1997-07-02 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
Alameda, CA 94501
Wednesday, July 2, 1997
5:30 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS TH H, 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 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 ARRA meetings.
1. ROLL CALL G
i
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 7, 1997.
2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of June 4, 1997.
2 -C. Refuge amendment to 525 acres. [to August]
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -D.
[to August]
3 -E. Priorities for Navy Cleanup [July BRAG /August ARRA]
3 -F. [not to ARRA at all]
3 -G.
D ::: . : ::: :•.
[to August/September]
3 -H. Tower-aviation. [to August]
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -H. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
4 -G. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on:
1. Coast Guard Housing
2. Airfield
ARRA Agenda - July 2, 1997 Page 2
3. O'Club Historical Conveyance
4. Proposed community newsletter (August) and community town hall (September)
5. BCDC Port Priority Designation.
4 -H. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items).
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 THE 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 for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
This meeting will be videotaped for broadcast on cable channel 22 on the
following evening, Thursday, July 3, at 7:30 p.m.
The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 1997.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 4, 1997
The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda (left at 7:20 p.m.)
Roberta Brooks, alternate to Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th
Congressional District (left at 7:20 p.m.)
Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr./Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland
(arrived at 5:50 p.m.; left at 7:20 p.m.)
Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:55 p.m.)
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Lee Perez, Ex- officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group
Ardella Dailey, Ex- officio, Alameda Unified School District
Absent: Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Report from the Executive Director recommending approval of the recommended priorities
for the ARRA's 1998 grant application to the Economic Development Administration.
Member Kerr moved approval of the recommendation. Alternate Ornelas seconded the
motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Absent: 4. - Leonhardy,
Chan, DeWitt, Lucas.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -B. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director for changes and clarifications to
applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to add 17 acres to the City of
Alameda's Public Benefit Conveyance request for a Sports Complex, and other changes and
clarifications to Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy.
Alternate Brooks inquired how a Public Benefit Conveyance can be changed legally at this stage.
Executive Director Miller replied that while we cannot add a new PBC at this stage, we can add
acreage to an existing Public Benefit Conveyance.
Speakers:
Bob B. Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics (Islanders), stated the Sports Complex would provide
a positive approach to learning and development and would help revitalize the west end of Alameda.
Jennifer Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex and providing
a 50 -meter pool for swimmers.
®recycled paper 1 C: \MWARD \MENSLEY\ARRA \MINUTES \1997 \6- 4- 97.MIN
Melanie Anne Aeblieck, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex, stating
that The Islanders have 100 swimmers and currently, distance swimmers need to go to Chabot,
Concord, or Walnut Creek for a distance workout.
Toby Chavez, BRAG Recreation Work Group, thanked everyone who had put their time and
thought into planning for the 17 acres of soccer fields, tennis courts, a gymnasium, softball field, etc.
that comprise the Sports Complex plan. He added that the Sports Complex will not happen
overnight and will take approximately 20 years to completely build out.
Maria Antonov, a sophomore at Alameda High School and a member of the Alagators swim team,
spoke in favor of the motion, saying she knew the swimming community will work hard to find the
funding for a new pool.
Dr. Robert Deutsch, Alameda Soccer Club Board of Directors, stated that this is a chance to
provide some land and recreational facilities as a legacy for our children and the future.
Kelly Gallagher, sophomore at Alameda High School and member of the Alagator Swim Team,
asked the ARRA to approve the Sports Complex with a 15 -meter pool to train in that will enable
Alameda teams to compete on an equal footing with other area teams.
Patricia Packard, Vice President of the Alameda Soccer Club and 20 -year Alameda resident, stated
that the proposed Sports Complex will offer healthy recreation to area citizens. The Alameda Soccer
Club has committed to financial support and a willingness to work with representatives of other
sports to make the fields of our dreams a reality. Chair Appezzato announced that just a few days
ago the Alameda Soccer Club gave the City a $10,000 check to help defray expenses. On behalf of
the City, he thanked all those who donated funds.
Karen Simontacchi, Alameda Soccer Club, stated that the Sports Complex is not only important
to the children of Alameda but will benefit the entire region and its economy.
Warren Hood, Alameda Soccer coach for nine years, spoke in favor of the motion, pointing out that
since he began coaching, soccer fields have diminished by less than half and the children are running
on fields of play that many adults would dread to walk on.
Member Daysog moved acceptance of the report and recommendation. Alternate Brooks
seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 -
Lucas.
3 -C. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body
authorize the Executive Director to draft and sign a letter to Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA), Ships Donation Program, requesting that NAVSEA establish August 15, 1997 as the
deadline for a final donation application for the U.S.S. Hornet and that NAVSEA make its decision
no later than September 30, 1997.
Chair Appezzato asked Executive Director Miller if the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation (ACHE)
was aware of this agenda item. Ms. Miller answered that ACHF was not only aware of it, they
concur with the recommendation and suggested the August 15 date.
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, stressed the importance of the Hornet for its tourism
value and the money that tourism will bring to Alameda. He also spoke in favor of the Bullet Train,
building ferry boat piers, and USCSF Research Hospital.
®recycled paper 2 C: \MWARD \MENSLEY\ARRA \MINUTES \1997 \6- 4 -97.MIN
Richard Neveln, an interested citizen, spoke in favor of the Hornet, stating that he hoped the Navy
was given some "wiggle room" in the letter to allow them to pay for pier space if they need longer
to think.
Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, voiced her support of the Hornet and asked why MARAD is
paying millions of dollars to dock their ships but the Navy is unwilling to be responsible for the
Hornet, which is also a Navy vessel. Executive Director Miller explained that MARAD is not under
the Department of Defense; Maritime Administration ships are Department of Transportation
vessels.
Bob Rogers, Executive Vice President of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, stated that they
suggested the dates in the recommendation because they want to go forward. ACHF is wrapping
up their fundraising, they have some very exciting things happening, they are very supportive of
ARRA, and he thanked staff for they support. He further stated that ACHF is probably the only
organization that actually wants to pay rent.
Alternate Brooks asked what was motivating the recommendation. Executive Director Miller
answered that there is a need to know if the ship is not going to make it into the ship donation
program to ACHF because the Navy is then going to have to decide what they are going to do with
the ship. Also, the Navy is not willing to pay rent equivalent to what the MARAD ships are paying.
Ms. Brooks then stated that if there is anything that Congressman Dellums' office can do about that
part of the problem, to let her know. Chair Appezzato stated that if the ship fails to make it into the
ship donation program to the Hornet Foundation, the Navy is ultimately responsible for removing
the ship from our port.
Member DeWitt moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by member
Daysog and it passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1- Lucas.
3 -D. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director requesting the governing body to
authorize ARRA staff to prepare and issue an RFP for a property manager to renovate, lease, and
manage all or part of the available units in West housing.
Speakers:
James Sweeney, Alameda citizen and member of the BRAG Housing Subcommittee, stated that the
first and foremost theme in discussions about the housing is that these old apartments and old
buildings have to come down. The vast majority of Alameda citizens have a fear of the ghettoization
of the old houses, which are deteriorating from day to day. He asked that deconstruction be looked
at in this RFP.
Bill Smith, Emeryville resident, discussed the latest issue of the Base Closure News, which has a
cover article on 368 units of housing in Fort Ord. The same firm handling the Fort Ord housing has
done 3,300 units in the Bay Area for the low income, the disabled, the homeless, and people on
welfare. He suggested that we look at this organization to see what they could do at NAS.
Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, agreed that due to the wear and tear and state of these units,
they would be considered substandard lease or rental housing. She recommended that no action be
taken at this time and that ARRA consider selling the property to encourage pride of ownership
instead of bringing down rental values because of the proliferation of rental units.
®recycled paper 3 C: \MWARD\MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997 \6- 4- 97.MIN
Executive Director Miller stated that the staff recommendation was to go out to bid for the 19 Big
Whites and 32 single - family, ranch -style homes with an option to bid on the townhouse and
apartment units to see what the private sector would do in renovating and leasing those units. She
stressed that the ARRA would not be obligated to follow through.
Alternate Brooks stated that the discussion of destroying units constructed in 1964 and 1966 seems
bizarre to her as she lives in a 1941 house which is still going strong. She added that she did not
know why ARRA should not pursue studying this and she hoped she was not hearing that we were
going to tear down 18 townhouses and 242 apartments. Ms. Miller answered that the staff
recommendation was to issue an RFP to bid on the Big Whites and single - family homes and see
what the private market would do with the townhouse and apartment units.
Alternate Leonhardy asked what would happen to these units if they are not leased or rented?
Executive Director Miller answered that they would be boarded up. Alternate Leonhardy asked if
ARRA is willing to have vacant housing throughout that much of that complex? Ms. Miller stated
that would be the result. Mr. Leonhardy mentioned the associated blight conditions that would
follow with boarding up that many units. He then asked that, as the Tidelands Trust significantly
inhibits long -term planning or transition, if any study been made of possibly trading the housing out
of the trust. Ms. Miller stated that we know that the State Lands Commission is going to be
agreeable to "grandfathering in" the existing housing for some period of time. She added that there
are less than 40 units in the trust but that the area includes most of the Big Whites.
Member Daysog said that the boarding up issue raises the issue of looking into the cost of
deconstruction on these units. He further suggested that if an RFP is being let out on renovating,
leasing, and managing some of the units, he would like to include deconstruction as part of the
infoimation gathering process. He added that the San Francisco Weekly recently had an article on
Project Area Committees and how that is affecting redevelopment areas in the City and County of
San Francisco. Mr. Daysog requested a report on Project Area Committees so that he has a better
understanding of the issue.
Member Kerr stated that if there is anyone living within a redevelopment area when it is formed,
then there is a requirement for a Project Area Committee (PAC) —and any number larger than 25
may trigger this. The PAC has great legal power and takes a 2 /3rds vote of the governing body of
the redevelopment area to override their decisions. Special legislation was passed last year relating
to base closure redevelopments which overrides the general redevelopment law in California.
Overriding that is last year's special legislation initiated by Barbara Lee that relates specifically to
Alameda Naval Air. Redevelopment lines may have to be drawn to exclude the housing. She added
that the City Attorney's office has been working with a legal firm that specializes in this and before
entering any long -term firm commitments on the housing, ARRA should know how or if this might
affect redevelopment. She stated that once this empty housing is put on the market, then there is a
one - for -one replacement housing requirement. This becomes a very serious commitment for the
City of Alameda to do a one - for -one replacement and income levels have to be matched.
Ms. Kerr asked Assistant General Counsel Highsmith to comment on replacement housing.
Assistant General Counsel Highsmith reported that the General Counsel's office is currently working
on an opinion to answer questions about whether leasing properties within an intended
recycled paper 4 C:\MWARD\MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997 \6- 4- 97.MIN
redevelopment area will trigger replacement housing and relocation costs as well as other questions
voiced this evening. Alternate Leonhardy suggested that if you have to do replacement housing, you
have to do 20% set - asides from the redevelopment funds for low and moderate income housing
development and those costs might be offset right there, straight across.
Ms. Kerr asked that in the first sentence of the final paragraph of page four of the staff report, after
the phrase "... issue an RFP to' find a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage" the word
"or deconstruct" be inserted. Member Kerr stated her preference that the RFP address only the Big
Whites and the single - family homes. Executive Director Miller asked for clarification —if the RFP
was only for the Big Whites and the single - family homes, was deconstruction of those units still to
be a part of the RFP? Member Kerr stated that in the case that the RFP was limited to the Big
Whites and single - family homes, deconstruction would be left out.
Member DeWitt voiced his preference for leasing the 19 Big Whites and 32 single- family homes.
He added that perhaps the financial benefit of renting the apartment units would not be beneficial
to the City given possible relocation fees and whatever else might apply. In that case, the RFP might
include what it would cost to deconstruct the apartment -type units.
Member DeWitt moved to go forward with an RFP to find a property manager to renovate,
manage, and lease the Big Whites and the single - family units. The motion was seconded by
Member Kerr. Chair Appezzato restated the motion, to go forward with an RFP for the Big Whites
and the single - family homes with an option to bid on the other housing to include looking at
deconstruction if, in fact, the market does not bear using them, and the potential for tear -down and
redevelopment in other areas. Member Kerr stated that she really wanted to limit it to the Big
Whites and the 32 single -story units; otherwise, deconstruction should be included. Executive
Director Miller explained that an RFP issued for firms that would deconstruct townhouses would
go to a completely different audience than firms that do property management. Chair Appezzato
concurred that if deconstruction becomes an issue, a different RFP can be issued.
Member Leonhardy stated that the units that the ARRA is talking about boarding up are those
immediately around the homeless housing units, which means continuing a blighted condition.
Alternate Brooks added that the concept of examining these other issues makes sense and it would
be helpful to know if the townhouse and apartment units are viable.
Member DeWitt stated that he still has questions about the financial benefit of leasing the apartment
units. Executive Director Miller quoted scenario #1, renting only the single- family and Big Whites
would probably return about half -a- million dollars annually to ARRA revenue. Scenario #2, adding
the townhouse units (6 buildings with 19 actual units) would result in additional revenues of between
$130,000– $155,000. Scenario #3, adding the apartments, would result in an additional
$800,000 – $900,000 being generated.
Alternate Brooks stated that unless an RFP goes out, the ARRA will not know whether anybody
thinks this is viable. If no firms want to work with the apartments and townhouses, then the path is
clear —they have to come down. If there are interested firms then questions on legal ramifications
must be asked, a cost - benefit analysis can be examined, etc. Even if the RFP goes out for all
housing, there is no obligation and the ARRA can reject all proposals if they so wish.
®recycled paper 5 C: \MWARD \MENSLEY\ARRA\MINUTES \1997 \6- 4- 97.MIN
Alternate Leonhardy asked Member DeWitt to accept a friendly amendment to include the
apartments and townhouses with the management costs and benefits broken down by housing
category. Member DeWitt accepted the friendly amendment. Member Kerr then withdrew
her second. Member Daysog asked if deconstruction could be started on a second track tonight.
Counsel Highsmith answered that the issue of deconstruction was not on the agenda for discussion.
The motion was seconded by Alternate Leonhardy and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes: 7. Noes: 1 - Kerr. Absent: 1- Lucas.
3 -E. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body
authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for signature by the ARRA Chair and Vice -Chair
stating the ARRA's opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening
methodology in which the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal - EPA)/Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
Region 9 will not concur. One letter will be sent to RADM David J. Nash, Commander, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters and the second letter will be sent to Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, att: Sherri Goodman.
Dave Ryan, representing EFA West, stated that this is a serious issue and the Navy is working in
partnership with the state addressing complex technical issues. He suggested the ARRA not take
sides but encourage the Navy to work in a collaborative fashion with the state to resolve the issues.
Chair Appezzato replied that when the Navy leaves the City will have to work with the state and
meet state requirements. Alternate Brooks added that the ARRA has a fiduciary responsibility to
the City to weigh in by advocating the property be left as clean as possible. Ardella Dailey, Co -chair
of the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) stated the RAB fully supports drafting and sending the
recommended letters.
Alternate Leonhardy moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -F. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
BRAG Chair Lee Perez commended all the sports interests that worked together to develop the
Sports Complex proposal. The BRAG feels that it is beneficial to the redevelopment of Alameda
Point to recruit an academic presence to replace PPU. Chair Perez stressed that the BRAG's vote
on the housing issue had been a very close vote and they felt the housing must be approached
carefully. Doug deHaan reported that the Airfield Task Force is recommending a limited use airfield
although the financial aspect still needs to be worked out. Chair Perez ended his report by stating that
the BRAG continues to work with WABA and other west side groups on the issue of a commissary;
they are working closely with the FISC Ad Hoc Task Force; and the BRAG continues —along with
other groups —to look at some possible conflicts of interest on dual memberships. Chair Appezzato
added that he would be selecting a new alternate.
recycled paper 6 C: \MWARD \MENSLEY\ARRA \MINUTES \1997 \G- 4- 97.MIN
4 -G. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on:
(1) Coast Guard Housing; (2) Airfield Workshop; (3) Public Trust Appraisal; and (4) BCDC Port
Priority Designation. Executive Director Miller stated that the Airfield Workshop would not occur
on June 19 and optional dates in July are being considered.
4 -H. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items).
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Richard Neveln, interested citizen, reported on the economics of an air show at Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, which generated income of $88 million in one week.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, thanked the ARRA and the BRAG volunteers for their
contributions to the region.
Kurt Bohan passed, stating that he would send in a letter.
Bill Stremmel, recent Alameda resident, complained of the locked gates to the northwestern end of
the base that has been declared off - limits to all human activities due to the nesting season of the
Least Tern. He stated that there is always a socioeconomic and environmental price when property
is restricted to a narrowly defined purpose and it has serious implications for overall redevelopment.
Richard Neveln stated that a Walgreens at Atlantic and Webster does not set a very comfortable
tone to the entrance of Alameda Point and suggested that Frys Electronics would set a better tone.
Bill Smith, an Emeryville resident, discussed deconstruction and methods of removing lead paint
stating that it is much more difficult to deconstruct than it is to construct.
Ann Mitchum, an Emeryville resident, stated that the Navy spends tens of thousands of dollars per
Big White per year on the maintenance, which makes the viability of leasing the Big Whites and the
other units economically weak. Deconstruction is also expensive and economically weak.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog stated that although deconstruction was not included in the final motion [item 3 -D],
it will not be dropped. If RFP responses do not reflect neighborhood values and City priorities,
deconstruction will have to be discussed. He further stated that options were left open such as
leasing out the housing. And by leaving West Housing open, another option is the possibility of
moving some of the homeless housing in East Housing to West Housing, especially in light of the
type of housing that is being considered in East Housing.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Member DeWitt at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret E.Ensley
ARRA Secretary
®recycled paper 7 C: \MWARD\MENSLEY\ARRA \MINUTES \1997 \6- 4- 97.MIN
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
NAS Alameda, Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Fax Memorandum
TO: Distribution (below)
FROM: Margaret E. Ensley, ARRA Secretary
DATE: June 26, 1997
SUBJECT: July 2, 1997 ARRA Meeting Cancelled
(510) 864 -3400
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
You should receive 2 pages, including this cover sheet. If there is a problem with this
transmission, please call 510 -864 -3400.
Following is a notification that the ARRA meeting on July 2 has been cancelled. An interim mailing
will be going out tomorrow, June 27 with informational materials.
DISTRIBUTION:
Members
Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre R. Swanson, District Director, Congressman Dellums' ofc.
Wilma Chan, Supervisor, District 3, Alameda Co. Bd. of Superv.
Henry Chang, Jr., Oakland Councilmember
Ellen M. Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert H. DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Alternates
John Abrate
Roberta Brooks
Mark Friedman
Tim Haffey
Ross Jeffries
Jay Leonhardy
Garry Loeffler, Kathleen Ornelas, Shelia Young
James W. Sweeney
Jim Flint, City Manager
Lee Perez and Helen Sause (BRAG)
Ardella Dailey (AUSD)
Alameda Journal
Alameda Times Star
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
DATE: June 26, 1997
SUBJECT: July 2 ARRA Meeting Cancellation
The July 2 ARRA meeting has been cancelled, as there are no items requiring immediate action by
the governing body. The next regular meeting of the ARRA is August 6, 1997.
Airfield Workshop — A special meeting of the ARRA is scheduled for Monday, July 28 in the
cafeteria at Historic Alameda High School to discuss all aspects of a possible airfield at Alameda
Point.
Tour - An optional tour of Alameda Point will be offered preceding the August 6th regular meeting
of the ARRA. It will leave from the parking lot outside building 90 (ARRA offices) at 4:00 p.m.
Seating is limited; therefore, reservations must be made with the ARRA secretary in advance.
Printed on recycled paper
July 2 A
meeting cancelled.
Since there are no items requiring
immediate Board action, the
regular meeting of the A on
Wednesday, July 2 has been
CANCELLED.
Have a nice July 4th weekend!
The A' will meet next at
5:30 p.m. on Monday, July 28
at the HAHS Cafeteria for an
Airfield Workshop.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Margaret E. Ensley, ARRA Secretary
DATE: June. 27, 1997
SUBJECT: Street Improvement Plan Maps
Per a request from ARRA member Barbara Kerr, attached are three transportation - related maps.
These maps graphically illustrate proposed street classifications, bike paths, and an amphibious route
as presented by Keith Meyer of Raj appan & Meyer during the May 7 ARRA meeting.
®�! Printed on recycled paper
1
1
sJadolana4 @mind /q peod
1
a6n ;a�{ a ;ypl!M 1e8N leuajJv Jowl
Uled Ul!M leuapy Jou!w
saue1 a>118 Ul!M le!JePy Jou!W
leualJV Jou!Ly
Uled Ul!M
1
sauel a)1!8 1-11!M 1eu91J %Jo4mW
cn
m
m
--1
z
>
'0 (4
0 r" >
< >
rn
g
rn
z
-o
zr-
>
hails Ted luaoefpy
Joloa'too eupelN
6upped oN Ul!M laaAls /eM aup
hails /eM aup
Commercial Industrial Collector
vJ
s.,
1
1
1
(III sseio) ajnod eve 6ugsixe
1
1
(II ssei3) auei mile 6u ;six3
1
1
1
(1 sse13) gied a>118 §ugsix3
(111 sselO) e>i18 pasodoid
(11 sselo) auel eve pasodojd
(I sselo) Uled aV8 pesodoJd
.00ZL =.,L -31VOS
L661- '91- NVf
co
m
m
- -1
z
g >
0
• >
m g
g m
m o
z
z
r-
3
a
0
5'
1 f
Taxiway Echo
•,
zFifth Ave.
C,
o
/-
.,.._0._.
,._..._____c_..._,ro..w,,..__„„nD,ri.
raitt, „ r , '
/ c°1
m ,
... ...'1,._,J,
.,,-.,...,--_—
McKay Ave. _ ..,.. 1
,---
C"--■
°pet '' i i l•
' t
eatl_-
,e.no.1 1
tp -
0... si. ■
LL
._._,
dV1N SJIflI0VzJ J10A018 GJSOdO23d
1-
cC
0 <
z
co
-J
w
a.
w
E
o
<
0 ,i9
z
(75 0
< z
<
uj
2 2
E2 w
uJ
}-- <
zc
—w
1
Probable Leases
Interim Use
Permits
Approved
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Area (Sq.
Ft)
1 65,500
1 42,000
1 8,750
CD
1 82,000
0
0
0
0 5
,---
.--
0
0
N.
0.1
0
0
0
o5
12,927
65,500
03
LO
03
a
cn
29,5381
0
0
LO
115
op
0
0
c.-
vi
0
0
0
0 5
T-
,—
55,0001
20,0001
0
0
10
6
<-
0
0
CS)
6
co
14,0001
0
0
N--
c‘i
0
N-
r....
Lci
82,2501
65,500
Building Number
c\J
N
(1)
0)
CO
,--
L_ 564
1200 Mini - storage units
near Bldg. 530
cs)
0.3
CO
N
CD
372
Portion of 24
134
0
CO
CO
N
'7'
"ct
40
CD
CO
•cr
e—
V.)
•cr.
CD
CD
N.-
CO
1631
621
5301
Pier 3
Tenant
ACET (Envir. Tech. Incubator)
Admiral Marine (Marine Hardware)
Airweld of Kentucky (Aircraft Sales & Parts)
Alameda Point Storage (formerly Military Storage)
Alpha Document Storage
Aviation Advisory Group (Airplane Hangar)
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
Cable Moore, Inc. (Cable Rigging)
Carstar (Vehicle Painting)
City of Alameda/Bureau of Electricity (EV Expo)
j City of Alameda (Gymnasium)
City of Alameda (Officers' Club)
Corbin (Electric Vehicles)
Delaco Builders (Cabinetry)
Delphi (Exhibit Displays)
Dynamic Business Dev. (Boat Production)
Forem Metal Mfg. (Sheet Metal Contractor)
Haviside & Heastings (Ship Repair)
Integrated Technology Group (Computer Rebuild)
Puglia (Ship Repair)
Quadrantek (Electric Motor Works)
Richard Miller (Photography)
Tower Aviation (Avionics)
USS Hornet
Zebra Motors, Inc. (Electric Vehicles)
1--
N
CO
'I"
LO
CO
N.
CO
C3
0
1-
N--
N-
N
e-
Cr)
N--
•cr
A--
LC)
v-
CO
N---
N.
N--
CO
.--
C3
N.--
0
N
',"-•
N
N
N
CO
N
'I'
N
10
N
Area (Sq.
Ft.)
•
.
66,0001
0
0
o
N-
7.*
'
0
00
o
cc>
.....
0
o
c.1
esi
13,1501
251
84,250
67,0001
250,000)
0
0
• o
h.:
r
1.-
67,000
40,0001
55,4501
'
0
0
o
0
.1--
66,0001
01
0
co
c6
r
Building Number
portion of taxiway
'
0
Cs4
r.....
)
CO
Adjacent to Bldg. 3601
LO
04
,t.
(N
CO
T—
T--
Portions of 24 & 25
<
0
0
.1-
portion of taxiway
<
0
(7)
.1.
0.1-
,—
T-
v--
Piers 1, 2; Bldg. 168
400A
portion of taxiway
.4.
1.-.
167 & finger piers
portion of roadway
CO
0)
01
1-.
04
1 24
at FISC'.
15
Term of
Occupancy
completed'
10
0
•
E
o
o
long term
long term
long term
'0
a)
CI.
EE
00
00
-0
a)
cx
long term
completed
10
0
a
EE
00
00
'0
0
a
9 months
long term
completed
0
0
-85
a
E
0
0
long term
long term
completed
long term
long term
'0
0
a)
a
E
0
0
long term
long term
651,203
391
820
Tenant
Area 51 Productions (Event Production Co.)
Boy Scouts of America (Spike & Pitch Park)
CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Consortium)
City of Alameda (Records Storage)
City of Alameda (Soccer Field)
Clubhouse Pictures (Film Co.)
ci
C)
E
co
o
m
(I)
>,
a)
c
co
b
Giannotti (Ship Parts & Repair)
.....
0
0
E
LE
(t)
c
o
:c.
0
c
a
o
,_
a.
....
a)
Cy,
0
co
.....
cc)
2
0
Industrial Light and Magic (Film Co.)
Industrial Light and Magic (Film Co.)
Interscope Communications (Film Co.)
MARAD (Ready Reserve Fleet)
Microsoft (Software Co.)
INadel Productions (Film Co.)
Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfgr.)
Nelson's Marine (Boat Repair)
Off Duty ro Pductions Film Co.)
- --
!Polyethylene Products (Plastics Recycling)
(Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.)
IRysher Entertainment (Film Co.)
(Storage yard (Bureau of Electricity)
Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt. /Maint.)
Number of Properties Currently Occupied:
Building Space (sq. ft.) Currently Occupied:
Current Employment in Leased Buildings:
Projected Future Employment in Leased Buildings:
oj
01
•4-
(0
(0
N.
0)0)
CD
'‘.—
c-
r
04
't"-^
01
c--
'I'
r
(0
r
(0
"r"
1,-,
r
CO
r
0)
r
cp
01
.,--
(‚4
04
04
CO
04
•sndureo E xo3 a2rudosdd2
aq pings sasn uuar asotis 2uaoEfpr os `loafosd uual Suoi s. aq pinom, snduseo aq j
-sndureo safxri r soj ittoipe oa os (vg Sa) sSurpjrnq waorfpr jo uoutlotuap sod saprunaxoddo
atp pur uorls.ursap ouorsrq aq2 oa anp suouoursar algissod at.cr uo a_rodaz jjrrs s. 1.sanba-a -f,
pound uoistoa -sasn sago so'
A pur Xpn3s aqa. ffuunp „ease aoueXanuoo add„ axoE S9 alp la3IJEUT 1011 oQ £
larsuap pur (aSEalor at) ans sndureo aas.udoxdds. U autttuaaaa .,
-urm. asnaj Ar.lununuoD alp, Jo aualut atp. zg ioogos au:.
JO UOTSSIU1 aqa. pus. °aigrdro I(f erouEtrg Irtwapaxo wuars.ntnba us. ans.q .ro pallpasoor
`pagsrgr sa aq r.sntu saart2t sum Surtxrexj so saSalloo anuoadsoxd ijs. a.-egl aitnbar (z
luatudolanap DSId 041. o; puE ioiougoal par aouaios
ui axrunJ pasodosd csu roa rpatus.ly or pa3itrq aq tzs.o sndureo t? moq aaEnrna (p
sau1SSanrun
palm= ans.q 2rga Ps0 a1od sE qons •asotp ptre (ap! r pagoei aas) watuaSurire
drgsiatnred aSapoo -X210 atp aArq Imp sautunurtuoo 2ut3srxa tmisA ors (3
20/20.d
sumnaa uo�`.uoxJ sanaEuasasdas `sidaa uauzdoiana0 otuouo a i uttoo u frpa uzEr9 atoddns gullying n� pue uoi dtoased o
saur2ua SuunonoJ alp aniontrq (q
Xpn2s atp soJ stpuotu 9 Jo tunurpcBtu r mom (,
:swatuaia
utntio iT o .; alp a n out I� g o nn sndureo E Jo.; Ease alp la5Jreux of ssaooid E ios odS"Z
JQ3 ptre mid asnag IirurnutuoD aql to Uoudo tre se sndtus.o atp uts.rar
:� OZ swza avoaaa O'4 e[fT
179LETZS6 01 9LSETEB0TS DNI .lUM3d1:+.9 Nd ?C:ET U7, bZ Nn''
sumoiusw y
3o uotiezrfewias aqi ut padrati anEq sa2arloo ut;gm asagm saseo are araua o
(pip 23) sanlasuzagi &uoure ai>?soq-elloo pug axegs oz !lust axe sautsrantu
(4ssantun alro uaplo° `pip id) s taZuao 2utuxErl got- gounel `sro3Egn^ t
ssaursnq jo SuiuuErd aqi ut Alp auzoq atp istsse of uhaoml wag anEq I►atp o
Fuisnput a are sagallo_■ o
/curd raglta rsq algtssoC.
aq iou prno:n astrnragio i etla. ijznq is oia `sac211poz3 uoii easaas `ssaivao re.1nilr;: o
aValloo alp iCq Aitunururoo aqi ui ivads axe s.refc ;) o
sndureo uc
a.,tl Acreur.p kuroadsa 144eis pue swap= 'q Saluntutuoo aqi ui wads are &TEllo!: o
(autatpatu pue q reasas so; suogeudoiddd argils `sure.
`ruuznre 2a) satito of algElresr iou are tern spun; 3o saomos aAeq sa$ailoo aqp o
uotssrur magi jo i.red st: / itunururoo
aqi ouut tiaeasino aseq santssanrun autos puE `ssaalunlon Jo sao.mos are Aagi
-uopraroar `wauntr- ruaiva
`ivaurfoldtua `satituaure rEmloallaiut puu remilno Jo AvitA. aqi ut apuosd
Fate it'grn jo asnwoaq anti of saoeid lsaq «mau„ $ututooaq are sun3oi aSalroo 0
:axe sitrrod lutostu$ts autos •tutod rpaurrw
3o ivatudoranap alp ro; snoo3 sof uz r apLAosd Hun sndureo t 2ELli sanatlag Oygg aqL
.squired sa8alloo pue saris sr Aileraadsa `sndurro a8alloo E Aq papIAosd samurai roddo at2
inogE uotssnostp saroq.rE ainuisuj purl uegsn ivaaas ur spuu aa.ro,d 3jsri add DvITa ata
L616 I/9
NOl. NCE aJ%mIODall 3D110,4 NSV L M1SJMAIMf1. DI,3IDVd 1■11(d
20 /Eerd b92TZS6 01 92,S21680TS
DNI .IdfSdNS S : ST L'. bZ Nrlf
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
June 26, 1997
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director �C
SUBJ.: Status report on current activities.
Airfield Workshop. The workshop has been scheduled for Monday, July 28, 1997 at. 5:30 p.m.
in order to include the Planning Board. It will be held in the Historic Alameda High School
cafeteria and will be videotaped for broadcast (date and time for broadcast to be announced).
2. BCDC Port Priority Designation. BCDC will hold a public hearing on July 17, 1997 on the
proposed amendment to the Seaport Plan to delete. the 220 acres at NAS Alameda. The formal
vote on the amendment will take place in August.
Proposed newsletter and town meeting. In conjunction with the BRAG Community Involvement
Work Group)we have been strategizing a newsletter on Alameda Point activities. The newsletter
will have a wide distribution in Alameda and other interested constituencies. We are also
recommending a town meeting to be held in September.
4. O'Club conveyance. The City Recreation and Park Department will apply to the National Parks
Service for an Historic Conveyance through the Department of the Interior. It is anticipated that
the lease for the O'Club will be concluded shortly and it will be open for business by September.
5.
Fleet Week — USS Lincoln. ARRA staff has received an inquiry from the Navy about the
possibility of berthing the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln at Alameda Point for four days for Fleet
Week. Fleet Week is tentatively scheduled for October 11 -14, however it is not certain it will
take place due to the cost. If it does take place, we have informed the Navy we would berth the
ship on the north side of Pier 3. The Navy will have to arrange with MARAD to move the
MARAD ships out of the way. The Navy would pay us a fee for port and berthing services.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/mee
C: \MARGARET\ARRA \STAFFREP \STATUS 6.26
Correspondence
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda (510) 864 -3400
Postal Directory, Building 90 Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
Ronald V. Dellums
9th Congressional District
Wilma Chan
Supervisor, District 3
Alameda County Board
of Supervisors
Henry Chang, Jr.
Oakland Councilmember
sting for f ! Harris
Mayor, City of Oakland
Ellen M. Corbett
Mayor
City of San Leandro
Tony Daysog
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Albert H. DeWitt
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr
Councilmember
City of AIameda
Karin Lucas
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Kay Miller
Executive Director
June 19, 1997
RADM David J. Nash
Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Bldg. Hoffman #2, Rm. 11N3
200 Stovall Street
Alexandria, VA 22332 -2300
Dear Admiral Nash:
We are writing to you to express serious concerns regarding the environmental
cleanup process at the Naval Air Station Alameda. The Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the City of Alameda have been infoiined
by Engineering Field Activity West (EFA West) and Cal -EPA Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) that EFA West has selected and is proceeding with an
environmental screening methodology that DTSC and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency ( USEPA) view as less protective than the DTSC's methodology
and as noncompliant with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The conflict between EFA West and DTSC began approximately one year ago. The
A.RR.A and the City have been patient, deferring to the agencies and relying on EFA
West's continued assurances that the issues would be resolved "in a few weeks."
Those assurances have produced no result other than to raise expectations. Now,
a year later, we find the situation untenable.
The ARRA and this community have worked diligently since the announcement of
closure in 1993 to develop our reuse plan, build a financial basis of interim leases,
and work through a morass of land restrictions, endangered species, and public trust
issues. Now we are moving into the implementation stage and have anticipated that
some of the property not presently in the Installation Remediation Program (IRP)
could be conveyed as early as late summer or early fall of 1998 when the NEPA
ROD is signed. As we begin to consider specific redevelopment plans and issue
developers' Requests for Proposals (RFP), we must have certainty on the cleanup
process and dependable schedules for conveyance of properties. Please note that as
this screening methodology issue remains unresolved, the feasibility of alternatives
addressed in the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is questionable. In
February 1997, USEPA informed EFA West, "...for any property found suitable for
transfer based entirely on the tier 2 risk assessment calculations in question, EPA
RADM David J. Nash
June 19, 1997
Page 2
will comment on the Finding of Suitability for Transfer that the Navy can not [sic] make the
covenant under CERCLA...that all necessary remedial action has been taken with respect to
contamination on property." This conflict has the potential to derail the EIS and throw the entire
process into interminable delay.
In addition to certainty on environmental process and conveyance schedules, we must have title to
property which does not subject us to potential liability and which can compete in the California
market. Environmental staff from EFA West have informed us that if they proceed with their
"Tiered Screening Methodology" DTSC may issue a cleanup order to the City of Alameda when it
receives title to the property. This is unacceptable. We have also been advised by both EFA West
and DTSC that this screening methodology issue has the potential to affect the adjacent property at
the Fleet Industrial Supply Center's Alameda Annex. Regardless of the Navy's position that it is
the lead agency and has the authority to proceed absent concurrence of state regulators, our position
is clear —the Navy cannot subject this City to such liability. Even a perception that this property
does not "measure up" environmentally is a liability in terms of how this property will compete on
the market. The very fact that your staff has been unable to resolve this conflict and is now
proceeding without concurrence of U.S. EPA and DTSC has created a perception that the property
is "not desirable."
In closing, we stress that the City of Alameda will not accept conveyance of property that does not
meet the standards of Cal -EPA and U.S. EPA for this region. The Navy is ill- advised to pursue its
present course of action. It is not in the interest of either the ARRA or the Navy to accept the
possibility of a state enforcement action or to delay the proper screening, cleanup, and conveyance
of the property at the Naval Air Station Alameda.
Very truly yours,
Ralph 'Appezzato
ARRA Chair and
Mayor, City of Alameda
cc: CNO (N44), RADM L. M. Smith
Dave Ryan, EFA West, BCM
ARRA governing body
7/e
Sandre R. Swanson
ARRA Vice Chair and
District Director to
Congressman Ronald V. Dellums
-Epaulely
uorlEls z►y IEAEN aql 3e Xl_ladozd am Jo aous/Canuoo pus `dnueola `ouluaazas zadozd
am /Culap of zo uor3oe luauxaozojua alms E 3o Aiilrgrssod aql Idaooe of ICneN agl JO
y am zaglrajo lsaza3Ur ag3 ur 3ou sr 3I •uoIAaz situ 1o3 ydgSn P°E ydg-IPO3o
spepuels ag3 paw Sou saop 3eg3 Xlzadozd 3o aousiCanuoo 3daooe Sou Ilan Epausely
30 SCI D agl lu `puuu uxo0 2UUaaUpug sailrliasd lenuN `zapu- eunuoD `1.1s1N
I,IQy2I paUrioJut am `Jolla! 3u0oa1 s uI •iClgigeil eons ol'Cl!D sup laa rgns louu10
iCAEN am--.reap st uopIsod ino awls 3o aaua.unouoa luasge paaooxd
of Xluogln1 ag3 sett pue iCoua E peal am sty! lap uoplsod s,A.AuN ag33o ssalpi aj
•alguldaaosun sr srgZ •/Clzadozd agl of aim saniaoaz 3r uagm Epatuely
30 XIij am 03 zapzo dnuealo E anssi kew Osici „ aolopoglaw SuivaazoS pazail,,,
xrag3 glim paaoozd /cagl "! lEgl sn paunoJur aiVq Isom ydg wag 33E3s [ 3uaurUOZinua
`uor3ippe uI «---sri uaD zapun 3UEU0n00 0143 a)lEtu LOIS] 30U UE0 /CAEN
am 3eg3 zajsuali .ro3 /CIiligelins 30 2uipui3 aq3 uo 3uatuuxoa Itim ydg uor3sanb ui
suopuinoleo 3U WSSaSSE )lsu Z zai3 am uo icIaipua paseg .rajsue.0 zo3 alqulins puno3
�C3xadozd tue .103.. ,, ISom ydg paurroJui yd3Sf1 'L661 faEnzgad uI .(v- oliao)
loy J3rligeri pue `uoi3ESUaduxoD `asuodsag IEluauxuozinug anrsuagazduxoD ag3 -pm
3uerlduxoouou sE pue X olopog3aw p.zeprrels s‘eiurojileD3o alEls ag3 usg3 aniloalozd
ssal se main (ydgsn) iouany uorloalozd IEluauxuozrnug .s .n aqI puu DS.La
goigm X2olopoglatu 2uiu00ios [E3uatuuozinU0 uE !DIM 2urpaaoozd sr pue paoalas
5E4 3sam yjg lEgl (osia) loxluo3 saouslsgns oixol, 30 luour sdaa ydg -Ie)
puE (3sam ydg) lsam iclinilay plaid 2uuaaupug iig patuzojui uaag anig -pommy
30 40 ag3 puE (y jy) icluog3ny 3uauxdoIanapag pus asna>
Epau1Ely aqy
"Pm sE 0SU0J0Q3o luauxllEdaa
puE /Cn1N ag3 puE i(3runuxuzoa sup .103 Tog `algEUa3un si uorl1nlrs 3uasazd ag3
`gas Tlim noJC sy •/Clalerpauruxi lomuoo luasazd 0g3 OAJOSaz o3 anloJEip 0ni3ant3SU00
E 14silgE3sa of Wag3 Qurazn pue szol1In2az puE 1Cn1N gg3 SuptSua aoUS3srss1
3o aq Amu _gels zno1C puE noJ .upaUxeIV uoi3E3s.ry [Sn1N am 3e ssaaoxd dnuealo
IE3uatuuoxrnua ag3 Surp1aal suzaouoo snouas ssazdxa o3 no/C o3 2ur3um 01E OM
:usuxpooO sIAIluau
I Its£ -INOZ Da `uo1auigs1M
Z6La •ura `uoaeluad asuajaa OOi7
Alunoas IE3Uauxuoz!AUg 30, aor33O
uEUxpooD uza4S
L661 `6I ounr
Jo1oan4 anpnoaxg
aal[!NI' N
epawely30' 1!0
sagwawl!ouno0
SEOn'j Hpum
Epawiiy 30 '1!O
.lagwawl!ouno0
laa}j eaegaeg
EpawEly 30 AID
lagwaw!lounop
1l!M U •H paw
EpaWE!VJo X)!D
iagwawi!aunop
2os,CeQ iCuo•j,
oipuEa-j uEs 3O AID
_maw
.1laq-1o0 •jai ',an
PuEPIE0 Jo 'CID `.IO,CEJA
SpltH nggg
ao3 5u!,vas
Jagwawpounop puupiE0
'If'211er;a UuaH
siospuadns 30
p.liog fluno0 Epaurely
£ lo!us!Q `ios!nladns
neg,7 ewI!m
lopis!Q IEUO!ssa1uoD 416
sump(' •n ptEUOg
103 JOIDal!Q lo!�is!a
.1!Eg0 -3!n
UOSU1 MS •U a.ipues
epawely 30 oXeN
!g LID
oleaaddy gdieg
dpog 2u!ruanoD
Z105 -105176 y0 `EPawely
l9L£-IZS (01 S) :xej 06 2u!pl!ne `Aioloan4 Ielsod
00b£-498 (ot S) epawely uouels -1!V ►ene!q
h uogTny T.uaLudolanapaJ pug asna-a tipauzciy
stun1laQ •A P1EUO)J uEUZSSaz2uop
o� zo�oancj pu�sia
pUE .ILEtt3 031A VITHIV
UOSUEms '11 azpUEs
2
2ll."I ZJS.1.CIV AWS RR10J•_L:121VDIIVIVJ
Xpog 2utuzanoD y��y
JADE( `1Sa� y,dg `u ka 0AEQ
qmwS wav i `0717N) OND
OVJAVN `- iapuEU1WO
:0o
EpaUIEly Jo 43 `zoAEtAl
puE ziEgD V2-1-21V
p zzaddylgdlE-a
•
`szno�C �Citu� ,CzaA
'00tV£ -1798 COI S) lE `J II ?YAI iCE}i 'SW `zoloa1KQ angnoaxg vary alp 40E1u00 /CEUI
no/ `uogEUuojut IEUOgtppE znoX .zo noX 31 .SUI00uoo .tno sassazppE 7CIalEnbapE gotgm
uialgozd sap .iamsuE uE pug (DI /CAEN atp lstssE aq /CEUi noJ lap adoq pui asuodsaz xnoX o�
pnnmzo3 Noo1 a .Xl!untutuoo stgj puE y y age oij aou1 Jodutt lsotuin Jo st ansst stgj `XlsnoingO
Z a2Ed
L66 I '61 aun f
u1tupoo0 !zags .sI'\t
AGENDA
RESTRICTED -USE AIRFIELD WORKSHOP
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Cafeteria - West Wing, Historic Alameda High School
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
Alameda, CA 94501
Monday, July 28,1997
5:30 p.m.
5:30 p.m. — Welcome and Introduction
• Purpose of the workshop and role of the ARRA: Ralph Appezzato, ARRA Chair and
Mayor of the City of Alameda (5 minutes)
• Meeting preview: Marilyn Snider, Snider and Associates (5 minutes)
• Overview of restricted use airfield issues: Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director (15
minutes)
• Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) recommendation (5 minutes)
6:00 p.m. — Opportunities and Constraints: Federal Regulatory Agencies
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife (10 minutes)
• FAA (10 minutes)
6:20 p.m. — Question and Answer Period
• ARRA Governing Body
• Public
6:40 p.m. — Presentations by Potential Airfield Operators and Tenants
• Introduction to presentations: Kay Miller (5 minutes)
• Presentations: Potential economic and other benefits which may be realized from a
restricted -use airfield.
7:30 p.m. — Questions from the ARRA Governing Body Regarding Proposed Uses
7:45 p.m. — Public Comments on the Use of Existing Resources as Restricted -Use Airfield
8:20 p.m.
• Summary of meeting: Marilyn Snider
• Identify next steps: Kay Miller
• Closing remarks: Chair Appezzato
8:30 p.m. — 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 for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
ARRA Agenda - July 28, 1997 Page 2
This meeting will be videotaped for broadcast on cable channel 22 on the
following evening, Tuesday, July 29, at 7:30 p.m.
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 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 ARRA meetings.
BRAG Airfield Task Force
Recommendation to the BRAG on the Proposed
Limited Use Airfield
The BRAG Airfield Task Force finds that:
• The concept of reusing the NAS Airfield as a limited use airfield is compatible
with the goals and objectives-of the Community Reuse Plans as an interim use
based on the information made available to date; and
A limited use airfield would provide opportunities for attracting other compatible
airfield maintenance uses for the reuse of existing hangars and aircraft
maintenance buildings at Alameda Point.
The Airfeald Task Force recommends that the BRAG advise the ARRA to proceed
with the necessary feasibility analysis to determine the suitability of an Interim
reuse of the existing NAS airfield as a limited use airfield and that evaluation and
actions should include:
(1) Development of an appropriate business plan, lease arrangements, and
joint use agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Navy to allow for a limited use airfield at Alameda Point; and,
(2) Obtaining and evaluating the information identified for decision making on
the attached matrix; and
(3)
Seeking appropriate airfield users through a marketing strategy for and
lease of appropriate facilities; and
(4) Successfully completing these tasks before the ARRA issues an RFP to
select an operator of the airfield; and
(5)
(6)
Requesting the appropriate City and regional committees and agencies
review the proposal and participate in the proposal; and
Adoption by the BRAG and forwarding these recommendations to the
ARRA Board.
Some Concerns and Comments
on Limited Airfield Proposal
Considered b Task Force
• May be difficult to end airfield uses once the field is established.
• The lease period is assumed to be 10 - 15 years to permit amortization of
improvements.
• the field may increase air traffic over Alameda. There already is a serious
potential problem with Oakland Airport expansion_ These issues are subject to
management.
o Alameda will need to evaluate its responsibility for air field maintenance,
insurance, fire, etc., as well as the management plan for fish and wildlife in order
to avoid incurring unforseen liabilities.
• Evaluation of legal, operational, and financial liabilities needs to be completed.
o Tr... make it economically feasible, some threshold level of buildings will have to
be devoted to airfield related activities.
• The necessary Runway Accident Protection Zone would inhibit adjacent uses.
• Compatibility with other uses and the Community Reuse Plan needs further
evaluation (see attached matrix).
Environmental impacts have not been reported out for consideration.
• Proposal requires further public input.
May 5, 1997
a)
ta
-D
0,
L
a)
.E)
co
0)0
c
4= --
CD
O 0
0 e
-a- Lu-
ca
c
E ge
O .0
w
E
(2) Presumes originally proposed uses in the Community Reuse Plan,
(3) To be determined by noise equivalency tests.
Airfield
Business
c:,...
co 0
± Q
In r),,,
sig._
E
.2 C3- :0•1/4 Z e-
w o c cw' o
o 4.1 --. 4a.)
2 0 Z C4 " 0.
Museum
Tourist
5g
rt.
G
MC 0
r ca
in a c
......
--%., 72 -a, .0) "0
Za- ccs
;;FC 0- <( I— ct
A
E
= Q.
Lii: g
2 ()
Public Trust
—
15
-4=
la
a_
C)
3> _0,-'9 Z
E , as -= =
--t5 fl
2 .= a. TA / .E
Adjoining
University
c.-6.
§ ;'''
ii5 ZA
a) If--
M `13
ta.
.. E
= Q
to
c.,
,B,
=
CO
Glo
§
C.)
0,
-
•
-.)
Adjoining
Business
0
=
C
A-
-
75,
E ra
,R 0.
13 §
BCDC Port
4
32
_ca
Q-
.,.... E
00
= c..)
..=
.rIC
CD M
co m
. Xr. T-
t, A !g
co 4-0 •Ri..
r
)
_ce
as
. a.
• _4c)
= c....)
NW Territory
(2)
a
0, 0
t...)
as
ca
a_
.2'o
c..)
Golf Course
-=
-± c.)
-0 0
e, a)
n u)
c5 8
ri-
co
cr) 0
(..)
ea
c
A-
Z.
E *Vs
.2 0_
c.,
.
42 as
Vs' I—
ca..,-.
Q (.0
a•
0.
CT) 0
C.)
Wildlife
Refuge
Iri
.
-F.... E
.1-•-•• Q
= C..›
2
5 CD
cr i'
0.) w ea
Ce --I U.
a
-= E
.9> o
S (....) .
Development
Options:
C
0
a) --
to ca.
0
13 "0
E te
-..a.
a)
72 E
co a_
`E 0 c
> ,...
0 CL.
CV
c d z C3 0
a)
ta
-D
0,
L
a)
.E)
co
0)0
c
4= --
CD
O 0
0 e
-a- Lu-
ca
c
E ge
O .0
w
E
(2) Presumes originally proposed uses in the Community Reuse Plan,
(3) To be determined by noise equivalency tests.
0)
Development Timing
Immediate Next 5 Years
0
a
0
:a
Air Space Permit from FAA
E
0
Development Options:
Limited Use Airfield Option
0
ea
2
S
2
CO
'0
0
co
<29
E
=
g. IS
1 co
co
co
— ...0
t g
in a)
cox 2
E cn
i 1
E 0.
co
.0 CO
F 2.
f I0
0,
F3 -5 ,Ei
E 2 a9
a)
-.,o ....-....-
1 g 1
-E, ....E v,
.3 =
0)
42 -0 .c
tli 1:3
=
A e
=
s E r 2
• E5 2
= .g on
js, to g 2
2 -s. g
E 14 a)
e
it i i
at
a
0 2 g* E
— 0 M —
conclusion of interim period.
0,
FROM : Larry & Ann Gill FAX & UOICE PHONE NO. : 510 523 7142
BRAG Airfield Task Force
"itt,144c-ic,
Recommendation to the BRAG on the Proposed
Limited Use Airfield
The BRAG Airfield Task Force finds that:
The concept of reusing the NAS Airfield as a limited use airfield is compatible
with the goals and objectives'of the Community Reuse Plans as an interim use
based on the information made available to date; and
A limited use airfield would provide opportunities for attracting other compatible
airfield maintenance uses for the reuse of existing hangars and aircraft
maintenance buildings at Alameda Point.
The Airtlald Task Force recommends that the BRAG advise the ARRA to proceed
with the necessary feasibility analysis to determine the suitability of an Interim
reuse of the existing NAS airfield as a limited use airfield and that evaluation and
actions should include:
(1)
Development of an appropriate business plan, lease arrangements, and
joint use agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Navy to allow for a limited use airfield at Alameda Point; and,
(2) Obtaining and evaluating the information identified for decision making on
the attached matrix; and
(3) Seeking appropriate airfield users through a marketing strategy for and
lease of appropriate facilities; and
(4) Successfully completing these tasks before the ARRA issues an RFP to
select an operator of the airfield; and
(5) Requesting the appropriate City and regional committees and agencies
review the proposal and participate in the proposal; and
(6) Adoption by the BRAG and forwarding these recommendations to the
ARRA Board.
PO
FROM : Larry & Ann Gill FAX & UOICE PHONE NO. : 510 523 7142
Some Concerns and Comments
on Limited Airfield Proposal
Considered b Task Force
• May be difficult to end airfield uses once the field is established.
• The lease period is assumed to be 10 - 15 years to permit amortization of
improvements.
• the field may increase air traffic over Alameda. There already is a serious
potential problem with Oakland Airport expansion_ These issues are subject to
management.
• Alameda will need to evaluate its responsibility for air field maintenance,
insurance, fire, etc., as well as the management plan for fish and wildlife in order
to avoid incurring unforseen liabilities.
- • Evaluation of legal, operational, and financial liabilities needs to be completed.
• Te... make it economically feasible, some threshold level of buildings will have to
be devoted to airfield related activities.
• The necessary Runway Accident Protection Zone would inhibit adjacent uses.
• Compatibility with other uses and the Community Reuse Plan needs further
evaluation (see attached matrix).
• Environmental impacts have not been reported out for consideration.
• Proposal requires further public input.
May 5, 1997
70c1
3
0
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
11
Alt
Presumes originally proposed uses in the Community Reuse Plan.
tli
2
(3) To be determined by noise equ
(4) Code improvement requirements need to be established in a creditable manner.
(5) Not established in a creditable manner by data presented to date.
Consideration of waivers for special events
(8) May begin establishing long term uses.
Flelicopter use has not been
a
E-;*
Zt7T L 2eS TS : 'ON 9N0Hd apIon T XUA IITO uuu T : WONA
Dd
Public Safety Impacts
Transportation Impacts
Operational Requirements
Development liming
Immediate Next 5 Years
Air Space Restrictions
0
Air Space Permit from FAA
cc
0
E
0
0
0
0
E
0
0
Limited Use Airfield Option
0
0
ntial mitigation through mechanisms such as lease requirements and ground rules for operators.
(6) To be determined by noise equivalency tests
(8) May begin establishing ong term uses.
(9) Impacts are expected to be 'love' except during special events.
avTL zes OTS : 'ON SNOHd apIon 8 XUA IITO uuki '8 : WO8A
9d
a)
0)
0
E
E5
a)
-SC
E
—
a9
0)0
CG
0
0
-0 <0
aE—.
13
22
a
co E C)
–6
a)
E
0
T3
ck_
ca 0
et7T EeS 019 : 'ON SNOHd pplon T Xtld IITO uluu 0 : WOeld
.0c1
(2) Presumes originally proposed uses in the Community Reuse Plan.
Es OTS : 'ON 3NOHd spion T XUA TITO uuti T : W02:1J
(3) To be determined by noise equivalency tests.
Airfield
Business
"--•
-= E
co 0
± C.)
-9 E
WO
( .)
-o fa
_
a co ,-... CD
= CC ;Et' O-
Museum
Tourist
Attractions
Z.
t. 03 =
ca. 32 :S2
-Ccn g „c-,' 2›- ..„,,,E3
± c....1 :z-c- a. < 1-
(1)
.52
<
=
E fs
Public Trust
15-
-....-:-.
tz
CD 0
C.)
w
r
E I,
......_
.E (...)
To 8
--h- 05 -=
.-c. CC a.
Adjoining
University
,.,.
= _
;E.
E:El
a1,-....-
M co
, ca.
-= E
Land Use Compatibility Criteria
Adjoining
Business
Uses
=
-se
C
Z,
a:-
J2
E1
13 g
2 L.)
BCDC Pori
.:.,
-SR 4.1 2
JZI cr) n
7-1-)
1-.2i -E LE
6 8 c)
co 8
a)
_a
cc
CL
15 _Q
c.....)
''.
..k
03
•-•••
3> .......
L
E ....,
= :....-
17-5 la
W -.4.=
M Ca
CL
E
cy) 0
t..)
.:.'s
721-
-47'..,
03
CL
.= E
o) 0
± c...)
Golf Course
0
tn S
.±- (....) (7 en u)
.Z.
:_.
...5
aS
..c E
(.)
ea
-c
g
:..
°I E
E ia' III I-
CL
6E E
a 0 a =
c..› c.) (r)
z.-
o) 0
(..)
.
322
Ce
-..
D_ -50) .....
-= E cr tuts'
.2, 0, a> w ea
:
a
-= E
.9) o
1
Development
Options:
=
0
W Is=
0
id -0
:-____:
L =
J.
cu
tE
C d =
"E.
W
ck.
0
7-
0
E
-.--
0
(2) Presumes originally proposed uses in the Community Reuse Plan.
Es OTS : 'ON 3NOHd spion T XUA TITO uuti T : W02:1J
(3) To be determined by noise equivalency tests.
NIMITZ FIELD PROJECT
ADDENDUM TO AIRFIELD REUSE STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 1996 the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission retained P &D Aviation to
respond to issues and concerns raised by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority over
the feasibility of converting the former NAS Alameda airfield to a "restricted use" civil airport.
The term "restricted use airport" means a publicly -owned airport leased to a private operator for
the exclusive use of airport tenants and others engaged in business or other authorized activities
at the airport. The airport would not be open to the general public.
Airfield Configuration
This report has identified an area of approximately 420 acres as being the optimal project area
required to support a restricted use airport, as follows:
Airfield Operating Area 228 Acres
Development Area 130 Acres
Open Space (including Least Tern nesting area) 62 Acres
TOTAL 420 Acres
Included within the Development Area are approximately 1.8 million square feet of aviation and
aviation - related buildings and facilities.
Financial Feasibility
Projected airfield area operating costs were estimated at $550,000 per year. At a competitive
lease rate of approximately $3.19 per sq. ft. /year (which includes a surcharge for airport
operation and maintenance), a minimum of 695,000 sq. ft. out of 1.8 million sq. ft. of building
space would be required to be devoted to aviation uses in order to break even on the costs of
operating the airfield. This is approximately 40 percent of the available building space in the
area defined for the project.
By leasing a little more than 50 percent of the available buildings for aviation purposes, an
estimated additional $264,000 net revenue could be anticipated over and above the non - aviation
uses. This amount is net of the estimated annual airfield operating costs of $550,000, but does
not include other potential sources of revenue (e.g., air shows, special aviation events).
With a 75 percent aviation use factor, the net additional revenue over and above non - aviation
uses could total $650,000 annually. This would also be net of the annual airfield operating costs,
but does not include revenues from special events or other aviation activities.
730221execsum
NFP:AARS (Act. 28) (8/30/96) - page ES -1
On this basis P &D believes the idea of a restricted use airfield has sufficient economic merit to
warrant further study.
Recommendations
Should the City of Alameda/ARR.A decide to pursue the use of Nimitz Field for limited or
restricted aviation activities, P &D recommends the following near -term actions be taken over the
next 6 months:
• Solicit comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the
proposed airfield layout and operating areas (as set forth in Figure 2) with respect
to their compatibility with the wildlife refuge and the "Wildlife Refuge
Management Plan."
• File Form 7480 -1, "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" with the Federal Aviation
Administration to commence the required aeronautical study and airspace
assessment.
• Coordinate with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
concerning the proposed use.
• Notify the Alameda county Airport Land Use Commission of the intent to operate
a restricted use civil aviation facility at Nimitz Field.
• Publicly advertise for and request proposals from financially qualified and capable
airport operators /developers to lease buildings and operate the airfield.
730221execsum
Apply to Caltrans for Airport Operating Permit.
NFP:AARS (Act. 28) (8/30/96) - page ES -2
5.4. Finding
P &D believes the limited use airfield concept has sufficient economic merit to
warrant continued evaluation. Our recommended actions are set forth in the next
section.
NFP•AAR (Art 9R1 (RPIniQF) _ nanr� 91
6. RECOMMENDED ACTION PROGRAM
Should the City of Alameda/ARRA decide to pursue the limited aviation use of
Nimitz Field, P &D recommends the following near -term (over the next 6 months)
actions.
• Solicit comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the
proposed airfield layout and operating areas (as set forth in Figure 2) with
respect to their compatibility with the proposed wildlife refuge and the
"Wildlife Refuge Management Plan."
• File Form 7480 -1, "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" with the Federal
Aviation Administration to commence the required aeronautical study and
airspace assessment.
• Coordinate with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) concerning the proposed use.
• Notify the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission of the intent to
operate a restricted use civil aviation facility at Nimitz Field.
• Publicly advertise for and request proposals from financially qualified and
capable airport operators /developers to lease buildings and operate the
airfield.
• Apply to Caltrans for Airport Operating Permit.
6.1. Time Frame
The above six tasks will require a minimum of 6 months to complete, as follows:
1. Coordinate with USFWS 60 Days
2. Obtain FAA Airspace Approvals 60-90 Days
3. Coordinate with BCDC 60 -90 Days
4. Coordinate with ALUC 60 -90 Days
5. Issue/Evaluate RFPs 60 -90 Days
6. Obtain Caltrans Operating Permit 90 -120 Days
The following is the anticipated time line for completing the above six tasks:
MIGp•AADC (/1r+ 7Q\ /QI (1 /nr \ _