1999-08-04 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Wednesday, August 4, 1999
Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.
City Hall will open at 5:15 p. -ix.
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 1999.
2 -B. Report fro i the Deputy City Manager recommending approval of funding exchange for
Building 7 utility systems upgrades.
2 -C. Report from the Deputy City Manager and approval of letter to Senator Diane Feinstein
regarding support for extended Cooperative Agreement funds.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Report from the Deputy City Manager reviewing the due diligence report from the
Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) and recommending authorization to sublease
Hangar 41 for non - museum use and reserve Building 77 for an air museum.
3 -B. Receive BRAG report and recommendation to approve the formation of a BRAG
Tourism Task Force Committee.
3 -C. Receive BRAG recommendation to appoint BRAG representative to the Planning
Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from BRAG.
4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (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.)
ARRA Agenda - August 4, 1999 Page 2
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be simultaneously cablecast on channel 22.
The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 1,-
1999.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Lucretia
Akil at 749 -5912 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.
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ROLL CALL
1.
Present:
Wednesday, July 7, 1999
The meeting convened at 5:35 with Chair Appezzato presiding.
Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre Swanson, Vice Chair, Ninth Congressional District for Barbara Lee
Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, District 3
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland
Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Absent: None
2. PRESENTATIONS
2 -A. Presentation of Office of the Secretary of Defense Award to ARRA for Exemplary Work in
Base Redevelopment. Presented to Lee Perez, BRAG Chair and Dave Berger, Deputy City
Manager.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3. -A Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of June 15, 1999.
3 -B. Report from Deputy Executive Director recommending support for Assembly Bill 473,
Hertzbog.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the minutes as presented for June 15,
1999, and for the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilmember
Johnson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes 0. Vice -Chair
Swanson and Alternate Friedman arrived after the vote.
1
4. ACTION ITEMS
4 -A. (Withdrawn) Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending authorization to finalize
negotiations and execute an interim lease through the temu of the Master Lease with the
Alameda County Homeless Collaborative for Buildings 101 and 92.
4 -B. Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending authorization to lease Hangar 41 for
non - museum use.
Deputy City Manager David Berger stated at the February meeting, the governing body adopted
the BRAG's recommendation to give the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) and Western
Air Museum (WAM), until July 1st to obtain the necessary funding commitments to do the code
required upgrades to Hangar 41. Recently, the Board of Director of ANAWAM decided to
dissolve as a joint entity and acknowledged that they were not able to meet that funding deadline.
He stated they had been looking for grants from the State of California. By ANAWAM
dissolving and unable to meet the leasing criteria established by the ARRA Board in February,
the staff's conclusion is that the group is not able to pursue Hangar 41.
Mr. Berger noted that staff is working with the museum to consummate a lease for Building 77
which they are working with them on to consummate the lease. He stated the formal
recommendation presented to the ARRA (Item 4B), is to release the present condition and allow
Building 41 to go on the open market at the direction of the ARRA in February. He the ARRA
has received at least two offers of interest and are waiting until the ANAWAM group could
indicate whether or not they could move forward with the funding commitment the ARRA Board
asked them to meet. Deputy Berger stated ARRA Facilities Manager, Ed Levine was present and
they would be willing to answer any questions.
Chair Appezzato asked how much money is needed for Building 77.
Deputy Berger responded approximately $70,000 is needed for Building 77. He stated this was
viable from what ANAWAM has shown them in their business plan and is ready to move
forward.
Chair Appezzato said if they go forward with the recommendation regarding Building 41 and if
Building 77 could continue to remain viable as a museum, a substantial amount of money would
be needed to maintain to keep it up and running.
Vice -Chair Swanson asked how much would it cost to maintain Building 41.
Deputy Berger responded the estimate they analyzed was for $500,000. The analysis from the
engineering division showed it would be closer to $700,000.
Vice -Chair Swanson asked are there advantages or disadvantages of Hangar 41 vs. 77 from
staff's perspective.
2
Deputy Berger responded the groups (museum task force) view is they would like to have both
buildings so they would have more space for interior storage and display of the restored aircraft,
which is primarily the advantage of Building 41.
Vice -Chair Swanson asked staff's opinion of the merits of having a museum at Alameda Point.
ARRA Facilities Manager Ed Levine responded that Building 77 was intended to be a museum
which displayed the artifacts that were formally from the Naval Air Station, primarily "pure
museum" as opposed to aircraft display, which would have occurred in the large Hangar of _
Building 41 which is approximately 112,000 sq. ft.
Vice -Chair Swanson asked staff's opinion of having a museum of this nature on any part of the
base.
Deputy Berger responded that the adopted Community Reuse Plan calls for both Building 77 and
41 to be Naval Air Museum facilities. If either building could demonstrate financial viability to
do the upgrades and maintain the up -keep of the facilities, then staff's view is that it would
leverage the Hornet as part of the historical presence as part of the formal Naval Air Station.
Any additional tourist destination to help the Hornet would also help the museum. He stated the
decision is based upon the financial viability of either building.
Councilmember Daysog read the report which indicated that Hangar 41 is "highly leaseable and
could generate approximately $400,000 per year if leased to a non - museum tenant." He asked if
any of the perspective tenants that were mentioned by Deputy Berger come close to the amount
quoted of $400,000 or is it too early to tell?
ARRA Facilities Manager Ed Levine responded yes, they have had two viable tenants that were
prepared to pay rent in that order of magnitude by the second or third year of their lease.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, C -301, expressed that toward the beginning of the last City
election, elected officials said they did not have money for the Skateboard Park. He expressed
that he was one of the first people who publicly suggested that the Skateboard Park be built cabin
style, in spite of others saying there was no money. With public pressure and having an election,
the Skateboard park was built, not based on money but moral issues. Mr. Bohan expressed
tonight the board has a moral decision to vote on the museum that would represent what has
happened in the City of Alameda for the past 70 years and the City should not pass it by. He
voiced that he made recommendations for Hangar 20 and the sprinkler systems and the costs are
ridiculous for the applications for what is going on for Building 41. He felt some of the figures
were made up so there is justification to not proceed with the Museum. Mr. Bohan expressed the
proper usage of this facility should be used to aid the entire community and that 5% is required,
according to federal law if the opportunity is there. He was confident that the museum can be
built, based on all the donations.
3
Grace Keachie, Alameda, voiced that she is donating $100,000 to get the museum moving. She
believes in it and is confident it will work: She further expressed years from now the children of
Alameda would thank the Board for the decision it made regarding a vote to move forward with
the museum.
Chair Appezzato asked Ms. Keachie if the board decides to only retain Building 77, would she
consider donating the $100,000 for that building also?
Ms. Keachie responded no. She stated that Building 77 is not going to go by itself, because it_
needs Building 41, otherwise it will sink. -
Marilyn York, Alameda, voiced that she felt Building 41 is vital to the museum. Other museums
such as Castle Airforce Base, have static display of aircraft. Without that static display, our
museum whether it be artifacts or photographs, would still be very interesting. She stated there
are people in the City who are unfamiliar with what is going on at the base and they should be
made aware. Everything that had gone on with the Navy over the years at the base, is important
and should' be saved. She voiced that her group has gone to many people who will give them
money, but the lenders have requested a lease be shown and until that happens there will be no
money. Ms. York appealed to the board to give them the opportunity, and if something goes
wrong, the boardhas the money and they do not have to give it back. She requested they
reconsider proceeding with the museum.
Barbara Baak, Alameda, indicated she was in favor of the museum, Building 41. She expressed
that they had been set back by the withdrawal of the Western Aerospace Museum from the joint
venture agreement, which was unexpected. Volunteers and directors have restated their
commitment to building the museum and their intent to go forward to save the history for future
generations of Alamedans and Californians. She stated that although the board had a meeting on
the 28th indicating they could not go forward with Hangar 41 because of the withdrawal of
WAM, the Keachies' volunteered $200,000 toward Hangar 41 to allow them to continue working
on upgrades. In terms of cost, it would be a big investment for the City and they would continue
contributing efforts to make this successful. She indicated that the $200,000 would help
significantly in the upgrades, along with the hundreds of hours of work dedicated, the over
$30,000 pro bono attorney and the $35,000 from Mr. Franz Steiner's organization and fund
raising activities, should be enough to allow them to move forward. She expressed to the board
that the long term tourism and investment in the community would justify their decision.
Franz Steiner, Principal, VBN Architects, indicated he had been trying to help ANAWAM move
into Buildings 77 and 41 for approximately 1 1/2 years. Mr. Steiner expressed he supported the
budget estimate and stated the museum portion of the hangar is the reason why the upgrades are
necessary, which include the sprinkler system, ADA compliance toilet rooms and exits, which
comprise the majority of the costs of the upgrades. They have concluded the upgrades necessary
to receive a certificate of occupancy can be produced for $200,000. The sprinkler system would
incur the majority of the cost for upgrades, the other upgrades will take up the remainder and
what is left would be done by volunteer labor. Mr. Steiner indicated he did not have actual
4
numbers or commitments for volunteer labor, as he would take more time to identify those
people. He concluded by apprising the board that he felt the work could be accomplished by the
available amounts of money that have been donated to ANAWAM.
Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed that it is sad that the board is considering renting
the building for storage which would produce nothing but rent money, when there is an
opportunity to create a museum that would bring tourists to Alameda from San Francisco's $6
billion a year industry. By tapping into the $6 billion a year tourist industry, it would be more
important than the short term gain. He indicated code requirements and upgrades could be
worked out financially just as it was for the Skateboard park. Mr. Neveln stated he was curious=
about. City staff looking for back up interests, and whether or not they contacted Joe Davis, the
Confederate Airforce, the Chino Air museum and other places for participation, that do have
aircraft to loan and park. He expressed he supports public transit on the weekends, which would
be key to make all of this happen. To call this not viable is inappropriate, unless you have
allowed Building 77 to open, allowed the museum to begin, and then call the question on
operating Building 41, after they have had a chance to demonstrate viability with one building.
Nita Rosen,1045_;Island Drive, expressed that she believes in this museum and has no doubt it
can be done. Sit' indicated that she had been with the BRAG and the museum task force group
since the beginning, and sees no problem and does not know what the problem is.
Lee Perez, 29 Sea Bridge, Chair of the BRAG, indicated he was giving a report on the consensus
of what the BRAG task force stood on the issue of the museum. He expressed that they have
been working on this issue for three years and the problems have been finance, a viable business
plan and a administrative handle as to what was going on. They presented this to the board six
months ago, with a "drop- dead" deadline at the end of June. Unfortunately, the ANAWAM
organization folded and now the ANAM is trying to proceed. He expressed that at their task
force meeting, they concluded that Building 41 would not be a museum any longer, because of
lack of finance, and they would continue with Building 77. The task force is still soliciting
grants to complete the required upgrades necessary to receive from the City of Alameda a Use
Permit and Certificate of Occupancy, in the amount of $70,000, which has been donated as of
last week. Chair Perez indicated the task force recommends the ARRA continue to positively
support the efforts of ANAM, in working towards establishing and opening the ANAM museum
in Building 77. The issue of additional money and Building 41 had not been discussed, but the
task force would be willing to do so.
Chair Appezzato responded to BRAG Chair Lee Perez, that everyone thought it was a
worthwhile effort, however there comes a time when you have to make a decision one way or the
other. There was no question that everybody thought that it would not be so long in dealing with
it.
Ann Mitchum, 732 Central Avenue, #16, waived her time.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
5
Vice -Chair Swanson expressed that the presentation from the community representing the
museum was wonderful. He agreed with one of the speakers that it should not be a financial
issue, although if it was, the rent or lease payments would not compare to the multiplying factor
that it is involved in museum property. Part of the whole base conversion has been based on
certain promises, and the City and the ARRA has made these promises to the community about
the overall development of housing, light manufacturing and other business opportunities at the
base. Part of the community participation in this process would be benefitted by a museum.
There is a lot money in this country for museums and the community putting money into this
effort is encouraging. 'Vice -Chair Swanson indicated the federal and state governments mightlie
able to make contributions to this effort. They were able to get $14 million from the Department
of Defense for the Chabot Observatory, which is a multi - million dollar project, in which the
Department of Defense thought that the contribution to science and young people made sense.
Vice -Chair Swanson expressed it is not a time to give up on this project and that if the ARRA
decides to allow more time to develop, the congressional office would be willing to work with
the group to explore state and federal assistance for the museum. The memory and preservation
of the Navy and its history is part of the promise that was made early on.
Member DeWitt voiced the Board's principle is not to use general fund money to support the
Naval Air Station. The figures and projections are not coming to where they should be and they
are not making enough money at the air station and staff is working hard to keep everything from
going under. Member DeWitt read a correspondence written to Washington stating that "our
cash flow clearly shows that the cost of infrastructure, demolition, marketing and operation and
maintenance of the property, exceeds the revenue that was expected to derive from the sale and
lease of the property." Once the maintenance money from the Navy ceases, the cash flow at the
base is going to be bad. How should the bills be paid without going into the general fund?
Member DeWitt indicated this is the issue he is dealing and what causes staff to go out and rent
everything they can. Even if this is done, there will still be a deficit.
Member Daysog asked Deputy City Manager David Berger and ARRA Facilities Manager Ed
Levine, if they had time to evaluate the $100,000 offer and the ramifications of even considering
it, which include the volunteer labor. He asked if they could get it and will the performance be
of the quality that was originally proposed? Has there been time to evaluate that level of
evaluation of the $100,000 proposal put forward?
Deputy City Manager David Berger responded no, because they just received the information
yesterday or the day before. Based upon prior review of their detailed cost estimates from VBN,
they believe that the cost is between $200,000 - $700,000. Mr. Steiner indicated that $200,000
could be used for the sprinkler system and the balance for the other required upgrades, which
they had not had the opportunity to evaluate the degree it could be done through volunteer or
skilled labor and who would manage it. Deputy Berger indicated they could pursue it at the
request of the board, however their prior review caused them to believe this would be a very
formidable task for a group to do, unless you have tremendous experience.
6
Chair Appezzato voiced the $200,000 is just capital cost and there are other costs which the
$200,000 will not cover. Where will the operational and maintenance money come from?
ARRA Facilities Manager Ed Levine indicated they had been conversing with the museum group
for about three years and what was made clear at the beginning, is delivery of a comprehensive
business plan and financial statements to support their position that they can successfully develop
and operate this museum over an extended period of time. To date, a business plan has not been
received. It is difficult to evaluate their organizational abilities, how they intend to operate the
museum, what they intend to put in it, and where the aircraft, which would be displayed, is going
to come from. There is no information to date.
Member Kerr voiced she has been and still is a supporter of the museum, however, in a staff
meeting a month ago the federal government indicated they would not support us after
September. They tried to figure out how they would issue revenue bonds to pay the bills at
Alameda Point, which includes police and fire, among others. It takes about $7 million a year to
meet the beginning duties and we do not have that money. The Navy has not met its
commitment to do the EIR/ EIS record decision, and while there is a lot of money in
Washington, it isjiot coming out here. Because the federal government has failed to meet its
schedule, we do-not have title to the base. In addition, EFA West, the agency which handles the
conveyance of bases, is being cut back and Member Kerr indicated she does not know that EFA
West has successfully conveyed a base except Hamilton, which is an airforce base and that took
them 20 years to do. Member Kerr voiced that we cannot take any promises to the bank. In a
few months we will be faced with the need to pay the bills at Alameda Point to meet the
commitments on the leases that we have and we do not have the money to do it. Member Kerr
indicated she has given a clear message to staff to go after those leases, although she would like
to be in the financial position to give the museum more time for Hangar 41. The offer of
$200,000 is extremely generous and would be able to upgrade the sprinkler system and put
money in the bank. Unfortunately, we are out of time and do not have the time to consider
supporting other people because we have to pay our bills out at the base, which is over $7 million
a year. Member Kerr voiced they are hoping to issue revenue bonds which will get us through
two years and after that we are not sure what will happen. Money will have to be borrowed
against the existing income from the current leases. With great regret she would continue to
support the commitment of leasing out Building 77.
Member Johnson voiced although the board issued a "drop - dead "deadline in January or we will
not go forward with it, there have been some changes in the circumstances. The Western Air
Museum has dropped out of the process and now there is an offer of $200,000. As Vice -Chair
Swanson indicated, we need to look at this issue not as an economic income producing building,
because the Base Reuse Plan commits us as a museum if it is viable. Until we can show it is not
viable, we cannot change that unless we amend the Reuse Plan. Member Johnson voiced that she
did not like the criticism of staff about not giving them a chance because it has been three years.
As Vice -Chair Swanson indicated, his office might be willing to help and it is worth giving them
more time, as it states in the Base Reuse Plan. Member Johnson voiced that we cannot say this is
not viable and supported giving an extension of time for them to decide if it is viable or not.
7
Member Daysog voiced that he was told before the meeting they would like one more month to
demonstrate they can go forward. Member Daysog asked the museum task group force, in one
month time frame what will we get from you and will you demonstrate the $200,000 you receive
will work and how will you use the volunteer labor to make up the difference of the $200,000
$500,000?
Barbara Baak indicated they would give them the figures of the $329,000 figure that Franz
Steiner and Steve Keachie arrived at and those figures have been approved by Celia Karian,
ARRA Engineer, who verified those figures were valid. They would like to discuss with Vice_ F
Chair Swanson the opportunity to make it possible to add to the $200,000, so they would be in-a
better position. Ms. Baak indicated they have submitted business plans for Building 77 and 41.`
The $329,000 estimate is based on using some volunteer labor and would hope to give the board
those figures in 30 days.
Member Daysog stated the question that Mr. Bohan raised about putting this issue as a moral
issue was quite insightful. Moral issue in the classic sense of what is good for community and
what it constitutes, defines and binds it. It is also an issue of ethics which deals with the choices
we take to arrive at what constitutes the community good. Member Daysog stated he is willing
to give the task force group another 30 days for two reasons: to evaluate what they have to offer
and the financiars state in writing that Building 41 is for public use.
Alternate Leonhardy voiced that a museum function would serve the region well, however he
would agree with the majority board. Alternate Leonhardy indicated he would be absent from
the August 4th ARRA meeting, but he would be looking from staff for a more detailed
breakdown of what capital improvements are needed and which ones would be necessary for a
certificate of occupancy, require a license bonded contractor to perform or oversee the project
and volunteer labor. Alternate Leonhardy voiced that he has not seen a business plan from the
group, only an outline. It is incumbent the ARRA have an opportunity to look at an operations
budget and a business plan that includes an operation budget and presumed funding sources,
which is critical. Alternate Leonhardy asked Counsel Highsmith is this a vote that requires the
majority of the City Council?
Counsel Highsmith responded no, this vote does not require a super majority vote, because
whatever the board decides to do, the Reuse Plan has already taken that into consideration.
Alternate Ornelas voiced she has looked at communities that look back at their history and wish
they had the opportunity to make this a reality and save this as part of their history, instead of
acting so quickly. The good in the history of this community and what the base has contributed
to the region is something that cannot be measured or have a value placed on it. Alternate
Ornelas indicated she was part of the meeting back in January, in which they discussed having a
deadline on this issue and recalled her commitment to the need for that deadline. However, a
very strong argument has been put forth from the community, particularly in the demonstration
of personal financial contributions. Alternate Ornelas expressed she was encouraged by the
congressional commitment to seek other opportunities for funding. She would like to see an
8
opportunity for them to have an extension of time, rather than having to base their decision
tonight solely on profit and loss, the bottom line of the base.
Chair Appezzato responded that he is not sure they are acting quickly, since they have been
dealing with this issue for over three years.
Alternate Friedman voiced there are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. He
indicated he agrees with Alternate Leonhardy that, although this does not require a majority vote
of the City Council, he would like a common definition of a business plan agreed to in a few ._ -
days if the Council decides to grant this. The business plan should conform to the criteria that
ARRA Facilities Manager Levine has asked of other businesses. Alternate Friedman expressed
his appreciation to all the people who have sustained through the ups and downs of this project
and remained eager to move forward with this project.
Chair Appezzato stated the board has been dealing with this issue for a long time and this is not a
quick decision as some might think. Unfortunately, for some it has become an emotional
decision. Chair Appezzato indicated that we have a base to run, a development plan to follow
and we need the revenue to do so. By October 1, 1999, there may be no additional revenue from
the Navy to operate the base. Consequently, Western Aerospace Museum has bowed out. There
are three museums in a city of 75,000, the Alameda Historic Museum, the Meyers House, both of
which are funded by the City presently and one which may have some financial difficulties; and
the Hornet, which has not met its tourist projections. We have had to yield on the rent for the
Hornet. With a fourth and fifth museum on the outskirts of the City, Western Aerospace
Museum, how many museums can the City of Alameda sustain? Chair Appezzato stated three or
four months ago he was ready to vote not to go forward, however he was convinced by the board
to give it another three months. The board approved a sink or swim by July 1st, and again we are
asking for another 30 days. Chair Appezzato voiced he could not imagine the costs of the
operations and maintenance of this museum. This has been done long enough and we owe it to
the community. He said he was going to support the staff recommendation to lease it out.
Member Kerr stated the tax increment from the redevelopment area does not occur until the City
gets title, which will not occur until the future. Money would have to be borrowed and the
amount of the revenue bonds might be able to generate paying this money back, would depend
upon the kind of income we produce now. We are presently in negotiations and to have another
building come online for $400,000 a year which would help us in the generation of those revenue
bonds, if we are able to do that. Being this is July, at the end of September we will have to have
commitments to maintain the base and no money from Washington to do it. Member Kerr
indicated her moral commitment is to the fiscal stability of the City of Alameda.
Member DeWitt asked the board to allow another month, due to Vice -Chair Swanson indicating
that there may be some money somewhere. Member DeWitt asked the board allow another 30
days, during which time further evaluation can be made.
Alternate Leonhardy voiced that when the business plan comes, it should be in a format that is
acceptable to staff, which would give it a fair evaluation. Alternate Leonhardy asked Member
Johnson would her motion include capital improvements, which is needed for a certificate of
occupancy and what is needed for licence?
Member Johnson responded it needs to be a detailed plan, which will allow the board to
determine if it is viable or not.
Chair Appezzato indicated there will be verbal poll to ask the Council members to vote on it. _
Vice -Chair Swanson voiced that in Washington there is currently discussion of no -cost
conveyances of property because of many issues. It is does not make sense that the City has to
ask the Navy for money while it is trying to maintain the property. Vice -Chair Swanson
indicated that they are remaining committed to trying to help supplement those funds. He would
work with the group and place calls to see if there are federal agencies that can assist them.
Member Johnson recommended a motion be made to extend to the applicant to come up
with a viable business plan in 30 days or by the next ARRA Meeting. Motion was seconded
by Member Daysog. Ayes - 7; Noes - 2.
Roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog, Councilmember DeWitt, Councilmember Johnson
and Alternate Swanson, Alternate Leonhardy, Alternate Ornelas and Alternate Friedman
voted yes on the extension; Chair Appezzato and Councilmember Kerr voted no.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
Chairman Lee Perez indicated the BRAG report was part of his presentation to the board, on
behalf of the museum for Building 41 and 77.
4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager.
No report was given.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith, 732 Central Avenue, #16, expressed he has realized five sources of funds to leverage
the money that is offered here. He indicated that although Item 4A had been dropped, the people
at the Homeless Collaborative are going to be offering classes at their community center for
people coming off of welfare, the streets or ex- military families. If there is a museum at the base,
part of the money should be part of the business plan, which allows it to be shared to the
homeless. If people from the community donate their service, why not get an emergency funding
or federal tax credit for professionals having tax credits for offering up their services and have
10
these people trained to do contractor work. There could be on the job training and people would
work for free for food and work and do the upgrades to the sprinkler system. There should be
some federal legislation to get this done and would save a lot of the $200,000. These people are
also being trained by the Homeless Collaborative for cooking school and they could have a
buffet at the museum.
Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed one of the problems with the Hornet Museum from
day one, was the lack of public transportation to this museum. Last night the City Council took
some action to start a transportation committee with Member DeWitt and Member Johnson to- -
bring more transportation to the City of Alameda and to the Hornet Museum. This will mean a t
greater amount' of tourist dollars coming to Alameda, rather than storage dollars out in the
hangars and other buildings. It is important every citizen be involved in this and to help the
museums stay viable. Mr. Neveln expressed that had the Naval Air Museum been open for these
three years, there would no discussion of the viability of Hangar 41 because it would have
demonstrated more capability.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Kerr asked Deputy City Manager David Berger where are they with the conveyance as
mentioned in the last meeting.
Deputy City Manager Berger responded they are currently on schedule with the conveyance
process and would give her more information in the weekly report.
Member Kerr asked Deputy Berger what does on schedule mean?
Deputy Berger responded they and the Navy negotiators have agreed to a conveyance schedule
by the end of January 2000.
Member Kerr asked if the EIRI EIS approvals are coming along in that schedule?
Deputy Berger responded yes and he would give her further details in his weekly report.
Vice -Chair Swanson indicated the Economic Development Commission has given the East Bay
Conversion Reinvestment Commission a $900,000 grant to start a revolving loan fund to support
small businesses at Alameda Point and Bank of America has joined in partnership to complete
the private sector contribution of that fund, which makes it $1.5 million. He stated they hope by
fall the fund will be up and operational.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
11
Res ectfully submitted,
ucretia Akil
ARRA Secretary
12
City of Alameda
Memorandum
July 23, 1999
To: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: David A. Berger �-j
Deputy City Manager f
Re: Recommendation to Approve Funding Exchange for Building -
Utility Systems Upgrades
Background
The Community Development Division administers Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds to benefit low- and moderate - income persons and
help prevent or eliminate slums and blight. The City Council - adopted CDBG
Action Plan for FY 1999 -00 allocated $90,148 to the College of Alameda
for operation of the Alameda One -Stop Career Center (One -Stop) and Work
for Alameda Youth (WAY). HUD has informed the City that this allocation
is subject te-a 15% public service funding cap. To avoid exceeding this
cap, Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to the FY 1999 -00 Action Plan is
proposed. The Amendment would exchange CDBG funds with an equal amount
of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) lease revenues
currently budgeted for Building 7 utility system upgrades following ARRA
approval, City Council will consider adoption of the Amendment on
September 7.
Discussion and Analysis
The One -Stop was developed by the City of Alameda and the College of
Alameda in conjunction with numerous community -based organizations,
employers and the regional East Bay WORKS system. The One -Stop offers
career assessment, job readiness and training, placement and employer
services to local residents and businesses, and supports the WAY program.
The City has funded the One -Stop and WAY under the CDBG eligibility
category of "Assistance to Higher Education." This practice was based
on a wide - spread understanding that the "Higher Education" category was
not subject to the CDBG program's 15% limitation on public service
funding. However, HUD has recently informed the City of a federal
decision requiring activities in this category to be included in the
public services "cap" calculation.
An exchange of CDBG funds with an equal amount of ARRA lease revenue
funds is proposed to avoid exceeding the funding cap in FY 1999 -00. CDBG
funds would be reprogrammed to another eligible activity, specifically
that of bringing the utility systems at Alameda Point Building 7 up to
current City codes. In return, ARRA lease revenues would fund the One-
Stop for the current fiscal year while staff determines how to best
structure future One -Stop funding.
The use of Alameda Point lease revenues to assist the One -Stop is
consistent with Alameda Point objectives. Relationships with Alameda
Point tenants have already been developed and will become increasingly
Honorable Members of the Page 2
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 23, 1999
important as Alameda Point tenants and the Homeless Collaborative move
ahead to address their training, hiring and placement goals.
Following approval of the Amended Action Plan by the Council, a Grant
Agreement with the College of Alameda and a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City and ARRA will be executed to delineate the agencies'
responsibilities. Community Development staff will continue to oversee
the operations of the One -Stop, while the Building 7 upgrades will be
managed by Alameda Point staff in the usual manner.
Budget Considerations /Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the City's General Fund and no change is proposed
in the previously- approved funding levels for either the One -Stop or
Building 7 (CIP 98- 19 -10). Alameda Point lease revenue set - asides
comprise the overall 25% local match for the Economic .Development
Administration (EDA) grant for upgrades to Alameda Point facilities. CDBG
funds can be used as local match for the EDA grant. It is proposed to
substitute $90,148 in CDBG funds for an equal amount of lease revenues
which will then fund the One -Stop. This funding exchange will allow
uninterrupted funding for both the employment and capital projects.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the ARRA, by motion, approve the funding exchange
for Building 7 utility systems upgrades.
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
By: Carol Beaver
Community Development Manager
DAB /CB /GP:
Attachment
cc: ARRA Facilities Manager
ARRA Administrative Management Analyst
CD Administrative Management Analyst
CD Program Specialist
College of Alameda
Work for Alameda Youth
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
ACTION PLAN SUMMARY
FY 1999 -2000/
PROPOSED AMENDMENT #1 (9/7/99)
ACTIVITY & DESCRIPTION .
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES
FY 99 -00
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Non - Profit Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Fund
Community wide
570.201(c)
570.208(a)(2)
1 -2 facilities
_
$150,000
Financial and technical assistance to non - profit
organizations providing CDBG - eligible services to improve
facilities, including disabled access retrofit
City Community Development Department
Building 7 Utility Systems Upgrade
Alameda Point
Improv Proj Area
570.202(a)(3)
570:208(b)(1)
1 facility
$90,148-
Bring utility systems of former military facility into
compliance with current City codes for commercial/
industrial use
r
—
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Program Delivery*
570.201(c)
$76,124
93,889
PUBLIC SERVICES
Alameda Continuum of Community Emergency and Social
1701 Webster St
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
1,000
households
$64,669
Services (A.C.C.E.S.S)
Case management, referrals, and direct services including
limited -term housing and childcare scholarships for
individuals and families at -risk of homelessness
Alameda Red Cross
Domestic Violence
Community -wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
100
individuals
$7,150
Information, referrals, and legal counseling for domestic
violence victims
Family Violence Law Center
Emergency Services Network
Community -wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
n/a
$1,500
Resource and referral network for emergency and homeless
service providers
Emergency Services Network
Food Bank Insurance and Utilities
1900 Thau Way
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
500
households
$4,622
Insurance and utility costs for facility that houses an
emergency food program
Alameda Emergency Food, Inc.
Four Bridges
1912 Central Ave
570.201(e)
570..208(208(a)(( 2)
50
individuals
$27,053
-
Support group for mentally and emotionally disabled adults
Bay Area Community Services
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
ACTION PLAN SUMMARY
ACTIVITY & DESCRIPTION
LOCATION/
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES
FY 99-00
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
Housing Counseling
Community -wide
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
400
households
$16,139
Tenant /Landlord counseling, mediation, information and
referral
Sentinel Fair Housing
Midway Shelter
2181 Clement
Ave
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
individuals
$31,423
Emergency homeless shelter
Human Outreach Agency
Multi - Cultural Center
934 Central Ave
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
700
Individuals
$26,186
Multi - cultural community center for outreach, education,
and service to the multi- cultural community
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC)
West End Teen Program
401 Pacific Ave
570.201(e)
570.208(a)(2)
140 youth
$21,996
Youth recreation and leadership development
Xanthos, Inc.
Program Delivery*
570.201(e)
$15,712
` : :.
... . . •
Atlantic A .
individuals
at
Webster St-
570.201(q)
.. •
. .. ., .
; ; , ; ; ; ; ■ ;
College of Alameda
570.208(a)(2)
$17,765
570.201(q)
MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE
Youth in Business
Community-wide
570.201(o)
570.208(a)(2)
1-2
businesses
$25,000
Grants and /or loans for youth -owned business start -ups
City Community Development Department
Program Delivery*
570.201(o)
$4,927
REHABILITATION
Rental Rehabilitation
Community -wide
570.202
570.208(a)(3)
2 units
$25,000
Assistance for rehab of renter - occupied units
City Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
ACTION PLAN SUMMARY
ACTIVITY & DESCRIPTION
LOCATION /
ELIGIBILITY
OUT-
COMES
FY 99-00
CDBG
FUNDING
Implementing Agency
Substantial Rehabilitation
Community wide
570.202
570.208(a)(3)
3 units
_
= . $204,714
Financial and technical assistance to restore and /or create
affordable rental units in existing vacant or underutilized
structures
City Community Development Department
Program Delivery*
570.202
$210,472
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Fair Housing Services
Community -wide
570.206
25
households
$5,000
Housing discrimination testing and counseling
Sentinel Fair Housing
General Administr. ion
570.206
$283,600
Contingencies
$133,800
FY 1999 -2000 CDBG FUNDS
$1,433,000
*Program Delivery also supports activities funded with prior years' CDBG funds.
Adopted 4/6/99
G:\ CDBG \CONSPLAN \CPPLAN\AMEN99 #1.SUM
F: 25.1 (1)
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager 6 /✓/
DATE: July 28, 1999
SUBJECT: Report from the Deputy City Manager and Approval of Letter to Senator Diane
Feinstein Regarding Support for Extended Cooperative Services Funding
Background:
On Friday July 23, 1999, Mayor Appezzato and Board Members DeWitt and Kerr met with
Senator Feinstein's field representative, Mr. Chris Norem to discuss issues relating to the base
and the impact ofdiscontinued Cooperative Services Agreement funding.
Discussion:
As a result of the meeting, it was recommended that the Mayor send a letter requesting Senator
Feinstein's support for the appropriation of additional funding for continued operations and
maintenance at Alameda Point.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Board, by motion, approve the recommendation to send a
written request to Senator Feinstein to assist the City in the appropriation of additional funds for
extended Cooperative Services.
DAB/DT/LA:
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Deputy City M. ager
1.
By: r ma Tasini
Cooperative Services Manager
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
July 28, 1999
Page 2
Attachment
Alameda Reuse and Itedeveloprne"t Authority
Alameda Point/NAS Alameda
950 W. Mall Square - Building 1
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandra R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
9th Congressional District
Wilma Chan
Supervisor, District 3
Alameda County Board
of Supervisors
Henry Chang, Jr.
Oakland Councilmember
serving for
Jerry Brown
Mayor, City of Oakland
Shelia Young
Mayor
City of San Leandro
Tony Daysog
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Albert H. DeWitt
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson
Councilmember
City of Alameda
James M. Flint
Executive Director
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
July 28, 1999
Honorable Senator Diane Feinstein
525 Market Street
Suite 3670
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Ms. Feinstein:
(510) 864-3400
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
I am writing to request your assistance on behalf of the City of Alameda to secure
additional funding for operation and maintenance at Alameda Point (formerly
known as Alameda Naval Air Station). The City has received two and one half
nears of federal assistance to operate and maintain Alameda Point through the
-Cooperative Services Agreement. The Cooperative Services Agreement is due to
expire on September 30, 1999.
The city has been informed by the Navy that additional funds have not been
appropriated. The local Navy headquarters has allocated $391,000 from its current
year budget for the next fiscal year. This level of funding is not adequate because
current expenditures are approximately $700,000 per month.
We would appreciate your assistance in securing additional funding commensurate
with current expenditures until the property is conveyed to the city, estimated by
March 2000.
Sincerely,
Ralph Appezzato
Mayor
RA/la
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
DATE: July 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending authorization to sublease
Hangar 41 for non - museum use
Background:
At the ARRA's July 1999 meeting, the Governing Body gave the Alameda Naval Air
Museum (ANAM) until the next ARRA meeting to demonstrate that they had sufficient funds
available to redevelop and operate an air museum in Hangar 41. The Community Reuse Plan
reserves Buildings 77 and 41 for use as a Naval Air Museum; however, the plan allows for
alternative uses if a museum is not viable. In its January 26, 1999 report, staff indicated that over
a three -year period, ANAM had failed to generate firm commitments for funding building
upgrades or demonstrate the financial viability of their proposal. The ARRA Governing Body
set a July 1, 1999 deadline for the museum to produce funding commitments. In a June 29, 1999
report to the Governing Body, staff concluded that ANAM had failed to meet the ARRA's
deadline and asked for authority to market Hangar 41 for non - museum use The Governing Body
instead decided to grant a one month extension prior to taking final action on the matter. As
mentioned in prior reports, Hangar 41 is highly leasable and will generate a stabilized rental
income of approximately $400,000 per year if leased to a non - museum tenant.
Discussion:
After over three years of holding exclusive rights to lease hangars 41 and 77, ANAM has
accrued a cash reserve of about $8,000 and must fund building upgrade costs of approximately
$533,000 (for both buildings). ANAM indicates that it will be able to obtain donations and
volunteer assistance to cover the building upgrades; however, to date they have failed to obtain
firm commitments for about $170,000 in volunteer assistance or to enter into a legally binding
agreement assuring donation of their $200,000 pledge. Staff suggested that such an agreement be
placed in an escrow account (subject to execution of the lease) during the 30 day extension
period, but this was rejected by the prospective donor. Additionally, ANAM currently has no
firm written commitments for donation or loan of display aircraft.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
July 26, 1999
Page 3
4. ANAM's business plan projects attendance of 20,000 people during its first year of
operation (prior to opening Hangar 41) increasing to 40,000 in year 2 and 60,000 in year 3.
Admission is projected at $7.00 for adults and $4.00 for children. These numbers appear to be
overly optimistic in light of the Hornet's failure to generate even 15% of its original attendance=
projections.
Fiscal Impact:
If Hangar 41 is leased to a non - museum tenant, stabilized rental revenues following
upgrades for code compliance will be approximately $400,000 per year. Building upgrades will
be financed by either tenant contributions (subject to rent rebates) or from the anticipated EDA
Grant for this year.
' .ecommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body find that ANAM has failed to
establish the economic viability of operating a museum in Hangar 41 and authorize leasing this
building for a non - museum use. Staff recommends that Building 77 be reserved for an air
museum.
Respectfully submitted,
David
Deity
erger
�, Manager
By: Ed Levine
Facilities Manager
DAB/EL /JB:
Attachment
INFORMATION REQUESTED BY ARRA FOR INCLUSION IN ANAM BUSINESS
PLAN:
1 ANAM Articles of Incorporation as 501 -C -3 non - profit corporation
2. Corporate Bylaws
3. List of corporate officers and board members
4. Current financial statement
5. Description of ANAM volunteer and staff organization, including background of
employees or volunteers in museum management
6. Business plan showing detailed projections of revenues and expenses over first five years
of operation (Building 77 and 41)
7. Justification and explanation as to projected attendance, admission fees, and revenues
8. Current commitments as to volunteer staffing, including number of hours per week
9. Funding sources for base -wide infrastructure fees
10. Creation of escrow account for donation of $200,000 subject to signed lease
11. Agreement between ANAM and donors covering terms and conditions of donation
12. Commitments as to donation or loan of aircraft to be displayed in Building 41
13. Commitments from volunteers willing to work on building upgrades, including specific
experience in building trades
14. Upgrade work and cost of Buildings 77 and 41
July 28, 1999
EXHIBIT "A"
City of Alameda Public Works
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Ed Levine, Facilities Manager, ARRA
Celia Karian, Construction Manager, Public Works
July 29, 1999
Building 41 Cost Estimate
EXHIBIT "B"
Attached is a 2 page table showing Public Work's cost estimate for upgrading Building 41 for use
by ANAM. The following explains the information contained in the table.
1. Column entitled "Required for Certificate of Occupancy (Hangar Use)" This column
shows costs for the work required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, assuming that
ANAM onniy occupies the hangar area. Specifically it assumes
► Hangar Area use /occupancy only
► Keeping the 2 story island in the center of the hangar - physically barricading use,
as required by Central Permits
► Not using the 2nd floor - physically barricading use, as required by Central Permits
► Not using 1st floor office /shop areas - physically barricading use, as required by
Central Permits
2. Column entitled "Upgrades Required after Occupancy (Hangar Use)" These costs
are for upgrades that will be required shortly after occupancy. Included are electric
service upgrades and weatherproofing work. The Bureau of Electricity is allowing the
tenant to defer completion of upgrading the building's electric service for 12 months after
occupancy. Our experience at hangars 39 and 23 have shown that there are very
significant costs in (a) maintaining the roof, including making repairs to the roof collectors,
downspouts and drains and (b) fixing leaking windows. These are essential upgrades
needed to maintain the building's integrity.
3. Last 3 columns These columns indicate how our estimates differ with ANAM's latest
estimates. We have found that cost estimates, prepared prior to completion of
preliminary construction plans (especially those completed by prospective tenants) are
very low. This is because the estimates do not anticipate all that is entailed in the project.
cc: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager, Community and Economic Development
Matthew T. Naclerio, Public Works Director
Cheri Sheets, Deputy Public Works Director /City Engineer
Mallika Ramachandran, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Printed on recycled paper
EXHIBIT "B"
X
0)
E
0.
0.
E
-e.
c
X
icg
O (0
• CD
• 1,
.0
in ▪ o
0 Z.3 c
03 0
c6
03 (11 03
C
(t. 'Ch
• =
c 5 o
_c
(T, c
9- 0 0
o ,9..
N-
oa . L
CT IT
05 (1)
O V
E E (1)
° 0
0 10 0
ADA path of travel from bus to entry, to toilet rooms
X
X
X
.0
0
0.
0
0
CO
0
0 411
5 F
a" f 0 c
(» to
o0E.
0
c)
o
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-47
0
0
0
0)
•■•••••
0
0
0
0
0
ca.
0
CO-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0)
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
c
0)
E
0)
0
0)
(0
0)
0)
0
ca
(0
0.
0
0
E
0)
0
*t,
0.
0)
0)
0_
c
0
Precast concrete
0)
2
c
0)
0.
0
(0
ct)
0.
0)
0
oj
0)
1.P
0
0
et
Window Repairs
Metal Doors & frames
0)
0
0)
0
(P
05
0.
0
(0
0
ci.
>.
0)
c
a.
ESTJUL29.XLS
EXHIBIT "B"
0)
ESTJUL29.XLS
Signage to notify the public that there is a museum &
where /how to enter
Future heating & ventilation?
i
upgrade, i.e., disconnect'g old meters, concrete pad,
new main switchboard, rewiring, etc.
15% used here is less than industry standard. 20% is
typical amount for contingency at this stage of design.
Costs noted in soft costs mostly per ANAM
See next line
5% contingency used for soft costs is less than
industry standards for this stage of the work,
particularly since previous 4 lines have no or low
costs. We have agreed with ANAM to use the soft
costs they have provided.
•,-
_ .
..-,
probably U
D
D
D
X
X
--.
521,000 1
0
10
.1•••
ta
r)
CR.
g
0
C.".
CD
0)
U")
CO
0
v-
r--
Ce)
,..r.
N.,
r-
(0
45,000
co
o
o
Isi
rs,
T-,.
26,250
201,250
0
co
CO
5,000
0
co
N
0
co
CO
164
Lo
C \I
-
0
CNI
5,880
207,130
0
0
0
-17
3,000
0
0
0
-
•,-
120,000
30,000
40,000
0
0
o
tri
10,000 1
0
0
0
el
51,900
397,900
000'6
0
0
woo
....-
35,000 1
0
1.0
cl
•--
C)
0
,-
cri
65,153
0
0
0')
(v)
CO
1.0
—
(0
463,053
IToilet Room Partitions & Furnishings'
co
cl
i)
Extinauishers
.0
E
a,
r:
a)
ci
co
t-
.,...
ir.
a,
c
a
5:
Electrical other than lighting
)
)
a
a
:0
Subtotal not including contingency
15% Contingency for construction &
for incomplete knowledge of all the
work that will be required
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION
WITH CONTINGENCY
.
.
"SOFT" COSTS
rn
:CC
"
a)
Q.
Fire Protection Engineering (Schirme
'
)
—..
.
z
0
0
Ll..
—
*ZS
<W
.4.,
C
(U
=
°
0
E
c
0
tr.
•>
c
Mechanical. Structural & Electrical Ern
.....
E
co
0)
4-,
0
•,-. z.
■:-
a.
a
c
T.::
a_
5% Contingency for above items
SUBTOTAL SOFT COSTS
TOTALS
Construction
w
o
0
0
(/)
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
_
a3
<
0)
ESTJUL29.XLS
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM
REVISED BUSINESS PLAN FOR LEASE OF HANGAR 41
ALAMEDA POINT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
Submitted July 27, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) was founded and incorporated as a 501
(c)(3) nonprofit tax exempt organization in 1994 at the then active Alameda Naval Air
Station. With the encouragement and assistance of the then Base Commander, it was
allowed to establish a museum (with limitations) in Building 77 (the former passenger
terminal). The museum operated successfully for over a year and a half, providing a
very useful facility for a great variety of events and as an attraction and cultural facility
for the Base and the Navy. A great number of volunteers made this possible, at no
direct cost to the navy or the community. In November of 1996 it was forced to close
because of the-base closure.
ANAM had requested use of Building 77 and Hangar 41 for aviation museum
purposes and such use was specifically incorporated in the officially approved
Community Base Reuse Plan.
The reestablishment of ANAM at Alameda Point will allow the preservation and
recognition of the great military and civilian aviation heritage at Alameda Point, which
is a key component of the official Base Reuse Plan, and which will assist in
establishing an economically viable recreational, educational, and cultural complex at
the former naval air base.
The museum fits very comfortably and significantly within the mandate and intent of the
regional organization established for the reuse of the former military base, the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). The regional concept allows a
broader level of support as it includes a larger group of governmental authorities (i.e.,
Cities of Alameda, Oakland, and San Leandro, and Alameda County), and industry,
and residents of the region. Collectively this complex, with the encouragement of the
City of Alameda, will become a major nationally significant aerospace museum
unequalled in setting and historic significance.
On November 5, 1997 the business plan for leasing Building 77 was approved by the
ARRA. A Use Permit, #9751, was issued on April 13, 1998 and Construction Permit
fees were paid on October 9, 1998. We expect to sign a lease for this building this
Fall and immediately begin building upgrades. We plan to open this building to the
public by by April 2000.
1
EXHIBIT "C"
Note: Separate from this presentation, much of Building 77 upgrade
costs of $70000 will be provided from donated labor and materials. We
have already expended $350 for a Use Permit and $2073 for a
Construction Permit for Building 77.
Operational costs for Building 77 are shown in this presentation as
blended with those of Hangar 41 as it comes on line. The establishmeni
and operation of the two buildings is considered a unified operation.
MARKETING PLAN
Promotion, Publicity, and Recruitment
A vigorous campaign of promotion, publicity, member, and volunteer recruitment will
be initiated as soon as we lease Building 77, estimated to be October 1, 1999 with
expected opening to the public on April 1, 2000. Hangar 41 building upgrades will be
completed as soon as possible and it is expected to be open to the public in the Fall of
2000.
We will recruit-additional volunteer professional public relations personnel to assist in
these activities. We will attempt to recruit such a volunteer to our Board of Directors.
We will contact the various newsmedia notifying them of special events and distribute
press releases to the same and other agencies. We will recruit members and
volunteers for many jobs, from the general public and our membership, but especially
from the large retired community of federal employees who formerly worked at the
base, and from retired naval personnel who were associated with the base. We have
the promise of help to recruit volunteers from the current volunteer coordinator at the
Oakland Museum.
We will solicit group meetings to use the Alameda facilities for a fee - especially the
retired personnel mentioned above and other aviation related or historic, culturally
interested groups. Corporate parties and conferences will be encouraged, especially
aerospace and technology affiliated companies. Birthday parties for kids and adults
will be encouraged
ANAM is a member of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. It will be listed in various
tour and tourist guides (Le., AAA Tour Guide Book etc.) and also in local newspaper
attraction and historic sites listings.
ANAM already has websites with several volunteers providing "webmaster" services.
This will be continued and expanded.
ANAM will publish a newsletter that announcing activities and it will be distributed to
an expanded list of members, the media, public officials, other cultural institutions,
libraries, etc.
2
The Alameda Naval Air Museum's projected
educational program is a three-pronged program focusing on:
1. Education and training of volunteers'i
2. Adult education
3. Youth education
Volunteer education and training will include: (a) Safety training and correct
usage of equipment per Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA standards as
they pertain to the restoration of and conservation of artifacts including aircraft. (b)
Training of docents and other volunteers. (c) The archives/research centers will offer
volunteers the ability to further develop their knowledge in the principles of flight,
technical data on specific aircraft, identification of artifacts, aviation history in general,
and especiallly Navy and Marine Corps aviation at Alameda,
Adult education:Will Include: ( a) Classes provided by the museums in
conjunction with the College of Alameda, Merrittt College, and other educational
institutions. It will include such topics as aviation history, cataloguing, artifact
preservation, and aircraft restoration. (b) Lectures and demonstrations by aviation
people and other instructors in the lecture rooms. (c) Guided tours of the artifacts,
displays, and aircraft. (d) Use of the archives/research centers.
Youth education will Include: (a) U.S. military and civilian aviation history and
aviation career opportunities taught by docents and other volunteers with hands-on
experience, to youth in classrooms and in the museums proper. (b) Educational
packets and videos will be available to educators to use in the classrooms prior to a
museum visit. (c) A strong collaboration between the museums and school educators.
(d) A hands-on object- based experience. (e) A "trunk program" will be offered
whereby volunteer docents/educators visit the schools with portable displays and -
artifacts. ( f) An evaluation procedure to document the value of the experience and to
modify it based on feedback.
The museums will create and distribute publications and audio visual material such
as: (a) A self-guided audio tape, that educates and enhances the visitor experience.
(b) An illustrated pamphlet of the aircraft collection and exhibits. (c) Broctures on the
history of Alameda Naval Air Station,
Alameda Naval Air Station was a primary training facility for naval personnel of all
types, both military and civilian for over 50 years. It seems particularly fitting that the
traditional mission of the Alameda Naval Air Station in preparing military and civilian
members for service to the nation, can be extended to inform and educate the nation's
youth as to the part their forefathers have played in preserving their freedom.
5 to 7 Days a Week Operation
After some experience and likely by summer season 2000, we contemplate expanding
from 5 days a week to 7 days a week, matching the 7 day a week availability of the
Hornet and the proposed "Bladium" Sports Complex.
Smithsonian, National Air & Space Museum Cooperation
We have had meetings with the Smithsonian Institution, National Air & Space Museurii
senior staff and have been told they will loan 'us up to 3 aircraft for relatively long
periods of time, depending on our desires and their availability.
They have also told us they will lend specialist staff members to us for periods of time
by mutual agreement. This could be very helpful to us, particularly in the curatorial,
archival, library, and restorations functions.
We also discussed with them the idea of sharing gift shop stocking, merchandising,
and promotion; possibly under the Smithsonian banner. There is precedent for this at
the Baltimore/Washington Airport, and they indicated they might consider it with us.
Recently the Chabot Observatory and Science Center in Oakland has become the first
official Smithsonian Institution affiliated institution in Northern California and we plan
to pursue a similar affiliation sharing programs, artifacts, and expertise. We also
believe we can develop cooperative and mutually beneficial programs with the
Observatory and other science centers including Lawrence Hall of Science and U.C.
Berkeley as well as other universities and schools in the Bay Area.
Discount Package Admissions
A discount admission package program will be explored with ourselves and WAM,
with the Hornet, and with the Ferry services, which although reducing income slightly
per attendee, might well be,offset by additional attendance. We contemplate
encouraging members and the general public to visit both aviation museums and the
Hornet.
Tours of school groups, senior citizens, disabled groups, and other specialty groups
will be encouraged. We will annually mail packages and announcements to all Bay
Area schools encouraging their visitation as school groups. We will also mail
annually, similar packages and announcements to all travel and tour agencies
throughout the area, and to convention groups coming to San Francisco and Oakland
and the East Bay.
Special Events
Special events will be scheduled on a continuing basis (those listed on the
"operational income" sheet of this presentation). Some of these will be in concert with
the Hornet and/or the Electric Vehicle and Antique Fairs, etc. Maximum publicity will be
generated promoting attendance at these events, and in joint promotions there will be
joint sharing of the costs, thus making the costs less per individual cooperating
organization.
Pro bono Service and Materials
In addition to the pro bono services shown on the "operational expenses" (page 11),
we believe we will be able to obtain pro bono or reduced cost services and materials
from suppliers, contractors, and/or volunteers, especially from retired former Alameda
NAS workers and military personnel. Such pro bono or reduced costs would reduce
building upgrade costs of Building 77 and especially Hangar 41 (see page -
Government Funds
In 2000 another effort will be mounted to acquire State funds through the assistance of
a key State Senator and other elected officials. We are making a concerted effort to
acquire Federal Funds, with initial overtures and contacts having been made in 1998.
Grant requests will be made beginning in 2000 to the Institute of Museum and Library
Services, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and other federal agencies.
Grant requests:will be pursued with various foundations, corporations, and individuals.
We have solicited some of these firms, foundations, and individuals previously, but
with the recent promise of significant funds and with the experience we have gained,
we believe that we will be more successful. Such requests will be more likely to be
successful when we can say that we have signed leases for use of the buildings, that
we occupy the buildings, are open to the public, and that we have already received
major gifts.
ATTENDANCE AND INCOME/EXPENSE FORECASTS
The October 1996 ERA (Economic Research Associates) assessment of "Visitation
and Income Potential of the Hornet Museum" commissioned by the Aircraft Carrier
Hornet Foundation is a useful guide and its data are utilized in the following
discussion and estimates. Also utilized are data from a survey made for the San
Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau for the year 1995; data from the actual
experience of the Western Aerospace Museum (WAM) at Oakland Airport, which has
been open to the public and operating since December 1986; and the Hiller Aviation
Museum in San Carlos, which opened in June 1998.
SAN FRANCISCO CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU SURVEY
A survey made for the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau for 1995
determined that:
o 16 million visitors came to San Francisco.
o They spent $5 billion.
o 35% (5.6 million people) visited museums and galleries during the year.
HORNET ATTENDANCE PROJECTIONS
Given the size of the defined regional resident and tourist markets and estimates of
5.
market penetration, ERA projected that the potential visitation to the USS Hornet
during the first year of operation at Pier 3 would be about 800,000 persons.
Approximately 26 percent of total annual visitation was expected to come from the
resident market, with Alameda residents making up to 14 percent. From the tourist
market, 40 percent of annual visitation is expected to be made up of visitors to
Alameda and Contra Costa counties. San Francisco visitors will make up about 34
percent of total visitors to the ship.
ERA forecast annual attendance would decrease slightly after the opening year and_
stabilize at about 700;000 persons per year from the fifth year of operation onward.
Actual experience has shown the "walk-in attendance" in the first year will be about
130,000 and an estimated 220,000 attending special events, "sleep aboards", and
group tours for an estimated total attendance of about 350,000.
HILLER MUSEUM OF AVIATION
The Hiller Museum of Aviation opened at the San Carlos Airport in June of 1998. They
have had over 80,000 paid attendance (not counting free children and attendees at
special eventsnn their first full year of operation, which offers support for our
attendance projections.
WESTERN AEROSPACE MUSEUM
The Western Aerospace Museum is located adjacent to the Oakland Airport, North
Field, but in a somewhat remote location and not readily accessabie. Only in the last
year have they had highway signs marking direction to the museum. Their attendance
is approximately 22,000 year.
TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESSABILITY
Ferry Service from San Francisco and Other Cities to the Hornet and
ANAM.
The ERA attendance projection considered the cost of admission to the Hornet and the
implicit cost of commuting by ferry. As part of the San Francisco experience, many
visitors tour the Bay by ferry. Therefore, the ferry ride can be considered as a local
attraction in its own right and could be an asset in drawing visitors to the USS Hornet
and ANAM. Blue and Gold Ferries indicated a ferry service could be provided directly
from San Francisco to the Hornet if a ridership of 200,000 or more people per year
was anticipated. ERA forecasted that if a ferry service was provided directly to the
Hornet, over 270,000 visitors to San Francisco would visit the ship annually. The Red
and White Fleet began service to the Hornet from the Ferry Building beginning in Fall
1998.
The Blue and Gold Fleet already provides services from Pier 39 and the Ferry Building
in San Francisco to Jack London Square in Oakland and Main Street in Alameda.
ANAM is strategically located directly between these two Ferry landing sites. Rider-
ship at the Main Street landing doubled from 187,000 to 374,000 people from the
6
beginning of 1991 through June 1996 and increased to 440,000 annual riders as of
June 1998 (see Table 6). Ridership is forecast to grow at least 5% per year for the
next 10 years (see attached Oakland Tribune article November 15, 1998). Ridership
varies by the season, with June through September capturing over 40 percent of total
annual ridership. This seasonal pattern corresponds to the peak tourist months in the
Bay Area.
Table 6. ALAMEDA/Main Street Monthly Ferry Ridership
month 1998 % seasonality 1996
JULY 10
AUG 11
SEP 10
OCT 8
NOV 8
DEC 6
JAN 1999 4
FEB 4
MAR 8
APR 8
MAY 9
J114 13
TOTAL 465,239 — 100
Additional Ferry service to and from other communities around the Bay (Le., Richmond,
San Rafael, Vallejo, Sonoma, South San Francisco) is likely within the next few years
as all of these city governments are now actively seeking such service (see attached
newspaper article dated October 30, 1998).
There is now also a "water taxi service" from Jack London Square in Oakland to
various points along the Alameda/Oakland Estuary and it connects to the Main Street
Ferry Landing.
Land Transportation
Access to the Museum is very convenient for private vehicles and there is adequate
parking. As people drive through the main gate (former East Gate) they merely will
continue straight ahead to Ferry Street where they will see the aircraft and Museum
slightly to their right. A directional sign already exists at this point directing them to the
Museum, and/or the Hornet. Thus whether the visitors are going to the Museum, the
Hornet, the Wildlife Refuge, the Antique Fair, Electric Vehicle Fair, the Bladium Sports
Club, the U.S. Maritime Museum, or other sites west of Ferry Street, they will see the
Museum and thus be attracted to visit. It is a prime location from the standpoint of
accessability and visibility.
City of Alameda officials are discussing and investigating a free shuttle bus service
from the two Ferry landings at Alameda Point connecting the public attractions (i.e,,
ANAM, Hornet, Wildlife Refuge) to Webster Street and Marina Village areas.
Bus shuttle service between the public attractions and commercial businesses at
Alameda Point, the BART station in downtown Oakland. and AMTRAK station at Jack
London Square in Oakland is being explored between the Hornet and AC Transit at
the moment. We would also recommend that AC Transit establish this service. It would
allow and encourage visitation by people served by these transportation systems,
which connect with the entire Bay Area and Northern California.
ATTENDANCE PROJECTIONS
Utiliizing the above data it would seem reasonable to predict that with:
o The prominent location of ANAM at the intersection of Ferry St. and Atlantic
Ave;
o The relatively close location of ANAM to the Hornet at Pier 3, and its planned
series of on-going major events and celebrations attracting large crowds,
with a connecting shuttle service to this and other points of interest;
o The "Antique Fair" drawing 4000 people one week-end per month (expected
to climb to 10,000) directly past the Museum, with an estimated 10% visiting
the Museum;
o The "Bladium Sports Club" (a family sports complex) in Hangar 40
immediately adjacent to Hangar 41. (This for profit facility would be open 7
days a week);
o The U.S. Maritime Museum;
o Special events at the Museum;
o Ferry service to and from San Francisco to Pier 3 and to Main Street
landings;
o Possible ferry service from and to other cities throughout San Francisco Bay;
o Visitation of people to the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge;
o Visitors coming to the base otherwise;
o Prominent signage and advertising;
o Aircraft parked adjacent to the Museum as an enticement and visible to
visitors destined for the Aerospace Museum, the Hornet, and the other
attractions at Alameda Point;
o And with bus shuttle service between the Museum and Oakland BART and
8
AMTRAK stations;
that at least 10% of the number of people attending the Hornet and other Alameda
Point attractions would attend the Museum in Building 77 the first year. Thus, we are
making a conservative estimate of 20,000 attendance at the ANAM (Bldg 77) during
the first full year. We estimate attendance will grow to 40,000 in the 2nd year (when
Hangar 41 opens to the public), and 60,000 in the 3rd year.
Visitors will come to the Museum complex to see its historic memorabilia and dramaa
display of a large number of aircraft, and particularly prominent aircraft such,as an
18 Hornet in Blue Angels colors; a large flying boat such as a PBY Catalina; major
historic aircraft such as fighters of WW 11, Korea, and Vietnam; a P-2 Neptune, a B-24
Privateer; a B-25 Mitchell bomber similar to those launched from the USS Hornet (CV-
8) by Lt. Col. "Jimmy Doolittle" in 1942 to bomb Tokyo; and/or other historic aircraft and
space vehicles. We already have contacts for obtaining several of these aircraft.
The types of aircraft at the Museum will complement the Hornet, which mostly will
display aircraft associated with the Essex class carriers. ANAM will display a greater
variety of aircrajt, many of which are too large to be accomodated on the Hornet.
OPERATING INCOME CALCULATIONS
WAM attendance analysis shows: 50% of its visitors being age 13 and over;
30% of its visitors being age 6 thru 12;
20% of its visitors being age 5 or under.
The average gift shop gross sales per visitor at 11 museum ships around the country is
$1.90. WAM's operating profit at its gift shop is at least 31% and thus we assume net
sales of $.59 per visitor.
The average food and beverage gross sales per visitor at the museum ships is $2.00
with a net of 20% for an assumed net sales profit of $0.40 per visitor.
Projecting the admission fees as follows:
YR 2000 (Bldg 77 only)
$5 per person age 13 and over,
$3 per person age 6 thru 12,
free age 0 thru 5
YR 2000 + (Bldg 77 and Hangar 41)
$7 per person age 13 and over,
$4 per person age 6 thru 12,
free age 0 thru 5
We determine the estimates of income per year based on forecast attendance, as
shown on the attached income/expense page:
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7 4 Gift Shop
75
76
A 1 9
ATTENDANCE
1999-2000
OPERATIONAL INCOME
20000
Admissions
Food & Beverage (net sales)
77
78
79
80
81
82 Special Events
83
84 (January)
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93 (June)
94
(net sales)
2000-2001
40000
2001-2002
60000
68000
188000
8000
(19,
87800
Membership Dues (ave $35@)
Membership Solicitations by mail
Donations (in bin at door)
Sub total membership and donations
16000
23600
282000
227600
24000
35400
341400
7000
9000
5000
3000
15000
6000
12QQ
19000
-12000
7000
5000
24000
(Net)
Wine and Cheese Tasting
$10@ x 100 people, wine and cheese donated
1000
11001
(March) Big Band Music Day
$10@ x 100 people, band donated
1000
1100
(April) Wings & Wheels Static Show
&10@ x 800 people
8000
10000
Golf Tournament
based on several successful events
5000
10000
95
96 (August) :Picnic, Model A ircraft Show
97
98
99 (September)
1 0 0 $10@ x 100 people
101
1 0 21(September)
103 $100 x 300 pe ople,
104
1 05 (November)
1 0 6 $40@ ($20@net) x 100 people
107
1 08 Sub total events
109
11 d TOTAL OPERATIONAL INCOME
$10@ x 100 people. picnic and static display
1000
1250
NAS Oldtimers Day
1000
1100
Radio control Model Aircraft 511
flying display
3000
sow;
Alameda NAS Anniversary,Ball
2000
5000
22000
34550:
1200
1200
12000
15000
1500
1200
7000
8000
47100
124800
281150
412500
120
1 2 1
1 2 2
1 2 3
124
1 2 5
1 2 6
t 0
' -
1
2
3
4
5 Utilities
6 Telephone
7__
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9 Insurance
20 Payroll taxes
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
A
1
H
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
Cash
Pro bono
Cash
Pro bono
Cash
Pro bono
Development & Promotion
2000
12000
15000
Aircraft maintenance & Repair
Aircraft supplies
Bldg maintenance & Repair
Electrical service upgrade
Building supplies
Janitorial service
4800
2800
1250
6800
3000
10000
7000
3300
10000
500
4000
2000
2000
10000
10000
30000
2000
2100
2200
650
3000
3300
Garbage pick-up
1800
2000
2300
Printing& Reproduction
Postage
Shipping & Del
Travel
4500
5000
5750
very,aircraft acquisition
4500
21500
4700
21700
5000
12000
1000
3000
4000
Office expense
3000
7000
3200
8000
3300
9500
6720
7504
License & Permits
500
Professional fees (CPA, LEGAL etc.)
Wages & Salaries
2000
20000
500
500
2400
20000
3000
20000
Site manager
30000
16000
16000
18000
Asst Site manager
24000
13000
13000
15000
Developmea officer
Gift shop manager
30000
16000
16000
18000
2
21000
Food sales manager
18000
15000
18000
22000
Maintenance person
15000
15000
16000
16000
Aircraft restoration
10000
50000
60000
Curator
Exhibits manager
Educator
Docents
50000
100000
110000
Sub-total operational expense
Total expenses pro bono
63800
184000
196120
251000
Common services @ $.025/sf
27336
27336
TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENSE
(9113
(223456
TOTAL OPERATIONAL INCOME
124800
281150
NET GAIN/(LOSS) OPERATIONS
33664
57694
172654
27336
99990
412500
212510
279000
Note: Common services fee applies to 21,136 sf in Bldg. 77 and only to 70,000 sf of floor space in Hangar 41
11
' O
MOO 0 N O a tf) a1 O O O Q O O O O a1 co
C} u3
U a1 0 0 0 ^) O O 4'-- •k)• O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N
V 0 CO 0 N 111 0 N N 0 Lc) tf r--4 M 0 0 0 t1 lO
•c:)'
U}. . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . .
Z 0 0 lO N r-i N W r-1 r--i r-I r-{ ri a1 Ul co
4J lO N r-4 . 1 Cr)
W O '-i N
2 4J
U (,1 • 0 0 o 0 O 0
4J H 0 0 0 0 o 0
TS .1.) 1 I I O in 1 1 O 1 1 1 L.r) tf) N
g t13 .
O Xi r"I N H
O
O
0 -�
N (1) 1 0 O O Q 0 co O O O O 0
4J 0 O O co O O O O 0 O O O
I RSA I I 1 0 0 tf1 co o I 1 tf) O o U) co I 1 O
rn 0 • to ■O t• rl LC) r► cfl H M 4-4 N to
a1 Q •-4 M v ... M
I 1 1 1
r-I "
dJ.
U1
in- 0 M 0 0 0 N 0 O 111 a1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a1
0 a1 0 0 O N O O N v' co 0 O 0 O co co o 0 N
► •I' 0 00 0 N 0 0 N N 0 0 0 to 0 O 0 0 0 tf)
(1) r-1 . . .• . . . . . ► . . . . . . . . .
4J RS 0 0 tiO al tO H. N tf) r4 rI U) N to N M r-i 01 Ul to
U) 4J lO N r-1 ri V' M
O 0 ri
U H
a)
cci b O - H al u a a Q
)-i ouu 2 2 H> W 2 H a a a 2 Kt 2 2
a •r1 0 W W W 01 U) W U) ► H u rA W , . Z CQ to aq CQ
W ° �4n�>�>�c a >�cOCOW > 4 > >
0
.r1
aJ
0
O .-.
+) 0 -)J
O tr z
v
Ts .0 o
a) •r•i
a.) O -4J
O 0 0
a) 0
•n dA 31
O 0 .4J
3 4 r-i U)
a g
• O
r-4 r-I 0
'I' 0
g •
)4 •ri r-I
(t3 ... 0
Q . -r-I
m 3-i a)
m (u )-1 rO
O r4 •r-4
� ul
3-1 H Q)
H ►lO
to tf)
U r4
Through Hangar Doors
Exits: 4
e
Island Stairways Sealoff (3)
a)
+)
- )4 s >~
u
at a■
O O
N (N
Public Barriers
Women's Restroom w/ADA; add ADA to Men's
Comprehensive Asbestos Survey (Completed)
Minor Asbestos Removal (VAT): Women's R.R.
Non-Original Office Partitions Removal
Exit and Emergency Lights
Parking Lot and Entry Lights
.-. N a)
(1) '-' (L
0 •a
cc) > 0 (l1
U1l )4 W v 4
0 0 ► co 3-I
In 3 U) h O N
O U) N G 4-4
r-i 0 VA ,.54
tr u-4 )4 cn- g
g x U g -r-4
•r-1 0 O •IJ Sa
f Rs - a) a -
rn W o >12 Ul
-ri 0 0
CI) rO .:r f., r-i a)
g a) (a 34
b Rf • 01.4J •r-1
1~ > g O w
RI P (1) O •ri 4J
CU S-1 r-1 .4J ,Q M
b 4J 04 (n 0 g 0 rn
g a) 4J tr 0 CO N
a W E CJ a) N
-I-I = g a) 3.1 a) g its a1
3-1 ri • .L: 0) Q O ((S r 1
44J U) O4 •ri N in-
(/] 3-i ► •rl r-i 4J tT
a) $.4 s~ Rf 0 Ra U)
▪ G $
O • 01 D g
-i 3 = •r4 dJ .4J 4J a\ •r-1
N 4-) O 0 U) M
CP O 1.-1 `
-1 r • 4 W i1.4 4 O
>~ 0)
•ri .Q .4J •r4 O 'r 0 r-i
03 ri W U) ,t-. N a) (73
3-4 4. 1- Q O do N U) 4.3
(0 0)4 -r4 0 3-i 0 U)- 0 0
O4 Ot o w O FC N •-' X H
U1
i-i 0 N N' tO lO N t) tfl` O O
► r1 r-4 r-I
Cr)
�2
Hangar 41 Upgrade Costs
The following pages outline the requirements and cost of upgrading
hangar 41 for a certificate of occupancy as a museum display space.
Initially the Museum would use the hangar as a simple shell in which
to display full-sized aircraft, with the office space sealed off.
As such, very little modification of the building is required.
The fire sprinkler and alarm system must be updated by a specially-
licensed contractor for a cash expenditure by the Museum of nearly
$200,000, including $20,000 for the center island. Alternatively!
(and preferably) the island could be deconstructed by volunteers-.1_
or at no cost.by a salvage firm, to reclaim its lumber, after
$20,000 is expended to remove asbestos-containing floor tile and
transite (a firm bid is in hand for this work).
Four fire exits would be designed and fabricated in-house to be set
into the large hangar doors, with more added as necessary as the
visitor count grows. The State Historic Preservation Office would
likely approve this feature because:
- the change to the hangar's exterior would be almost imperceptible,
far less noticeable than that at hangar 39, where a large loading
dock, sawdUst collector, and roll-up door have been added.
- the exits would help to enable the Air Museum, which in turn would
provide the only hangar at the former Naval Air Station where
representative aircraft could still be seen as they once were.
Historically this would be far superior to a stage set
warehouse for the San Francisco Opera for the next 50 years.
- these exits would provide much better fire safety than exit corridors
tunneled through the office structures, the only alternative.
The women's restroom has been halved in size from a January estimate
for 8 toilets, and the total cost reduced by one-third. It would be
designed to be expanded easily as the Museum grows, since it would
be built over a large previously-used plumber's vault containing_
ample rough-in plumbing and sewer connections.
The fire sprinkler and alarm upgrade package includes its own con-
tingency and construction management allowances. As most of the rest
of the upgrade cost would be covered by donated labor and materials
which can be expanded if necessary, no further dollar contingency is
shown. Construction management would be by volunteers.
As can be seen from the following pages, the hangar's electrical system
is essentially ready for use. Twenty working outlets line the north
and south walls, and code-approved dropcords from the rafters would
be used for exhibits away from these sources. The existing ceiling
lighting is more than adequate, and would be used sparingly. Modifi-
cation of the potable water connections is elementary, and if neces-
sary a crossover pipe in the rafters would be used to supply the men's
restroom on the south side. The highest-quality EPDM membrane roof was
installed for the Navy in 1985, and according to the manufacturer's
representative has an expected 54 year life.
13
1
1
1
1
City of Alameda.
Inter-office Memorandum
To: Permit Expeditor
From: Building Inspection
Date: January 14, 1997
Subject: Inspection at 1951 Main St. Bldg. 77 & Hanger 41 on
1/14/97
A Joint Inspection for Certificate of Occupancy
Inspection at the above address revealed the following violations
and conditions pertaining to the National Electric Code.
Bldg. 77
1. Remove pull chain light fixtures above mirrors in the rest
rooms or rePlace', them with switched type fixtures.
2. There is an improperly hung fluorescent light fixture in one
of the 3rd. floor rest rooms
3. An aircraft warning light on the upper roof is broken and is
feed with the wrong wiring.
4. The lower roof area has improper fastened conduit, an exhaust
fan that is missing a wire termination cover, knock seal
missing on a box and a conduct that is not terminated
properly.
5. The following areas were not inspected:
Room 125
Room 114
Loading dock area
Ranger 41
1. Disconnect spray booths.
2. Panel cover is bent at S.W. corner of building.
3. Various K.O. seals and box covers are missing.
4. The office and electric service areas were not inspected.
,011!!*,
1. Buildings with multiple service entrance conductors shall have
a permanent plaque or directory, denoting all electric power
sources on or in the premises, it shall be installed at each
service equipment location and at locations of all electric
power production sources capable of being interconnected.
2. The Service Equipment does not appear to be unsafe but is of
a type that does not meet National Electric Code orThe Bureau
of -Electricity Rules or Regulations, refer to B. of E. for
further action. Contact Bud Dougherty (510) 748-3994
Inspection time: 1 hour.
George Carder
Combination Inspector
Date:1-14-97
To:.Permit Expeditor
From: Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector
Subject: Inspection at 1951 Main St. (Bldg 77 & hanger 41)
A Joint Inspection for a certificate of occupancy.
Inspections at the above address revealed the following !=.
violations and conditions pertaining to the Health Life and
Safety Sections of the UnifoLw Plumbing code,
AND SAFETY HAZARDS:
Bldg 77
No violations observed.
Hanger 41
1. Provide legal waste & venting for mens restroom basin's on
first floor.
Inspection time w/report: 1 ½ hrs
PLUMBING & MECHANICAL INSPECTOR
Terry Repstad
City of Alameda
Inter-office Memorandum
1
LIDate:
To
11 From:
1
subJec,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
January 14, 197
Permit Exceditor
Inspection
Insper.:1-n at 1951 31-c. 77 ; 41.
A Join: inspection for C-,zrrif'-a7== of Occu-ancv.
Inspection at the above address revealed the following violations
and conditions pertaining to the issuance of a Certificate cf
Occupancy.
VIOLATIONS:
Bldg. 41 -- Main display areas only. Offir-r=c to be inszected
as funds are available to occupy.
1. No handicap accessible restrcoms. ABC Sec.1005
31dg. 77
1. No handicap accessible restrooms.(firsc floor)
ABC Sec.1005
2. ,Exj.: door @ west end of 3rd floor has no exterior
landing. ABC Sec.1004.9
3. Path of :ravel from exit door 'a wer_ end cf 3rd
floor has a step not to code. AEC Sec.1006.3
4 Exit doors on 2nd floor have no panic hardware.
ABC Sec.1016.4
5. Doers in central corridor area need to Pe self-
closing. ABC Sec.1005.8.1
(-IggS1102.22NaL
Bldg. 41
1.
Bldg. 33
Install male and female reszroom facilities to meet
State of California handicap requirement Trict; male anc eiaie reStrOom 7:0
Stat= of
Cat0ta hand'-r.o --,a-emenrs.(First
floor .-;n1v)
instai: extor 1andna, to match int==,,nr flccr
LeveL, with szeos having ecual rises not eceeding
7 tnches in h,.aht.
Insta:: stecs, same width as stairway, wi:h
rises not exceadina 7 4nc2.es in heicfht.
ns:a:: canic hardware :o mP=-'7. code.
.4=7izes :n :
and _ea-' :he
Inspection/office time: 1 hour.
'(/
Ken'Stevens
Building Inspection Supervisor
ENGiNEERS, R'IC.
Electrical • Mechanical • Control
October 6, 1998
Mr. Benjamin Hance
Chaney, Walton, & McCall
35 Embarcadero Cove
Oakland Ca. 94606-5203
Re: NAS Alameda Hanger 41
Electrical Design Proposal
(YEI P98-050FP)
Dear Mr. Hance;
Directors:
Douglas Yung, RE.
Dennis D. Dias, RE.
Lawrence L. Lam, P.E.
Joel T. Jang
Moon H. Yuen
Founder
1922-1991
In 1996 YEI performed an investigation of Hanger 41 and the following was noted:
Hanger-41 was in fair condition. It lacks any exit signs and emergency egress
lights. The electrical servicewas-from-the'4160'voft distribution system and
needed to be changed to the 12,000 volt system. The offices had fluorescent
lights, the restroorns,had incandescent lights and the open hanger area had
metal halide lights: •
With the building's proposed use as a museum and the offices being boarded off and
taken out of service, the upgrade electrical cost will be reduced to occupy the building
as compared to an industrial application. With the museum's ability to obtain volunteer
labor and material the occupancy cost will be further reduced.
The new exit lights and emergency lights if not provided by volunteers would cost
$2,000 to provide and install.
The open hanger area metal halide lights are adequate for the museum.
Because there will be no modifications to the lighting and power systems, the existing
electrical panels will be sufficient.
The building will require, in about one year, a new 800amp, 480 volt service panel with
new 120/208 step-down transformers. The cost of the new service panel and step-
down transformer would be $11,200. The scheduling of the new service will be
coordinated with the Alameda Bureau of Electricity.
Electrical engineering design services for the above design documents would range
from $3,000 to $5,000.
YEI Engineers, Inc. • Edgewater Park Plaza • 7700 Edgewater Drive, Suite 828 • Oakland, CA 94621
Telephone (510) 383-1050 • Fax (510) 383-1057 • E-Mail: YEIENGOAOLCOM
Other Offices: San Francisco • San Diego
q
Page 2
Mr. Hance
October 6, 1998
If YEI can be of any further help in assisting you in this project, please call me.
Sincerely,
Dennis D. Dias P.E.
Principal
DDD:dd
cc: L. Lam
'0141...
f11.melem.
momernirrioni.
4, mommilimm
Alameda Naval Air and
WESTERN N A EROSPAC USEUM
P.O. BOX 14264 8260 BOEING STREET
NORTH FIELD, OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, OAKLAND, CA 94614
(510) 638 -7100 FAX (510) 638 -6530
Mr. Harish K. Dave, P.E.
Engineering Supervisor
City of Alameda
Bureau of Electricity
2000 Grand Street, P.O. Box H
Alameda, California 94501 -0263
Dear Mr. Dave: -
12 November 1998
Re: Electric Service to Bldg. 77
at Alameda Point
Thank you very much for your letter of 8 October 1998 to Franz
Steiner, AIA, and the assistance of you and your staff, particularly
Mr. Fred Branaman, with consideration of the electric service to
buildings 41 and 77 at Alameda Point.
We understand that further investigation reveals that the one secondary
meter in building 77 covers all of the outlet, lighting, and elevator
circuits that we will require. Therefore, we are . prepared to forego
use of the remaining'two unmetered services in the building.
We look forward to continued collaboration with the Bureau in helping
to provide the Community with a world -class air museum at Alameda Point.
Steve Keachie
Volunteer, and Director,
Alameda Naval Air Museum
cc: Franz Steiner, AIA
Clyde Grimes, AIA
./Ronald Reuther, Exec. Dir. WAM
Marilyn York, Dir. Ops. ANAM
c2 t
October 8, 1998
Mr. Franz Steiner, ALA
VBN Architects
501 14th St., Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612 -1405
City of Alameda • California
Subject: Proposed Western Aerospace Museum Project at Building #41, Alameda Poin
Dear Mr. Steiner:
I am providing this letter in response to your recent request that I formally state my opinion
regarding the viability of the proposed Western Aerospace Museum Project at Building #41 at
Alameda Point.
On several occasions we have had discussed concerning a great number of Uniform Building Code
issues related to the propose project to convert the existing airplane hanger building #41 into a
museum display space for the Western Aerospace Museum. I believe that you, the Fire Marshall and
myself have finally reached conceptual agreement on all code issues related to the proposed project
and I am confident that I will be able to approve the proposed project.
I look forward to receiving the final project plans and Building Permit application for this project
in the near future. If you have any further.questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven W. Davis
Building Official
cc: Via FAX: (510) 465 -1586
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director
Fire Marshal
Building Services Manager
Building Services
Central Permits & Building Inspection
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, California 94501
510 748.4530 • Fax 510 748.4548 • TDD 510 522.7538
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM ASSET STATEMENT - July 27, 1999
Savings account $5645.19
Checking account general 393.75
Checking account gift shop 689.47
Total cash on hand 8728.41
Pledge from B. Baack and M. York 20000.00
Pledge from Steve Keachie 100000.00
Pledge from Grace Keachie 100000.00
Total pledges 220000.00
Property
display cases 1478.17
computer supplies 268.83
VCR 162.36
cash register 465.00
manakins (2) 250.00
seaplane dioramas 365.00
miscellaneous 500.00
gift shop stock 2000.00
Total property 5489.33
Occupancy permit 500.00
Total assets 226217.74
Estimated gain from operations: Year 1 33664
Year 2 57694
Year 3 212510
Total 303868.74
Total potential available, mostly for building improvement.
$528085.74
(g3
July 21, 1999
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM FINANCIAL STATEMENT
The officers and directors of the Alameda Naval Air Museum are in
receipt of a pledge of #200,000 from Steve and Grace Keachie to be
applied specifically to upgrades of Hangar 41 for the museum.
Consultation with Mr. Sandre Swanson, Chief of Staff for
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Ninth District of California, indicates
that he will apply for matching funds to benefit the museum. --He
hopes that these funds will be sufficient to carry out the upgrades
on both Building 77 and Hangar 41. He also will seek to secure a
small cash donation to enable Building 77 upgrades to begin as soon
as funds can be made available. He also voiced his belief in the
Alameda Naval Air Museunt and its value to community, state and
country.
Additional efforts will be undertaken to obtain site control so
that we can seek additional donations and pledges. We are
convinced that the above resources will enable us to successfully
carry out our museum project.
Respectfully submitted,
4#11414.
Barbara Baack, President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS,
VOLUNTEERS, JUL 27, 1999
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Barbara Baack, President/CEO, Museum Co-founder
16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
510-353-2750
Retired federal civil service Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Navy, NAS Alameda. Other
experience includes Print Shop Owner, Editor of station newspaper during Vietnam
war, amd Administrator of awards program fpr NADEP.
Marilyn York, Vice President/Director of Operations, Museum Co-founder.
16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
510-352-2750 -
Member of the first class of WAVES, WWII, stationed at NAS, Alameda. Retired
Jouneyman aircraft engine mechanic, 32 years service.
Doug de Haan, Executive Advisor
1305 Dayton ST.
Alameda, CA 94501
510-523-5777 (H), 510-563-6423 (0)
Retired federal civil service Production Superintendent, NADEP. NAS Alameda, 35
years service. Executive, Tower Aviation.
Audrey Sherak, Treasurer
624 Sandalwood
Alameda, CA 94501
510-522-0376
Retired head of a Budget Section, NADEP and NAS Alameda, 35 years service.
Mildred Holley
143 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
510-521-3608
Retired federal civil service, Supply Department, Inventory Contrrol, NAS Alameda, 30
years service. Also a secretary, U.S. Maritime Commission.
Nita Rosen
1045 Island Dr.
Alameda, CA 94501
510-523-8209
Retired Owner and Operator of retail lighting store in Alameda for 22 years. Managed
ANAM gift shop.
Morris Thompson
3239 Knowland Ave.
Oakland, CA 94619
510-532-3136, pr 510-262-8708, 510-533-3963 (H,F), TalkToMe @t2.com
Retired Electronic Shop Supervisor, NADEP, NAS Alameda, 35 years service, ANAM
Webmaster
BOARD OF ADVISORS
"Chuck" Coriica
1000 Post St.
Alameda, CA 94501
510-523-3194
Former Mayor of Alameda
Duncan "Duke" Campbell, Capt. USN (Ret)
3034 Thompson Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
510-522-1881
Former Commanding Officer NAS Alameda.
James Dodge, Capt. USN (Ret)
7604 Michel Rd.
Mt. Ranch, CA 95241
209-754-4855
Former Commanding Officer NAS Alameda.
Ray Hemmings, Rear Admiral, USNR (Ret)
160 Bozet Rd. ,4th Fir.
San Mateo, CA 94402
415-378-4090
Former Supply Officer, NAS Oakland, NAS Alameda, and NAS Moffett Field.
c2.0
Edwin Wilson, Rear Admiral, USNR (Ret)
126 Pfeiffer St.
San Francisco, CA 94122
41 5-956-1 518
Naval aviator, former commander of aviation units at NAS Oakland and NAS Alameda.
VOLUNTEERS
George Bisharat
P.O. Box 624 '
Vallejo, CA 94590
707-643-0077
Artist, illustrator, photdgrapher, historian, picture framer.
Kurt Bohan
Alameda, CA 94501
510-814-186C
Electronic/electrical engineer. Manager of electricalelectronic vehicle business at
Alameda Point. Recent candidate for Mayor of Alameda.
Don Broussard
2724 Nicole Ave.
Oakland, CA 94602
510-535-0809
Retired civil service aircraft mechanic at•NADEP, NAS Alameda. Aircraft mechanic at
United Airlines.
Tony Davis
1762 139th Ave.
San Leandro, CQA 94578
510-895-9018
Cabinet maker, carpenter, and electrician.
Steve Keachie
34 Crystal Way
Berkeley, CA 94708
510-654-7502
Electrical engineer graduate Stanford University; former electrical engineer, Lawrence
Laboratory, U.C.-Berkeley; pilot.
Ronald Reuther, Lt. Col. AUS (Ret)
955 Shorepoint Ct. #212
Alameda, CA 94501
510-864-1973 H2O,F), reuther@acninc.com
Former Executive Director of Zoological Parks, founder and former President and
Executive Director of Western Aerospace Museum, retired USAF and U.S. Army pilot
and commander of military units.
Franz Steiner, Sr. Vice President
VBN Architects
501-14th St.
Oakland, CA 94612
510-763-1313 (0), 510-465-1586 (F)
Senior Vice President, VBN Architects, Oakland, architectural experience designing
museums, aircraft hangars, many other buildings and projects.
• cS, t'‘'cti. 4) til 10 ,?,, -a' .5 ,!%.) .14 ,..-:... 0 -0 cZ • (I)
cz rutel, • . a.`..n .:.. : 5 .r62) . = , "1E 0 3
0 M 8 . >ca) l „ , 0 c0cLo, a. . cb ■,.i.'i .". 0 4(4 .., tg-,4•0-74o:1 , <t,M ° a ...
=
z
▪ 8 5 ,.... ,....., a) ... >7„, cict 7:1 •--.
.5 eL,* A) = * E-• I)
0)
........ = `-'0 .5 E 10' < E cr> -, a.) 0
g d Ln t a) 8 bc.”
0 p -,.8 ; ›. as ,
,...
c) P.-, 0
ta. cu c)
° > E '
a. r...
CD * " — " > ›-▪ ,- – ...), . 0c _ , _ .. (1)
L._ 0 =
Cei C.1 ,
-...bc..)E-..1....obb„ Es ,.., E—. , ..._. ,... ..., T. 4,
Om P. 6 Z.. cii E ..P. 8 ,5_). ,t-bc0)... .c2 cc1-) "0:.:.-? 5 .E ca 3 ko.0
Ni. ,
1.0 . 1-. 0 . . -0 0 — = ...::$
-
. . , ...... = x,
..!---: 0
?Z3 Z ?'' ta 4) g g C. lis ((4)
c/3
....) As ,.., 0 ca.:6 11
0. c)
*•-• V) ti2 boa' _ "
-,...3 ..8 la
0
t,'
,.?. 0 co "
"' 73 E 2 • ? ' ' ibl
= - -i
= CL ? E l
-0 ..... ,..,,... .... ,..... j
%a) •■=7)
.....
•■
' -c) 4) 0 -• 0 ....•
". ..., :, =
a Q O 0 v
o „b a.) _ • .cs ..-• V
. ," „„(1) 1... ,., = >`. 5 ...• cd
g .g *e3 .S.: E 0 0 •E'
— -.
t... 4.)
•
0
Cll .a '0 C.) (J .0 C., 4, ". 0
1:"...› Sli. vi-1 (...... f'-': ..,>" cri 13
= V >'. •-• 11, v) .5 A
tz ''''
6 ,.. .5 1.1
... 41 ,..., 1 E — 4.9 es 61 te -cd • 4. —
c.,„ gLe, o ,8. ••
••ts •
"Cl "a r
> " --1' ..
I I S ° ' = ›", 0 .0 ....
g '
g §
8 = 0
v
0
2 C 1, , t x 3 >t ) 1 -9 I . , .' 0° - ' .- . ''s ' 11 C31.". -8 OCI 414 *"O Q:1 •-•Q) ..,9, 3
L u .6u
„_, 'V a) t_.„.5._„,.: d .s.),.. , (-• , _, .r, .0 „.. ,
v) • =
- ,— u)
DIANNE FEINSTEIN
CALIFORNIA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FRESNO OFFICE:
1130 -O' STREET
SUITE 2448
FRESNO, CA 93721
anited
tatez
•
TO
mate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 -0504
September 12, 1995
Mr. David B. Hakola
Director
U.S. Department of Education
Federal Property Assistance Program
600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 2339
Washington, D.C. 20202 -4553
Dear Mr. Hakola:
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
I am writing to ask you to give full consideration to the Alameda Naval
Air Museum's request to be located at the Alameda Naval Air Station. This
facility could be an important part of the greater San Francisco Bay Area and
could prhvide an excellent educational opportunity for Alameda County's
thousands of students.
I am interested in seeing the growth of the Alameda Naval Air Museum
despite the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station: This museum will allow
students to use the exhibits of vintage aircraft as a historical and factual lesson
in history.
I urge you to give this application of the Alameda Naval Air Museum
your consideration. Please feel free to direct correspondence to Cathy Widener
of my San Francisco staff at (415) 536 -6868.
DF:cw
LOS ANGELES OFFICE:
11111 SANTA MONICA 8010.
Sum 915
L05 ANGELES. CA 90025
Since yours,
t
Dia Feinstein
nited States Senator
31
SAN DIEGO OFFICE:
750 STREET
SUITE 1030
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE:
525 MARKET STREET
SUITE 3670
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94105
mAlameda County Office of Education
August Scornaienchi
Sunermtendenr
Peter Yasitis
Associate Superintendent
Business Services
Cheryl Hightower
Assistant Superintendent
Curriculum and instruction
Claudette Inge
Assistant Superintendent
Student Programs & Services
1995-96
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Keith Medeiros
President
Gay Nair Cobb
First vice-President
Carmen Carrillo, Ph.D..1.D.
Second vice-President
Charles H. Deadrlch, J.D.
Member
Felix Elizalde
Member
David Peterson
Member
Jerome G. Wiggins
Member
Professional
Services Center
313 W. Winton Ave.
Hayward. California
945441198
(510) 887.0152
September 8, 1995
Director David B. Hakola
U.S. Department of Education
Federal Real Property Assistance Program
6000 Independence Ave., S.W., Room 2339
Washington, D.C. 20202 -4553
Dear Director Hakola:
The Alameda Naval Air Museum will become an important part of the greater San
Francisco Bay Area and is not only a benefit for the community and a source of
education for Alameda County's thousands of students. Students in this area will
bei.jllowed to take the opportunity to use the exhibits of vintage aircraft and artifacts
as-a historical and factual lesson in history.
With a projected first year attendance of 40,000 visitors, the Alameda Naval Air
Museum will draw tourists from foreign countries and all 50 states. The Museum
is a unique and positive addition to our community. We are committed to its steady
growth and expansion despite the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station.
This letter is to indicate our support for the transfer of Building 77 and Hangar 41
to the Alameda Naval Air Museum via a federal property transfer for educational
use.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to facilitate this request.
Sincerely,
A. F. Scornaienchi
Superintendent
AFS:lh
(EXHIBITSII.D.5)
RONALD V. DE.L.LUMS
9TH DISTRICT. CALIFORNIA
RANKING MINORITY
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
REPLY TO
OFFACE CHECKED:
2108 RAYBURN H.O.B.
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
-( 202) 2.25-2561
1.301 CLAY STREET
SUITE 1000-N
OAKLAND. CA 94612
15101 763-0370
(11,ortgrm tif tilt 3nit :'tit
abusE of lzprzaniatims
Aucust 29, 1995,
M.r. David B. Hakola, Director
U.S. DePart:MenC of Education
Federal Real Property Assistance Program
600 Independence Avenue,' SW, Room 2339
Washington, DC 20202-4553
M. ako1a:
WASHINGTON OFFICE
CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT
AOMINISTRATIVE ASSIST,-
CHARLES C. STEPHENSON. JR.
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
DISTRICT OFFICE
SANDRE R. SWA.;SON
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
H. EE HALTERMAN
GENERAL
The Alameda Naval Air Museum will br-ome an imbortant oart
of the areacer San Francisco Eav Area and will provide a benefit
for the community and a source of education for Alameda County's
thousands of_, students. Students in this area will be allowed to
cake the opt,ortunity to use the exhibits of vintace aircraft and
artifacts as a historcal and factual lesson in history.
With a projected first year attendance of 40,000 visitors,
the Alameda Naval Air Museum will draw tourists from foreign
countries and all fifty states. The museum is a unique and
positive addition to our community. We are committed to its
steady arowth and expansion desoite the closure of the Alameda
Naval Air Station. •
RVD:rcb
Sincerely yours,
Ronald V. Dellums
Member of Ccncress
5-3
(EXHIBITSII.D.2)
.urge Herring, Ed.D.
President
College of Alameda
555 Atlantic Avenue • Alameda, California 94501 • (510) 522 -7221 • FAX (510) 769 -6019
August 25, 1995
David B. Hakola, Director
U. S. Department of Education
Federal Real Property Assistance Program
600 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 339
Washington, D. C. 20202 -4553
Dear Director Hakola:
RE: Alameda Naval Air Museum, Alameda, California
This letter is to indicate our strongest support for property located at the Naval
Air Station Alameda to be transferred to the Alameda Naval Air Museum via a
federal property transfer for educational use.
College of Alameda is responsible for the postsecondary education of students in
and around the proposed Alameda Naval Air Museum. We are working with
the Alameda Naval Air Museum on sharing resources for education and wish to
receive cooperation in our educational efforts benefiting the students in our area.
The Alameda Naval Air Museum can become an integral part of the San
Francisco Bay Area and is not only a benefit for the community, but a source of
education for the city's students. Students in the area can take the opportunity to
use the exhibits of vintage aircraft and artifacts as a historical and factual lesson
in history.
We hope you will give this application a positive response.
Sincerely,
rJ
George Herring '•J
President
GH:jcl .
Peralta Community Coliece District
3 4-
(EXHIBITSII.D.4)
GAIL STEELE
SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT
1
1
1
1
1
1
kg
1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
August 25, 1995
Director David B. Hakola
U.S. Department of Education
Federal Real Property Assistance Program
600 Independence Avenue,' SW, Room 2339
washington, D.C. 20202-4553
Dear Director Hakola,
The Alameda-Nava.1 Air Museum will become an important. part. of the
greater Sa3i"...Fran.cisco Bay Area and is not only a benefit for the
community and a source, of education for Alameda County's thousands
of students. Students in this area will be allowed to take the
opportunity- to use the exhibits of vintage aircraft and artifacts
as a historical and factual lesson in history.
With a projected first year attendance of 40,000 visitors, the
Alameda Naval Air Museum will draw tourists from foreign countries
and all fifty states. The museum is a unique and positive addition
to our community. We are committed to its steady growth and
expansion despite the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station.
This letter is to•indicate our strongest support for the transfer
of Building 77 and Hangar 41 to the Alameda Naval Air Mu.seum via a
federal property transfer for educational use.
Please let me know if there•is anything I can do to facilitate this
request.
Sincerely
Gail Steele
Chairman, Alameda County Board of :Supervisors
(EXHIBITSII.D.6)
1221 OAK STREET - SUITE 536 - OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 - (510) 272-6692 - FAX (510) 271-5115
HAYWARD DISTRICT OFFICE - (510) 670-6277
PRINTED BY UNION LABOR-LOCAL 342, AFL-C10-LOCAL 616. SEIU
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
August 23, 1995
Director David B. Hakola
U.S. Department of Education
Federal Real Property Assistance Program
600 Independence Ave., SW, Room 2339
Washington, D.C. 20202 -4553
Dear Director Hakola:
The Alameda Naval Air Museum will become an important part of the
greater San Francisco Bay Area and is not only a benefit to the
community, but will be a source of education for Alameda County's
thousands of students. Students in this area will be allowed the
opportunity to use the exhibits of vintage aircraft and artifacts
as a historical and factual lesson in history.
With a °pro -ected first year attendance of 40,000 visitors, the
Alameda Naval Air Museum will draw tourists from foreign countries
and all fifty states. The museum is a unique and positive addition
to our community. We are committed to its steady growth and
expansion despite the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station.
This letter is to indicate our strongest support for the transfer
of Building 77 and Hangar 41 to the Alameda Naval Air Museum via a
federal property transfer for educational use.
Please let me know if there is anything 1 can do to facilitate this
request.
Bill Garvine
Executive Director
BG /js
(EXHIBITSII.D.3)
2447 Santa Clara Ave.. Ste. 302 • Alameda, CA 94501 • (510) 522 -0414 FAX (510) 522 -7677
1 30
State of alifornia
-Bill Jones P.O. Box 944230
Sacramento, CA 94244 -2300
Secretary of State Phone: (916) 657.3537
STATEMENT BY DOMESTIC NONPROFIT CORPORATION
THIS STATEMENT MUST BE FILED WITH
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE (SECTIONS 6210, 8210. 9660 CORPORATIONS CODE)
THE $10 FILING FEE MUST ACCOMPANY THIS STATEMENT.
C1954849 PB DUE DATE 11 -30-98 02939N
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM
P 0 BOX 1769
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
DO NO I" ALTER PREPRINTED NAME. IF ITEM 1 IS BLANK. PLEASE ENTER CORPORATE NAME DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS ON `TRACK OF FORM.
PLEASE TYPE OR USE BLACK INK WHICH WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR MICROFILMING.
THE CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NAMED HEREIN, MAKES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
2. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL OFFICE
(IF NONE, COMPLETE 3 -3B)
.3U/1.h/,ilO 77 ,t/AS 41,./04E014
(00 NOT USE P.O. BOX NO.)
SUITE OR ROOM
2A.
AL;AM4DA J CA-
CITY AND STATE
20.
9501
ZIP CODE
3. MAILING ADDRESS
/ 1..AMc:AA WAVAL f IR MUsEO/
',..„.,.�, 0. t?OS 1 749
0.
(FOLLOWING
SUITE OR ROOM
3A.
/AL..At46 DA, C'/1 •
CITY AND STATE
38.
91/-5 0 1
ZIP CODE
THE OF THE OFFICERS ARE:
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
f3Fla8ARA 13AAcK
4A. STREET ADDRESS (SEE REVERSE SIDE)
l & /fig V A •ONDRA
4B. CITY AND STATE
SAN AoQE'NZO, CA. •
4C. ZIP CODE
.95/s80
S. SECRETARY
M/t,o/Z, D l-Hoi.key
5A. STREET ADDRESS (SEE REVERSE SIDE)
143 CEitiTRAL AVE.
5B.. CITY AND STATE
At.AMsA4, CA.
5C. ZIP CODE
9,00/ • •
/6. CHIEF ay FINANCIAL H5 RK
6.74 74 SAAIDAl(Dc i' REVERSE SIDE)
A L. ATn'tf7LA AT CA.
OE
f
94 ..cot
DESIGNATED AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (ONE AGENT IS REQUIRED 8Y CALIFORNIA STATUTORY PROVISION.
PLEASE READ ITEMS 7 AND 8 ON REVERSE SIDE OF FORM.)
I 7. NAME
I Aix),?/hr,t) YC.eK
8. CALIFORNIA STREET ADDRESS IF AGENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL (DO NOT USE P.O. BOX) 00 NOT INCLUDE ADDRESS IF AGENT IS A CORPORATION
/4/4g 019 56JJc Ai .5�Al i, orzcvxc, CA- 94580
COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION SECTION 1350, ET SEQ., CIVIL CODE
9' ( I THIS CORPORATION IS NOT AN ASSOCIATION
FORMED TO MANAGE A COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT (IF THIS BOX IS CHECKED,
I I PROCEED TO NUMBER 11.)
(O' 1 I THIS CORPORATION IS AN ASSOCIATION FORMED TO MANAGE A COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE DAVIS-STIRLING
COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT ACT. (IF THIS BOX IS CHECKED, COMPLETE 1OA AND IOB.)
I OA. BUSINESS OFFICE STREET ADDRESS OR PHYSICAL LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING ZIP CODE
(0B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE MANAGING AGENT
11. 1 DECLARE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS STATEMENT
I''./0". 77 IieE'i4SUle
AND TO THE
►:
OR PRI T NAME
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANO BELIEF, IT 15 TRUE, CORRECT ANO COMPLETE.
HE•:
DATE TITLE TYPE
OF SIGNING OFFICER OR AGENT GNATURE
')RM SD 100 (6/97)
State of California
SECRETARY OF STATE
DIVISION OF CORPORATION FILING AND SERVICES
NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE
RESERVATION # R0368276
LUCAS & WIDENOR
2254 ENCINAL AVE. ISSUED 07/26/95
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
ATTN: KARIN LUCAS EXPIRES 09/25/95
RE: ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM
The name set forth above is hereby reserved for a period of sixty days, commencing on
the date hereof, for the use of the addressee as specified in Section 201 of the California
Corporations Code. No financial commitment regarding this proposed name should be
made until documents have been filed by the Secretary of State.
Secretary of State
- . 3 2 2 9 f / /
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF THE
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM
ONE: The name of this corporation is ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM.
TWO: This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation
and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is
organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for
charitable purposes. The specific purposes for which this
corporation is organized are:
a. to obtain, maintain and display items of significance for
the history of the Alameda Naval Air Station;
b. to acquire, by purchase, lease, donation, or beneficial
conveyance from the U.S. Government, premises for the operation of
facilities to operate as armuseum and cultural center to honor the
U.S. Navy's presence in the City of Alameda;
c. to generally support historic, artistic, scientific, and
other cultural displays, activities and education for such
purposes.
THREE: The name and address in the State of California of this
corporation's initial agent for service of process is:
Marilyn York
16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
FOUR: a. This corporation is organized and operated exclusively for
charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code.
b. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles, the
corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted
to be carried on (1) by a corporation exempt from federal income
tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or (2) by
a corporation contributions to which are deductible under Section
170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code.
c. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation
shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to
influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate or
intervene in any political campaign (including the publishing or
distribution of statements) on behalf of, or in opposition to, any
candidate for public office.
FIVE: The, names and addresses of the persons appointed to act as
the initial Directors of this corporation are:
gcl
Name Addres's
Barbara Baack
Audrey Sherak
Marilyn York_
16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, CA.94580
624 Sandalwood Isle
Alameda, CA, 94501
16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, CA 94580,
SIX: The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to
charitable purposes and no part of the net income or assets of the
organization shall ever inure to the benefit of any director,
officer or member thereof, or to the benefit of any private person.
On the dissolution or winding up of the corporation, its assets
remaining after payment of, or provision for payment of, all debts
and liabilities of this corporation, shall be distributed to a
nonprofit fund, foundation, or corporation which is organized and
operated .-exclusively ,for charitable purposes and which has
establish4d its tax- exempt' " status under Section 501 (c) "(3) of the
Internal Revenue, Cod "e
Date: 9 7
We, the above-mentioned initial directors of this corporation,
hereby declare that we are the persons who executed the foregoing
Articles of Incorporation which execution is our act and deed.
Barbara Baack, Director
erak, Director
n.
Marilyn Yo , Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager 20.6.--
DATE: July 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Report to Approve the Formation of a
BRAG Tourism Task Force Committee
Background:
At the BRAG's July 21, 1999 meeting, the issue of creating a tourism task force to examine
tourist uses at Alameda Point was presented by the BRAG members. At the February 1999
ARRA meeting, the BRAG presented a plan for tourism as a means of economic development at
Alameda Point. 'The newly created task force hopes to explore these issues further.
Discussion:
BRAG Chair Lee Perez indicated that there has been an interest in creating a Tourism Task
Force. Vice Chair Diane Lichtenstein and other BRAG members felt it was appropriate to create
such a task force to assist in the establishment of ARRA policy with respect to tourism.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Board, by motion, approve the formation of a BRAG Tourism
Task Force Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
By. `=mina Tasi
Cooperative Services Manager
DAB/DT/LA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Managets✓%5
DATE: July 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Recommendation to Appoint a BRAG
Representative to the Planning Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy
Guidelines Committee
Background:
At the May 24, 1999 Planning Board meeting, the Board created an Inner Harbor Interim
Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee. At that time, the Planning Board recommended a
structure, goals and objectives for this committee. The structure of the committee included four
seats for west er0 residents near the Inner Harbor, one seat each for an Alameda Point Tenant;
Alameda Unified School District designated representative; Planning Board member; and the
Planning Board President. On July 26, 1999, subsequent to the July 21, 1999 BRAG meeting,
the Planning Board approved the composition of the committee and selected the Planning Board
representative. Coincidentally, the Planning Board representative selected to serve on the this
committee is also the Planning Board's representative to the BRAG (with all the rights and
privileges as all BRAG members).
Discussion:
In February 1999, the BRAG brought forth its restructuring plan, and at that time, the ARRA
limited the BRAG's ability to advise other Boards and Commissions. In order to participate on
the Planning Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee, the BRAG
must be invited by the Planning Board and seek ARRA Board approval. The BRAG felt their
representation on the task force is necessary because of their continued involvement in the
development and implementation of the Reuse Plan. To date, the BRAG has not been asked by
the Planning Board to serve, but would like to have the ARRA's approval if it is invited to
participate on the committee.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA Board, by motion, approve the appointment of a BRAG
representative to the Planning Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Advisory
Committee, provided the BRAG is invited by the Planning Board to participate.
ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.: [ [
APPLICATION:
GENERAL FLAN:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Establishment of procedures for selecting the Inner Harbor
Interim Leasing Policy Advisory Committee, and structuring of
goals and objectives for this committee. Cosponsors: City of
Alameda Planning Department /Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority. The inner harbor area is defined as the
portion of Alameda Point south of West Atlantic Avenue, west of
Main Street and Central Avenue, north of West Hornet Avenue, and
east of Viking Street. The inner harbor area is within a M -2 /G
(General Industrial (Manufacturing) - Special Government
Combining) District.
Federal Facilities
Steve Goins, Planner II; Kevin Bryant, Planner I.
Establish the subject committee as recommended by Staff.
ARRA.
AUSD.
WABA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
Alameda Unified School District.
West Alameda Business Association.
1. Draft Resolution.
2. Map of the Woodstock/Esperanza and South of Pacific Avenue residential areas.
3. Inner Harbor area map.
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
This report outlines Staff's proposal for implementation of the Board's direction on the establishment of
an advisory committee to create guidelines for future leasing within the Alameda Point Inner Harbor Area.
The committee would include two members of the Planning Board, a representative of the Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD), a representative of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA),
a representative of current Alameda Point tenants, two representatives of the Woodstock/Esperanza
residential area, and two representatives of the south of Pacific Avenue residential area (see Attachment
#2). The guidelines developed by the committee would be considered for adoption by the Planning Board,
and implemented by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) when reviewing lease
applications for appropriateness, prior to submittal of Use Permit applications.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 24, 1999
page 1
The meeting would be facilitated by the Cooperative Services Manager, Dina Tasini, with ARRA and
Planning Department Staff as additional support. The initial meeting would provide committee members
with background information, including; the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan adoption process,
Interim Leasing Program goals & objectives, Alameda Point Financing Plan conclusions, and process and
current status of the General Plan Update. Staff would also discuss with the committee members the goals
and objectives of the committee, existing and proposed land uses for adjoining parcels, currently operating
businesses, and recently considered interim reuse proposals.
Committee Objectives. The objectives of the advisory committee would be to create policies and a
framework for ARRA to screen leasing applications prior to the submittal of Use Permit applications=,
giving consideration to what are acceptable levels of impacts such as traffic, noise, toxics and lighting.
Also, the committee would discuss the range of potential interim uses, from the most optimal to the least
desired. The committee would disband after developing the stated guidelines.
In addition, forming this committee offers several other public benefits, including:
• a process for obtaining community input,
s
disseminating information to assist the community in understanding the leasing process and
projected development within the Inner Harbor under the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan,
Public education about the economic forecast for Base conveyance, including: projected costs for
maintenance and services, costs for infrastructure and other improvements necessary for
redevelopment, how these costs affect the City budget, and other planning activities such as the
General Plan Update.
clarifying the projected sequencing for development at Alameda Point as stated in the NAS
Alameda Community Reuse Plan, and
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff believes that forming the Alameda Point Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Guidelines Committee as
proposed would provide valuable leasing guidelines which the ARRA could use when analyzing
future interim uses in the Inner Harbor District.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public meeting, review the staff report and relevant
documents and establish an advisory committee to create guidelines for future leasing within the Alameda
Point Inner Harbor Area, as indicated in the attached Resolution.
G : /Alamedpt/reports/22harbor.rpt
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 24, 1999
page 3
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. Draft
ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES, AND STRUCTURING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, FOR
SELECTING THE INNER AREA HARBOR INTERIM LEASING GUIDELINES COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda Planning Board directed the Planning Department and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to meet with the community and obtain
recommendations for appropriate interim uses within the Inner Harbor area at Alameda Point; and
WHEREAS, Planning and ARRA staff has designed the Alameda Point Inner Harbor Inteirn
Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee; and
WHEREAS, Planning and ARRA staff have outlined goals and objectives for the Alameda
Point Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has held a public hearing on this proposal, on May 24, 1999,
and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHERES, the Planning Board has made the following findings relative to the establishment
of the Alameda Point Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee:
1. The Committee would evaluate what would be the acceptable level of impacts such as traffic,
noise, toxics and lighting.
The Committee would discuss the range of potential interim uses, from the most optimal to
the least desired.
3. The Committee would create policies and a framework for ARRA to screen leasing
applications.
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
approves establishment of the procedures for the selection of the Inner Harbor Interim Leasing
Guidelines Steering Committee, and the structuring of goals and objectives for the Inner Harbor
Interim Leasing Guidelines Steering Committee, with the following conditions:
1. The Committee membership shall consist of:
Planning Board President Harris,
One Planning Board member,
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) designated representative,
West Alameda Business Association (WABA) designated representative,
Alameda Point tenants,
Residents of Woodstock/Experanza area, and
Residents of area south of Pacific Avenue
one seat
one seat
one seat
one seat
one seat
two seats
two seats
TOTAL: = 9 (nine) seats
Correspondence /
Miscellaneous
t.J3 NJ
0 NO
NJ
00
NJ
-3
NJ
CA
NJ
U
3..)
NJ
A ta
NJ NJ NJ
Na r--
■-r- or- r•-•
0'0 00 -3 CA
LA
A La
NJ r••••
0 No
00 ....3
cp,
U 1,,to
N.> .....
Alameda Unified School District
Altamont Tech. (Tech. Testing)
Antiques by the Bay (Collectibles Faire)
Bay Ship & Yacht (Ship Repair)
Big Whitesi(Housing Units)
Bobac (Warehouse)
Bureau of Electricity (Storage Yard)
CALSTART (Electric Vehicle Incubator)
CALSTART (Test Track)
Cellular One (Cell Site)
City Garage Carstar (Vehicle Painting)
City of Alameda (Dog Run Park)
City of Alameda (Ferry Terminal Parking)
City of Alameda (Gym & Pool)
City of Alameda (O'Club)
City of Alameda (Public Works)
City of Alameda (Soccer Field)
City of Alameda (Tennis Courts)
CyberTran International (Test Track)
Delphi Productions (Exhibit Displays)
Dignity Housing (Homeless Coll.)
Door Christian Fellowship Church
Dunavant of California (Storage)
Emerg. Svcs. Network (Homeless)
Forem Metal Manufacturing
Forty Plus (Career Counseling)
Fribel Internat'l. (Concrete Statuary)
NO. OF PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OCCU
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAG
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
PROJEC TED FUTURE EMPLOYMENT
ACET (Environmental Tech. Incubator)
AC Hornet Foundation
Alameda Point Stora g
a (Mini Storage)
;Signed Leases & Licenses
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
6 months
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
short term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
UPIED
E
long term
long term
long term
258
25
tarmac & 405
292
Various
Bldg 2 FISC
at FISC
20'
24
76 & 134
60
397
39
809, etc.
564
Bldg. 2 FISC
613
114
90
98
7
Pier 3
near Bldg. 530
El.
00
1,485
1,642,674
20,000'
4,500''.
8,507
61',
. 12,430
18,000
4,880
2,700
110,000
66,600
1,400
26,927
58,450
29,550
17,0001,
110,000''.
4,400'
8,600
4 600'
LA
vt
Bldg. Sq. Ft.I
11111111111111.11111111111111111 II 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 MIMI IIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1 HIHHHHI
0, g ,,../3 (6f,0 !....1 ,aft.s, t.,, ,..4, ,,....1 tr .,J3 t A 8 ;.,to:. toz,. t., ri .6...,e .8
Operation Dignity (Homeless)
Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Food Preparation)
Piedmont Soccer Fdn.
Port Distribution Warehouse
Puglia Engr. (Ship Repair)
Quality Assured Products (Valve Mfgr.)
Richard Miller Photography
San Leandro Womens Shelter (Homeless)
Simmba Systems (Records Storage)
Tower Aviation
Trident 3M Services (Port Mgmt.)
United Indian Nations (Homeless Coll.)
Waters, Caldwell Assoc.(Consultant)
West Coast Seaworks (Ship Repair)
Woodmasters (Cabinetry)
Pacific Fine Food, Inc. (Crepe Mfg.)
Xebra Motors (Electric Vehicles)
IWA Engineers (Steel Fabrication)
Jim Bustos Plumbing
Manex Entertainment
Manex Entertaimpent
Maritime Administration
Maritime Administration
Marine Sanitation
Navigator Systems (Furniture Mfg.)
Nelson's Marine/Power Engr. (Boat Svcs.)
Nelson's Marine (Boat Storage)
Nelson's Marine (Boat Svcs.)
General Svcs. Admin.(Govt.)
Home Auto Repair
Housing Units (31)
Signed Leases & Licenses
long term 1
long term
1 year
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long teen
long term
long term
1 year
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
long term
el
816, etc.
42
field
117
67
22
621
531, etc
9
530
15
CPO units
115
43
44
42
25
....
-a
NO
g"" ,!".'
CA " CA orrr• —
ON us ON 00 La tJa
0.,
r-•
N3 1.> La
,....
C\
NO NO
0t
00
0 0
0 0
0
0
r.—
0
0
0
ta
0
0
NJ
0
0
orr.
sN
0
L.3
00
1.3
u,
0
N0
NJ
--.
-3
NJ
00 LA
00 ...4
0 0
0 A NJ
0 0 0
0 0 0
La
0
0
00th
tA
A
NJ
th
"4:.
LA
0
,st„
-.I
':a.
LJJ
A
4,
0
20
cJi>
0
■-•
0
0
..-•
r-1
4,
o•-•
LO
I,
•I's
IA
•
0
.--■
,!:7'
4=.
-3
La
•-•
4"!' ,,!-`'
ID —,
0 .--,
0 LA
.4.. —
,...4 —
— IA
-4 0
--I 0
Bldg. Sq. Ft.
193,210
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
DATE: July 29, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor Appezzato
and City Council Members
FROM: David A. Berger, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Hanger #41 (Air Museum)
Before he went on vacation, the City Manager asked that we research our records on the entire
process which led to staff's recommendation regarding disposition of Hanger 41 on the last
ARRA board agenda. Since I was not in charge of base conversion until long after this process
started in 1995, I asked Kay Miller to prepare a thorough review of the steps that were followed
by BRAG and staff in reviewing the museum proposal. Her memo is attached. I believe a key
point in her memo is Kay's fiitu belief that the museum group was not given any assurances that
if they withdrew their PBC application to the U.S. Department of Education, that the group
would receive the two buildings through an EDC without evaluation of their proposal as to its
economic viability. In fact, the museum was handled thorough a screening process that was
similiar to other PBC applications initially received.
Please let me know if you desire additional information or have questions.
Enclosure
cc: ARRA regional members
City Manager
Lee Perez
Ed Levine
Kay Miller
Memo
To: Dave Berger
From: Kay Miller
Subject: Alameda Naval Air Museum: PBC to EDC
Date: July 14, 1999
You have asked me to recount the chain of events surrounding the evaluation of the Alameda
Naval Air Museum (ANAM) and the discussions about the change from a public benefit
conveyance (PBC) to a part of the ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) request.
Since I was on board as Executive Director of the ARRA at that time and throughout the
discussions with ANAM as late as January of this year, I do have a very direct recollection of the
events and discussions that have gotten this issue to where it is today.
I came on board-as Executive Director of ARRA in May of 1995. The federally required PBC
screening process closed in July of that year. All public agencies and non - profits who were
intending to apply for PBC's at NAS Alameda needed to have their applications in to their
federal sponsoring agencies. My recollection is that the Alameda Naval Air Museum supporters,
principally Barbara Baack and Marilyn York, submitted their application to the federal
Department of Education and were told that they needed to be a certified 501C3 non - profit
organization to qualify for a PBC. They subsequently got incorporated as a qualifying not- for -
profit--ANAM.
I had just come from the reuse planning effort at Lowry Air Force Base where there were a
substantial number of PBC's and knew how important LRA and community support are in the
federal agencies' review of PBC's and the military's ultimate support of these conveyances. I
suggested to the BRAG and the ARRA that we establish a process similar to one we conducted at
Lowry for determining whether we would support the PBC's that had been submitted. (The
report to the ARRA asking for their approval of these criteria is attachment A to this report.)
There was enthusiasm for that process and indeed we established a PBC Screening Committee
which was comprised of members of the BRAG, two of our then reuse consultants from EDAW
(planning consultant) and BAE (economic consultant), Paul Tuttle, ARRA planner, and myself.
The purpose of the committee was to "screen" each of the PBC applicants according to a set of
established criteria (Attached to the September 1, 1995 Report to the ARRA Board.) and make a
recommendation to the BRAG who would then make a recommendation to the ARRA board.
The results of the Screening Committees rating of ANAM is attachment B for your review.
In setting up the process, I had spoken to staff at the federal sponsoring agencies, told them that
we were evaluating the applications in this way and suggested that they hold off their formal
review of the applications until we had completed our process. These agencies are very
July 29, 1999
Page 2
understaffed to review these applications and were pleased to hold off until they knew whether
there was real community support for these property uses. I asked that the federal agencies
simply let me know if the applicants (and their proposed projects) were eligible for a PBC under
their agency guidelines.
The PBC Screening Committee recommended that the museum use of buildings 77 and 41 was a
use deserving public support. However, because they were concerned about the issue of
financial viability and questioned whether ANAM would be able to take beneficial occupancy of
the total square footage of both these buildings, they recommended that the ARRA request the
building through its EDC and lease the buildings at nominal cost to ANAM thus providing more
flexibility if ANAM was unable to use all the space in both buildings. This recommendation was
endorsed by the BRAG and became a part of the disposition strategy which was included in
Chapter 8 of the Community Reuse Plan.
Chapter 8 of the_Community Reuse Plan, the chapter on Property Disposition Strategy, page 8-
14, spelled out the rationale and process for the proposed acquisition of property through the
EDC, with subsequent leasing to certain entities who were eligible and had previously applied
for public benefit conveyances. Similar language appears in both the section on the Alameda
Naval Air Museum and Pan Pacific University (PPU). The section on ANAM reads: "The
Museum will have the ability to lease both buildings originally requested through the PBC
process. The ARRA recommends that this property be transferred to the ARRA and leased to
the Naval Air Museum at a nominal cost. If the Museum does not require all of the space it is
requesting, or if it does not succeed, the ARRA will have the ability to immediately lease these
facilities to other job generating uses."
ARRA staff and the BRAG interpreted this language to mean that both PPU and ANAM were
expected to "due diligence" in determining what it would cost to get into their buildings and to
demonstrate the financial "wherewith all" to operate and maintain their facilities. The BRAG
created special ad hoc committees to look at business plans and financial statements from both
PPU and ANAM. The BRAG Museum Task Force met 4 -5 times in 1998 -99 to review various
iterations of the ANAM/WAM business plan.
As with PPU, there was sentiment on the BRAG Museum Task Force and certainly among
ARRA and city staff that ANAM/WAM should have the bulk of the money, at least to take them
through building upgrades, committed BEFORE they took occupancy of the building. It simply
did not seem prudent to allow a non - profit with other financial commitments (ANAM was
already attempting to get a certificate of occupancy for Building 77, the former air terminal
building; WAM was committed to continuing to operate their facility at the Oakland Airport) to
take on this enormous financial burden if there were little chance of taking it to completion and
successful operation.
It was always my understanding that ANAM and WAM were agreeable to this arrangement
July 29, 1999
Page 3
whereby the BRAG Task Force and ARRA staff would evaluate their financial viability before a
"no cost" lease would be recommended to the ARRA Board. I am not certain whether they
formally withdrew their PBC application or simply did not actively pursue it further. However,
in about September of 1995, I did discuss the decision re: the museum directly with David
Hakola, the PBC reviewer in the Real Property office of the U.S. Department of Education. Mr.
Hakola was fine with this decision, and in fact shared with me his opinion that the ANAM plan
for the use of the two buildings would probably not have qualified for a PBC through the
Department of Education. He said that there would need to be much more evidence of an
education program and perhaps linkages with educational institutions for it to qualify as and
Education PBC.
Ever since the decision was made to take the buildings through the EDC and lease them to
ANAM, the ARRA staff has been in very regular discussions with the project proponents. In
fact, it was ARRA staff that suggested that ANAM might partner with the Western Aerospace
Museum (WAM) in order to make their project more viable in terms of finances, displays,
fundraising and - management capacity. While we may have talked about $1.00 in terms of actual
rent, we have always explained and I believe that they have understood that they would have to
pay the 2.5 cent CAM (Common Area Maintenance) charge (which amounts to about $3000 /mo
for both buildings), their "fair share" of base wide infrastructure costs (just as we have done with
the homeless), and all the upgrade, utilities, and maintenance costs associated with the buildings.
For the two years (1996 -8) that I participated in these discussions, ANAM and WAM both
understood that we were looking for a demonstration of financial viability BEFORE they took
occupancy of the buildings. I believe that the BRAG Museum Subcommittee was looking for this
as well. This process of ensuring financial viability BEFORE beneficial occupancy of the
buildings was not dissimilar to the financial viability test we applied to PPU, and no more than
the ARRA as property landlord does with all its prospective tenants. It simply does not make
sense to have an agency or business spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on building
improvements if they cannot demonstrate the financial resources to complete the improvements
and conduct a viable operation.
I believe that the process for evaluating ANAM's (later joined by WAM) ability to perform was
well understood and agreed to by them. ARRA staff and Base Transition Coordinator Nolina
Bishop spent hours with them helping to understand what needed to be included in a business
plan. ARRA and Public Works construction management staff , the Alameda Fire Department
and the City Building Official spent hours in meetings with ANAM /WAM and their architects
and consultants, helping them to understand what building upgrades would be required to obtain
a C of O. ARRA staff facilitated most all of these meetings.
It should also be noted that numerous extensions and iterations of the Museum' s business plan
were allowed and ARRA staff continually offered suggestions as to how they could flesh our
their business plan, pursue letters of commitment for grant money. Of particular importance
July 29, 1999
Page 4
were the several extensions granted to allow them to attempt to get state grant money eat arked,
largely through the efforts of then state legislator Barbara Lee.
The BRAG Museum Committee was helpful too in clarifying what ANAM/WAM needed to
provide in order to demonstrate financial viability. They suggested that they needed to obtain
letters of commitment from funders and those they were relying on for substantial pro bono labor
and support. At each meeting of the BRAG Task Force, there were very specific requests for
additional information.
In summary, I would conclude that -bo: the 'NI' ' staff and the BRAG understood that their job
was to establish the economic viability of AN • and WAM to carry out the proposed building
upgrades and operating expenses BEFORE recommending leases to the ARRA Board. If that
was an inaccurate understan ing of the Boar direction or intent, I accept a great deal of
responsibility for that, for in eed, that is what I thought we had been expected to do.
I hope that this historical perspective is useful to you and the Board in sorting out this issue. If I
can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
September 1, 1 995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director ARRA
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Public Benefit
Conveyance Review Criteria.
Background:
The public benefit conveyance process is one of the major legal mechanisms for the transfer
of federal property to local agencies and certified non - profit organizations. Public benefit
conveyances can be made to local governmental agencies such as the City of Alameda Parks and
Recreation Department, the East Bay Regional Parks District, or the Alameda Unified School
District. Authorized non -profit agencies could include health organizations, private schools and
universities, and research institutes with approved non - profit (201 - C3) status.
Each authorized agency or non - profit applicant must also have approval of a sponsoring
federal agency (Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Interior, etc.).
The final decision on public benefit conveyances will be made by the Secretary of the Navy based
upon the local reuse authority's approved Community Reuse Plan.
Discussion:
ARRA staff has developed a process for screening public benefit conveyance applications
and making recommendations to the ARRA for approval. The screening process is based upon the
enclosed set of review criteria. The screening criteria are based upon six major factors: project
viability, preferred transfer mechanism (PBC vs. EDC), public benefit, location compatibility, and
conflict resolution potential.
ARRA previously considered public conveyances and approved them in concept subject to
the following conditions:
1. Property Reversion Clause. The ARRA needs assurance that if a project fails, is unable to
perform, goes into bankruptcy, or otherwise goes out of existenc, the property would revert
to the ARRA. This could take the form of a first right of refusal or other property reversion
mechanism. Details of a reversion clause may need special legislation and/or further legal
clarification from the Department of Defense.
Attachment A
Honorable Members of the September 1, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
2. Demonstrate Financial Feasibility. Each public benefit proposal should provide assurances
and demonstrate to the ARRA its financial feasibility to successfully complete the proposed
project within a specified time period. This could include a fmancial feasibility analysis, a
business plan (including detailed building and site improvement costs), a pro -forma analysis
for ongoing operation and management, identified funding sources, and proof of funding
commitment. This could also include provisions for securing an initial funding amount by
a set deadline.
3. In -lieu Public Service Fee Payments. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair share"
of public service costs to cover police, fire, and other public services to their specific site or
building.
4. Fair Share of Infrastructure /Utility Costs. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair
share" of on -site and off -site infrastructure /utility improvements. This would include streets
and circulation improvements, water, gas, sewer, electrical services, etc.
5. Site Development/Rehab Plans. Each public benefit applicant should be responsible for
development costs. A detailed site development and building rehab plans should be
submitted for approval. These plans form the basis of rehab costs and are a commitment to
make necessary building code and site improvements at an acceptable level within a
specified time period.
Screening of each public benefit conveyance application will be made by a review team of
ARRA staff, the consultant team, and two members of BRAG. The review criteria were endorsed
by the BRAG at their special meeting of August 30, 1995.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact to the adoption of the screening criteria. Ultimately, approval of
each public benefit conveyance for inclusion in the Community Reuse Plan could have a very large
impact on the community. Public benefit conveyances remove land from the City tax base and
potentially give/ property to uses which might otherwise provide economic development. However,
public benefit(( conveyances provide essential public services (parks, schools, etc.) and other uses
which contribute to the overall quality of life in the community.
Environmental Review:
Endorsement of the public benefit conveyance screening criteria does not constitute a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Approval of the screening criteria does
not: constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other land entitlement; and is not an
activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing or grading of land, improvements
to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans or elements of plans. In addition,
screening criteria is part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse ofNAS Alameda
Honorable Members of the
September 1, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
for possible future actions, and is therefore "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article
18. Section 15262).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopt by motion the
Public Benefit Screening Criteria.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DP /dpt
Attachments: Public Benefit Review Criteria
PBC Review Criteria
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
I. Project Viability
What is the overall project viability in terms of finances, experience, and ability to succeed?
• Ability to Perform "Due Diligence" Development Analysis - Does the proponent have the
financial and/or technical capability to perform the necessary due diligence assessment of the
buildings requested and prepare the necessary financial analysis.
• Current Assets - What are the current assets of the proponent (cash, property, bonds or other
securities) and are these assets enough to cover the project costs and project overruns
(Financial Statement).
• Operating Track Record - What is the success of the proponent in fund raising, developing,
and operating a project of the proposed size and type.
• Fund Raising Plan - Does the proponent have funding sources, a schedule for fund raising,
including - milestones for securing funding, and what is the probability of success.
• Public Agency/Non Profit Status - Is the proponent eligible for PBC as a public agency or
non profit organization. (Evidence of status must be provided.)
• Development Phasing - Does the proponent have the financial ability to pay for carrying
costs of the project (including debt service on loans and maintenance on buildings not being
used).
Sponsoring Agency - Has the PBC secured the required Federal Sponsoring Agency
(Department of Interior, Department of Education, HUD, etc.).
II. EDC Versus PBC Transfer
Would the proposed project be more successful as a EDC or PBC? An Economic
Development Conveyance (EDC) allows for greater flexibility by the ARRA in implementation
of the overall plan and allows for greater control over project sites.
• Long -Term Viability (Potential for Long -Term Success) - Based upon the above information,
what is the potential success or failure of the proposed project, and the potential for land
reverting back to the federal government.
• Potential Need for Flexibility and Phasing - Could the proposed project site potentially be
reused for an alternative use in the interim or in the future.
• Effect on Overall Project Success - Would the proposed PBC status limit the overall project
success due to government regulatory constraints.
• Effect on Overall Reuse Plan Success - Would the proposed PBC status limit the success of
the Reuse Plan.
9/1/95
PBC Review Criteria Page 2
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
III. Contribution to the Public Good
What contribution does the proposed public benefit conveyance make to the public good?
• Provision of Essential Public Service - Does the proposed project provide an essential public
service to the community as a whole?
• Public Access - What level of pubic access is provided to the public? What fees to the public
are charged?
• Public Served - What is the public being served by the proposed use (number of people,
number of local residents, age, etc.).
IV. Building, Site, and Location Compatibility
Is the proposed - project compatible with the surrounding uses, potential reuse of the base, the
building requested, and the market potential of the building?
Land Use Compatibility - Is the proposed project compatible with areas and neighborhoods
surrounding the site, both existing or planned?
• Reuse Plan Compatibility - Is the proposed project compatible with the proposed reuse plan?
• Potential Market Use Competition - Does the proposed building have a higher market rate
use?
• Appropriate Use of Building Requested - Is the proposed use appropriate for the building
requested?
• Demolition Compatibility - Is the proposed use compatible with future demolition plans?
• Cleanup Compatibility - Is the proposed reuse compatible with required cleanup plans?
V. Conflicting Use Resolution
What is the potential for resolving conflicting uses for buildings and sites?
• Highest and Best Use - Which use is the highest and best use for the site?
1. Site and building potential for market rate lease /sale.
2. Greatest compatibility with reuse plan.
3. Greatest compatibility with building design.
4. Greatest compatibility with surrounding or adjacent uses both existing and planned.
• Potential For Joint Use - Who should manage a site if joint use is proposed?
1. Who has highest management skills, experience, and capabilities?
2. Who has the greatest financial resources to carry out the proposed project?
3. Will public access be provided to facility?
9/1/95
Public Benefit Conveyance Review Criteria
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Review Criteria
Alameda Naval Air Museum
Air Terminal Hanger
Bldg. 77 Bldg. 41
Comments
I. Project Viability
Ability to Perform
Assets
Track Record
Fund Raising Potential
Profit/Non-Profit Status (501-C3)
Phasing
Federal Sponsorship
II. EDC/PBC Option
Long Term Reuse
Flexibility of Phasing
Project Success
Plan Success
111. Public Benefit (Public Good)
Necessary Public Services
Public Access to Facility/Program
Public Served
IV. Development Compatibility
Land Use Compatibility
Reuse Plan Compatibility
Building Reuse Compatibility
Future Demolition Compatibility
Market Reuse Potential
Clean-up Schedule Compatibility
V. Conflict Resolution
Highest and Best Use
Joint Use Potential
Joint Use Management Ability
Recommendation
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low Limited past experience
Low financing uncertain
Low
Low
Low
Low Uncertain
Applied but not completed
Medium Medium
Medium Medium
Low Low
Low Low negative effect if failure
Medium Medium
Low Low
High High
Medium Medium
Medium Medium
Medium Medium
High High
Low Low
Low Low
Serves Greater Bay Area
Low Low
Medium Low Could sub-lease space fro
Low Low other users
No No Recommend EDC lease
Rating Scale: Low / Medium / High / Acceptable = +/ Not Applicable = N/A
September 1995
C:/Lotus 1-2-3.4/doc/PBC.WK4
Attachment B
BARBARA LEE
9TH DISTRICT. CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEES:
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
,TERNATIONAL RELATIONS
REPLY TO
OFFICE CHECKED:
_. 414 CANNON H.O.B.
WASHINGTON. DC 20S15
12021 225.2661
1301 CLAY STREET
SUITE 1000 N
OAKLAND. CA 94612
(510) 763 -0370
QIIIIigrEuu of the Iitittb *tufts
kkauat of Representattuts
lasitingtnu, 211515 -0509
July 28, x.999
Dr. Norman Carey
Department of the Navy
Naval Historical Center
90.1 "M' Streot, S.E.
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374 -5060
Dear Dr. Carey:
WASHINGTON O*"R1
CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT
AD•AINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT O RCE
SANORt R. SWANSON
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
ROBERTA CHEFF BROOKS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRICTOR
I am writing to offer my strong support of your authorizing the loan of 100 artifacts to the
Alameda Naval Air Museum, in Alameda, California, located in my Congressional district. It is
my understanding that these items are currently scheduled to be transferred by the Navy
Transition Team at the end of August, from its Alameda location to another destination, unless
you authorize the artifacts to be loaned to the Museum.
I firmly believe that these items will be the centerpiece of the museum's exhibits, and for
historical reasons pertaining to the former Naval Air Station, these items should remain in
Alameda As you can imagine, ciunng its 50 -plus years of existence in Alameda, the former
Naval Air Station was an important part of Alameda's character and history, and therefore, your
allowing these artifacts to remain in Alameda will be greatly appreciated by its citizens.
I trust that you will give this matter your fullest consideration and I thank you for your
cavrtas y and atteritio„• to this request. I look forward to learning of y+o:u• azi,:ion regarding this
matter.
BL:ksg
cc: Alameda Naval Air Museum
Sincerely,
Barbara Lee
Member of Congress
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
iiakAlameda
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
November 2.1998
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Point
950 W. Mall Square, Room 159
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Kay,
I am pleased to offer this letter of support for the transfer of Building 77 and
Hangar 41 to the Alameda Naval Air Museum and the Western Aerospace
Museum joint venture.
As you may know, the chamber has established a Convention and Visitor's
Bureau in response to the dramatic increase in attractions located in our city.
In large part, we have you and your Associates at ARRA to thank for this
phenomenon. The Hornet, the wildlife preserve, the planned golf course,
Antiques-by-the-Bay, and other endeavors planned for, or already located at
Alameda Point, are the stimuli for this new endeavor. To this impressive list,
we are excited to add the Alameda Naval Air/Westem Aerospace Museums' use
of Building 77 and Hanger 41.
The many historical and educational exhibits offered by the project will also be
of great educational value to students in both our city and the greater bay
area.
I would respectfully request that you include the chamber's unqualified support
of the Alameda Naval Air/Western Aerospace Museums' application in the
ARRA/City of Alameda evaluation process.
I appreciate your many efforts on behalf of this important Alameda Point
project.
Cordially,
Bill Garvine
Executive Director
2447 Santa Clara Ave.. Ste. 302 • Alameda. CA 94501 • (510) 522.0414 FAX (510) 522-7677
Response to ARRA Staff comments quoted In Alameda Journal, Aug 3-5.
1999
1. ANAM should be given chance to get started and then prove itself viable. Base
Reuse Plan says, " Should these (Museum) uses prove to be non-viable over some
period of time, the ARRA can move quickly to replace the user..." Being on site and
having use of the buildings has always been said to be critical to gaining donations
and volunteer help.
2. ANAM disagrees with building upgrade cost estimates made by ARRA staff. ANAM
estimates based on well-founded professional and contractor estimates are lower.
Estimated code physical upgrade costs for buildings are close. Volunteers will help.
3. Specifics of pledges are forthcoming.
4. Infrastructure costs are recent addition to requirements by ARRA staff. Not needed
for 5 years and can be amortized over 20 years. ARRA staff says federal EDA funds
may cover these costs if Hangar 41 is leased commercially; why not for Hangar 41 as
museum? Hangar 41 is in relatively very good shape. $15,000 annual maintenance
costs are reasonable.
5. ANAM attendance projections are reasonable. Hornet Museum is nearing
approximately 350,000 people attending in first complete year. This is about what they
expected. Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos had about 100,000 people in first
year (80,000 actual paid attendance). ANAM is forecasting 20,000 in first year, 40,000
in 2nd year when hangar 41 is opened in addition to Building 77, and 60,000 in 3rd
year. A good percentage of visitors to Hornett, Antique Fair, "Bladium", Wildlife
Refuge, and other facilities and events will come to museum because of close
proximity.
AlamedaJournal,. 3AuGGrSr— lerlq
ARRA asked not to save
hangar for museum
By Susan Fuller
Staff Writer
A month ago, the Alameda
Reuse and .. Redevelopment Au-
thority granted,a one -month re-
prieve to the museum organiza-
tion hoping to locate on the for-
mer base.
After four July meetings be-
tween ARRA staff and museum
representatives, the staff is rec-
ommending that the ARRA autho-
rize lease of the last hangar on the
base for non - museum use, rather
than continuing to work with
those who hope to display historic
aircraft. The ARRA will meet on
Aug. 4.
Deputy City Manager David
Berger and Facilities Manager Ed
Levine believe that the Alameda
Naval Air Museum (ANAM) has
failed to establish the economic
viability of . operating a museum
in Hangar 41. Building 77 is still
slated to become a repository for
memorabilia from Alameda
Naval Air Station.
The staff report makes four
points to support the denial,of a
lease to ANAM:
> The Public Works Depart-
ment estimates that the cost of
upgrades to Hangar are approxi-
mately $463,000, based on siindar
work on other hangars. An addi-
tional $208,000 would be needed
for weatherproofing and electric
upgrades soon after occupancy
ANAM estimates upgrade ex-
penses of $348,000, and includes
nothing for weatherproofing.
ANAM claims that approximately
$170,000 will be covered in volun-
teer labor, but has given the
ARRA no commitment as to who
the volunteers will be and what
construction skills they have.
• Last month's lease on life for
the museum was largely based on
the promise of $200,000 from mu-
seum supporters Grace and
Stephen Keachie. ARRA staff
asked that the pledge be docu-
mented in a legally binding agree-
ment before committing to a
lease. The specifics of the pledge
have not been given to the ARRA.
• ANAM's business plan fails
to show funding for the approxi-
mately $1.1 million in base -wide
infrastructure costs which will be
assessed against Buildings 41 and
77 following conveyance from the
Navy, according to the staff re-
port. Staff also believes that a
$15,000 annual maintenance budg-
et is unrealistically low.
• ANAM's attendance projec-
tions — 20,000 visitors in the first
year of operation, 40,000 in year
two and 60,000 the following year
— are overly optimistic. Staff
points to the Aircraft Carrier Hor-
net Museum's failure to generate
even 15 percent of its original at-
tendance projections.
Last February, the ARRA gave
a museum consortium including
ANAM and the Western Air Muse-
um six months to . a- po
,rte �
mitment for funding of bull
upgrades to buildings 77 and 41.
At the same, tune, the ' �., x .
authorized Levine .to begin* ;
keting Building 41, with the
derstanding that the inuseis
were in first position until July..
At the end of June, the Western!
Air Museum withdrew from the
joint venture. ` " ' , ` t t
After the staff proposal before
the ARRA in July to authorize
lease of Building 41 for purposes
other than a museum had been
written, the Keachies, mother and
son, each offered $100,000 toward
building improvements. Their,of-
fers were only good if both build-
ings were included in the muse-
um. ..a
Debate centered on whether or
not ANAM had presented a 'iabs-
factory business plan. The ARRA
voted to remain consistent with
the reuse plan until it was demon-
strated that the museum plan
wasn't viable.
g
12
Hangar 41 Upgrade Costs
These pages 12 through 26 outline the requirements and cost
of upgrading hangar 41 for a certificate of occupancy as a
museum display space. Initially the Museum would use the
hangar as a simple shell in which to display full-sized
aircraft, with the office space sealed off. As such, very
little modification of the building is required.
The fire sprinkler and alarm system must be updated by a
specially licensed contractor for a cash expenditure by the
Museum of nearly $200,000, including $20,000 for the center
island. Alternatively (and preferably) the island could be
deconstructed by volunteers or at no cost by a salvage firm,
to reclaim its lumber, after $20,000 is expended to have
asbestos-containing materials removed (a firm bid for this
work is in hand).
Four fire exits would be designed and fabricated in-house
to be set into the large hangar doors, with more to be added
if necessary as the Museum grows. The State Historic Preser-
vation Officer would likely approve this building modification
because:
- the change to the hangar's exterior would be almost imper-
ceptible, far less noticeable than that at hangar 39, where
a large loading dock, sawdust collector, and roll-up door have
been added.
- the exits would help to enable the Air Museum, which in turn
would provide the only hangar at the former Naval Air Station
where representative aircraft could still be seen as they once
were. Historically this would be far superior to the probable
alternative, a stage set warehouse for the San Francisco Opera
for the next 50 years.
- these exits would provide better fire safety than exit
corridors tunneled through the office structures, the most
flamable portions of the building.
The women's restroom has been halved in size from a January
estimate for 8 toilets, and the total cost reduced by one-
third. It would be designed to be expanded easily as the Museum
grows, since it would be built over a large previously-used
plumber's vault containing ample rough-in plumbing and sewer
connections. Construction management would be provided by
volunteers.
13
As can be seen from the following pages, the hangar's
electrical system is essentially ready for use. Twenty
working outlets line the north and south walls, and code-
approved dropcords from the roof trusses would be used for
exhibits away from these sources. The existing overhead
lighting is more than adequate, and would be used sparingly.
Modification of the potable water connections is elementary,
and if necessary a crossover pipe through the trusses would
be used to supply the men's restroom on the south side.
The highest quality EPDM membrane roof was installed for the
Navy in 1985, and according to the representative of the
manufacturer, Carlisle, has an expected life of 54 years.
It appears to be in excellent condition, and unlike the
similar Firestone roof on the adjacent hangar 40, shows no
sign of delaminating. The expected minor periodic roof main-
tenance required would be covered by item 9 under Operational
Expenses on page 11. Likewise, any window leaks would be
promptly corrected by the Museum, although the lack of
apparent water damage or even staining indicates that this is
not a particular problem in hangar 41. Also, prior to base
closure in 1997 the Navy thoroughly cleaned the hangar and
reglazed the windows as required. A recent walk-around reveals
only one broken window pane (out of some 8000), in a west side
hangar door, holed by a projectile but still intact.
The Museum would expect to occupy the hangar for the remainder
of the structure's service life, and therefore has a vested
interest in maintaining it well to extend that life, perhaps
completely through the new century. As the Museum grows, more
funds can be set aside for this essential objective, pro-
tecting not only the building but the Museum's substantial
dollar investment in it as well.
The Museum is exceptionally fortunate to be receiving the
odgoing pro bono guidance of the nationally-prominent
restoration architect Franz Steiner, AIA. Franz has pledged
to provide the architectural and design services of his firm,
VBN Architects of Oakland, not only for all aspects of the
enhancement of the hangar itself, but also for the displays
accompanying the aircraft that it would house. In short,
hangar 41 as it would be employed by the Alameda Naval Air
Museum would be in the best possible hands and put to the
best possible use.
M O O 0 N O 0 Ul 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al
al 0 0 0 N 0 0 N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N
•zr O CO 0 N ICI 0 N N 0 tf1 Ul rl M 0 0 0 U1
. . . . . . 0
0 0 1/40 N rl N l0 r-I r-4 r-■ r-4 r4 01 to
lONr -1 1
r-1
rj
0 •
i 1 r-1
/d -I-)
• ni
O z
• •
tr1-
Hangar 41 Projected Construction Upgrade Costs,
Total
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
1 1 1 O Ul 1 1 O 1 1 1 to t!1 N 1 1 1 1 1
r-1 N r--I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 Ll 0 0 1 1 Ll O O H 00 1 1 0 1
. . . .
l0 Ul to N •tt' r-1 M r-4 N 1!)
+.� v r-1 M v M
M O O 0 N 0 O t11 C31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al
CT 0 0 0 N 0 0 N •r O O O O O O O O O N
n : r 0 CO 0 N O 0 ('4 (‚4 0 0 0 l0 0 CO 0 0 0 Ul
O O l0 61 lfl r-I N • to r-{ r-I Ul N is) N M H Ol U LC)
l0Nr -4 H cr' M
r-4
U U U Z H Z H > Z H Pa Pa Z r4 Z Z
w w w w CI) as cn - E-+ U as w -- w a w CA
cn cn up > 4 > 4 U) °a a ril > n ccJ 1 > < >
Fire Sprinkler/Alarm (incl. 10% Contingency)
Construction Mgmt.)
•r4
CO
ugh
Island Fire Exit Corridor
rwa
/ADA; add ADA to Men's
(Completed)
a)
U)
U)
0
N
0
Minor Asbestos Removal (VAT): Women's R.R.
Non-Original Office Partitions Removal
Exit and Emergency Lights
N Q)
N a
(y •r1
U •Pi
al D
a W
01 >.4 O
a�
O O
ul 3 N
O N
r4 O
Zit 4-4 $-1
•H • U
• al -
N bt Izl O
1) r4 O
en
r4 rtj rti
• •-•
a• i 0
P r-i
P • is 4J a
4-) N
• •r4 • r4
w a 4-4
•r4 = x
• r
Id • cn is -
N i•1
O • O - ai Z
a a 3=
N
Cr bt O \
• -H .• .QQ
• g al
5 i P 4-1 H ?•1
rt3 (C1 0 P -H
P-4 a a o w
Extinguishers
Construction Permits
O al
t0 4}.) r-I
• cn P
N O )
N UH
tn- �C
• r4
O 4.) P
va
U
✓ �P
tn 4-) -H
-H• w
.{J 4 M
CT
ell O (A N
-H U
U) Q) N
>~r0rn
Q
RS 1--1
4-) bt
P
4.) CT • r 1
U)M E
i~ CT
0 •4l
N
OP N U)
Architectural
CNI
lc) rn Csl LC)
4.11 .-1 O co rl O N N 1.0 l0 N 1.11 ICl 0 0
r-1 N N - r-1 r-4 1-1 ri
Q1
October 8, 1998
Mr. Franz Steiner, AIA
VBN Architects
501 14th St., Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612 -1405
City of Alameda • California
Subject: Proposed Western Aernspace Museum Project at Building #4l , Alameda Point
Dear Mr. Steiner:
I am providing this letter in response to your recent request that I formally state my opinion
regarding the viability of the proposed Western Aerospace Museum Project at Building #41 at
Alameda Point.
On several occasions we have had discussed concerning a great number of Uniform Building Code
issues related to the propose project to convert the existing airplane hanger building #41 into a
museum display space for the Western Aerospace Museum. I believe that you, the Fire Marshall and
myself have finally reached conceptual agreement on all code issues related to the proposed project
and I am confident that I will be able to approve the proposed project.
I look forward to receiving the final project plans and Building Permit application for this project
in the near future. If you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven W. Davis
Building Official
cc: Via FAX: (510) 465 -1586
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director
Fire Marshal
Building Services Manager
Building Services
Central Permits & Building Inspection
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, California 94501
510 748.4530 • Fax 510 748.4548 • TDD 510 522.7538
15
LJ l'r,mr.1 ,,, R y 1. I ltr
16
(The following memorandum was requested by Lt. Edwards; a copy
was accepted and verbally approved by him on 11 January 1999:)
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation
between Lt. Michael Edwards, Fire Prevention, City of Alameda,
and Steve Keachie, Alameda Naval Air Museum on 7 January 1999:
1. The recent Fire Protection Cost Estimate (attached) of
$160,493 for Hangar 41 at Alameda Point by Joseph Hernandez
of Schirmer Engineering Corporation meets the requirements
of the Fire Prevention Office for proceeding with the lease
of the building.
2. It is understood and acceptable to the Fire Prevention
Office that the center island office structure within the
hangar may be left in place for now and equipped with
sprinklers for an estimated cost (SEC) of $20,000.
End
28
July 21, 1999
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM FINANCIAL STATEMENT
The officers and directors of the Alameda Naval Air Museum are in
receipt of a pledge of 200,000 from Steve and Grace Keachie to be
applied specifically to upgrades of Hangar 41 for the museum.
Consultation with Mr. Sandre Swanson, Chief of Staff for
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Ninth District of California, indicates
that he will apply for matching funds to benefit the museum. He
hopes that these funds will be sufficient to carry out the upgrades
on both Building 77 and Hangar 41. He also will seek to secure a
small cash donation to enable Building 77 upgrades to begin as soon
as funds can be made available. He also voiced his belief in the
Alameda Naval Air Museum and its value to community, state and
country.
Additional efforts will be undertaken to obtain site control so
that we can seek additional donations and pledges. We are
convinced that the above resources will enable us to successfully
carry out our museum project.
Respectfully submitted,
aitiP41(
A2-04
Barbara Baack, President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
Volunteers:
Val Arntzen Plant Maintenance
Jim Birbecx Electronics Foreman
Larry Borges Plant Maintenance
Robert Borromeo Aircraft Systems Mech
Norman Bowes Aircraft Electrician
Cornell Brown Safety & Plant Maintenance
Donald Brown Calibration
Shari Bruce Production Control
Steve Busse Inspector Engine Overhaul
Jim Campi Customer Service
Dan Correia Electronics Mechanic
Joe Crisafulli Budget Office
John Davis Electrician
Doug DeLong Maintenance
Roy Dickerson Electronics Mechanic
Isaiah Dixon Aircraft Mechanic Foreman
John Ferguson Electronics Foreman
Roy Fisk Inspector
Jim Fink Instructor
Angelo Ghigliazza Aircraft Systems Mechanic
Dennis Giottonini Budget
Herb Graggs Instructor
Kadeane Harlan Instrument Mechanic
Jack Harris Electronics Mechanic
Ed Harvey Tool Control
Jan Henault Instrument Mechanic
Ron Howell Instrument Mechanic
Terry Howell Flight Test Officer
James Hopper Commander
Robert Hempel Inspector, Electronics
Rudy Imperial Aircraft Systems Mechanic
Robert Jackson Instructor, Electronics
Boyd Johnson Electronics Mechanic
Jo Johnson Security,
Bruce Kalisen Flight Test Officer
Bob Krall Flight Test Officer
Richard 'S' Lee Customer Service - Video History
Paula Lewis Personnel
Mary Locke Personnel
Jem Louie Electronics Mechanic
Linda Lundeen Flight Test
Linda Lutschan Planner
Freddie Malvo Electrical Engineer
Pete Manfre Electronic Instruments
Denise McCutchen Aircraft Maintenance
Charles McHenry Old Timer from Bldg 77
Jay Mensch Computer Technician
Delphine Metcalf Quality Assurance
Nancy Morgan Instrument Mechanic
Fred Nase Engineer
Duane Peterson Instrument Mechan9ic
Luzinda Pierce Production Controll
Jerry Pierce Storekeeper
Al Poon Real Estate
Eugene Quen Electronic Instruments
Dudley Quintell Fiberglass Mech
Vic Quintell Planner
Jack Richard Inspector, Missiles
Sharon Richardson Secretary
Alan Sherak Planner, Electrical
Anthony Shomon Engineer
Sam Urban
Dave Wentz
Sylvester Wilson
Tool Crib
Pianc Maintenance Electronics
Beneficial Suggestions
33
BARBARA LEE
9TH DISTRICT- CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEES:
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
SCIENCE
REPLY TO
OFFICE CHECKED.
O 2108 RAYBURN H.O.B.
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-2661
O 1301 CLAY STREET
SUITE 1000 N
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(5 10) 763 -0370
&Ingress sf the Unita ftites
Nouse of RPpresentttiues
ashingtun. .tg• ZI1515 -II5I19
December 10, 1998
The Honorable Chair, Mayor Ralph Appezzato
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
950 West Mall Square, Building 1
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear Mayor Appezzato:
34
WASHINGTON OFFICE
CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT OFFICE
SANDRE R. SWANSON
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
ROBERTA CHEFF BROOKS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR
I am committed to the establishment and growth of the Alameda Naval Air and Western
Aerospace Museum at Alameda Point, as I believe you are.
Earlier this year while I was a State Senator, I introduced a request for $500,000 for this project,
primarily to cover building upgrades required for hangar 41. At the time I was in transition from
my State office to becoming a Congresswoman. I will support a request for federal funds for this
site in the new year, and I will encourage support for State funding again.
Enabling the comprehensive development of the Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace
Museum will further provide the community benefit promised in the NAS Alameda Community
Reuse Plan. The museum will enhance the cultural, historic. educational, and recreational
qualities for your city and our region, and will become a major attraction for tourists and residents
alike. Together with the USS Hornet, the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge, and the future golf
course, the museum will help form a spectacular visitor complex.
Thus I strongly support the museum, and look forward to working with the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, City officials businesses, foundations, and citizens to help make this
dream a reality.
Sincerely,
t t i-6, 4 /
Barbara Lee
Member of Congress
cc: Kay Miller, Executive Director, ARRA
Barbara Baack, Chair, Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum
Terry Howell, President, Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
July 28, 1999
Alameda Naval Air Museum
c/o 16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, California 94580
510 352-2750
Dr. Norman Cary
Department of the Navy
Naval Historical Center
901 M Street S.E.
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374-5060
Dear Dr. Cary,
Attached is a letter of support for the Alameda Naval Air Museum
from The East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission. The
EBCRC is a regional organization that supports military base
conversion and innovative reuse strategies for closed military
installations in Alameda County.
Please include this letter of regional support for the Museum in
our application file.
Sincerely, fr,f
4,4/1414
Barbara Baack, President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
Sent BY: EBCRC;
Sandri R.SwaO,o*/C.heir
1>nrra( Pi•rrty
Ca jwerwnrr0 1404 .1 Le.
•:."'".Yli &MA Car.. hire
b Olney
hews* kelpie Appesae(n
Mayor of Alwoola
Ho.ae (eOwaAm r
Meothe, Cario n e Nak Mnewb(Y
ew000 iir r#V. ;Wow*
M1+nit.
Ceolteviry Collor Uiurna
Dr. Softy M. Saw*
L(m7R1e: tkwttky L7borawry
Seel bloom
Aran CORM* Mardi Cow
Hrrr•We Cede brown
Maur of Ctwris+rr
Honore* Ken Borkowski
Mom of Low/'yr1Rr
Demo Litcoeml
ALtmrJe .Superinvndr0r a1 Srhrydr
HenrooNr War CAan
Allow& t:ounry Ssyxrraw
Haw eke Film M. r:.(wpr
nap:, J1 Sur l.wra4n
Haanti►lr Siririry Doom
Mayor of DerLrky
Atom WAN
Muinnit A.r. say. col
Mina.iry Cott, nns
Rorie 6iwn Is
Poe* DO
Rear Aibt irv(V in, From..
td5 Now
Sally Go tiros
thin! lmhan Nations
Ur. l *max /• (ll Mufi0
layna..r
11*, WWI, Mows.,
LJ.nui.nr
:isilansi
Colonel .0 sa..f. tuner
11.5..Mutl
%PeMS Hasvbe.4o
(l.ktoul Mnmpdi A Chamber
o noomrnr
Itonombk QMm itarru
Mayor J f (kUrlrui
idea W. Head
l:arnuyd trw,tnny !kr'dopmm1
Cmtrr
(t, Nit* 10001
Urrivrrory a f <- .tlt�u „u� 7.,L i-r
Muylid Katy
hi. Valley lWre.
Noon., l,roy
1 »,yy.rirq of1k1*bed
(worsen My+r l;,n/.;l :7
'h.en Marren
rrut LAD. Cmuril t{
e$..vA. C,0y.r1
%mbar' Mar1MOee
iprtarJ .tp.vl,ny ttnny i :r.nnl
iennr tkie Arms Met,/
va,rr a11(lrwp•
Hallam. t. , Miner
1...,r N4'
iorwr.W: n'a uy J. Need
'hillmt Loyt
1u.mablr 10X Peralo
,:w0H taltat lam Staa A.•. rnr i
likrto Amid
nnpY ,ie 1447. In
l•eonibie Ci4on
kamas
nn,rnr) $erry',Y
lu0oletbfe r)unm W, W..
.+n (•rt1 �r.n,fal.r1 (00,10) n�.�r,;•
Nity What
n: an.•...
510 834 8913 ; Jul -29 -99 4:05PM;
Page 2/2
1333 Broadway, Suite 1020, Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone! 510.834.6928 • Fax; 510.834.8913
July 29, 1999
Barbara Baack
President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
c/o 16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
Dear Ms. Baack,
Thank you for your briefing the other day on your organization's efforts to
establish the Alameda Naval Air Museum at Alameda Point. I am writing today
to inform you that the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
(EBCRC) is actively developing a federal request to assist your efforts. The
EBCRC has a modestly funded line item in its budget for Regional Reuse
activities and is seeking approval to utilize these funds to specifically assist your
project.
As a regional organization that supports military base conversion and innovative
reuse strategies in Alameda County, the EBCRC supports your efforts to bring
this marvelous cultural resource to our region. I will keep you informed on our
federal request and, if approved, I would like to discuss with you the details of
how we can assist the project.
In closing, we wish you and your associates the best as you move forward. If you
have any questions please feel free to call me at: (510) 834 -6928.
ncerely,
David K. Wilson
Chair and Principal Administrative Officer
cc: Congresswoman Barbara I.ee
Alamedajournal. 3 AuGaST 11147q
ARRA asked not to save
hangar for museum
By Susan Fuller
Staff Writer
A month ago, the Alameda
Reuse and . Redevelopment Au-
thority granted_a one -month re-
prieve to the museum organiza-
tion hoping to locate on the for-
mer base.
After four July meetings be-
tween ARRA staff and museum
representatives, the staff is rec-
ommending that the ARRA autho-
rize lease of the last hangar on the
base for non - museum use, rather
than continuing to work with
those who hope to display historic
aircraft. The ARRA. will meet on
Aug. 4.
Deputy City Manager David
Berger and Facilities Manager Ed
Levine believe that the Alameda
Naval Air Museum (ANAM) has
failed to establish the economic
viability of . operating a museum
in Hangar 41. Building 77 is still
slated to become a repository for
memorabilia from Alameda
Naval Air Station.
The staff report makes four
points to support the denial, of a
lease to ANAM:
> The Public Works Depart-
ment estimates that the cost of
upgrades to Hangar are approxi
mately $463,000, based on similar
work on other hangars. An addi-
tional $208,000 would be needed
for weatherproofing and electric
upgrades soon after occupancy
ANAM estimates upgrade ex-
penses of $348,000, and includes
nothing for weatherproofing.
ANAM claims that approximately
$170,000 will be covered in volun-
teer labor, but has given the
ARRA no commitment as to who
the volunteers will be and what
construction skills they have.
• Last month's lease on life for
the museum was largely based on
the promise of $200,000 from mu-
seum supporters Grace and
Stephen Keachie. ARRA staff
asked that the pledge be docu-
mented in a legally binding agree-
ment before committing to a
lease. The specifics of the pledge
have not been given to the ARRA.
• ANAM's business plan fails
to show funding for the approxi-
mately $1.1 million in base -wide
infrastructure costs which will be
assessed against Buildings 41 and
77 following conveyance from the
Navy, according to the staff re-
port. Staff also believes that a
$15,000 annual maintenance budg-
et is unrealistically low.
■ ANAM's attendance projec-
tions — 20,000 visitors in the first
year of operation, 40,000 in year
two and 60,000 the following year
— are overly optimistic. Staff
points to the Aircraft Carrier Hor-
net Museum's failure to generate
even 15 percent of its original at-
tendance projections.
Last February, the ARRA gave
a museum consortium including
ANAM and the Western Air Muse -
um six month to s.e u�Ce,.af,pom-
mitrhent'for funding of boil& g
upgrades to buildings 77 and 41.
At .the same tune, the.:.
authorized Le vine *•to 'begin' r}ia#
keting Building 41, with ;the:
derstanding that the 'muse'
were in first position until July..rt
At the end of June, the Western!
Air Museum withdrew from the
joint venture. ' `'` Q t
After the staff proposal before
the ARRA in July to authorize
lease of Building 41 for purposes
other than a museum had been
written, the Keachies, mother and
son, each offered $100,000 toward
building improvements. Their,-,of-
fers were only good if both build-
ings were included in the . piuse-
Debate centered on whether or
not ANAM had presented a 'sails -
factory business plan. The ARRA
voted to remain consistent with
the reuse plan until it was demon-
strated that the museum plan
wasn't viable.
12
Hangar 41 Upgrade Costs
These pages 12 through 26 outline the requirements and cost
of upgrading hangar 41 for a certificate of occupancy as a
museum display space. Initially the Museum would use the
hangar as a simple shell in which to display full-sized
aircraft, with the office space sealed off. As such, very
little modification of the building is required.
The fire sprinkler and alarm system must be updated by a
specially licensed contractor for a cash expenditure by the
Museum of nearly $200,000, including $20,000 for the center
island. Alternatively (and preferably) the island could be
deconstructed by volunteers or at no cost by a salvage firm,
to reclaim its lumber, after $20,000 is expended to have
asbestos-containing materials removed (a firm bid for this
work is in hand).
Four fire exits would be designed and fabricated in-house
to be set into the large hangar doors, with more to be added
if necessary as the Museum grows. The State Historic Preser-
vation Officer would likely approve this building modification
because:
- the change to the hangar's exterior would be almost imper-
ceptible, far less noticeable than that at hangar 39, where
a large loading dock, sawdust collector, and roll-up door have
been added.
- the exits would help to enable the Air Museum, which in turn
would provide the only hangar at the former Naval Air Station
where representative aircraft could still be seen as they once
were. Historically this would be far superior to the probable
alternative, a stage set warehouse for the San Francisco Opera
for the next 50 years.
- these exits would provide better fire safety than exit
corridors tunneled through the office structures, the most
flamable portions of the building.
The women's restroom has been halved in size from a January
estimate for 8 toilets, and the total cost reduced by one-
third. It would be designed to be expanded easily as the Museum
grows, since it would be built over a large previously-used
plumber's vault containing ample rough-in plumbing and sewer
connections. Construction management would be provided by
volunteers.
13
As can be seen from the following pages, the hangar's
electrical system is essentially ready for use. Twenty
working outlets line the north and south walls, and code-
approved dropcords from the roof trusses would be used for
exhibits away from these sources. The existing overhead
lighting is more than adequate, and would be used sparingly.
Modification of the potable water connections is elementary,
and if necessary a crossover pipe through the trusses would
be used to supply the men's restroom on the south side.
The highest quality EPDM membrane roof was installed for the
Navy in 1985, and according to the representative of the
manufacturer, Carlisle, has an expected life of 54 years.
It appears to be in excellent condition, and unlike the
similar Firestone roof on the adjacent hangar 40, shows no
sign of delaminating. The expected minor periodic roof main-
tenance required would be covered by item 9 under Operational
Expenses on page 11. Likewise, any window leaks would be
promptly corrected by the Museum, although the lack of
apparent water damage or even staining indicates that this is
not a particular problem in hangar 41. Also, prior to base
closure in 1997 the Navy thoroughly cleaned the hangar and
reglazed the windows as required. A recent walk-around reveals
only one broken window pane (out of some 8000), in a west side
hangar door, holed by a projectile but still intact.
The Museum would expect to occupy the hangar for the remainder
of the structure's service life, and therefore has a vested
interest in maintaining it well to extend that life, perhaps
completely through the new century. As the Museum grows, more
funds can be set aside for this essential objective, pro-
tecting not only the building but the Museum's substantial
dollar investment in it as well.
The Museum is exceptionally fortunate to be receiving the
odgoing pro bono guidance of the nationally-prominent
restoration architect Franz Steiner, AIA. Franz has pledged
to provide the architectural and design services of his firm,
VBN Architects of Oakland, not only for all aspects of the
enhancement of the hangar itself, but also for the displays
accompanying the aircraft that it would house. In short,
hangar 41 as it would be employed by the Alameda Naval Air
Museum would be in the best possible hands and put to the
best possible use.
Hangar 41 Projected Construction Upgrade Costs,
m E
0 0
U a
N
V} 0
z
4-)
(1)
Z4.i
W•
4 r4
0
0
0 z
a) 3a
+) 0
al .4
Qa
M O O 0 N 0 0 tf1 01 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 o1
O1 O O O N O O N •t' O 0 O O O O O 0 1 N
•}' 0 CO 0 N to 0 N N 0 tf) in r-i M O O O in
. . . . . . . • • 0 ►
O 0 l3 N r-1 N VD r-4 r-I r-1 r-1 r-1 01 tf)
l3 N r-4 1
r-1
O O o O O O
o O o O O O
1 1 I O in 1 1 O 1 1 1 to in N 1 1 1 1 1
. V V ► V
,-I N r•1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O
1 1 1 O O to O O 1 1 to O O in co I 1 O 1
tD v to r� •z1' H M r-I N to
r-1 M ... M
v `✓
M O O 0 N O 0 Ln 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01
01 0 0 0 N 0 0 C` 'C' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
•c:r 0 CO O r- 0 0 N N 0 0 0 t,3 0 03 0 0 0 to
. . . . . . . . . . . . I. . .
O O kO 01 VD r1 r` to r-4 r 4 to N Lfl N M r1 ON Lf) to
t.0 f--1 r1 •)'
U]
PQ U
culvWicwn KC FC H O
4 a P4
Z z
r=C F:C
a
H a a
`✓ ul H1�
Ic:C
Z z z
al
4 al al
10% Contingency)
Fire Sprinkler/Alarm
Fire Exits: 4 Through Hangar Doors
Island Fire Exit Corridor
Sealoff (3)
Stairways
add ADA to Men's
(Completed)
Minor Asbestos Removal (VAT): Women's R.R.
Non-Original Office Partitions Removal
Exit and Emergency Lights
N
0)
o •a
ro �
a 0 34
3-1 m
a�
o 0
Ln 3 u1
O u)
r-1 0
231 4-4 1-I
s: xU
r1 0
-
23) al O
•H O
cI rC1.zr
b ft)
rtt 31W 0
rn +)
0 a)
rl z rH
r1 -
u) -
a) 3-1
4-)4J
0 n Z
a 3N
Is a)�
r
g r-I 0
«S 0 3-1 r'1
P4 a 0 w
Extinguishers
Construction
Architectural
cr., 31 to
1.r) r-1 O O r-1 O N N l3 lD N tf) Ln O 0
rl N N - r-I r-1 r-i r-4
rn
October 8, 1998
Mr. Franz Steiner, AIA
VBN Architects
501 14th St., Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612 -1405
City of Alameda • California
Subject: Proposed Western Aerospace Museum Project at Building #4l lam a Pain
Dear Mr. Steiner:
I am providing this letter in response to your recent request that I formally state my opinion
regarding the viability of the proposed Western Aerospace Museum Project at Building #41 at
Alameda Point.
On several occasions we have had discussed concerning a great number of Uniform Building Code
issues related to the propose project to convert the existing airplane hanger building #41 into a
museum display space for the Western Aerospace Museum. I believe that you, the Fire Marshall and
myself have finally reached conceptual agreement on all code issues related to the proposed project
and I am confident that I will be able to approve the proposed project.
I look forward to receiving the final project plans and Building Permit application for this project
in the near future. If you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven W. Davis
Building Official
cc: Via FAX: (510) 465 -1586
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director
Fire Marshal
Building Services Manager
Building Services
Central Permits & Building Inspection
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, California 94501
510 748.4530 • Fax 510 748.4548 • TDD 510 522.7538
15
LJlr,,uJirnlGi,IdPap.
16
(The following memorandum was requested by Lt. Edwards; a copy
was accepted and verbally approved by him on 11 January 1999:)
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation
between Lt. Michael Edwards, Fire Prevention, City of Alameda,
and Steve Keachie, Alameda Naval Air Museum on 7 January 1999:
1. The recent Fire Protection Cost Estimate (attached) of
$160,493 for Hangar 41 at Alameda Point by Joseph Hernandez
of Schirmer Engineering Corporation meets the requirements
of the Fire Prevention Office for proceeding with the lease
of the building.
2. It is understood and acceptable to the Fire Prevention
Office that the center island office structure within the
hangar may be left in place for now and equipped with
sprinklers for an estimated cost (SEC) of $20,000.
End
28
July 21, 1999
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM FINANCIAL STATEMENT
The officers and directors of the Alameda Naval Air Museum are in
receipt of a pledge of 200,000 from Steve and Grace Eeachie to be
applied specifically to upgrades of Hangar 41 for the museum.
Consultation with Mr. Sandre Swanson, Chief of Staff for
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Ninth District of California, indicates
that he will apply for matching funds to benefit the museum. He
hopes that these funds will be sufficient to carry out the upgrades
on both Building 77 and Hangar 41. He also will seek to secure a
small cash donation to enable Building 77 upgrades to begin as soon
as funds can be made available. He also voiced his belief in the
Alameda Naval Air Museum and its value to community, state and
country.
Additional efforts will be undertaken to obtain site control so
that we can seek additional donations and pledges. We are
convinced that the above resources will enable us to successfully
carry out our museum project.
Respectfully submitted,
aldie%
Ax-04
Barbara Baack, President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
Volunteers:
Val Arntzen Plant Maintenance
Jim Birbecx Electronics Foreman
Larry Borges Plant Maintenance
Robert Borromeo Aircraft Systems Mech
Norman Bowes Aircraft Electrician
Cornell Brown Safety & Plant Maintenance
Donald Brown Calibration
Shari Bruce Production Control
Steve Busse Inspector Engine Overhaul
Jim Campi Customer Service
Dan Correia Electronics Mechanic
Jce Crisafulli Budget Office
John Davis Electrician
Doug DeLong Maintenance
Roy Dickerson Electronics Mechanic
Isaiah Dixon Aircraft Mechanic Foreman
John Ferguson Electronics Foreman
Roy Fisk Inspector
Jim Fink Instructor
Angelo Ghigliazza Aircraft Systems Mechanic
Dennis Giottonini Budget
Herb Graggs Instructor
Kadeane Harlan Instrument Mechanic
Jack Harris Electronics Mechanic
Ed Harvey Tool Control
Jan Henault Instrument Mechanic
Ron Howell Instrument Mechanic
Terry Howell Flight Test Officer
James Hopper Commander
Robert Hempel Inspector, Electronics
Rudy Imperial Aircraft Systems Mechanic
Robert Jackson Instructor, Electronics
Boyd Johnson Electronics Mechanic
Jo Johnson Security,
Bruce Kallsen Flight Test Officer
Bob Krall Flight Test Officer
Richard 'S' Lee Customer Service - Video History
Paula Lewis Personnel
Mary Locke Personnel
Jem Louie Electronics Mechanic
Linda Lundeen Flight Test
Linda Lutschan Planner
Freddie Malvo Electrical Engineer
Pete Manfre Electronic Instruments
Denise McCutchen Aircraft Maintenance
Charles McHenry Old Timer from Bldg 77
Jay Mensch Computer Technician
Delphine Metcalf Quality Assurance
Nancy Morgan Instrument Mechanic
Fred Nase Engineer
Duane Peterson Instrument Mechan9ic
Luzinda Pierce Production Controll
Jerry Pierce Storekeeper
Al Poon Real Estate
Eugene Quen Electronic Instruments
Dudley Quintell Fiberglass Mech
Vic Quintell Planner
Jack Richard
Sharon Richardson
Alan Sherak
Anthony Shomon
Sam Urban
Dave Wentz
Sylvester Wilson
Inspector, Missiles
Secretary
Planner, Electrical
Engineer
Tool Crib
Plant Maintenance Electronics
Beneficial Suggestions
33
BARBARA LEE
9TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEES:
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
SCIENCE
REPLY TO
OFFICE CHECKED.
❑ 2108 RAYBURN H.O.B.
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225 -2661
❑ 1301 CLAY STREET
SUITE 1000 N
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 763-0370
TungrEls of tilt Untitled tats o
Roust of litettrtoentatiurs
'Washington, E.T. 2015-115119
December 10, 1998
The Honorable Chair, Mayor Ralph Appezzato
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
950 West Mall Square, Building 1
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear. Mayor Appezzato:
34
WASHINGTON OFFICE
CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT OFFICE
SANDRE R. SWANSON
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
ROBERTA CHEFF BROOKS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR
I am committed to the establishment and growth of the Alameda Naval Air and Western
Aerospace Museum at Alameda Point, as I believe you are.
Earlier this year while I was a State Senator, I introduced a request for $500,000 for this project,
primarily to cover building upgrades required for hangar 41. At the time I was in transition from
my State office to becoming a Congresswoman. I will support a request for federal funds for this
site in the new year, and I will encourage support for State funding again.
Enabling the comprehensive development of the Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace
Museum will further provide the community benefit promised in the NAS Alameda Community
Reuse Plan. The museum will enhance the cultural, historic. educational, and recreational
qualities for your city and our region, and will become a major attraction for tourists and residents
alike. Together with the USS Hornet, the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge, and the future golf
course, the museum will help form a spectacular visitor complex.
Thus I strongly support the museum, and look forward to working with the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, City officials businesses, foundations, and citizens to help make this
dream a reality.
Sincerely,
%th /<4 -Q
Barbara Lee
Member of Congress
cc: Kay Miller, Executive Director, ARRA
Barbara Baack, Chair, Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum
Terry Howell, President, Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
July 28, 1999
Alameda Naval Air Museum
c/o 16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, California 94580
510 352-2750
Dr. Norman Cary
Department of the Navy
Naval Historical Center
901 M Street S.E.
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374-5060
Dear Dr. Cary,
Attached is a letter of support for the Alameda Naval Air Museum
from The East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission. The
EBCRC is a regional organization that supports military base
conversion and innovative reuse strategies for closed military
installations in Alameda County.
Please include this letter of regional support for the Museum in
our application file.
Sincerely,
nolok*
Barbara Baack, President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
Sent By: EBCRC;
Sowisi &SwanseaChair
Dee.' Perdu,
Canr•rrwwr. Rs44a
!.W. nig Can..ytl,.r
io r:l.nq.Vor+.i■.
!Iowa& ItefpA Appose.,
Maier of Mamas
Honenb a U,. AMOK
MOJ A % (iY,forme SUk A sembty
Harweii. ryes amen.
Neass Ctemnvnits Coflg lAcrru
Dr. Snty M. &woo
tna sent: tlrrlrkyL orata y
mod asses
Arm (;rerrrot &tomb Cows
Be.rr.l a Cesar an..,
Mayo of (monster
Hrwrn.bae bin Drtkosai
Moser of Emerynk
tlm,ui deeemar
Alger 4o .Sese+iaveosee r( 4kndi
HoewnMr Wrt.la aa«
Alerntla t:a.nry Sapentai
Ho/ins/tie Floe M. twime(
%trot .e `wu, L &,
Hal..e/+r Airiiery Dreg
Mayor of Dekko
Ale. Dow
norms! A«. i•rwn cl
Mi,neily Como., ivrs
Mr-tin 6:wvrir
Per,fit &Et
Rau A,lair.t V i,.
V.S. 74,7
Sego Getkges
tined l,rAmn Notens
Ur. 1Aosear /. wearies
were N•,il•nitl
I.J•neonr
:Irklanri
t:olwlei Nude littur
V.t.bnt
Palls Ha.ivJ.
tl.ilu.et Mempt7irrn Ckambt,
,✓ Crmmr. tr
he.oenbtr tan Harris
Ahtyor a(t)a(LlrW
/rows W H.4.4
ha,.n.al F,'u.,im.r Ur, tfrpnit.n
.i low C'( r
'hie, Moron
.wuw I.4,. Ctmerl ti
.tcnv.i. fr.nrt•
WWI. M.xtt.ol
rpl,lw,.y„wl,nx t ni,y r;.,Mn,tl
iexn.eNr Rrwrl Mari
Nauru, Lies Miter
V•ie6brrkrn1 tk,.p,.
IoswrrW. K.n.y 1. Mold
'wttmWr (my i mot; I
i.oareitr Din ATM!
Nmrr' CilON e, Srntc A., 1,04
Oerto gale
VV. IC la(L7n in.
/enonble 13 .jla, C;4,n
+'• +p.nr) Sera Wit...k!wurt 4
un,,,la .,nervy
to.oreb4 (lawny W. Wan
en Pry }i.mca.p.d oils) noes,;,
n...111. hl y Whir, L..
.,,..
510 834 8913 ; Jul -29 -99 4:05PM;
Page 2/2
THE EAST BAY CONVERSION AND REINVESTMENT COMMISSION
1333 Broadway, Suite 1020, Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone: 510.834.6928 • Fax: 510.834.8913
July 29, 1999
Barbara Baack
President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
c/o 16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
Dear Ms. Baack,
Thank you for your briefing the other day on your organization's efforts to
establish the Alameda Naval Air Museum at Alameda Point. I am writing today
to inform you that the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
(EBCRC) is actively developing a federal request to assist your efforts. The
EBCRC has a modestly funded Iine item in its budget for Regional Reuse
activities and is seeking approval to utilize these funds to specifically assist your
project.
As a regional organization that supports military base conversion and innovative
reuse strategies in Alameda County, the EBCRC supports your efforts to bring
this marvelous cultural resource to our region. I will keep you informed on our
federal request and, if approved, I would like to discuss with you the details of
how we can assist the project.
In closing, we wish you and your associates the best as you move forward. If you
have any questions please feel free to call me at: (510) 834 -6928.
merely,
David K. Wilson
Chair and Principal Administrative Officer
cc: Congresswoman Barbara I.ee
BARBARA LEE
9TH DISTRICT. CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEES:
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
ITERNATIONAL RELATIONS
REPLY TO
OFFICE CHECKED:
D 414 CANNON H.O.B.
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
(2021 225.2661
If 1301 CLAY STREET
SUITE 1000 N
OAKLAND. CA 94612
15101 763.0370
QlIILtgrtoa of tilt In s
;aunt of itepr ndattutn
•an1'tiagtan, CQt. 2D515 -05119
July 28, 1999
Dr. Norman Carey
Department of the Navy
Naval Historical Center
90.1 "M" Street, S.E.
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374 -5060
Dear Dr. Carey:
WASHINGTON OFFICE
CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT
APAIMSTItATIVE ASSKTANT
DISTRICT OFFICE
SANDRt R. SWANSON
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
ROBERTA CHEFF BROOKS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR
I am writing to offer my strong support of your authorizing the loan of 100 artifacts to the
Alameda Naval Air Museum, in Alameda, California, located in my Congressional district. It is
my understanding that these items are currently scheduled to be transferred by the Navy
Transition Team at the end of August, from its Alameda location to another destination, unless
you authorize the artifacts to be loaned to the Museum.
I firmly believe that these items will be the centerpiece of the museum's exhibits, and for
historical reasons pertaining to the former Naval Air Station, these items should remain in
Alameda. As you can imagine, uur:ng its 50 -plus years of existence in Alameda, the former
Naval Air Station was an important part of Alameda's character and history, and therefore, your
allowing these artifacts to remain in Alameda will be greatly appreciated by its citizens.
I trust that you will give this matter your fullest consideration and I thank you for your
cot;rtc sy and attentio►>:•to this request. I look forward to learning of yo4r vi:cition regarding this
matter.
BL:ksg
cc: Alameda Naval Air Museum
Sincerely,
Barbara Lee
Member of Congress
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
November 2.1998
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Point
950 W. Mall Square, Room 159
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Kay,
I am pleased to offer this letter of support for the transfer of Building 77 and
Hangar 41 to the Alameda Naval Air Museum and the Western Aerospace
Museum joint venture.
As you may know, the chamber has established a Convention and Visitor's
Bureau in response to the dramatic increase in attractions located in our city.
In large part, we have you and your Associates at ARRA. to thank for this
phenomenon. The Hornet, the wildlife preserve, the planned golf course,
Antiques-by-the-Bay, and other endeavors planned for, or already located at
Alameda Point, are the stimuli for this new endeavor. To this impressive list,
we are excited to add the Alameda Naval Air/Western Aerospace Museums' use
of Building 77 and Hanger 41.
The many historical and educational exhibits offered by the project will also be
of great educational value to students in both our city and the greater bay
area.
I would respectfully request that you include the chamber's unqualified support
of the Alameda Naval Air/Western Aerospace Museums' application in the
ARRA/City of Alameda evaluation process.
I appreciate your many efforts on behalf of this important Alameda Point
project.
Cordially,
Bill Garvine
Executive Director
2.1.1.1 Santa Clara Ave.. Ste. 302 • Alameda, CA 94501 • (510) 522-0414 FAX (510) 522-7677
Sandrr R. Anson
Honorable Anth Carson l o■
Honorable Ralph Appr_ato
1rar,�• ,�• i:a,n;,i,:
•ablr Non Aron.,
Honorable Lynn Baranen
Dr. Salh 11. Brnsnn
.Saul Bloom
Honorable Cathie Brown
Hc•norahie hen 131.10.,11
Drnn• Chaeonas
Honorable Wilma Chan
Honorable Ellen M. (orhett
Honorable 'hrrie+ Dean
Alan Done,
Rea, Admiral lnnnieu Frnman
Sa1h Gallegos
Dr. Thoma, 1 Giimarnn
John Glover
Susan S. Halter
liys��h Harahurda
Honorabir firhu Harris
jam, l+ Head
Dr. Judith !ones
.Alarrfra htner
Eugene Leong
Chuck Mark
(Men Marron
Arabella lfarrine
Honorable Bruce Mast
•
ar.
Maunre Lim Miller
Ana \aghF,,rhoodDes,t¢,:
Honorable.\anr, I_ \'adel
Honorable Don Renato
Alberto Rocha
Honorable Dougla, S,den
Thomas
Honorable Dann W ltan
Honorable Par, Whitt
rr.
THE EAST BAY CONVERSION AND REINVESTMENT COMMISSION
1333 Broadway, Suite 1020, Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone: 510.834.6928 • Fax: 510.834 8913
July 29, 1999
Barbara Baack
President/CEO
Alameda Naval Air Museum
c/o 16148 Via Sonora
San Lorenzo. CA 94580
Dear Ms. Baack,
Thank you for your briefing the other day on your organization's efforts to
establish the Alameda Naval Air Museum at Alameda Point. I am writing today
to inform you that the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
(EBCRC) is actively developing a federal request to assist your efforts. The
EBCRC has a modestly funded line item in its budget for Regional Reuse
activities and is seeking approval to utilize these funds to specifically assist your
project.
As a regional organization that supports military base conversion and innovative
reuse strategies in Alameda County, the EBCRC supports your efforts to bring
this marvelous cultural resource to our region. I will keep you informed on our
federal request and, if approved, I would like to discuss with you the details of
how we can assist the project.
In closing. we wish you and your associates the best as you move forward. If you
have any questions please feel free to call me at: (510) 834 -6928.
David K. Wilson
Chair and Principal Administrative Officer
cc: Congresswoman Barbara Lee
BARBARA LEE
9TH DISTRKT. CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEES
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
REPO TO
OFFICE CHECKED
= 414 CANNON H.O.B.
WASHINGTON DC 20515
(202) 225.2661
if 1301 CLAY STREET
SUITE 1000 N
OAKLAND. CA 94612
15101 763 .0370
Q tmg Eu of tip Llt *'ices
Enuat of ittprestatattuts
•autngtnn, 20515 4509
July 28, 1999
Dr. Norman Carey
Department of the Navy
Naval Historical Center
90.1 "M" Street, S.E.
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374 -5060
Dear Dr. Carey:
wASHINGTON OFFICE
CARLOTTIA A. W. SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT OFFICE
SANtM( R. SWANSON
o(STRiCT DIRECTOR
ROBERTA CHEFF BROOKS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR
I am writing to offer my strong support of your authorizing the loan of 100 artifacts to the
Alameda Naval Air Museum, in Alameda, California, located in my Congressional district. It is
my understanding that these items are currently scheduled to be transferred by the Navy
Transition Team at the end of August, from its Alameda location to another destination, unless
you authorize the artifacts to be loaned to the Museum.
I firmly believe that these items will be the centerpiece of the museum's exhibits, and for
historical reasons pertaining to the former Naval Air Station, these items should remain in
Alameda. As you can imagine, ::u: _ :1g its 50 -plus years of existence in Alameda, the former
Naval Air Station was an important part of Alameda's character and history, and therefore, your
allowing these artifacts to remain in Alameda will be greatly appreciated by its citizens.
I trust that you will give this matter your fullest consideration and I thank you for your
cat:ttesy and attetYEio« to this request. I look forward to learning of your.: cicion regarding this
matter.
BL:ksg
cc: Alameda Naval Air Museum
Sincerely,
Barbara Lee
Member of Congress
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
THE GREATEST GENERATION
The Alameda Naval Air Museum staff wishes to tell the story of a
generation of Americans. They were citizens, heroes, and heroines
who came of age during the Great Depression and the Second World
War. This generation was united not only by common purpose, but
also by common values. They exemplified duty, honor, economy,
courage, service, love of family and country.
At a time in their lives when their days and nights should have
been filled with innocent adventure, they were fighting on the
coral islands of the Pacific. They answered the call to save the
world from two of the most powerful, ruthless military machines
ever assembled. They faced great odds but did not protest. They
succeeded on every front. After the war they attended college and
they gave the world new science, literature, art, industry and
economic strength. This achievement is unparalleled in the long
curve of history. As they now reach the twilight of their
productive years, they remain with many stories to tell, stories
they have never told before because they didn't think they were
special. They must be remembered and we owe them a debt of
gratitude.
We believe that the Alameda Naval Air Museum, housed in Buildings
77 and 41, is a tribute to the sacrifice and dedication of
thousands of people.
Many of these quotes are from Tom Brokaw in his book THE GREATEST
GENERATION.
nasammeaa„com
I kit L
Atogiahomozie,„,
infognasalarneda.corn
http://www.nasalaineda.com/ 8/4/99
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
Meeting will begin at 7:20 p.m.
City Hall will open at 6:45 p.m.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM
Anyone wishing to address the ARRA on this agenda item only may speak for a maximum
of three minutes.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager to adopt a RESOLUTION
Approving an assignment agreement and approved related documents and officials actions
by and between ARRA and the City of Alameda in connection with the issuance by the
Alameda Public Financing Authority of its revenue bonds to finance the acquisition,
construction, installation and equipping of various capital improvements to Alameda Point
(the former Alameda Naval Air Station) and to finance the acquisition, construction,
installation and equipping of various capital improvements for the City of Alameda and
approving related documents and official actions.
4. 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.)
5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
6. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be simultaneously broadcast on cable channel 22.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Lucretia Akil, 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.
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
Chair and Board Members of the
Alameda Public Financing Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
David A. Berger
Deputy City Manager
Zenda James
Finance Director
August 3, 1999
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE BY THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY OF ITS REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND EQUIPPING OF
VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ALAMEDA POINT (THE
FORMER ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION) AND TO FINANCE THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, AND EQUIPPING OF
VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND
APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS AND OFFICIAL ACTIONS
and
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A SERIES
OF REVENUE BONDS IN THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $10 MILLION TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND EQUIPPING OF VARIOUS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ALAMEDA POINT (THE FORMER
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION) AND TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND EQUIPPING OF VARIOUS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND
APPROVING RELATED DOCUMENTS AND OFFICIAL ACTIONS
and
Re: Resolution #3 -A
Resolution #3 -A AP; an
Resolution #5 -F COUNCIL
8 -17 -99
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
August 3, 1999
Page Three
The City of Alameda received a grant of $17.9 million for 2.5 federal fiscal years (4/1/97 -
9/30/99) from the U.S. Navy to finance municipal services at Alameda Point under a Base
Caretaker Cooperative Agreement.
After the Base Caretaker Cooperative Agreement ends on September 30, 1999 the City
will need to maintain and protect the Alameda Point properties. This will include insuring
that landscaping and infrastructure are maintained at an appropriate level of upkeep to
continue to attract tenants to the site.
Discussion/Analysis
In February 1999, faced with the challenge of financing the gap between land-based
revenues and maintenance, operating and improved capital needs for Alameda Point, the
City sought the help of Evensen Dodge, Inc. and Gardner, Underwood and Bacon
(Financial Consultants). They (consultants) were asked to review the Business Plan to
recommend a viable financing strategy based upon the understanding that the City's
General Fund, as well as any other special funds of the City, will under no circumstances,
be adversely impacted.
Following is a table which illustrates the projected financing gap in the next two years and
the projected balance for the third year (in thousands) :
*Reflects deferral of certain capital costs
A work session with the City Council was held on May 12,1999 to review the findings.
Based on the most recent information available, a financing plan for Alameda Point needed
to include debt financing in the early years to insure an efficient redevelopment of the
property. The proposed financing plan contemplated for Alameda Point includes reduction
in operating costs, deferral of capital projects and the issuance of debt. Council approved
in concept the financing plan and accepted staff recommendation in May 1999 to proceed
with the financial plan outlined in Table 1, Section 5 of the Evensen Dodge report dated
May 12, 1999 (on file with the City Clerk).
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
Revenues:
Lease Revenues
$4.582
$5.443
$5.938
Land Sales
0
0
7.337
Available Revenues
$4.582
$5.443
$13.275
Costs:
0 & M
$7.805
$7.474
$5.700
Capital
*3.281
*4.736
*5.144
$11.086
$12.210
$10.844
Balance
($6.504)
($6.767)
$2.431
*Reflects deferral of certain capital costs
A work session with the City Council was held on May 12,1999 to review the findings.
Based on the most recent information available, a financing plan for Alameda Point needed
to include debt financing in the early years to insure an efficient redevelopment of the
property. The proposed financing plan contemplated for Alameda Point includes reduction
in operating costs, deferral of capital projects and the issuance of debt. Council approved
in concept the financing plan and accepted staff recommendation in May 1999 to proceed
with the financial plan outlined in Table 1, Section 5 of the Evensen Dodge report dated
May 12, 1999 (on file with the City Clerk).
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
August 3, 1999
Page Five
4. Reimbursement Agreement. This agreement is between the Authority and the letter
of credit bank, Union Bank of California, N.A. (the "Bank "), pursuant to which the
Bank will issue its irrevocable direct pay letter of credit with respect to the Bonds,
including the acknowledgment of State Teachers' Retirement System, as confirming
bank. Since the investors will look to the Bank for payment, the Bank will look to the
Authority (and to the sublease rentals) for reimbursement.
5. Remarketing Agreement. Variable rate securities permit the investor to tender or
"put" its securities back to the issuer upon seven days' notice. This agreement, by
and between the remarketing agent to be selected by the competitive process (the
"Remarketing Agent ") and the Authority, relates to the remarketing by the
Remarketing Agent of the Bonds upon tender thereof.
6. Preliminary Official Statement. This is the offering document (similar to a
prospectus) which provides a detailed description of the Authority, ARRA, Alameda
Point, the issue and the sources of payment. This document permits prospective
investors to make an informed investment decision regarding a purchase of the
Bonds.
Budget/Fiscal Impact
The debt is secured by lease revenues from Alameda Point. Bond proceeds can only be
used for capital improvement projects, therefore, a portion of the proceeds will be used for
citywide projects and an equal amount of funds earmarked for these same citywide
projects will be transferred to ARRA for operating funds.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council, the Alameda Public Financing Authority and the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency approve their respective resolutions.
Respectfully submitted,
David A. B =rger /j - -- Zenda James
Deputy City Manag
FOi3NAREED
Finance Director
5
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 99 -7
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A SERIES OF REVENUE BONDS
IN THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $10,000,000 TO
FINANCE THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND
EQUIPPING OF VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ALAMEDA POINT (THE
FORMER ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION) AND TO FINANCE THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND EQUIPPING OF VARIOUS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND APPROVING
RELATED DOCUMENTS AND OFFICIAL ACTIONS
RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors (the "Board ") of the Alameda Public Financing
Authority (the " Authority" ), as follows:
WHEREAS, the Authority is a joint exercise of powers authority duly organized and existing
under and pursuant to that certain Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated March 17, 1992, by and
between the City of Alameda (the " City ") and the City of Alameda Community Improvement
Commission (the "Commission" and, with the City, the "Members "), and under the provisions of
Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
California Government Code (the " Act" ), and is authorized pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with
section 6584) of the Act (the "Bond Law ") to borrow money for the purpose of financing the acquisition
of bonds, notes and other obligations of, or for the purpose of making loans to, public entities, including
the Members, and to provide financing for public capital improvements of public entities, including the
Members; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of providing funds to finance the acquisition, construction,
installation and equipping of various capital improvements to Alameda Point (the former Alameda Naval
Air Station) and to finance the acquisition, construction, installation and equipping of various capital
improvements for the City of Alameda (the "Improvements "), the Authority has determined to issue its
Alameda Public Financing Authority Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds, 1999 Series A (Alameda
0 Point and City of Alameda Improvement Project), in the aggregate principal amount of not -to- exceed
$10,000,000 (the "Bonds" ); and
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the repayment of the Bonds, the Authority will pledge
certain revenues, substantially derived from rentals paid to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (" ARRA ") for certain land, buildings, fixtures and equipment leased by ARRA to certain
subtenants (the " Subtenant Rentals"), which rentals have been assigned by ARRA to the City and which
have been further assigned by the City to the Authority, which revenues will be calculated to be
sufficient to enable the Authority to pay the principal of and interest and premium (if any) on the Bonds
when due and payable; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under the Bond Law, and an Indenture of Trust (the
"Indenture" ), by and between the Authority and a trustee bank to be selected by competitive process (the
" Trustee" ); and
WHEREAS, the Board has duly considered such transactions and wishes at this time to approve
said transactions in the public interests of the Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED and DETERMINED, as follows:
Section 1. Issuance of Bonds; Approval of Indenture. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance
of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $10,000,000 under and pursuant to the
Bond Law and the Indenture, for the purpose of providing funds to enable the Authority to finance the
Improvements. The Board hereby approves the Indenture in substantially the form on file with the
Secretary together with any changes therein or additions thereto approved by the Executive Director or
the Treasurer, whose execution thereof shall be conclusive evidence of such approval. The Executive
Director or the Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute, and the Secretary is hereby
authorized and directed to attest, the Indenture for and in the name of the Authority. The Board hereby
authorizes the delivery and performance of the Indenture.
Section 2. Approval of Related Financing Documents. The Board hereby approves each of the
following agreements required to implement the financing plan to be accomplished by the Bonds, in
substantially the respective forms on file with the Secretary together with any changes therein or
additions thereto approved by the Executive Director or the Treasurer, whose execution thereof shall be
conclusive evidence of such approval.
(a) an assignment agreement, by and between the City and the Authority, pursuant to which the
City will assign the Subtenant Rentals (previously assigned by ARRA to the City) to the Authority;
(b) a reimbursement agreement, by and between the Authority and Union Bank of California,
N.A., as issuer of a direct pay letter of credit securing the payment of principal of and interest on the
Bonds and providing a liquidity facility for Bonds tendered but not remarketed, including the
acknowledgment of State Teachers' Retirement System, as confirming bank; and
(c) a remarketing agreement, by and between the Authority and a remarketing agent for the
Bonds to be selected by competitive process.
The Executive Director or the Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed for and in the name
and on behalf of the Authority to execute, and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to attest
and affix the seal of the Authority to, the final form of each of the foregoing agreements. The Board
hereby authorizes the delivery and performance of the foregoing agreements.
Section 3. Sale of Bonds. The Board hereby approves the negotiated sale of the Bonds to an
underwriting firm to be selected by competitive process(the "Underwriter ") pursuant to the terms and
conditions set forth in a bond purchase contract, by and between the Underwriter and the Authority (the
"Purchase Contract "), substantially in the form on file with the Secretary, together with any additions
thereto or changes therein as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the Executive Director or the
Treasurer, whose execution thereof shall be conclusive evidence of such approval, so long as the
principal amount of Bonds sold does not exceed $10,000,000 and so long as the Underwriter's discount
for the Bonds does not exceed 1%. The Executive Director or the Treasurer is hereby authorized and
directed for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority to execute the final form of Purchase
Contract. The Board hereby authorizes the delivery and performance of the Purchase Contract.
Section 4. Official Statement. The Board hereby approves, and hereby deems nearly final within
the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the preliminary official statement
describing the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement ") in substantially the form on file with the
Secretary. The Executive Director or the Treasurer is hereby authorized to execute an appropriate
certificate stating the Board's determination that the Preliminary Official Statement has been deemed
nearly final within the meaning of such Rule. Distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement by the
Underwriter in connection with the sale of the Bonds is hereby approved. The Executive Director or the
Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to approve any changes in or additions to a final form of
official statement (the "Final Official Statement"), and the execution thereof by an authorized officer of
the Authority shall be conclusive evidence of approval of any such changes and additions. The Board
hereby authorizes the distribution of the Final Official Statement by the Underwriter. The Final Official
Statement shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the Authority by the Executive Director or the
Treasurer.
Section S. Official Actions. The Executive Director, the Treasurer, the Secretary and any and all
other officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of
the Authority, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, including execution and delivery of
any and all assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, instruments of
-2-
conveyance, warrants and other documents, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or
advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance and sale of the Bonds as described herein.
Whenever in this resolution any officer of the Authority is authorized to execute or countersign any
document or take any action, such execution, countersigning or action may be taken on behalf of such
officer by any person designated by such officer to act on his or her behalf in the case such officer shall
be absent or unavailable.
Section G. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage
and adoption.
* * * * * * * * * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Board of Directors of the Alameda Public Financing Authority in special
meeting assembled on the 17th day of. August , 1999, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Boardmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and
Chair Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
AB SENT.:-- None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said
Authority this 18th day of August , 1999.
Si?64,1, Wci
Diane Felsch, Secretary
Alameda Public Financing Authority