
3. Method of Documentation. It is the policy of the Base
Reuse Advisory Group to retain tape recordings
documenting Base Reuse Advisory Group deliberations for
day s 12 months following the finalization and adoption
of written minutes. Written minutes that have been
adopted by the Base Reuse Advisory Group shall constitute
the official record of the Base Reuse Advisory Group and
shall be maintained indefinitely.
G. RULES OF ORDER
The following definitions and rules shall govern the
proceedings and order of business of the commission:
1. Prior to public discussion or Base Reuse Advisory Group
deliberation, the presiding officer or other person
designated thereby shall describe the item or business
before the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
2. Public Discussion.
a. Permission. Any person addressing the Base Reuse
Advisory Group shall first secure the permission of
the presiding officer.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 6
b. Not a Debate. Public discussion should not be used
to elicit a debate between Base Reuse Advisory
Group Members and the public. Speakers should not
be interrupted unless they are out of order.
c. Time Limits. No one shall speak for more than 3
minutes without permission of the Chair.
d. Pending Motion. When a motion is pending before
the Base Reuse Advisory Group, no person other than
a Base Reuse Advisory Group Member shall address
the Base Reuse Advisory Group without first
securing the permission of the Base Reuse Advisory
Group to do so.
e. Public Discussion. Public Discussion shall be
relevant to the matter of business being considered
and' precede -the Base Reuse Advisory Group
vote.
f. No discussion shall be permitted without approval
of the Base Reuse Advisory Group after a motion
which would terminate further deliberation has been
adopted.
In accordance with'the Brown Act, . each agenda shall
provide an opportunity for general public comm ent.
on matters pertaining to the Base Reuse Advisory
Group.' s.jurisdiction.
4. 3. Base Reuse Advisory Group Deliberation.
a. Presiding Officer May Deliberate. The presiding
officer may deliberate from the chair, subject only
to such limitations of deliberation as are by these
rules imposed on all members, and shall not be
deprived of any of the rights and privileges as a
Member of the Base Reuse Advisory Group by reason
of his or her acting as the presiding officer.
b. Conflict of Interest. In situations where there is
a conflict of interest, Members of the Base Reuse
Advisory Group are required to abstain from voting
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 7
on the item and participating in the decision-
making process. The following procedures should be
followed:
1. Declare the conflict of interest. .
2. State the basis of the conflict of interest.
3. Do not discuss or vote on the matter.
4. Step away from the BRAG meeting location until
the item is completed.
c. Getting the Floor - Improper References to be
Avoided. Every Member desiring to speak shall
address the Chair, and upon recognition by the
presiding officer, shall confine himself or herself
to the questions under deliberation, avoiding all
personalities and indecorous language.
d. Interruptions. A Member, once recognized, shall
not be interrupted when speaking unless it be to
call said Member to order, or as herein otherwise
provided. If a Member, while speaking, is called
to order, said Member shall cease speaking until
the question of order be determined, and if in
order, said Member shall be permitted to proceed.
e. Remarks of Base Reuse Advisory Group Member - When
Entered in Minutes. Any Base Reuse Advisory Group
Member may request, through the presiding officer,
the privilege of having a written abstract of said
Member's statement on any subject under
consideration by the Base Reuse Advisory Group
entered in the Minutes. If the Base Reuse Advisory
Group consents thereto, such statement shall be
entered in the minutes.
f. Motion to Reconsider. A motion to reconsider any
action taken by the Base Reuse Advisory Group may
be made only on the date such action was taken. It
may be made either immediately during the same
session; or at a recessed or adjourned session
thereof. Such motion must be made by one of the
prevailing side, and may be made at any time and
have precedence over all other motions or while a
Member has the floor; it shall be debatable.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 8
Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any
Member of the Base Reuse Advisory Group from making
or remaking the same or other motion at a
subsequent meeting of the Base Reuse Advisory Group
or a motion to rescind.
g Motion to Table. A motion to lay on the table
shall preclude all amendments or deliberation of
the subject under consideration. If the motion
shall prevail, the consideration of the subject may
be resumed only upon a motion of a Member voting
with the majority.
h. Motion to Call for Question or Continue to a Date
Specific. A motion to call for the question or
continue the matter to a specific date shall
preclude all amendments to or deliberation of the
subject under consideration and is not debatable.
i. Statement of Position. When a motion to call for
question or table is adopted, each Member of the
Base Reuse Advisory Group may briefly state his /her
position on the matter before roll call or call for
the next item of business.
j. Privilege of Closing Deliberation. The Base Reuse
Advisory Group Member moving the adoption of a
motion or resolution shall have the privilege of
closing the deliberations or making the final
statement.
k. Division of Question. If the question contains two
(2) or more danasib upon propositions, the
a Membereshallg
officer may, r
divide the same.
1. Second Requireda ointlof order except for
require a
nominations and p
second.
m. Voting. A vote of seven the number of Members
constituting a quorum at a properly called meeting
shall be necessary for any action of the Base Reuse
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 9
Advisory Group. Seven A majority of the `appointed
Members of the Base Reuse Advisory Group shall
constitute a quorum. If a motion fails to receive
the required number of votes to pass or fail, the
request of any Member would cause the
item to be carried over to the next meeting.
n. Forms of Action. The Base Reuse Advisory Group may
act by motion or resolution. All motions shall be
recorded in the minutes verbatim. All resolutions
shall be in writing and the title shall be recorded
verbatim in the minutes as well as the vote
thereon.
o. Miscellaneous. All other matters not covered by
these rules shall be decided by a majority of the
Base Reuse Advisory Group. Roberts Rules of Order
may be used as a guide.
H. ATTENDANCE
1. It shall be the responsibility of each Base Reuse
Advisory Group Member to notify the Secretary, who shall
thereupon notify the Chair, of an inability to attend a
scheduled Base Reuse Advisory Group meeting.
I. PREEMPTION
1. The applicable City of Alameda's ARRA policies,
resolutions and ordinances and state and federal laws
shall prevail where a conflict exists between any of them
and these Rules and Procedures.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. These rules of procedure shall be known as "Rules and
Procedures of the Base Reuse Advisory Group." A copy of
these rules and amendments thereto shall be filed in the
Office of the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse &
Redevelopment Authority "ARRA," for examination by the
public.
2. These rules, and any amendments thereto, shall be •
effective on the date of the adoption hereof and shall
govern the conduct of the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
3. These rules of procedure may be amended hereafter by
majority vote of the Base Reuse Advisory Group except for
the rules of membership which require ARRA action.
B. MEMBERSHIP
1. ...■ft.i.222intment. Base Reuse Advisory Group shall consist of
up to 17 Members. Members shall be appointed in the
following manner:
a. Thirteen Members shall be appointed by ARRA after
recommendation by the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
These thirteen Members are: BRAG Chair, BRAG Vice-
Chair, Economic Development Chair, Community
Involvement Chair, Education Chair, Employment and
Job Training Chair, Environment Chair, Housing
Chair, Human Impact and Resources Chair,
Infrastructure Chair, Land Use Chair, Recreation
Chair and Reuse Chair.
b. Up to four additional Members shall be appointed by
ARRA. These additional Members shall be
representatives from the Economic Development
Commission, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board
and Recreation Commission unless already
represented on the Base Reuse Advisory Group. The
Base Reuse Advisory Group shall solicit a
recommendation for membership from any of these
four boards and commissions that are not already
represented on the Base Reuse Advisory Group and
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 2
shall forward the recommendation to the ARRA for
confirmation.
Members that have a working group may appoint a
c. group. The Vice -Chair
Vice -Chair from the worki�heg Base Reuse Advisory
shall be confirmed by
Group. The Vice -Chair shall be coans de Pa tan ex
officio participant. Ex officio o .vote.
participate in meetings but may
Members serve at the pleasure of ARRA.
2.
Maintenance of Membershie. Persons appointed as Members
3. M t for:
shall continue to serve except
Ex iration of "their term and appointment of their
a. P
successor.
b. Voluntary resignation.
Failure of a Member to attend 75% of meetidgs held
during
c any 12 -month period, not excused.
In the case of City of Alameda Board or Commission
Representatives,
d• expiration of their term on, of
appointment of their successor to, the City
Alameda Board or Commission which re oymended, their
appointment to the Base Reus e
In accordance with 3.c.
above, the BRAG Chair is
authorized to communicate with tandard u to Members
their
absences exceed the 75% prescribed number
resignation if they cannot attend the p
if unsuccessful, to remind them that
automatic n
of meetings and, will mean an
subsequent missed meeting Group.
dismissal from the Base Reuse Advisory
Term of Office.
C. OFFICERS
1. The officers of the Base Reuse Advisory Group shall be:
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 3
Chair: who shall preside at all meetings of the Base
Reuse Advisory Group, call special meetings, appoint
committees, and perform other proper duties of a
presiding officer.
Vice-Chair: who shall perform the duties of the Chair in
the absence or incapacity of the Chair; and in case of
the resignation or other permanent absence of the Chair,
the Vice-Chair shall perform such duties as are imposed
on the Chair until such time as a new Chair is appointed.
2 Secretary. The Executive Director shall serve as
Secretary to the Base Reuse Advisory Group. The
Secretary shall keep a written record of all business
transacted by the Base Reuse Advisory Group, notify
members of meetings, maintain the official records of the
Base Reuse Advisory Group, and perform such other duties
as the Base Reuse Advisory Group may direct. Except as
otherwise authorized by the Base Reuse Advisory Group,
the Secretary shall sign all correspondence, reports and
other instruments approved by the Base Reuse Advisory
Group.
3. Additional Duties. The officers of the Base Reuse
Advisory Group shall perform such other duties and
functions as may from time to time be required by the
Base Reuse Advisory Group.
D. MEETINGS
1. Regular. The Base Reuse Advisory Group shall
meet at 5:30 p.m. on the third Wednesday of each month.
When the meeting falls on a holiday, the Chair may
schedule an alternate date consistent with procedures for
Special Meetings. In compliance with the Brown Act, all
meetings shall be open and public. An agenda will be
prepared and posted 72 hours prior to a regular meeting.
2. s22.gi.i..a,s. Special meetings may be called by the
Chair or by a majority of Base Reuse Advisory Group
Members if determined to be necessary for discharge of
the Base Reuse Advisory Group's responsibilities. The
Secretary shall poll Base Reuse Advisory Group Members
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 4
•
and attempt to arrange a date and time convenient to all
Base Reuse Advisory Group Members. A minimum of 48 hours
notice shall be given each Base Reuse Advisory Group
Member, unless Base Reuse Advisory Group Members have
unanimously consented to date and time of the special
meeting. When all Base Reuse Advisory Group Members
agree to date and time of a special meeting, the public
will be given a minimum of 24 hours notice, consistent
with Brown Act requirements.
3. Meeting Location. Meetings shall be
other
beh ld locations in Building 90,
aval Air Station Alameda or
determined sball the
beBase
noteds on the Advisory
Base�u The
Reuse Advisory
Group's agenda.
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
1 -A. Minutes
2. Report from the Chair and Vice -Chair
3. Presentations
4. Discussion /Action
5. Report from the Executive Director
6. Reports from Task Forces
7. Reports from BRAG Work Groups (as needed)
8. Public Comment
9. Adjournment
F. MINUTES
1. General Policy Statement on Minutes of Meeting. It is
the general policy of the Base Reuse Advisory Group to
prepare draft minutes of the deliberations of the Base
Reuse Advisory Group. Minutes must be finalized and
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 5
adopted by the majority
of Base Reuse Advisory Group
Members in order to be regarded as an official record of
the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
2. Public Comment. Any member of the public during Public
Comment may request that corrections or deletions nbbeymadee
to the minutes. These requests p
uests may be acted appropriate review and
Base Reuse Advisory Group with app ro P
deliberation and in accordance with the Brown Act.
f Documentation. It is the policy of the Base
3. Method o to retain tape recordings
Reuse Advisory Group Group deliberations for
documenting Base Reuse Advisory
12 months following the finalization and adoption of
written minutes. Written minutes that have been adopted
shall constitute ha the
by the Base Reuse Advisory Group s Group and
official record of the
ndef n tely se Advisory
shall be maintained
G RULES OF ORDER
The following
definitions and rules shall govern the
proceedings and order of business of the commission:
public discussion or Base Reuse Advisory Group
deliberation, eration, the p
1,
Prior to p residing officer or other person
d
designated thereby shall describe the item or business
before the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
2 Public Discussion.
a. Permission. Any person addressing the Base Reuse
Advisory Group
shall first secure the permission of
the presiding officer.
b. Not a Debate. Public discussion should not be used
ry
to elicit a debate between Base should Adisort
Group Members and the public. Sp eakers
be interrupted unless they are out of order.
c. Time Limits.
No one shall speak for more than 3
minutes without permission of the Chair.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE PROCEDIIRESGROUP
RULES A
PAGE 6
d.
Motion When a motion is pending before
Pendin . Group, no person other than
the Base Reuse Advisory Group Member shall address
a Base Reuse Advisory
se Advisory
Group without first
the Base Reuse
securing the permission of the Base Reuse Advisory
Group to do so.
Public Discussion shall be
Discussion. considered
be
e. Public elevant to the matter of business being Group
and shall precede the Base Reuse Advisory
vote. approval
No discussion shall be permitted without app
f Group after a motion
of the Base Reuse Advisory
which would terminate further deliberation has been
adopted.
g
accordance with the Brown Act, each agenda shall
In ac for general public comment
on
provide
p an opportunity rtaining to the Base Reuse Advisory
matters p
Group's jurisdiction.
3. Base Reuse Advisor Grou! Deliberation.
The presiding
Presiding Officer Ma Deliberate. subject only
a• deliberate from the chair, these
to may
all members, and shall not sba
to such limitations of deliberation as are by
rules imposed on rights and privileges
deprived of any of the rig Group by reason
Member o
the
acting as the presiding officer.
of his or r
Conflict of Interest. In situations where there is
b. C Members of the Base Reuse
a conflict of interest, decision-
making Group are required to abstain he from voting
Advisory participating on the item and The following procedures should be
making process.
1. Declare the conflict of interest.
followed:
2.
State the basis of the conflict of interest.
3 Do not discuss or vote location until
4. Step away from the BRAG meeting
the item is completed.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 7
c. Gettin the Floor - Im ro er References to be
Avoided. Every Member desiring to speak shall
address the Chair, and upon recognition by the
presiding officer, shall confine himself or herself
to the questions under deliberation, avoiding all
personalities and indecorous language.
d. Inttrruations. A Member, once recognized, shall
not be interrupted when speaking unless it be to
call said Member to order, or as herein otherwise
provided. If a Member, while speaking, is called
to order, said Member shall cease speaking until
the question of order be determined, and if in
order, said Member shall be permitted to proceed.
e. Remarks of Base Reuse Advisor GroUs Member - When
Entered in Minutes. Any Base Reuse Advisory Group
Member may request, through the presiding officer,
the privilege of having a written abstract of said
Member's statement on any subject under
consideration by the Base Reuse Advisory Group
entered in the minutes. If the Base Reuse Advisory
Group consents thereto, such statement shall be
entered in the minutes.
f. Motion to Reconsider. A motion to reconsider any
action taken by the Base Reuse Advisory Group may
be made only on the date such action was taken. It
may be made either immediately during the same
session; or at a recessed or adjourned session
thereof. Such motion must be made by one of the
prevailing side, and may be made at any time and
have precedence over all other motions or while a
Member has the floor; it shall be debatable.
Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any
Member of the Base Reuse Advisory Group from making
or remaking the same or other motion at a
subsequent meeting of the Base Reuse Advisory Group
or a motion to rescind.
Motion to Table. A motion to lay on the table
shall preclude all amendments or deliberation of
g.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 8
under consideration. If the motion
the subj ect unthe consideration of the subject may
shall prevail,
be resumed. only upon a motion of a Member voting
with the majority.
h. Motion to Call for Question or Continue to a
Date
A motion to call for the question or
con inue specific date shall
continue the matter to a P
preclude all amendments to andeliberation r debatable. f te
subject ect under consideration
Statement of Position. When a motion to call for
1' table is adopted, each Member of the
question e Group may briefly state his /her
Base Reuse Advisory
position on the matter before roll call or call for
the next item of business.
j Privile•e of Closinf Deliberation. The Base Reuse
Advisory Group
Member moving the adoption of a
motion or resolution shall have the p rivilege of
final
closing the deliberations or making
statement.
If the question contains two
k. Division of Q uestion. ro
(2) or more divisible p ositions, the presiding P
officer may, and upon request of a Member shall,
divide the same.
1. Second Re ud•
All motions except for
no
nominations and a point of order shall require a
second.
A vote of the number of Members
m. Votin
constituting a quorum at a properly called meeting
shall be necessary for any action of the Base Reuse
majority of the appointed
Advisory
Group. A maj Group shall
Members of the Base Reuse totaonsfails to receive
constitute a quorum. ass or fail, the
the required number of votes to p
request of any Member would cause the item to be
carried over to the next meeting.
02/27/97
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
RULES AND PROCEDURES
PAGE 9
n. Forms of Action. The Base Reuse Advisory Group may
All motions shall be
act by motion or resolution. motions
resolutions
shall
recorded in the minutes the baitle shall be recorded
shall be in writing vote
verbatim in the minutes as well as the
thereon.
o. Miscellaneous. All other matters not the
majority these rules shall be decided oberts Rules of Order
Base Reuse Advisory uide. Group.
may be used as a guide.
ATTENDANCE Reuse
It shall be the responsibility of each Base shale
1. Member to notify the Secretary,
Advisory Group of an inability to attend a
thereupon notify the Chair, meeting.
scheduled Base Reuse Advisory Group
I. PREEMPTION
licable ARRA policies, resolutions and ordinances
1. The app revail where a conflict
and state and federal laws shall p
exists, between any of them and these Rules and
Procedures.
02/27/97
FEB -26 -97 WED 1.. :3I AM CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING FAX NO. 748 4593
P. 2
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
February 26, 1997
TO: Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Colette Meunier
Planning Director
Appointments to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and
Proposed Rules and Procedures
At their meeting of February 24, 1997, the Planning Board reviewed
the proposed Rules and Procedures for the BRAG in connection with
the Board's further discussion of the ARRA's appointment of someone
to fill the vacancy of the Land Use Chair. The Board voted
unanimously to send the following comment.
When the BRAG was established, the Planning Board was guaranteed
representation as part of the group because the Board nominated and
the Ciy Council confirmed the appointment of the Land Use Chair.
The ne'r process, as set out in the proposed Rules and Procedures,
makes rn appointment of a Planning Board representative possible,
but day :s not ensure that there will a representative.
The PLinning Board plays a significant role in the reuse and
redevelopment of the Base through such actions as the review of
Interim Use Permits and in the formulation and adoption of a
General Plan. Therefore, the Board requests that the Rules and
Procedures be revised to require that where the Land Use Chair is
not a member of the Planning Board, that another position with the
BRAG is to be filled by nomination by the Planning Board and
confirmation by the ARRA.
I request, on behalf of the Planning Board, that this comment be
provid d to the ARRA for their meeting of March 5, 1997 when they
consid,:tr the BRAG's recommendation on the Rules and Procedures.
olette Meunier
cc. Interim City Manager
City Attorney
Planning Board members
9 : \specproj \nas \Obrag
Printed on recycled paper
1
1
1
Alameda Container Port Feasibility Study
Executive Summary
Purpose of Study
In 1996, an update to the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan designated the need to
reserve a 220 acre site at the northwest corner of the Island of Alameda for future
container terminal development. The updated Plan was prepared by the Seaport
Planning Advisory Committee, a joint committee of the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC). During 1996, a number of concerns regarding the ultimate feasibility of the 220
acre facility were raised from various sources. In support of an effort to address these
concerns, the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC)
sponsored this Feasibility Study of Container Port on Island of Alameda. In December
1996, the EBCRC commissioned Vickerman Zachary Miller (VZM), a division of
TranSystems Corporation along with Korve Engineering and Hausrath Economics
Group to undertake this brief study.
The scope of this study involved the evaluation of the feasibility of the proposed
220 acre container port development from a physical, operational, financial and
institutional perspective. Considerations were mandated for land and water use
requirements, future technological advancements, access requirements across the
Oakland Inner Harbor Channel, compatibility with proposed wildlife refuge and airport
use, cost revenue and financing options leading to an assessment of economic •
feasibility, impact of potential land acquisition at the Oakland Army Base, and
assessment of institutional (inter-governmental) feasibility. A complete scope of work
has been included in the Appendix A of this report.
Overview of Physical Considerations
VZM port planners developed an independent assessment of channel width and depth
requirements, and idealized container terminal layout options using all types of current
and predicted container handling systems. These concepts were reviewed with Port of
Oakland representatives to assure that they were in reasonable conformance to the
Port's development plans. We also conferred with representatives of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Port of
LA environmental specialists knowledgeable about the Least Tern Colony issues in
VZIII/TranSysterris
1
Alameda Container Port Feasibility Study
Southern California, and other sources to supplement our understanding of the issues.
The summary result of our physical land and water layout consideration was that
there appear to be no insurmountable physical layout constraints to the
development of the proposed facilities. Key findings in this phase of work include:
• The Physical Conditions planned for the channel by the Port of Oakland will
allow reasonable container terminal development on both sides of the
channel.
• The 220 acres is reasonably configured to allow for a future container port
development capable of handling approximately 1,000,000 Twenty Foot
Equivalent Units (TEUs) per annum.
• The impacts of the defined Least Tern Refuge (loss of 27 acres) and the
proposed airport (loss of 50 acres) could severely reduce the feasibility of
container terminal operations. However, it was beyond the scope of this
study to assess the ultimate likelihood of these impacts being imposed in the
future.
Beyond the question of physical layout, the challenge of providing access to the island
site was addressed as a key issue. Access to the Port of Oakland area, especially
the planned future Joint Intermodal Terminal (JIT), and to inland freeways, would
be essential to success of the proposed development. Working closely with Korve
Engineers who had completed a previous study to define potential bridge and tunnel
concepts for access from the Alameda site to the Port of Oakland area, the VZM team .
produce a comprehensive series of conceptual scenarios, both physical and
operational. These included various possible bridge and tunnel solutions, a barge
across the estuary scenario, a "super crane" conveyance system across the estuary, a
floating bridge at near -water level, and a consideration for combined truck and rail
access toward the south using a series combination of existing and possible new
infrastructure improvements. All these were evaluated for capital and operational costs
and potential revenues and compared to an imaginary base case which pretended to
require no special access requirements. The results are described in the economic
feasibility conclusions to which follow.
Conclusions Regarding Economic Feasibility
Container terminal development in Alameda with the added costs of access
infrastructure to move cargo across the Estuary currently does not appear
feasible. For all types of conveyances (bridge, tunnel, barge, floating bridge, super
crane), the capital costs to develop and the cost premiums to operate the necessary
VZMtTranSystems
2
Alameda Container Port Feasibility Study
infrastructure are too high to be supported by revenues from container terminal
operations under current competitive market conditions. The added costs for
transportation connections across the Estuary are not justified as long as less
expensive options exist to create port capacity at mainland locations.
Among the access infrastructure scenarios, development of a highway bridge across
the Estuary comes closest to being economically feasible if the capital costs of
developing the bridge are largely or fully covered by other funding sources
(local/state/federal funding). Conclusions for development of a tunnel under the
Estuary are similar, although the much higher capital costs for a tunnel make it a less
likely option. Although the capital costs for developing a floating bridge system or
barge system across the Estuary are lower than capital costs for developing a bridge or
tunnel, the ongoing operating cost premiums of moving containers across the Estuary
via these conveyances are substantial and have a significant negative effect on
economic feasibility. The suer crane system is not economically feasible because of
both high capital costs and high operating cost premiums.
As the ability to expand container-handling capability in the Bay Area becomes more
limited in the future, port users will likely be forced to pay more for terminal facilities, or
chose to a location in another region. As market conditions change over time, the
economic feasibility of container terminal development in Alameda may improve.
Support for funding bridge construction also could be strengthened over time as the
options for expansion are narrowed and the region seeks to retain the economic
benefits of seaport operations and container cargo growth.
Conclusions Regarding Institutional Feasibility
Even if the apparent lack of economic feasibility were to be surmounted by future
conditions on the West Coast, the feasibility of the development is in serious
question from an institutional perspective. Key concerns include:
• A potentially complicated relationship between Owner/Lessor/Operator.
• Difficulty in achieving agreement regarding location of.._access infrastructure
landing ramps in an already congested area.
• Opposition by ARRA and the City of Alameda as being inconsistent with
other base reuse plans.
• Opposition by the Port of Oakland and City of Oakland as being inconsistent
with their goals of operating within their own boundaries.
• Potential US Fish and Wildlife Refuge incompatibility.
• Community consensus for a series of complicated and controversial issues.
VZM/TranSystems
3
ommittee
Cho, D D
^halrperson
er Sun,;P1211
President
reo Kwrrn Lee,
• 1!1ce- president
EJnancial Affairs
Ylce- RresJdent
Academic Attalrs
pan-PacifiC U niversi
•: Working Committee for the Development of Pan Pacific University ❖
at College of Alameda, 555 Atlantic
2 la :fax., #G-237, Alameda, CA 94501
ph.
February 12, 1997
Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building #90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
ulldfng,
ng!Reerbig
rct#tecture
,an.Franr sco. CA
4.1i Ch ! Cho
*rce
�Corea Contact
0402.1:'
w Leo L Tisu
Finance
China Contact
Los Angeles. CA
3v` Gheo Kwon
F3nence
Japan: Contact
Yorba Linda; CA
ev Charles F Corde
Resource
San Franc sc o, CA
>r James •current
Resource
Novato; CA
Jr H chael Nhni
a
Resource
Netiy. York, NY
)r Myong Qr1 San
Resource
Old Tappan, NJ
Rau Lloyd K Wake
Resource
San :Frandsco, CA
4 -G
Item 5
Dear. Ms. Miller:
In your letter of December 20, 1996, you requested me to provide
additional information on accreditation and recruitmenplsyforfor
PPU as well as funding sources of supporters. We appreciate
your kindness to allow us more time. With this letter, we provide
you the requested information.
Ms. Andrea Safir, Director of Academic Affairs of PPU, will address
on accreditation and student recruitment plans, attending meeting
at BRAG and /or ARRA.
Dr. Douglass Fitch, pastor of Downs Memorial United Methodist
Church, Oakland, of PPU's I
are preparing answer s
meeting.
(1) On Cewon America: Cewon America has expressed postponement of
t eir commitment for PPU. The general labortstrike in Korea,
which. has reached international attention, has created upheaval
at Cewon, which employs about 40,000 people: Having other urgent
priorities, Cewon has asked us to delay their commitment.
Nevertheless, they forwarded their proof of corporation with
the list of officers of the Board. They are enclosed in this
letter.
(2)The Korean Medical Mission Fellowshia: KMMF faxed us papers et
re ate' to t e o icia minutes of their Board meeting, r9
and future meeting schedule. It clearly indicates that the
KMMF has budgetted 800,000,000 Won which is about US$1,000,000
as a line item. I am providing translation for some portions
which are related with PPU subject.
(3) Young Shin Grou : Young Shin Group pledged $1,500,000 and
provided their proof of ability with a bank statement and
property appraisal. Again, I have translated it in English
for your understanding.
(Continued)
RECEIVED
FEB 1 3 1997
ARRA
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Ms. Kay. Miller., Cxecutive.Director
February-12, 1997 /page 2
A plan to organize.a supporting.mechanism in the United States is
on its way. The Joong -Ang Daily News, which has international
network, has agreed to campaign on behalf of PPU. This publishing
network has daily newspapers in San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C.
Now, we should have a clear understanding with ARRA. Our PPU
supporters are asking me many questions and I do not have answers.
Following questions were raised and need to be answered.
(A) Initially, we understood the property will be canveyed to PPU
with title transfer with clear understanding that the property
will be returning to the City of Alameda if PPU is no longer
operating or no longer needs. We believe this is the best
way. If this is the case, PPU has every responsibilities
including renovations.
(B) Tide -Trust Land: We were told that all of 65 acres of land
fall into the category of Tide -Trust Land which means the title
transfer may not be possible. This issue raises many questions.
(a) What kind of mechanism or method be used for PPU to use
the property? If it is lease, is it a permanent -lease or
term - lease?
(b) If it is lease, we understand that ARRA is the owner and
landlord whereas PPU is the tenant. If so, what kind of
renovation arrangement should take place? As the owner and
landlord, ARRA has every right to ask PPU to evacuate from
the property. If so, what kind of protection PPU has as
the tenant?
I am sure ARRA has also many questions too. As time goes on, PPU
is confident to raise all the needed funds during next 5 years.
Now, PPU must have clear understanding on the 65 acres of land
property. As of this writing, PPU's strong desire is to have
a title transfer. If it is not a title transfer, PPU has to have
clear understanding and protection. Thank you very much for your
understanding and assistance.
Respectfully yours,
Peter Sun, Organizing President
PPU
antral
....... ....:.... ....
Cheo: K►vt?n. Lee D.
Y1ce- President
Flnanclal Affaf 3
Chan Hie Kim, PhD
3llcs.- Presldeni.
Ycademk Affaka
an-Pacific University
+ Working Committee for the Development of Pan - Pacific University +
at College of Alameda, 555 Atlantic Ave., #G -237, Alameda, CA 94501
ph. 510 - 523 -2220 0 fax 510- 523 -1906
February 1, 1997
Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authoity
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building #90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear Ms. Miller:
The purpose of this letter is to testify that enclosed
pages (A), (B) and (C) are my English translation from Korean
language. I have :translated them to my best ability and
best knowledge. Thank you very much.
ectfully yours,
'Eun' Chu1Ch
Finance,,..;,'. >
Ko ea.Contac
Chcago,:IL
ev L`eo L.: Hsu
Fnance.
1.11,1;PIPPta9 tact
Los:Ange %s CA
ev> Cheo Kwon
Finance
Japan Contact
: >:Yorha;Linda, _ CA
tev.'Gharlas:F Comic
'Resource.':
San Francisco, CA >'
)r. James: Current
Resource
Novato, CA.
)r. H Michael Nahm
Resource;
New. York: NY
)r M,ynng Gut Sort
Resource
Old Tappan NJ
4ev ` Uoyd K Wake:
Resource
an Francisco, CA
Peter un, Organizing President
PPU
A*' SWORN BEFORE ME
j 1 DAY OF 1992
CESAR B. VtMAR, JA., NOT -j PtJBL
pESR.R 6. VIAs JAR JR
COMM. x1111582
Notary Public- Callfornla
SAN FRANCISCO
My Comm. Expk4$ DEC. 13, 2000
(A)
The Korean Medical Mission Fellowship
(02 - 591 - 98:5)
K.M.H. #96-8 Dec. 3, 1996
To: Members of the Board of Directors and Auditors
Subject: The Minutes of First Meeting of the Board of Directors
1. Grace of God be with you.
2. Enclosed please find the minutes of our first meeting of Board of
Directors. Requesting for your review and active participation.
3. Monthely meeting schedule is enclosed for your use. Please mark them
on your calendar.
Enclosed: Meeting minute (1)
Budget (2)
Meeting Schedule (3)
Sung hee Lee, Chairman
The Korean Medical Mission Fellowship
(8)
The Minutes of ,First Meeting of the Board of Directors
Date and Place: Nov. 30, 7:30 A.M. at the Centennial Memorial Hall (2nd F1.)
Attended: Sung Hee Lee, Eun Cho Park, Young Kwan Chung, In Che Cho,
Sung sup Chung, Bong Ho kim, Sang Hyun Kim, Young Joo Yoon
Kwang Soo Lee, Hyung Suk Kim, Tae Joon Chun
Delegated: Kwang Sun Lee, Kwang Suk Park, In Joong Kim, Jun Kap Lee,
I1 Yong Lee, Young I1 Kang, Moon Soo Hong (7 persons)
NOTE: The portions which are related with PPU are translated only.
3) Organizing a corporation. (1) Purpose: For the purpose of supporting PPU
Medical Center, (2) Corporation: Non - profit and Public benefit corporation
under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.- (3) Starting Initial Fund:
300,000,000 Won (US$375,000) (4) Organization: Up to 15 Board Members from
among the members of Board of Directors of the Korean Medical Mission
Fellowship, Dr. Sung Hee Lee, Chair of the Board, Eun Cho Park, member,
Young Kwan Chung, Chair of Administrative Board, Hyung Suk Kim, Executive
Director. By the suggestion of Dr. Sung Hee Lee, Chairman, these four
persons were entrusted to be the Preparation Committee members. Motioned
and seconed, and passed.
Budget
Ministries (Expenditures).
Item
(..
Monthly.
Total
Total
Note
Ministries
The 3rd Hospital.
" $900;000 -:.$18;900"
"
"
P ' P:U:
$1;000;000
Leper :Hospital:.:
$1;000,000 " ".:"
Missionaries': ::
":: '24 ;000:
: "2,067"
":
:$2;000x12
Trevel"
10;000
2;000'
".2,000x6time:
Admini-
stration
Office:needs" .
"25;000
':1;052:
""
"
::
:
. *}
.Administration • :..:18;750
' .':.:1,926':
* *)
Supplies" . . .:
' "37;500..'18;991"
Public "Relations"
"12;500" ":
"..325 ".
..
..
Travel
6,250
Salaries
63;500"
2;375
* * *)
Activities
1,250
125
Others..
Petty'cash ' ""
"" 625'"
..
"19"
.. .. ..
..
..
..
.. ..
.
Contingent
6,150
Total:
3,106.000
47,720
41,270 Carr
led
Certificate of Appraisal
Property Address: 598 -8 Shansa Dong, Kanam -Ku (Seoul,Korea)
Structure of Property: Iron reinforcing concrete building
1st F1. 139.97 M2
2nd F1. 145.96 M
3rd Fl. 145.96 M2
4rd F1. 139.12 M2
Ist Basement 231.22 M2
2nd Basement 246.06 M
The appraisal of above property is as follow:
1st and 2nd basements: Young Shin Group use
4th F1:
3rd F1:
2nd Fl:
1st F1:
(C)
Young Shin Group use
Deposit 10,000 Thousand Won
(10,000,000 Won = US$12,500)
Deposit 30,000 Thousand Won`
(30,000,000 Won = USS37,500)
Current base appraisal: 1,700,000 Thousand Won
(1,700,000,000 Won= USS2.125,000)
Appraisal of the Property: 1,660,000 Thousand Won
(1,660,000,000 = US$2,075,000)
Corporate Body Young Shin Group
DONGHWA BANK
Seoul, Korea
No 0015653
Department /Branch :Namyoksam Branch
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT BALANCE
Date :NOY. 26 .19 96.
TO RHEE DAE YOUL , 598 -8 S 1 NSA-DONG KANGNAM -GU SEOUL KOREA
We certify that the balance as of NOV; 26 . 1996. . stands as follows:
Note : 1. This certificate will be invalid without signatures of both the assistant manager
in charge and the auditing officer.
2. Connected loans may not be shown by the request of applicant.
Yours truly,
'4°4
Assistant Manager in charge
1 13 Pet=
General Manager
LOAA N.1715(q%.) 1)_
Auditing Officer
01- 2. -5066 (19.2)(26.8) Qi 70g /m (92. 8. 25. '11'11)
r,:
(,:
4.
Balance including
Uncollected
Checks &Bills
Uncollected
Checks & Bills
Connected
Loans
Beneficiary
of Principal
Beneficiary
y
of Interest
HOUSEHOLD
W200, 000, 000
MONEY TRUST
(U$241,400.12)
(U$828. 50)
_
(
)
(
)
Total
W200, 000, 000
(U$241, 400. 12
)
(U$828. 50)
Say: TWO HUNDRED MILLION WON ONLY.
Note : 1. This certificate will be invalid without signatures of both the assistant manager
in charge and the auditing officer.
2. Connected loans may not be shown by the request of applicant.
Yours truly,
'4°4
Assistant Manager in charge
1 13 Pet=
General Manager
LOAA N.1715(q%.) 1)_
Auditing Officer
01- 2. -5066 (19.2)(26.8) Qi 70g /m (92. 8. 25. '11'11)
r,:
(,:
4.
CEWON AMERICA INCORPORATED
1101 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 202, Los.- ingeles, California 90006
Tel: (213) 487 -7781 : Fax: (213) 487 -9771
February 3, 1997
Dr. Peter Sun, Organizing President
Pan- Pacific University
c/o College of Alameda
Alameda CA 94501
Dear Dr. Sun:
It is with great regret to inform you that we need to postpone our commitment for Pan- Pacific
University.
As you may well know, almost all the industries in Korea are shut down because of serious labor
dispute between labor union and Government. Cewon America, Inc. does not have any other choice but to
alter all the business plans we have, according to our parent company's situation in Korea.
I hope you accept my sincere apology. Your understanding on this matter will be highly
appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
RETARY OF STA TE
II it •
>""/
.•••■•■••••■1110 Jima.
aliVAraess
>S)
OFN.
CORPORATE CHARTER
I, DEAN HELLER, the duly elected and qualified Nevada Secretary of State, do hereby
certify that CEWON AMERICA did on MAY 10, 1996 fiie in this office the original Articles
of Incorporation: that said Articles are now on file and of record in the office of the
Secretary of State of the State of Nevada, and further, that said Articles contain all the
provisions required by the law of said State of Nevada.
.•••
■' .a. ' • ' 1,34,1
il S.: •• .:- • ■•• '4'1, ...• .•
ta-0_,— • 1VV\ ‘'' '1 : — .(L.
15- ..,.4
- 1 ...,:s -
. ... . t
gi--,,T.A, . -g.
, „,,.... .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed the Great Seal of State, at my office, in Carson City,
Nevada, on May 13, 1996.
By
Secretary of State
erk
Base Reuse Advisory Group
Dr. Peter Sun, President
The Pan- Pacific University
700 Taylor Street #504
San Francisco CA 94108
Dear Dr. Sun:
February 26, 1997
As a follow -up to the BRAG Task Force meetings we have summarized the issues identified and discussed with you
in the attached report. These are aspects of the proposal that we believe must be resolved in order to move the Pan-
Pacific University development forward.
We appreciate your cooperation and willingness to meet with us and work on these matters. The entire BRAG looks
forward to a successful resolution of all the issues.
During the BRAG meeting of February 19 the Task Force indicated that it could not recommend moving the
University's proposal forward until these matters are resolved. The BRAG concurred. Since the ARRA has asked
the BRAG to provide its input on the matter it will not be on the ARRA's calendar at the March ARRA meeting.
This will give us until the next BRAG meeting, March 19, to receive and evaluate the information requested. We
request resolution of these concerns by March 14. The Task Force could then meet with you March 17 and
formulate a recommendation for the BRAG's consideration on March 19. This is a very tight schedule but we
believe it is doable.
If there are questions please feel free to call any of us. We look forward to the University as a splendid centerpiece
of the Alameda Point development.
Sincerely,
0..v1 e.,LA (;27)„,t6.
Nancy Ileastings Pattianne Parker
Co -Chair Co-Chair.-
CC: Kay Miller, Executive Director, ARRA
ARRA Board
Lee Perez, Chair, BRAG
BRAG Chairs
Enc: • February 19, 1997 Report on Pan - Pacific University
Naval Air Station Alameda 0 Postal Directory, Building 90 0 Alameda CA 94501 -5012 0 (510) 865 -3412 0 FAX (510 521 -3764
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 19, 1997
Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG)
City of Alameda, California
BRAG Reuse/Long -term Task Force
Report on Pan- Pacific University
INTRODUCTION
A Task Force representing volunteers from several BRAG working groups has met several times
with Dr. Peter Sun of Pan - Pacific University (PPU) regarding the university's progress toward
establishing a campus at the soon- to -be- closed Alameda Naval Air Station. The idea of Pan -
Pacific University locating within the city of Alameda is an exciting one which deserves the full
support of the community.
However, continued documented progress toward the realization of that idea, at this critical
point in the Base's closure, appears uncertain and problematic. The responsibility for this
situation may lie in at least two areas — with Pan - Pacific University, and with the complexities
associated with the closure of NAS Alameda.
The purpose of this report is to disclose to the BRAG in greater detail, some of the problems
which may exist. If the problems are real, it is hoped that greater attention to them may lead to
solutions which will ensure the success of Pan Pacific University.
With the above statements in mind, the following is a list of possible problems perceived by the
Task Force at this time:
PROBLEM #1: OBJECTIVES APPEAR TO BE INCONSISTENT.
At this late stage in the planning process, and as the implementation process grows closer, overall
objectives for Pan- Pacific University appear to remain in a state of flux, with changes based,
perhaps, on the availability of funds or the availability of buildings at the Base. The following
illustrates this tendency to shift objectives periodically.
• In September, 1994, Pan - Pacific University noted, "The core of our proposed
institution will be a four -year residential liberal arts college offering the degree
of Bachelor of Arts in various fields of concentration. Over time, graduate
programs will be developed offering degrees in international business, law, Asian
languages, and oriental medicine."
• In Spring, 1996, according to the "Business Plan for Pan - Pacific University 1997-
2002," PPU planned the opening of the following schools:
1. In 1997, a Graduate School of Missiology and a School of Medicine
2. In 1998, a School of Law and a Graduate School of International Relations
3. In 1999, Graduate Schools of International Commerce and Business,
Physical Education, Linguistic Studies, and Social and Human Services
In this business plan, almost no mention is made of undergraduate programs. In
addition, their share of projected expenditures for 1997 -2002 is relatively small in
contrast to the projected expenditures for all of the graduate schools.
• In January - February, 1997, according to the "Outline for Business Plan, Student
Recruitment and Enrollment," PPU has planned for only a medical - dental clinic in
1997 and possibly the expansion of the undergraduate school in September, 1998. No
new graduate school openings are scheduled in 1998 or 1999. No supporting
analyses or detailed explanations are provided.
While some flexibility is necessary to meet unforeseen problems, drastic changes (as noted above)
without well- thought -out explanations can present a misleading picture of a plan in disarray.
PROBLEM #2: METHOD FOR PROPERTY TRANSFER IS UNCERTAIN.
On February 13, 1997, Dr. Peter Sun stated that the question still has not been answered as to
how Pan - Pacific University will hold the land and buildings it will use at NAS Alameda. This
property conveyance question becomes complex when viewed within the restrictions of applicable
"Public Trust Doctrine" which appear to limit land use under public trust control to leases of 25
years or less (subject to one extension). Apparently, Pan - Pacific University has been counting on
direct title transfer via a public conveyance_
Dr. Sun has indicated that the lack of a solution to this problem is making fund raising difficult,
for it raises important questions under a possible lease arrangement. Who should do building
renovations, landlord or tenant? How can PPU protect its investment if it renovates the buildings
under a lease arrangement? PPU appears to fear that with a lease arrangement, it may invest
substantial contributed funds for renovation, etc., and then be forced to vacate the property at
some future date. Then, there also is the question, how long should the lease be? A 25 -year lease
reportedly is unacceptable to PPU if it needs to spend substantial funds for building renovation.
2
The "land title" issue is a pivotal issue which needs to be resolved, as soon as possible, for
the benefit of all parties concerned. The longer it remains unresolved, the more difficult fund
raising reportedly is for PPU. This, in turn, slows building renovation, which in turn, slows
student recruitment and occupancy, according to Dr. Sun.
PROBLEM #3: DETAILED FUND - RAISING PLANS ARE NOT EVIDENT.
An examination of the material provided to the Task Force reveals the lack of a detailed fund-
raising plan and timeline for present and future operations of Pan - Pacific University. Absent is a
list of possible, probable and firm commitments, specifying amounts, names, and purposes for
which funds would be used. Absent is any record of disbursement schedules and /or conditions
under which fund commitments have been accepted by PPU. Also absent is any record of
donor background checks regarding financial strengths and reliability to honor
commitments.
It is also disturbing to observe what appears to be the recent withdrawal of Cewon America,
Inc.(incorporated 5/10/96, State of Nevada; main office, Los Angeles, CA; parent company
Seoul, Korea). On October 28, 1996, Cewon America committed to Pan- Pacific University
$2,000,000 for renovation, maintenance, security, and administration, and was preparing to
commit $6,000,000 for a Law School, and $6,500,000 for a School of International Commerce
and Business. Now, three months later, on February 3, 1997, Cewon America, Inc. has
withdrawn its commitments to PPU attributing its action to serious labor disputes in Korea.
According to the information available to us, it appears that this development has resulted in a
possible 85% decline in fund - raising commitments to PPU (Source: letters, and Progress
Report dated November 6, 1996). Regarding other known commitments, Young Shin Group has
pledged $1,500,000 with a bank statement and property appraisal to indicate its commitment.
However, it has not been possible to clearly determine the total commitment. An organization
known as the Korean Medical Mission Fellowship in Seoul, Korea, has pledged $1,000,000 for
the stated purpose of funding a "hospital and Medical Mission Center" at PPU. Nothing more is
known about this commitment.
In the "Progress Report on Pan - Pacific University" (dated 11/6/96), expenses for 1997 were
estimated at $3,761,000 for renovation costs, plus $500,000 for maintenance, security, and
administrative costs -- total costs, $4,261,000. Considering Cewon America's withdrawal, it
would appear that most of PPU's anticipated needs for 1997 will be postponed due to a lack of
funds. Only $773,000, earmarked for renovating Building #16 for a medical clinic, might be
covered by the $1,000,000 commitment from the Korean Medical Mission Fellowship. Too little
is known of the Young Shin pledge to ascertain the work its contribution could accomplish.
3
PROBLEM #4: DETAILED RENOVATION PLANS ARE NOT EVIDENT.
The plans for PPU at NAS Alameda, include the use of 65 acres of land and many buildings which
represent the heart of the Base. Therefore, the success of PPU is important to the overall success
of the entire Base - conversion process. And yet, there does not appear to be a formal, detailed
PPU renovation plan and timeline which is current and linked to specific fund- raising activities
and commitments.
The most recent business and renovation plan, titled "Business Plan for Pan-Pacific University
1997 to 2002," was prepared in Spring 1996 and already appears to be out of date. Initial plans
for numerous graduate schools and support facilities reportedly have been scaled down to the use
of only two to three buildings during the next two to three years, according to the 2/12/97
discussion with Dr. Sun. A new report and timeline is needed, which includes specific building
uses, funding commitments, renovation costs, and student enrollment estimates as well as schools
to be opened and academic programs to be offered.
Also, the question arises, what is to be done with the many buildings set aside for Pan - Pacific
University which, according to recent discussions, may be vacant for years? Will there be funds
and personnel available to maintain the buildings, or will the buildings be boarded up —will they
deteriorate? Are these factors being considered and included in any updated, pending budgets or
reports?
PROBLEM #5: DETAILED MARKETING/RECRUITING PLANS ARE NOT
EVIDENT.
It would seem reasonable that any effective marketing/recruiting plan for acquiring administrative
personnel, faculty, and students might include an action plan which addresses some of the
following issues:
• How will it be implemented?
• Where will it be used (e.g., will PPU recruit locally)?
• When will it be used?
• When will funds be available to support it?
In addition, an examination of a myriad of more specific issues which focus on salary and tuition
ranges, school opening dates, and placement of staff, faculty, and students within those schools,
etc., might prove to be helpful support for the overall plan.
Evidence of any current, detailed marketing/recruiting plan and timeline with supporting schedules
has not been made available to the Task Force.
4
PROBLEM #6: DETAILED OPERATING BUDGETS ARE NOT EVIDENT.
The use of a detailed operating budget with supporting schedules, which includes income,
expenses, and variances of present and projected 1997 operations, does not appear to be a tool
used by Pan- Pacific University. Apparently, no operating budget exists, and it does not appear
that Pan - Pacific University believes that such a tool is necessary.
In addition, regarding financial matters, it should be noted that the Task Force is not aware of any
financial statements of Pan- Pacific University. Have periodic financial statements been prepared
and provided to others for review?
PROBLEM #7: VALIDITY OF MOST INFORMATION IS UNCERTAIN.
Much of the Pan - Pacific University's information (both written and numerical) which was
reviewed by various members of the Task Force was found in the following documents:
• Business Plan: 1995 to 2000 (dated 2/24/94)
• Business Plan: 1997 to 2002 (undated, probably Spring 1996)
• Progress Report (dated 3/6/96)
• Progress Report (dated 11/6/96)
• Outline for Business Plan, etc.: 1997 to 2000 (undated, probably Jan. - Feb., 1997)
Most of the information disclosed in the documents noted above described future developments
(i.e., opening dates of graduate schools, etc.) with little explanation given as to how such
results were going to be reached. No strategies or action plans appeared to exist for raising
funds, renovating buildings, recruiting staff, faculty, students, etc. Phases of development were
not adequately described. Numerical data were presented without supporting explanations,
footnotes, or schedules. Absent was any supporting information from marketing surveys, from
consultant meetings, from discussions with other educational institutions, or from any other
research sources.
To illustrate, supporting information was almost nonexistent in the Business Plan 1997 -2002
regarding the reasons for the rather large numerical changes which follow- -nor was the method
for achieving such numbers or changes described in much detail.
1999 Student Enrollment 1999 Total Budgeted Income
• Business Plan (2/24/94): 2,200 $55,448,875
• Business Plan (Spring 1996): 3,100 76,056,000
• Outline (Probably Jan. - Feb. `97): 600 -800 Not given
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Aside from the property transfer problem , most of the perceived problems noted in this report
stem from a lack of information - -a lack of formal reports or plans based upon identifiable
strategies, research, and specific action plans. We believe that a well- documented, analytical set
of on -going strategies and plans which support specific phases of development in areas of fund
raising, renovation, and student recruitment need to be provided. In addition, we have requested
a copy of the Application for Approval to Operate a Degree Granting Institution in California
(especially Section 13 titled "Institutional Fiscal Responsibility" and Section 15 titled "Operational
Plan ").
We recommend that it may be beneficial for the organizers at Pan - Pacific University to consider
the following steps:
• Explore the hiring of a consulting firm with extensive experience in the planning,
opening, and operating of new colleges or universities.
• Explore a close partnership with an established college or university whose
objectives, facilities, faculty, and students compliment those of Pan - Pacific
University. Much expertise and support in areas of strategic planning, reporting,
and review, as well as experience in establishing operational policies and
procedures might be gained from such a venture.
• Explore the hiring of qualified personnel including, perhaps, a financial officer
and an independent auditor, if they are not already employed by PPU. Given the
possibility of fund- raising activities generating significant sums of money,
such individuals might become indispensable.
In conclusion, the following three final comments are offered:
1. The ARRA needs to clarify exactly the land transfer mechanism at the earliest
possible time.
2. It is hoped that Pan - Pacific University and Dr. Sun will continue to express
interest in exploring ways for PPU to serve the local community, including ties
between the university and emerging, local, high -tech industries.
3: Because of its strategic location, potential contributions to, and impact on, the
local community, it would be wise if.close monitoring of Pan - Pacific University's
developments was continued and support was offered whenever possible.
6
Correspondence
Base Reuse Advisory Group
January 24, 1997
Robert L. Wonder
Interim City Manager
East Wing Historic Alameda High School
2250 Central Avenue, Room 300
Alameda, CA 94501 .
Dear Mr. Wonder:
Thank you for your letter of January 16 to the BRAG Task Force which is evaluating the request for a limited use
airfield as an interim use at NAS.
This Task Force was convened in response to the request received by the ARRA to consider the airfield. The
BRAG realized that this potential reuse affected the entire Alameda comm»nity and convened a group
representative of the issues involved. Members of the Land Use, Environmental, Reuse, Economic Development as
well as Member -at -Large Doug de Haan and myself. This use was included in the Community Reuse Plan and has
been strongly pursued by Joe Davis and a number of individuals.
The process followed has been to initially identify all the pros and cons to be considered including the economic
consequences. Then we have invited speakers to share their insights on the various aspects of the proposals. These
have included the FAA, the CLASS group, as well as proponents and potential users and residents from the West
End. Unfortunately it was late in the process before we discovered who to invite from the City of Alameda, Airport
Operations Committee (AOC). Margaret McLean and Red Weatherall were generous in sharing information and
AOC's perspective and experience. Margaret also brought your letter to the Task Force meeting and we asked her
to assure you that one of.the Task Force's recommendations would include the further evaluation of the proposal by
AOC if it received a favorable recommendation by the BRAG. I only regret that we did not have advise on AOC's
availability to join the Task Force at the beginning of our process; we would have been very pleased to have them as
participants.
It is extremely important for the BRAG to have your views and advise on City resources available to inform our
deliberations. We would like to have the opportunity to discuss better ways to ensure that you know of the issues
the BRAG is working on at an early stage. Lee Perez and I will 'call for an appointment with you to see how a
closer working relationship can be achieved rather than relying on your learning 'of the BRAG's work through staff
channels.
Sincerely,
(Signature on Handwritten Original)
Helen Sause
Airfield Task Force Chair
816 Grand Street
Alameda CA
CC: Lee Perez, BRAG Chair
Kay Miller, Executive Director, ARRA
Margaret A. McLean, DPW, AOC Staff Representative
FEB,-25-97 O.:. :40 PM WBO
510 864 3154 P.02
Workers to Business Owners
A Project of the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
Hangar 20 • NAS Alameda, CA 94501 •510-864-3152 or 510-410 7242 • Fax: 510 -864 3154
February 25, 1997
Kay Miller
Executive Director,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Bldg. 90
NAS Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear Kay:
As you know, the question of the future of the air strip is still undecided.
Three of our entrepreneurs' plans hang in the balance waiting on this
important decision. They are:
The Solano Group - a project management company that intends to
bid on fleet modifications of aircraft, both government and private.
Forem Metal - a metal fabrication company that will provide aircraft
maintenance, repair and modifications as well as hangar space for
aircraft.
Alameda Analytical Services Company - an environmental
engineering laboratory offering analytical, chemical and physical testing
services to the aviation industry..
In addition to these companies, there are many others anxious to move their
aircraft related plans forward. Companies such as:
Tower Aviation
UNC, Inc.
The Air Museum
The hornet Group
Car Star
UARCO
And of course, Joe Davis
Also with expansions planned and in process at the Oakland and San Francisco
Airports, smaller private aircraft are being pushed out to other air strips. The
FEB-25-97 04:41 PM WBO
[Kay Miller j
Page. 2
February 25, 1997
510 864 3154 P.03
time is right and with NAS Alarneda's relative position to these airports, our air
strip is the right place. We request a decision be made in favor of reopening
the air strip in the immediate future. The delay is costing the above named
businesses and the City of Alameda real dollars from lost production.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Ammon
Project Coordinator
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 25, 1997
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Margaret E. Ensley
ARRA Secretary
SUBJ: Request from Alternate Ornelas to investigate the possibility of televising ARRA
meetings on TCI Cablevision of Hayward.
At the February 5 ARRA meeting, Alternate Kathleen Ornelas requested that staff contact TCI
Cablevision of Hayward to see if ARRA meetings can also be broadcast to San Leandro area
residents. I spoke to Kathy Wilson of TCI Cablevision of Hayward. She informed me that currently
the City of San Leandro does not have the equipment to broadcast videotapes. However, Ms. Wilson
has set up a meeting with representatives from the San Leandro City staff to look at new options. I
have scheduled this item for follow -up in June.
cc: Kathleen Ornelas, City of San Leandro
Shelia Young, Councilmember, City of San Leandro
Marge McLean, City of Alameda
Recycled paper
STREET NAMING COMMITTEE FOR ALAMEDA POINT
The working Committee consisted of Diane Lichtenstein, Chair, Barbara Baack,
Marilyn York, Malcolm Mooney (BRAG), Cort Wagner (Greater Alameda Business
Assn.), Lynne Fitzsimmons (Park St. Business Assn.), Al DeWitt (Alameda City
Council), Sondra Cavender (AIRR). This Committee took very seriously its charge,
recognizing that, if approved, these street names are for posterity. Thus, "meaningful"
was an important criterion. We asked all along the way, "Would I want to live on a
street named....?" While there were some cases that some of us would not, the names
proposed are unanimously presented.
This group worked so well together that we are all sorry to see this committee
end. When did you ever look forward to going to a meeting, and be disappointed when
it was over? My sincere thanks to each of them Diane Lichtenstein, Chair
Criteria for choosing names
• Adhere as closely as possible to City Street Naming policy but not be bound by
the names or categories on the list. The Committee felt strongly that the Navy's
57 years of residency should be honored and dignified, and that the scenic,
water-oriented character of Alameda Point should be recognized
Names should be meaningful in the short and the long run
• Retain current names of existing streets as they continue into Alameda Point
(except Mosley and Tinker)
• Each area should have a theme rather than be assigned a hodge podge of
names. In addition to coordinating an area, themes makes it easy to recognize
specific areas
• While retaining the Navy history is a key factor, overnaming Navy appellations
or themes should be avoided. While many names have direct Naval history,
several have other connotations or meanings, for example, Viking, Orion,
Midway, Hornet.
• Historic or evocative names were preferable to people names because of a more
interesting designation, broader recognition or meaning
• A new neighborhood calls for all new names (except one)--a new beginning!
• The Committee strongly recommends that all street signs contain
icons/symbols for each theme. This will underscore the theme for each
area and give real meaning to the names.
Major Streets
Because these streets cover extensive areas or lead to a wonderful view, the
Committee assigned names evocative of their place in history, their location or a name
which was pleasing and did not necessarily fit into the categories for their locations.
1
*--names on the Official Naming List for the City of Alameda.
Shoreline Trail is to be known as Shorebird Trail.
OLD
Main Streets
Main Street
Mosley
Mantic Ave
Pacific Ave.
Avenue C
Avenue F
Avenue K
5th Street
Alameda Historic
(Civic Core)
[Icon: City seal]
1st St.
2nd St.
3rd St.
4th St.
Ave. A
Ave. B
Ave. D
Ave. E
Naval
Commercial)
(icon: Anchor w/rope]
8th St.
9th St.
11th St.
Ave. G
Ave. H
Ave. L
Ave. M
Ave. N
NEW
Navy Blvd.
Alameda Point
Parkway
Atlantic Way
Pacific Avenue
Midway Avenue
Tower Avenue
Pacific Avenue
Pan Am Way
Monarch St. *
El Capitan St.*
Washoe St.*
Todd St.*
Red Line Rd.*
Admiral Ave.
Ranger Ave.
Borax Ave.
Viking St.
Orion St.
Skyhawk St.
Trident Ave.
Seaplane Lagoon Ave.
Coral Sea Ave.
Hornet Ave.
Enterprise Ave.
EXPLANATION
57 year association with the Navy
Main thoroughfare of Alameda Point, tying into
Marina Village Parkway at the tube,. making it a
major thoroughfare
Continuation street
Continuation street
Battle of WWII; aircraft carrier stationed at NAS
Street ending at the airfield tower at NAS
Continuation street
Pan American China Clipper taking off from NAS
On approved list
On approved list; ferry boat
On approved list; ferry boat
On approved list; local shipyard •
On approved Usti st commuter train in Alameda
Passes the Admiral's quarters at NAS
Aircraft carrier stationed at NAS
20 mule team plant at NAS area
A-7 aircraft reworked at NAS
P-2 Navy aircraft reworked at NAS
A-4 aircraft reworked at MAS
Class of submarinesn; universal symbol of the sea
PBY-5A aircraft moored at Seaplane Lagoon
Aircraft carrier based at NAS
Aircraft carrier based at NAS; loaded Doolittle's
Raiders
Aircraft carrier based at NAS
2
ESIDENTIAL
pace Vehicles
con: Rocket ship]
ig Whites:
arbers Point Ferry Point
lameda Rd. Admiral Ave.
an Diego Apollo Rd.
ewport Gemini Rd.
eattle Saturn Rd.
an Pedro Mercury Rd.
ensacola Atlas Rd.
orpus Christi Vanguard Rd.
lenview Titan Rd.
earl Harbor Voyager Rd.
irds
:on: Egret]
anch houses:
ir,Pmar Pelican Ave.
his Heron St.
I Toro Egret St.
ie. E Tern Ave.
Dngs of the Era
;on: Treble clef
(notes]
oast Guard
ousing:
Ferry boats docked here prior to NAS
Continuation of old Ave. B
Space program
Habitats of birds at Alameda Point
tt
tt
«
ngleton Sunrise Avenue Reminiscent of the Naval era.
lnapolis Rainbow Circle Symbolic of grace and scenic
osley Red Sails Way atmosphere
onterey Circle Moonlight Circle
ayport Serenade Circle
Altman Poinciana Circle
tkehurst Stardust Circle
,lautical Terms
:Icon: Nautical wheel]
ast Housing:
Bainbridge
Decatur
Santa Rosa
Hollister
Fallon
Vernalis
Cotati
Oceana
Crosswind Ave.
Portside Circle
Starboard St.
Sextant Circle
Compass Way
Seaside Circle
Schooner St.
Oceana Circle
Nautical but not naval
The Committee liked some other names which did not fit into themes or categories, or for which there were
no more streets to name! We therefore suggest that the following be considered as new streets are
developed in FISC and other locations:
Infinity
Sea Angel
Respectfully,
Diane Lichtenstein
Oriskany Continental
Gold Point China Clipper
4
BRAG STRATEGY ON EAST HOUSING
VISION: By the year 2020 Alameda will have integrated NAS (Alameda Point) with the
City and realize a substantial part of the base's potential.
OBJECTIVES:
•
•
•
Provide diversity in housing opportunities
Reflect the existing density and housing characteristics of the City
Develop housing consistent with City po(icies, standards and charter
Conclude strategy as quickly as possible to resolve immediate issues of Navy
departure and need. for City revenue
CONCERNS:
• Financial Feasibility
The City must not be placed in a position of financial liability
• Impact on current and near term housing market
• Consideration of the known housing to come an market in next 5 years
--build out of Harbor Bay
—Northern Waterfront units
—ASO housing to be built as part of Alameda Paint development
—Drive in movie: 106 single family units
—Bridgeport vacant units
—Remaining units at Alameda Point
West housing:
*81 single family homes
*18 townhouses
242 apartments
East housing
260 townhouses
*330 apartments
• Assure that City will not incur unforeseen liabilities, such as tenant relocation
costs
• Potential vandalism, "attractive nuisance", negative marketing if left vacant and
unsecured.
BRAG RECOMMENDATION: Lease 260 units of TOWNHOUSES on interim basis
(5-10 years only)
1) Complete analysis to determine feasibility to lease on short term basis and
impact on the City, economic viability and consequences at end of term.
2) If assured of feasibility for the City, then the City should agree to acquire the
townhouse block, then contract with private property mangement company to
rehabilitate and lease on interim basis.
3) Include site in long term planning for such mattrers as zoning, street
configuration and utility placement.
Over