1994-10-05 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber (2nd Floor)
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA
Wednesday, October 5, 1994
5:30 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and
upon recognition by the Chair, approach the
rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited
to three (3) minutes per item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing
and only a summary of pertinent points presented
verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited
during Authority meetings.
1.
ROLL CALL
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 7, 1994.
AGENDA ITEMS
A. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the
AEG Interim Reuse Proposal to Refurbish Bay Area Rapid Transit
District's (BART) Rail Cars at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and
Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate with the U.S. Navy
and AEG Concerning Lease Rates, Terms and Conditions in the Event
AEG is Awarded the Contract by BART.
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Support of an
Amendment to the Avigation Easement at the 7th Street Marine Terminal
to Accommodate the Addition of an Articulated Boom Crane for Port of
Oakland Use and Authorization to Communicate this Determination to the
Port of Oakland and Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda.
REPORTS
A. Oral Report from Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on
Reuse Authority Staff Activities.
B. Oral Report from Proponents of Science City/ACET Regarding the Status
of Their. Planning Studies/Business Plans.
C. Oral Report from the A' ' • Planning Consultant (John Petrovsky, EDAW)
Regarding the Reconnaissance Phase Report (Administrative Draft).
D. Oral Report from Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on
McKinney Act/Homeless Issues.
E. Oral Report from Chair of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group
(BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities.
F. Oral Report from Assistant General Counsel Regarding Voting Procedures
for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
G. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
IV. 0
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.)
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
W. ADJOU ' MENT
MINUTES
OF T
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
•
Wednesday, September 7, 1994
5:30 p.m.
The meeting convened at 5:32.p.m. with Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr. presiding.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmember Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Proxy for
Councilman Arnerich, Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Mayor Ellen
Corbett, City of San Leandro; Mr. Mark Friedman, Aide to Supervisor Don
Perata, District 3; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice-
Mayor Richard Roth, City of Alameda; Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson, District
Director, 9th Congressional District; Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr.,
City of Alameda. Absent: Oakland City Councilmember Dezie Woods-
Jones. (Mr. Mark Friedman, Aide to Supervisor Don Perata arrived at
5:35 p.m.; Mayor Ellen Corbett of San Leandro arrived at 5:39 p.m.;
Barry Cromartie, a non-voting representative for Oakland Mayor Harris'
Proxy Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones arrived at 5:45 p.m.) Also
present: Non-Voting, Ex-officio Proxy Member, Gail Greely, Alameda
Unified School District.
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 8, 1994
Councilmember Karin Lucas moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 8,
1994. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Richard Roth and carried by a unanimous
voice vote.
II. AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter from the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee Requesting
that the Committee, BCDC, and MTC Commit to Reconsideration of the Port Priority
Designation Decision on Naval Air Station Alameda Property After the Community Reuse
Plan is Completed.
Mr. Dave Louk, representing Executive Director Don Parker, reported that currently Naval
Air Station (NAS) Alameda carries a port priority designation that covers the entire base.
When the military leaves the base, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) has first right of refusal with the port priority designation. On
September 13, 1994, the port priority designation will be removed from all of the base,
except for the Northwest corner. Staff believes that this would be advantageous to the reuse
and redevelopment of the base because it removes, except for the Northwest corner, the port
priority designation which restricts the uses allowable on the base. Staff recommends that
the ARRA agree with the Seaport Advisory Commission's findings, and asks that when the
Reuse Plan is completed in December of 1995, the Seaport Advisory Commission of BCDC
revisit the issue of the Northwest corner. This would be in conjunction with all of the other
requests for land use in Alameda including all of the property conveyances and McKinney
requests.
Speakers:
Mr. Vella Kiisk of the Military Base Conversion Consultants stated the Seaport Plan can
only be changed every five (5) years when it comes before the Seaport Planning
Commission and warned the Executive Director to be very careful about the Seaport Plan
because it is a two edged sword. He stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation
to delete it from the Seaport Plan completely. He added that by deleting it from the Seaport
Plan now does not mean that a port or container terminal cannot be done in the future;
however, once it is in the Seaport Plan, it is cast in stone.
Chair Withrow asked Mr. Louk that by not strongly opposing the seaport designation at this
time, whether the Authority is up to a five year hiatus?
Mr. Louk stated that there have been indications by their staff that this issue can be revisited
in December of 1995, and agreed that in the past there have been five year interval
reviews.
Chair Withrow asked Mr. Louk if this commitment to revisit the issue of the Northwest
corner in December, 1995, could be obtained in writing because he would feel more
comfortable if it was in writing. Mr. Louk agreed to look into the possibility of obtaining
this commitment in writing.
Mr. Louk commented that once an area is designated as a port, it is very difficult o get it
removed and that the time to fight it is now.
Chair Withrow asked why we were not taking a stronger position in terms of addressing the
removal of the designation for all of NAS, and hopefully getting some congressional backing
as opposed to waiting until the Reuse Plan is in place to remove the designation on the
Northwest corner.
Mr. Louk reported that it was staffs' belief that this is the best deal that could be struck at
this time with the majority of the Naval Air Station having the port priority designation
removed. It gives the Seaport Advisory Commission something to hang on to and is a
concensus building issue, at least until December of 1995, when it can be revisited. Also,
it will give the Reuse Authority time to better articulate the argument against seaport reuse
with scientific evidence on the cost of the dredging, the removal of the spoils, and the Reuse
Plan would be in place which could show the economic non-viability of the $120M bridge
which Korve said is possible.
Chair Withrow requested that the recommendation be changed to be subject to a guarantee
by BCDC staff that the port priority designation for the Northwest corner be reviewed in
December, 1995.
Mr. Louk stated that staff would do whatever the Reuse Authority Members requested, but
could not predict whether the Seaport Advisory Commission would accept the request.
Vice-Mayor Roth stated that his concern was that the seaport designation has been requested
to be completely removed immediately. He asked how a Reuse Plan could be developed
that doesn't address the 200 acres when it is not known if planning is possible for the 200
acres. He agreed that it may be 4-5 years before the property is actually usable, but in the
development of the reuse plan the 200 acres is a whole section of the Naval Air Station that
cannot be planned for.
Chair Withrow stated that it is more than just the future of the 200 acres, but rather all of
the access issues with respect to movement of trucks and the environmental aspects that go
along with being a port town. This casts a swathe far outside of 200 acres and could well
have an impact on the kind of industrial business development that could be recruited with
the concern that the traffic channels currently present are limited. This is a concern because
of future traffic impacts.
Councilmember Appezzato stated that he heard only negatives and did not understand the
rush or the sense of urgency to remove the port designation from this 198 acres. He stated
that there is no alternative development in site and will be 2-1/2 to 3 years before the air
station will close. He said that he could support the staff proposal for the deletion of the
port priority designation from NAS except for this 200 acres because this is a regional
determination and that the Authority needs to think regionally - not parochially. He stated
that there is plenty of time to remove this 200 acres once a development plan is in effect.
He reported that he strongly opposed the removal of the port designation from the Naval
Supply Annex for the same reasons and added that the issue needs to be addressed from a
regional perspective. The City of Alameda is surrounded by the Port of Oakland and the
City of Oakland, with the airport to the south, the seaport to the east, and the City of
Oakland on the other side. He stated that he was not prepared to remove any potential or
future reuse opportunities at this time. In 1995, when the Plan is completed and findings
are that the land can better be utilized than having a port designation, then he would support
it. He concluded by stating that there was no doubt in his mind that the 1/3 of the island
cannot be developed without improved access and transportation routes, but is not
advocating railroads and truck traffic all over 1/3 of the island. However, development
B
without improved access and transportation, regardless of what you put on the base, will be
necessary. There will have to be some kind of bridge or improved access. To revisit it in
a 1-1/2 years has his support as long as it is done forcibly or arguably against BCDC.
Chair Withrow stated that the flag comes down on the base in April of 1997, which is 2-1/2
years. He assured everyone that Alameda would not sit idle, waiting for the Navy to pull
out and the economic impact to occur or allow a ghost town to develop on the base. It is
the intent of the Authority to pursue planning ahead of time and to move in on the base on
an interim leasing basis so that a light on the base can be maintained proceeding up through
the 2-1/2 years. He added that not everyone in the City of Alameda is in favor of putting
another access on to this island, and is an issue that the citizens should have to vote on. It
is a controversial issue which could change the island of Alameda.
Mark Friedman moved that the Authority support the staff recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Councilmember Lucas.
Vice-Mayor Roth made a substitute motion that the Reuse Authority accept the staff
recommendation with the exception that the 198 acres be removed immediately from the
seaport designation. Chair Withrow seconded the motion and requested a roll call vote.
The motion was defeated by the following roll call vote: Ayes: (3): Lucas, Roth, Withrow;
Nayes: (4): Appezzato, Arnerich, Corbett, Friedman; Abstentions: (1): Swanson.
Chair Withrow requested that the Assistant General Counsel give clarification with respect
to the significance of this issue and land utilization and the number of members of the
Alameda City Council that are required.
Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin reported that the Joint Powers Agreement requires
the vote of five members of the Governing Body, including three members of the Alameda
City Council to take action on the adoption of a Community Reuse Plan, formation of a
redevelopment district, adoption of any plan or land use proposal in contradiction with the
City's land use plan, (which does not apply here), delegation of authority to another body,
transfer of any real or personal property, adoption of or amendment of any bylaws,
termination of the agreement, or selection of the Chairperson. She reported that this issue
requires only a majority vote of the Members of the Governing Body and does not require
a special vote of the Authority.
Chair Withrow then returned to the original motion and called for votes. The motion was
carried with (6) ayes and (2) nayes.
Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Participate in a Joint Letter to be Sent to the Navy Requesting a Delay in the
Implementation of the McKinney Process to Provide an Opportunity to Incorporate Homeless
Interests Into the Community Reuse Planning Process.
4
Mr. Louk reported that recently there has been much interest in the McKinney Act and how
it will affect the Reuse Plan. This interest has been local, regional and federal. Don
Parker, Senator Dellum's office, the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission,
the City of Alameda, and the homeless providers are all anxiously waiting to see what, if
any, legislation is going to come out of Washington, D.C. In the event that something is
not forthcoming from Washington, D.C., all of these groups have felt that they need to go
forward with some individual actions, that they cannot get the job done unless they have
some type of cohesion and concensus to work together. There are competing interests in
the McKinney Act process, and much work has been put together to try to get all of the
different groups to come together to see if they cannot work out a cohesive effort. The joint
letter represents a cooperative effort to incorporate homeless interests into the community
reuse planning process. The letter outlines that the homeless providers will work with the
Reuse Authority, and the Reuse Authority will take into consideration the necessity to
provide for homeless in the reuse planning process, and together they agree to request a
delay in the McKinney Act until the Reuse Plan is complete. Mr. Louk added that the letter
is scheduled to go before the EBCRC on Thursday, September 8, 1994.
Mark Friedman stated that all of the Members realize that the homeless issue and the
current provisions of the McKinney Act have among them the most potential areas of
conflict for the whole reuse planning process and that the leadership shown by
Congressman Dellum's office in trying to bring everyone together to come up with a
coordinated plan has been much appreciated. He added that if the Authority agrees to
endorse this letter and a similar endorsement is received from the EBCRC, the Authority
will be well along the way to buying the time needed to complete the process of bringing
all of the parties together so endless rounds of litigation, conflict, and contention, which will
hamper all of the reuse efforts, can be avoided. The letter is very carefully worded, and
will be a benefit towards making sure that the process can continue of trying to work out
some of these things in an amiable manner.
Vice-Mayor Roth stated that at Senator Feinstein's workshop, she seemed to think that there
should be a reuse plan in place before any of the entitlements are done. He added that he
supported the letter because it is going to the Navy, but recommended that Senator Feinstein
be copied on the letter. Senator Feinstein also requested that infoimation be supplied by the
Authority as to what we think should be in the bill.
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that a lot of good work had been done so far by all of the staffs
involved. The spirit and principles represented in the letter go a long way to showing the
kind of cooperation necessary for the community to scale this hurdle which has been a
serious impediment to reuse planning in other areas of the country. He added that he
supports the signature of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority on the letter.
The Reuse Planning Budget has been augmented to include a staff position that will be
working along with the homeless during reuse planning and the East Bay Conversion and
Reinvestment Commission attempting to get a regional person to work with the homeless
from that side.
Chair Withrow requested that staff verify that the addressees were appropriate from a
protocol standpoint. He also recommended that the signees be changed to include the Chair
of the Reuse Authority, the Mayor of Oakland, the Chair of the EBCRC, and Supervisor
Campbell from the County with Congressman Dellums being the lead signature.
Proxy DeWitt stated that he endorsed the proposed letter before the Authority because it
gives the homeless providers an opportunity to incorporate homeless interests into the Reuse
Plan when it is being developed by the community.
Vice -Chair Swanson moved that the Reuse Authority participate in the joint letter to the
Navy. Mayor Corbett seconded the motion which was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Conversion and Reuse Budget Submittal to the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA).
Mr. Louk reported the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority staff has been meeting
extensively with the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to work out the details of the
budget, and that the final approval is not far off. He stated that the budget represents a very
complete Reuse and Redevelopment Plan. Some of the reuse planning budgets from other
cities are not in line with Alameda's; however, these other Reuse and Redevelopment plans
that have been developed have not been as complete as what the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority is developing. The budget this year from OEA will be
approximately $1.1M.
Vice -Chair Swanson questioned the staff fringe benefits and what they included.
Mr. Louk reported that the benefits package includes paid vacation, sick leave, deferred
compensation, and a percentage taken from the fringe benefits is used to pay the taxes that
are normally paid by the employer.
Vice -Chair Swanson stated that the reason he raised the question was because of the
temporary nature of the project, and also because it represents perhaps several years of an
employee's work life. Hopefully the fringe benefits would include health benefits as well
as some sort of retirement or deferred compensation so as to not penalize employees for
the temporary status of their job.
Mr. Louk reported that the benefits are chosen by each individual employee based on their
own personal needs, i.e., cafeteria style benefits.
Vice -Chair Swanson stated that many times when organizations are begun like the Reuse
Authority, it is two years down the line before someone realizes that employees have
invested the time, but have not had adequate benefits.
6
Dave MacKinnon of OEA stated that OEA has no specific rules about what kind of fringe
benefits are offered, only a maximum amount in dollars. If something more than that is
desired, it must come from another source.
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he feels that the Reuse Authority should be as aggressive
as possible with the benefits and retirement package. He encouraged staff to take a look
at the benefits currently offered so that if employees work a number of years for the ARRA,
they are compensated appropriately.
Chair Withrow stated that we are looking at a cap of subsidized dollar input from OEA for
benefits, and that the City of Alameda could kick in the extra so that benefits are consistent.
He added that the ARRA would not want the employees of the Authority to be inconsistent
in terms of the benefits package compared to the balance of the City staff.
Mr. Louk reported that he did not feel that there would be any surprises from OEA, and
that perhaps Mr. MacKinnon of OEA would like to comment.
Dave MacKinnon stated that he could not commit for OEA; however, he stated that he and
the staff of the Reuse Authority had worked very hard on the draft, and redefining the
consultant's work scope to fit for comparative purposes with other community's reuse
planning budget. He added that OEA was rather surprised by the high amount of the grant
request; however, when broken down into generalized planning and more detailed
investigation planning it is easier to understand Alameda's budget compared to other base
reuse budgets. He added that he was very happy with the form of the budget document, and
that all of the small details had been worked out.
Mark Friedman requested information on MBE/WBE from members of the EDAW
consultant team.
Mr. Louk stated that the consultant contract was signed on August 22, 1994, and is
retroactive to July 15, 1994. The full team has changed to include some local consultants.
The architectural consultant originally aligned with EDAW was dropped, and a local firm,
Witt ler, Brochier, & Associates has joined the team to cover the architectural aspect.
Additionally, McClaren-Hart, a local environmental firm, has been added and Gabriel Roche
who is involved with the homeless will be a part of the team, is also local. Minority
participation (MBE/WBE) includes Lamphier & Associates, Zander & Associates, Baseline
Environmental, Roche, St. Patrick's Copy Warehouse, Northridge Group, Kitahata
Associates, YEI Engineers, Inc., and Bay Area Economics.
Mark Friedman requested information regarding the accounting services of $28,200, and
whether it included audit services.
Mr. Louk stated that the amount includes audit services. He then thanked Julie Mantrom
and Elizabeth Brydon for completing the budget on time and in the form required by ()EA.
Councilmember Lucas asked Mr. Louk what he meant when he referred to "local"
contractors.
Mr. Louk stated that the term "local" indicates the firm is in Alameda County. He added
that McClaren-Hart is in Alameda and some of the principles of other "local" firms live in
Alameda, though their film may be located in Oakland, such as Witt ler Brochier.
Chair Withrow requested that, in the future, when referring to local, it be broken down into
local/Alameda, local/Oakland, local/etc. within Alameda County.
Vice-Chair Swanson moved that the budget be approved. The motion was seconded by
Vice-Mayor Roth and carried unanimously by a voice vote.
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change to Bylaws
Allowing Members of the Governing Body of the AlamMa Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority to Receive Meeting Compensation.
Mr. Louk reported that it is the intent of staff, if possible, to provide each Member of the
Governing Body with $100 for attendance per meeting. Funding is not currently available
to provide for this, and OEA would not approve it as an expense. The recommendation of
the staff is that the ARRA should adopt an amendment to the bylaws allowing this to occur,
if additional funding is developed.
Councilmember Appezzato stated that he would not support the change.
Vice-Mayor Roth stated that, as a City Council Member, he is an employee of the City, and
requested that his role as a Member of the Authority be clarified.
Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin stated that Members are not considered employees,
but as officers of the Reuse Authority.
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he would support the change; however, in the case of
himself and his proxy, they would have to get a ruling from the House Ethics Committee
before any compensation could be received and the compensation would probably have to
be deferred. However, the provision should be there as there are Members of the
Authority and proxies that are serving where compensation may be necessary.
Proxy DeWitt stated that he supported the proposal regarding compensation and that Mr.
Arnerich also supports it.
Vice-Chair Roth moved for approval of the proposed change to the bylaws allowing
members to receive meeting compensation. Vice-Chair Swanson seconded the motion and
was carried with (6) ayes, (1) naye and (1) abstention.
8
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change to Bylaws
Appointing a Representative of the Alameda Unified School District to the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority as a Non-Voting, Ex-officio Member, Specifically, the
President of the Board of Education of the Alameda Unified School District with One Non-
Voting Proxy to be the Vice President of the Alameda Unified School District.
Councilmember Lucas moved to approve the recommendation. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Corbett and carried by (7) ayes and (1) naye.
F. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Procedure for Formation of ARRA Subcommittees.
Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin reported that this item was put on the agenda on an
on-going basis to allow the Members to discuss and act, if necessary, on subcommittees.
Mr. Louk reported that this item was carried from the last agenda to the current agenda at
the request of Councilmember Lucas in the event that discussion and action was required
to form subcommittees.
III. ORAL REPORTS
A. Joint Presentation by the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department, Alameda
Unified School District, and East Bay Regional Park District on Their Beneficial Conveyance
Proposal for Alameda Naval Air Station.
Mr. Louk reported that the joint proposal is composed of the East Bay Regional Park
District, the Alameda Unified School District, and the City of Alameda's Recreation and
Park Department. This is one of four public benefit conveyances which have been received
by the Reuse Authority thus far for property at the Alameda Naval Air Station. This joint
proposal was presented to the BRAG earlier this year where it received a favorable
endorsement, and was presented to the City Council receiving another favorable
endorsement. The agencies comprising this joint proposal have been working very closely
with staff of the Reuse Authority to ensure that the proposal can fit in and complement the
final Reuse Plan. When the joint proposal's expression of interest was submitted, one of
the things required by the Navy was a date to submit the formal application for a public
benefit conveyance. The date chosen was December 1995, the date when the Reuse and
Redevelopment Plan will be completed. They explained to the Navy that they did not want
to submit a formal application until it can be done in conjunction with the Reuse Plan.
Ms. Ardella Daily from the Alameda Unified School District, Ms. Carolyn Knudsen from
City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department and Mr. Mike Anderson of the East Bay
Regional Park District made brief presentations on the proposal received by the ARRA.
B. Oral Report from Chairman of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisoty Group (BRAG) Updating
the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities.
Mr. Lee Perez, Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group, reported that the BRAG, which
advises the Alameda City Council, requested that a BRAG update be included on the Reuse
Authority agenda in order to introduce to the Reuse Authority the very vital group of
volunteers in the City of Alameda that are working very hard on base conversion. The
BRAG has been in existence for approximately one year and some of the accomplishments
of the BRAG in this past year have been: a community forum was held in February and
BRAG is in the process of conducting another one on October 8. He reported that BRAG
should be the public participation forum for the City of Alameda. There are 11 BRAG
Subcommittees that are working on eleven different general areas that hopefully cover the
full continuum of the life experience as it will be impacted by the closure of the base. In
doing this, a tremendous amount of data has been collected. The upcoming community
meeting will allow the BRAG to once again go back to the community and give a report
card of what the BRAG has done, is involved in, and questions still outstanding. Some of
the more specific items-that the BRAG is involved in are the specific proposals which have
been made thus far. One proposal, which seems rather exciting, is the AEG Proposal for
the interim leasing for the refurbishment of BART cars, which would create 100-150 jobs
and the homeless interests. Mr. Perez commended Ms. Alice Garvin, Chair of the Housing
Subcommittee for all of her long hours working on this particular issue. Other issues
before the BRAG have been the public conveyance process and the joint proposal by the
Alameda Unified School District, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the City of
Alameda Recreation and Parks Department, and the Pan Pacific educational institute
Proposal. Mr. Perez concluded by stating that the BRAG continues to enjoy very high
interest from the community, and expects to increase this interest to ensure that when the
final Reuse Plan is completed, the community can say "we have been involved, we may not
have agreed, but we have had our say".
Mayor Corbett asked Mr. Perez for details on the public Town Meeting. Mr. Perez
reported that it would be held on October 8, 9:00 a.m., buses will be ready at the Officer's
Club for a guided tour, and afterwards have a "workshop". (Since the time of this meeting,
this date has been changed to Saturday, October 29 at Woodstock Elementary School.)
C. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority.
Mr. Louk reported the next agenda will include the AEG proposal as mentioned by Mr.
Perez, a McKinney Act update, and a request by the Port of Oakland to the Navy to
modify the aviation easement for Runway 13 to install a large crane in the Port which would
preclude precision approaches to Runway 13 but not non-precious approaches. The aviation
easement currently exists between the military and the Port of Oakland and does not exist
at all after the property is transferred. Also, a command on base called "The Navy Disease
Vector Ecology and Control Center" (about 10,000 sq. ft. and 15 employees) has a new
home which will not be ready when the base closes requesting to stay on the base for
approximately seven months after it is closed. Finally, the Gun Test Facility will appear
on the next agenda. Naval Air System Command's lawyers have said that the Gun Test
10
Facility cannot stay at NAS and transfer the work load from Concord. More DoD lawyers
are reviewing it again with the hopes that they will overturn the decision. The result should
be available at the next meeting. They are currently planning on transferring the workload
to China Lake.
Chair Withrow asked Vice-Chair Swanson for some help with the Gun Test Facility as it
involves job retention.
Vice-Chair Swanson requested a briefing paper from Mr. Louk on this issue, and Mr. Louk
agreed that he could provide this for Mr. Swanson.
Vice-Mayor Roth suggested that Mr. Louk check with the Airport Land Use Commission
regarding the crane and runway item before bringing it to the Authority.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Speakers:
Mr. Neil Patrick Sweeney, a citizen of Alameda, requested that the Authority create an organized
computer information data bank of every activity and key personnel to help anyone design
participation recommendations to support base conversion.
Mr. Richard Neve lin, a Committee member, discussed the topic of the Reuse Authority establishing
more committees and described it as inappropriate because of the number of subcommittees already
in existence. Mr. Neve lin suggested perhaps some of the BRAG subcommittees could serve the
Authority rather than forming their own subcommittees. He also suggested a developed shared use
of the facilities for model airplane flying on the Naval Air Station.
Mr. Bill Smith of Base Commercialization Bureau, recommended that for environmental purposes,
the military could be asked to ask for the previous historical usage of every square foot of property
on the base.
Mr. Herb Severns, citizen of Alameda, asked Vice-Chair Swanson for status information on the
electric car business interested in space on NAS Alameda. Mr. Swanson gave Mr. Severns an
update.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Vice-Chair Swanson reported that the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission is
involved in an effort to develop a promotional brochure for the workers at NAS Alameda. The
idea is to make 10,000 four-color brochures to be mailed out to industry containing very positive
information regarding the talent of the workers at the base, emphasizing the kinds of work that they
11
have been doing, the history of the base, and the fact that it has been a profitable base. An
advertising agency is working with the Commission in putting together the brochure. The brochure
would also offer a computer disk which would give an employer information regarding particular
employees, their skills, etc. Workers from the base felt very encouraged by the fact that someone
was trying to put together such a brochure.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Withrow adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
l
Elizabeth Brydon
Secretary
•
12
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE: September 27, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker
Executive Director
SUBJ:
Background:
Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the AEG
Interim Reuse Proposal to Refurbish Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District's
Railcars at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and Authorization for the Executive
Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to
Negotiate with the U.S. Navy and AEG Concerning Lease Rates, Terms and
Conditions in the Event AEG is Awarded the Contract by BART
AEG submitted their "Best and Final Offer" (BFO) to BART on September 27, 1994.
This BFO is based on use of facilities at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda on anticipated lease
rates. AEG has a backup site in Richmond where the work can be performed in the event AEG
wins the contract, and is unable to negotiate favorable lease rates at NAS.
Discussion/Analysis:
AEG is interested in using Buildings 11 and 400 for its proposed Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) railcar rehabilitation operation. They have stated that they need approximately 160,000
square feet of floor space including approximately 15 offices on the mezzanine level of Building
11. In addition, AEG would use the paint facility and corrosion control facility two to three
times a week as a customer rather than as an operator of these facilities.
AEG anticipates signing a contract in the November/December 1994 timeframe, and
occupying the spaces in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 1995. AEG will be requesting a seven-year
lease. Options would depend on the volume of future railcar rehabilitation activity and contract
extensions due to slowdowns or changes in BART project funding. AEG will hire between 100
and 150 semi-skilled and skilled workers at this site if they win the BART contract. Many
NADEP personnel are qualified to compete for these jobs.
Financial Impact/Budget Considerations:
Negotiation with AEG on the use of facilities at NAS Alameda will have no impact on
existing Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) funding
Honorable Members of the September 27, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse the
proposal by AEG to perform, on an interim reuse basis, refurbishment of BART railcars at NAS
Alameda. Additionally, staff recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
authorize its Executive Director to negotiate with the U.S. Navy and AEG lease rates, terms and
conditions of a master lease and sublease, respectively, for AEG to occupy Buildings 11 and 400
at NAS Alameda in the event AEG is awarded the contract by BART.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP/DL/eb
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE: September 27, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker
EXecutive Director
SUBJ:
Background:
Report from the Executive Director Recommending Support of an Amendment to
the Avigation Easement at the 7th Street Marine Terminal to Accommodate the
Addition of an Articulated Boom Crane for Port of Oakland Use and
Authorization to Communicate this Determination to the Port of Oakland and
Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda
The Port of Oakland has requested Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda's support for a
request to modify the current avigation easement over the 7th Street Marine Terminal to permit
installation of a new container crane. NAS Alameda requested an input on this matter from the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). The articulated boom crane would
become an obstacle to airspace affecting the NAS Alameda airfield in July 1996.
Airspace surrounding NAS Alameda currently has a number of avigation easement
modifications. These easements are bilateral agreements reached between the j Port of Oakland
and the Federal Government in effect for fifty years from 1969 or until the abandonment of the
use of the runways by the Federal Government. These easements will cease when the Navy
departs and any future easements would have to be negotiated with the Port of Oakland and the
operator of the airport. The Navy has asked for input from the ARRA on this matter in the spirit
of cooperation with base closure, even though this agreement is solely between the Federal
Government and the Port of Oakland.
Discussion/Analysis:
Runway 13 is 8,000 feet long and 200 feet wide and oriented from the northwest to the
southeast. This runway is used approximately 10 - 15% of the time when the wind is from the
south - southeast. The new crane with a maximum height of 228 feet would degrade the
airfield's precision instrument approach landing capability on Runway 13. Precision instrument
approaches are designed to allow aircraft to land in bad weather The Navy has indicated that
the degradation of precision instrument approach capability on Runway 13 would be acceptable
to them until closure of the base.
Honorable Members of the September 27, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
The specific effects of the new crane requested by the Port of Oakland on potential
airfield reuse are:
1) Loss of Precision Approach to Runway 13
Obstacle clearance required for the precision approach to Runway 13 would
no longer exist. Raising the glideslope angle, displacing landing threshold or
raising the decision height are options to retaining a precision approach on
Runway 13, but may not be feasible for certain aircraft categories. Raising the
glideslope angle increases the rate of descent for landing aircraft. This results in
requiring a lower landing weight for aircraft and increases the stress on the
airframe. This could preclude some aircraft from landing. Displacing the landing
threshold effectively shortens the length of the runway. Decision height is the
minimum altitude the aircraft can descend to without visually acquiring the
runway. Raising the decision height would change the minimum weather
requirements. The loss of a precision approach to Runway 13 is not considered
significant since this runway is seldom used due to prevailing winds. If the
airfield was retained in the final reuse plan and an aircraft was unable to land due
to bad weather and the lack of a precision approach, aircraft could divert to
another airfield and return to Alameda when the weather improves.
2) Adverse Impact on the Non-Precision Approach to Runway 13
Non-precision approaches are designed to allow aircraft to land in adverse
weather, but not as adverse as is allowed by precision approaches. The Minimum
Descent Altitude (MDA) for the TACAN approach to Runway 13 would have to
be raised from 500 to 600 feet. The MDA is the minimum altitude the aircraft is
allowed to descend to without visually acquiring the airfield. This isn't considered
a significant adverse impact for the same reasons listed in paragraph number 1
above.
3) Increased Climb Gradient on One Runway 31 Standard Instrument Departure
The BRIDGE-7 Standard Instrument Departure would increase from 288
feet per mile to 322 feet per mile. The increased climb gradient would preclude
the takeoff on Runway 31 of very heavy aircraft requiring a slow climb to clear
obstacles. This isn't considered a significant adverse impact due to the presence
of existing cranes which already create hazardous obstructions to very heavy
aircraft.
Honorable Members of the September 27, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
Existing obstructions within the approach area of Runway 13 are already significant and
would result in a "hazard" determination by the Federal Aviation Administration if the airfield
is converted to civilian use. This would preclude the use of an Instrument Landing System (ILS)
to Runway 13. The Port's proposed crane doesn't violate the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 77 20:1 slope required for general utility aircraft (12,500 pounds or less) to continue
to land with Visual Flight Rules (VFR) on Runway 13.
If the Port is not permitted to install the articulated boom crane, they will have to acquire
a more expensive "A" frame crane. Installation of the "A" frame crane would require extensive
rework of the wharf at expense in excess of $1.6 million. The Port is anxious to receive a reply
to their request due to the long lead time (approximately two years) to acquire a crane of this
type.
Retention of the airfield hasn't reached a final decision through the reuse planing process.
However, the report by the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC)
consultant, P&D Aviation, found there is no favorable economic market for civilian reuse of the
airfield at NAS Alameda. If the airfield were retained, the most likely uses would be aircraft
maintenance, refurbishment and training. Loss of the precision approach to Runway 13 would
not be crucial to the use of the airfield for these uses. Loss of precision approaches would have
a significant passenger or cargo use impact because it could adversely affect scheduled arrival and
departure times.
Financial Impact/Budget Consideration:
The addition of an articulated crane at the 7th Street Marine Terminal will have no impact
on existing ARRA funding.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the ARRA support an amendment to the avigation easement at the
7th Street Marine Terminal to accommodate the addition of an articulated boom crane for Port
of Oakland use. Staff further recommends that the ARRA direct the Executive Director to
communicate the ARRA's determination to both the Port of Oakland and to NAS Alameda.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP/DL/eb
Attachment: Preliminary Request to Amend Avigation Easement at 7th St. Marine Terminal
PRELIMINARY REQUEST
To Amend Avigation Easement at 7th Street Marine Terminal
August 11, 1994
A. SUMMARY
The Port of Oakland (Port) desires to install a new
container crane at its 7th Street Marine Terminal,
Berth 35, which lies beneath the Runway 31/13
approach/departure clearance surface (military fan) of
Alameda Naval Air Station (ANAS). The new crane is
proposed to be operational by July 31, 1996. It is the
Port's understanding that ANAS is scheduled for closure
by late 1996 or 1997.
It is proposed that while servicing ships the new crane
would be positioned along the wharf east of extended
Runway 31/13 centerline with its boom horizontal. When
not servicing ships, the crane would be stowed as far
east as possible on Berth 35, with its boom retracted.
Because the new crane would be taller than existing
cranes at 7th Street Terminal, a second amendment would
be required to Avigation Easement NF(R)-6758, granted
to the U.S. Government by the City of Oakland April 8,
1969, and first amended January 26, 1988.
This "Preliminary Request," including Exhibits A-1
through E, is intended to provide ANAS the information
needed to perform a Terminal Instrument Procedures
(TERPS) evaluation to determine whether, and under what
conditions, the proposed new crane could be safely
accommodated by ANAS operations at Runway 31/13.
Upon receiving preliminary approval from ANAS, the Port
will prepare a formal request for a second amendment to
Avigation Easement NF(R)-6758, including documentation
required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
B. LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A-1: USGS Quadrangle (Hunters Point) Scale 1:24,000
Exhibit A-2: Aerial Photo of 7th Street Terminal and Naval
Supply Center, Scale 1"=300'
Page 1
Preliminary Request to Amend Avigation Easement
at 7th Street Marine Terminal
August 11, 1994
Exhibit B-1: Generalized Cross Section - Articulated Container
Crane (Operating Position, Boom Horizontal)
Exhibit B-2: Generalized Cross Section - Articulated Container
Crane (Stowed Position, Boom Retracted)
Exhibit C-1: Typical Operating Position of Proposed Crane in
Relation to FAA Approach Slopes (plan and section
views)
Exhibit C-2: Stowed Position of Proposed Crane in Relation to
FAA Approach Slopes (plan and section views)
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Grant of Avigation Easement NF(R)-6758, effective
April 8, 1969, and First Amendment to Easement
NF(R)-6758, effective January 26, 1988
Excerpts from FAA Federal Aviation Regulations
Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace,
published January 1975
C. PROPOSED CRANE LOCATION
The location of the Port's 7th Street Marine Terminal
is shown in Exhibits A-1 and A-2. The proposed new
container crane would be installed at Berth 35, on the
northeast side of 7th Street Terminal, as shown in
Exhibits C-1 and C-2 (plan views).
Four of the five existing cranes at 7th Street
Terminal, cranes X-423, X-424, X-425 and X-426, would
continue operating as per current agreements with ANAS
(Exhibit D). The existing crane X-421 at Berth 38 is
expected to be sold and removed by the end of 1994, and
no replacement crane is anticipated for that location
at this time.
Operating Positions: The Port proposes to utilize the
new crane along the existing rails anywhere between the
eastern end of Berth 35 and the centerline of Runway
31/13 extended (Exhibit C-1, plan view). Range of
operating positions along the wharf could be further
limited (for example, to the most easterly 400 or 500
feet) by agreement between the Port and ANAS. Any
negotiated crane position limits could be incorporated
into the Port's formal request for a second amendment
to Avigation Easement NF (R)-6758.
Page 2
Preliminary Request to Amend Avigation Easement
at 7th Street Marine Terminal
August 11, 1994
Stowed Position: The new crane would be stowed when
not operating. The Port proposes to stow the new crane
at the far east end of Berth 35 (Exhibit C-2, plan
view).
D. PROPOSED CRANE DESIGN AND DIMENSIONS
Note: Crane configuration and dimensions presented
herein are preliminary. Detailed engineering design of
the proposed container crane will begin once the Port
receives the necessary approvals.
The Port desires to have the proposed container crane
in place and operational by July 31, 1996. The crane
would be a modified A-frame with an articulated boom
designed to unfold downward to horizontal for operation
(see Exhibit B-1) and to retract upward for stowage
(see Exhibit B-2). Upon ANAS request, the Port would
ensure that obstruction lighting and markings on the
upper parts of the crane exceed FAA and ANAS standards.
Maximum Crane Height - Operating: As shown in Exhibits
B-1 and C-1 section view, the proposed crane's maximum
height in operating mode (boom horizontal) would be 214
feet above mean lower low water level (214' MLLW) and
200 feet above ground level (200' AGL).
Maximum Crane Height - Stowed: As shown in Exhibits B-
2 and C-2 section view, the proposed crane's maximum
height when stowed (boom retracted) would be 228 feet
above Mean Lower Low Water level (228' MLLW) and 214
feet above ground level (214' AGL).
E. PROPOSED CRANE HEIGHT RELATIVE TO EXISTING AVIGATION
EASEMENT AND FAA APPROACH SLOPES
As indicated in Exhibits C-1 and C-2 section views, the
proposed container crane would exceed the height limit
of the existing Avigation Easement as amended January
26, 1988, which allows existing cranes to extend 42'
above the FAA 50:1 slope. The amount of encroachment
above the existing easement, as shown in Table 1 below,
would vary slightly depending on the crane's position
on the wharf and its operating mode (boom horizontal or
retracted).
Page 3
Preliminary Request to Amend Avigation Easement
at 7th Street Marine Terminal
August 11, 1994
The proposed crane would also extend above the FAA 34:1
slope, which is the existing height limit for ships and
vessels that may call at 7th Street Terminal's north
and west berths. The proposed crane would not encroach
into the FAA 20:1 approach slope and therefore would
not likely preclude potential future civilian use of
Runway 31/13 as a General Utility airfield.
TABLE 1:
Estimated Vertical Distance (in Feet) that the Proposed Crane
Would Exceed Existing Avigation Easement and FAA Slopes
Encroachment
Above
Existing Above Above
Crane Easement FAA 34:1 FAA 20:1
Position (50:1+42') Slope Slope
Typical Operating(a) 66'
65' - 29'
Most Westerly 67' 66' - 28'
Operating(b)
Stowed(c) 80'
79' - 16'
(a) Approx. 535' east of Runway 31/13 centerline extended
(approx. 300' west of the eastern edge of Berth 35),
boom horizontal, max. height 214' MLLW (200' AGL)
(b) Immediately east of Runway 31/13 centerline extended,
boom horizontal, max. height 214' MLLW (200' AGL)
(c) Far east end of Berth 35 (approx. 835' east of Runway
31/13 centerline extended), boom retracted, max. height
228' MLLW (214' AGL)
Page 4
Preliminary Request to Amend Avigation Easement
at 7th Street Marine Terminal
August 11, 1994
F. PORT-ANAS MUTUAL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
According to existing procedure, the Port will cease
loading operations and move North Berth cranes to
stowed position upon 6 hours' advance notification by
ANAS of heavy transport aircraft activity (Avigation
Easement NF (R)-6758, as amended January 26, 1988,
Paragraph 8).
To facilitate amendment of the Avigation Easement as
needed for the proposed new container crane, the Port
would consider modifying notification procedures as
requested by ANAS. For example, the Port could agree
upon shorter notice to re-position the new crane along
the wharf, or change its boom from stowed position to
operating position, thereby lowering maximum height
from 228' to 214' MLLW. The Port could also routinely
notify ANAS in advance of crane deployment from stowed
position, and provide its anticipated time period of
operation.
Specific procedures and notification periods are
subject to negotiation between the Port and ANAS.
Agreements could be incorporated into the Port's
formal request for a second amendment to Avigation
Easement NF (R)-6758.
Port Project Planning File: w.o.#102398
Page 5
8/16/94 ADDENDUX - via PAX
Preliminary Request to Amend Avigation Easement
at 7th Street Marine Terminal
August 11, 1994
1. Latitude .d Longitude of Proposed crane in operating and
Stowed Positions
Crane
position Latitude Longitude
Typical
Operating(a) 37°48'30.99" 122°20'10.00"
Most Westerly 37°48'27.67" 122°20'16.10"
operating(b)
Stowed(c) 37'48'32.08" 12220'07.99"
(a) Centerline of crane at face of wharf: approx. 255' west
of the eastern edge of Berth 35
(b)- centerline of crane at face of wharf: approx. 50' east
Runway 31/13 centerline extended
(c) Centerline of crane at face of wharf: approx. 50' west of
the eastern edge of Berth 35
2.
M imam heights,„ of iNting c
X-421
X-423
X-424
X-425
X-426
98'
98'
132'
132'
132'
- •
es at 7th Street Terminal:
3, Proposed Crane in Relation to ANAS 3.5' PreCiaion
Approach Glide Slope
To follow (revised section views of Exhibits C-1 and C-2)
Port Project Planning File: w.o.#10239-6
SENT BY:PORT of OAKLAND CA USA; 9-21-94 ; 9:01 ;PORT of OAK. E/M ENG-■
PORT OF 0 ND
September 21, 1994
Mr. Jim Walsh
Alameda County Planning Department
399 Elmhurst St.
Hayward, California 94944
Dear Mr. Walsh;
VIA FAX
510-670-6529
510 521 3754;# 2
Re: Alameda County Airport Land USG Commission (ALUC) Review:
US Navy/NAS Alameda Avigation Easement Amendment
As we discussed on the phone yesterday, the Port of Oakland has requested the US Navy to amend
an existing avigatlon easement affecting Runway 13/31 at NAS Alameda, which was granted to the
Navy in 1988. The Port proposes to amend the easement to accommodate a new container crane
which is due to be Installed at the Port's 7th Street Marine Terminal, Attached per your request is that
request, supplemented by additional Information about the crane and it's proposed location in the
easement area.
The NAS air traffic control officers and base command have analyzed the potential impacts on relevant
airspace, and have concluded that "...(avIgation impacts) would not be significant in light of (the
Navy's) operational tasking. .and is acceptable to this command...". Also attached for your review is
documentation of the command's analysis.
Per an agreement between the Navy and the City of Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA), the Navy's Base Closure Office has consulted with ARRA to solicit ARRA's comments about
amending the easement. The ARRA is scheduled to discuss the matter at it's October 5, 1994
meeting. In anticipation of that discussion, ARRA staff has recommended that we also consult with
the ALUC, to ascertain If there are ALUC concerns; hence my Interest in reviewing the proposal with
you.
As I noted on the phone, I would Ilke to go over the entire proposal with you in detail, so that we can
report about the results of our consultation at ARRA's October 5th meeting. To those ends, I will be
following up in a few days to set up a meeting. In the meantime, please let me know if I can provide
additional information about the proposal. Thank'you for your anticipated cooperation and Interest.
Sinc ly,
chard J. Wlederhorn
Manager, Project Planning
cc: D. Louk, Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
N. Bishop, ACCM; US Navy; NAS Alameda Base Closure Office
S. Grossman, ALUC
530 Water Street • Jack London's Waterfront • P.O. Box 2064 • Oakland, California 946042064
Telephone (510) 272-11 nn
. Fqx. (510) 272-1172 • nahln caririrnoe Pnioi-nrnn
co
..
SPONDENCF
Alameda Unified School District
August 29, 1994
Mr. Don Parker, Project Director
Base Conversion Office
NAS Postal Directory Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501-5012
Dear Don:
Re: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
At the meeting of August 23, 1994, members of the Board of
Education elected President Sam Huie to serve as a non-
voting ex-officio member on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelop-
ment Authority. President Huie has designated Gail Greely
as alternate.
The Board of Education is appreciative of having this oppor-
tunity to attend and serve as resource on discussions of the
Reuse Authority regarding base closure. We look forward to
attending the first meeting under this new appointment on
Wednesday, September 7, 5:30 p.m.
Thank you.
DKC:bt
cc: Members, ARRA
eta , B.. � 0 Education
and Superintendent of Schools
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Ah,meda, CA 94501-5012
510-263-2870
FAX 510-521-3764
September 22, 1994
Mr. Robert Brauer
Office of the Honorable Ronald V. Dellums
2108 Rayburn
HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Bob:
We have been informed by WESTDIV that lease rates for interim leases may be based
on market value as opposed to the concept and spirit of an economic development conveyance
(at no cost) and the provision contained in the Pryor Amendment which allows for interim leases
at less than fair market value. We are under the assumption that based on the President's Five
Point Program, the intent of the military is to enhance the job creation potential with the closing
military bases by providing below-market rate lease teinis for interim leases. Secondarily, it
was our understanding that the military would be willing to trade off current economic returns
(market rents) for the relief from on-going maintenance and operation expenses and obligations.
This policy of charging market lease rates for interim leases, if adopted, is clearly short-
sited and will be counter-productive. One specific example that we are now dealing with is with
a potential tenant, AEG (a high profile user bidding on the maintenance contract for BART
cars). They are one of two bidders that will be submitting their best and final offer on
September 27, 1994. It is my understanding that WESTDIV's current position is to charge a
market rent for approximately 160,000 square feet at $.17/sq. ft. The tenant would then be
responsible for all alterations to the building to bring a 1940 building up to current codes and
operating conditions. It is our understanding that this would include a major overhaul to the
building utility distribution systems, the potential for a firewall separation and new exiting
requirements, and the need for handicapped accessibility improvements. In addition, the tenant
would be responsible for all on-going operational costs, i.e., interior and exterior maintenance,
user fees or taxes, utility costs, insurance, and pro-rata reimbursement to the Navy for common
area expenses (in real estate terms, this is considered a triple-net lease).
Mr. Robert Brauer
Page 2
September 22, 1994
Clearly, WESTDIV has no basis for determining what the ultimate cost of occupancy will
be for AEG and has not taken the improvement costs into account in quoting their market rate
lease rent. The market rate they have quoted ($.17/sq. ft.) would presume a building facility
that is updated and meets current codes and the tenant has the sole obligation of making typical
tenant improvements (internal walls, lighting, and mechanical improvements). Secondarily, they
are not considering the high degree of risk that AEG will take on moving into the Naval Air
Station on a pioneering basis.
If this policy prevails, I doubt that we will have any success in attracting interim users.
Once again, we are seeing the President's policy ignored by the actions of DoD. We need to
get back on track and back to the concept of providing economic incentives to create jobs and
economic growth opportunities with closing military bases.
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP/eb
cc: Sandre Swanson, District Director
William C. Norton, City Manager
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Members
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501-50/2
510-263-2870
FAX 510-521-3764
September 26, 1994
CMDR Marshall W. Graves
Director of Conversion Reuse Dept.
U.S. Navy
Naval Air Depot
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear CDR Graves:
This letter is in response to your memorandums of August 4, 1994, and July 25, 1994,
concerning the disposal of high value items listed in your memorandums. The Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) requests that NADEP retain this equipment until it can
be determined if it will be requested under the Pryor Amendment for reuse in the economic
redevelopment of the property at NAS Alameda.
The reuse plan is scheduled for completion in December, 1995. As the reuse plan
become more focused, we will be able to better delineate the personal property which will be
requested for retention by the ARRA. If I can be of further assistance or if you have any
questions, please contact me at 510-263-2870.
Sincerely,
Z____//
aio .J. Louk
Facilities Manager
DJL/erb
cc: Don Parker, Executive Director
Bill Norton, City Manager
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Members
,TJNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
J.W. PELTASON
President
WALTER E. MASSEY
Provo st and Senior Vice Prelldent-
Academic Affairs
Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501-5012
Honorable Members:
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, California 94612-.3550
September 27, 1994
This is to inform you that the University of Califomia (UC) has evaluated the appropriateness of
overseeing a planning study related to the Alameda Naval Air Station. In particular, the starting
point for the study is understood to be the International Institute of Technology Development
(ITTD) portion of the "Alameda Science City" (ASC) concept, appropriately coordinated with
other proposals such as the "Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies'' (ACET), through
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and the Office of its Executive
Director.
In view of the significant public interest and potential value to the community, I am pleased to
inform you that UC is prepared to participate with the ARRA to define and perforrn a mutually
appropriate management role in the ASC Planning Study. We will follow-up in the near future
with the specific work proposal and associated funding requirements.
Sincerely,
cc: President Peltason
Provost Massey
C. Judson King
Vice Provost for Research
University of California
DRAFT
(September 28, 1994)
Alameda Science City Planning Study Proposal
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Executive Overview 1
2.0 Introduction and Summary 3
2.1 Local and Regional Impact of Military Base Closures 5
2.2 Relevance of This Proposal 6
2.3 Proposed Planning Study 8
3.0 The Proposed Reuse and Recovery Program:
The Alameda Science City '(ASC) 8
3.1 Overview of the Proposed ASC 8
3.2 Management of the ASC 10
3.3 The International Institute for Technology 12
Development
3.4 Developing the ASC 16
4.0 Proposed Planning Study 18
4.1 Work Teams, Cost Allocations, Organizations and
Management 19
4.2 The Preliminary Integrated Plan — Nine Month
Milestone 23
4.3 The Final Report 27
4.4 Attention to Risks and Potential Show-Stoppers 31
5.0 Organization and Finance Considerations 32
6.0 Appendix on Science-Based Parks 34 •
7.0 Appendix on Related Activities 37
8.0 Appendix on Key Personnel 43
DRAFT
Alameda Science City Planning Study Proposal
September 28, 1994
1.0 Executive Overview
This proposal has been developed in support of the extant community effort to develop
a long-term plan for job creation in Alameda and the East Bay region. The roots of this
proposal go back to July of 1993 when President Clinton submitted to Congress
recommendations from the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. At
that time, the Administration announced a five point plan emphasizing "...economic
development and job creation... : jobs-centered property disposal, easy access to
transition and redevelopment help, fast-track clean-up, transition coordinators, and
larger economic development planning grants." This five-point plan invited a vision of
a federally sponsored, large-scale redevelopment project, and the President himself
offered on 13 August 1993 such a vision for the East Bay (cf. Section 2.0).
Overall, base closures in the East Bay region will result in the loss of about 66,000
primary jobs and up to 130,000 jobs in total. Prior to the announcement of the base
closures this region held employment for 9.7% of the total DoD military and civilian
personnel, but it has been targeted for 45% of the nationwide cuts. Additionally,
military procurement reductions have had a disproportionately damaging effect on the
employment of skilled and professional workers in California and the Bay Area. In
order to rebuild this job base in a timely manner, a substantial economic stimulus
package will be required, including not only city and county incentives but also state
and federal incentives (such as one-stop permitting, tax holidays, rebates, subsidies,
job training, special business zone status, industrial development bonds, loan
guarantees, direct state and federal government investment, etc.).
Federal government initiatives to stimulate national competitiveness and job creation
have received bipartisan support for several years, so it is quite natural that a
necessity for base closure could become a virtue for economic development. Building
on this national trend, University of California employees proposed in July, 1993, the
creation of a "science city" to be located at the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) in the
City of Alameda and offered a "Conceptual Business Plan", January 1994, that
envisioned a Planning Study to design the "Alameda Science City" (ASC). The most
basic consideration underlying the motivation for this proposal is the conviction that, if
rapid job creation and industrial redevelopment of NAS is the goal, a government
sponsored economic stimulus is essential to assure success; that is, if NAS relies only
on the private markets to achieve timely redevelopment, it is likely to be another failed
base conversion project.
There are two major components of the proposed ASC: The International Institute for
Technology Development (IITD) and an adjacent Industrial Park (IP). The IITD is
proposed as a federally sponsored institution chartered to carry out applied science
projects in close cooperation with industries in areas of high national interest, such as
manufacturing competitiveness, work force training, and environment and health. The
IITD will be dedicated to narrowing the "Research-Commercialization" gap,
emphasizing science and technology, as a nucleus for joint ventures beyond the
means of a single large company, as a liaison between small entrepreneurial
enterprises and venture capitalist, and as a center for vocational training and
education. The Industrial Park (IP) will be home to advanced technology industries of
various sizes and specialties. The IITD is organizationally separate from the IP but it
will work in concert with the IP and serve as a magnet to attract industries to the area;
naturally, projects other than those fostered by the IITD can be implemented on the
NAS land and in neighboring communities.
The "Conceptual Business Plan" offered a specific comprehensive vision of the ASC to
illustrate what it might become in full maturity. In this vision, it will take less than two
decades from start of construction to bring the ASC to maturity, and will require direct
capital investment or loan guarantees of approximately $800 million from the federal
government and $4 billion on the part of private industry. Functionally, the ASC is
intended to provide an exciting focus for a new generation of agile advanced
technology industries and, in the process, attract innovative national and international
companies to the area. The primary objective of the ASC is to create 30,000 to 40,000
jobs in the Bay Area and gross annual revenues of $3-4 billion at full maturity. The
associated taxes generated for the local, state, and federal governments will thus be in
excess of $1 billion at full maturity. Of course, this concept and the financial
projections simply provide a reference frame for a Planning Study. In order to develop
a final design for the ASC and the associated economic stimulus package, tradeoffs
among planning alternatives must be examined and the design criteria, including
community concerns, must be established in advance to allow selection of preferred
approaches.
The ASC Planning Study will encompass planning for the "Alameda Center for
Environmental Technologies" (ACET) as a part of the ASC framework and provide a
single integrated plan. It will involve an extensive public participation and approval
process, and will be broken into two phases in order to fully accommodate this
process. The first phase will take about nine months, cost about $3.5 million, and
provide a Preliminary Integrated Plan (PIP) structured as an integral component of the
Community Reuse Plan for the entire base. This plan will be offered by the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to the Department of Defense (D0D),
although it is anticipated that other federal departments will also participate in the
Study and support implementation of the ASC project. The second planing phase will
proceed if, and only if, an ASC concept is adopted in the final Community Reuse Plan.
The first phase of the ASC Study is presumed to begin in January 1995 with an
assessment that will establish criteria for the overall ASC plan.
2
This study will be directed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
through the Office of the Executive Director (for Base Conversion). The University of
California, consistent with its traditional commitment to public service, is prepared to
participate in the Study and work closely with other participants from industry,
government and community groups to develop the ASC concept.
2.0 Introduction and Summary
The underlying economy producing the high standard of living in the San Francisco
Bay Area, an area extending approximately from Santa Clara in the south to Santa
Rosa in the north and from the Bay to Livermore, is a science-based economy.
Indeed, this metropolitan area can be described as a large "science city" consisting of
a high density of advanced technology companies, a half-dozen major universities,
three national laboratories, extensive supporting industries and education facilities.
The Naval Air Station (NAS) at Alameda is geographically centered in this area near
the Oakland International Airport.
The President himself apparently perceives the impressive infrastructure already in
place to support further growth of the the East Bay region (cf. Remarks by the
President, Alameda Naval Air Station, August 13, 1993): "The East Bay has the
potential to be a magnet for technology, for aviation, for manufacturing.
Alameda County is the home of some of the world's finest research
laboratories---Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley and the
University of California at Berkeley. We have a technology reinvestment
project for defense conversion that is already drawing high-tech firms
into partnerships with these institutions. If we succeed, this military axis
could be transformed into a thriving, high-tech commercial hub, a high
tech gateway to Asia and beyond.... I do want this county, I do want
these facilities, I do want this area to be a national model."
It would seem that conversion of the NAS into a science-based park that contributes to
this metropolitan "science city" would be not only feasible but also meritorious. It
would need to consist of businesses that provide a spectrum of jobs encompassing
the full range of needs from blue collar to white collar. Because of the relatively high
living standard enjoyed in he Bay Area, the "Alameda Science City" (ASC) should
offer relatively high paying jobs. Consequently the focus should be on science-based
products that are not readily reproducible in areas having considerably less access to
world class research and technology capabilities. Thus the challenge set forth here is
to design a science city that not only can produce the needed high paying jobs for all
segments of the society but also is compatible with other diverse interests of the
community proximate to NAS.
There are two major components of the proposed ASC: The International Institute for
Technology Development (IITD) and an adjacent Industrial Park (IP). The IITD is
proposed as a federally sponsored institution chartered to carry out applied science
3
projects in close cooperation with industries in areas of high national interest, such as
manufacturing competitiveness, work force training, and environment and health. The
IITD will be dedicated to narrowing the "Research-Commercialization" gap,
emphasizing science and technology, as a nucleus for joint ventures beyond the
means of a single large company, as a liaison between small entrepreneurial
enterprises and venture capitalist, and as a center for vocational training and
education. The Industrial Park (IP) will be home to advanced technology industries of
various sizes and specialties. The IITD is organizationally separate from the IP but it
will work in concert with the IP and serve as a magnet to attract industries to the area;
naturally, projects other than those fostered by the IITD can be implemented in the IP
and in the balance of the NAS land and in neighboring communities.
The roles and relationships among existing East Bay institutions and the proposed
ASC will be thoroughly developed in the Planning Study. Also, there are other
initiatives, supporting economic development and related to base conversion, that
might beneficially be integrated into the ASC framework. In particular, the proposed
Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) will in principle be merged
with the ASC/IITD and become the Center for Environmental Science and Technology
(cf. Section 3.3 for a discussion of IITD Centers). The "Appendix on Related Activities"
addresses in more detail the relationship between the ASC/IITD and ACET proposals
and provides a listing of numerous other activities. The IITD's relationship to federal
agencies and the private sector will also be explored in some detail in order to assess
the need for enabling legislation.
This raises the question of competition for federal funds among existing organizations
in the East Bay region; consequently, the IITD will be structured to complement
existing institutions in the region. In particular, the relationships between the proposed
IITD at Alameda and existing national laboratories and UC campuses in the region will
be fully developed, especially with regard to sizing the IITD--e.g.,its scientific and
technological infrastructure. Where existing institutions in the region can provide
necessary technical infrastructure, the IITD will be structured to use this infrastructure
in support of IITD programs; unnecessary duplication of locally available capabilities
will be avoided in defining the IITD. It is expected that for the first 3-5 years after
initiation of the ASC project, prior to completion of adequate new facilities as needed,
the IITD will operate as a "virtual corporation" functioning as an intermediary between
interested ASC participants and existing Bay Area organizations with established
facilities and staff interested in participating in joint ventures.
The IITD is expected to have international participation in order to accommodate the
fact that essentially all companies, not only the large multinationals but also the small
entrepreneurial ones, today have international interests. The criteria for international
participation must be clearly defined and implemented so as to assure that they are in
the best interest of national competitiveness and job creation. In this and other
regards, the proposal will be thoroughly compared with related developments around
the world (e.g., Hsinchu, Taiwan; see the Appendix on Science-Based Parks) and
4
other federal programs supporting national competitiveness in order to benefit from
lessons learned.
This conceptual proposal has been presented to numerous community groups
including the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC),
Alameda County's Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB), and the City of
Alameda's Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) during the last quarter of 1993 and
early in 1994. A "Conceptual Business Plan" was prepared and submitted to the
Alameda City Council in March 1994 and (consistent with a strong recommendation
from the BRAG) they endorsed the plan unanimously as worthy of further development.
Two considerations derived from this early endorsement warrant
emphasis: First, the preliminary vision of the ASC offered here is
intended to provide only a reference frame for the Planning Study; it
represents what might be accomplished with strong government support
such as might be expected if the administration were to follow through on
its expressed desire to make this area a "...national model." Such a
development scenario is aggressive but not unprecedented (cf. Hsinchu,
Taiwan). Second, although an aggressive vision of a fully evolved ASC
is elaborated here, it does not constitute the final proposal, which will be
the product of the Planning Study.
2.1 Local and Regional Impact of Military Base Closures
NAS, Alameda and its primary tenant the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) have been
selected for closure under the provisions of the 1990 Base Closure and Realignment
Act. These facilities, located on the San Francisco Bay in the City of Alameda,
California, occupy 1,700 acres of prime urban real estate. They have a local
employment base upwards of 11,000 military and 3,200 civilian jobs. The Naval
Public Works Center, which is housed in rented facilities in the City of Oakland, is also
slated for closure with the loss of an additional 1,800 civilian jobs, as well as the Oak
Knoll Naval Hospital, located seven miles from the NAS in the City of Oakland which
will cause the Toss of an additional 1,400 military and 800 civilian jobs. This reduction
of 18,200 primary jobs has the further effect of eliminating another 18,000 local jobs in
the supporting infrastructure and commerce. The economy within the County of
Alameda will be significantly impacted by this large job loss. In addition to the four
facilities in Alameda and Oakland, six other military bases and facilities in the San
Francisco Bay Area, and four more within a 100 mile radius have been chosen, or are
slated, for closure. Ove kall, regional base closures will result in the loss of about
66,000 primary jobs and up to 130,000 jobs in total. Prior to the announcement of the
base closures this region held employment for 9.7% of the total DoD military and
civilian personnel, but it has been targeted for 45% of the nationwide cuts. Also,
military procurement reductions have had a disproportionately damaging effect on the
employment of skilled and professional workers in California and the Bay Area.
5
2.2 Relevance of This Proposal
Several alternatives have been proposed for the civilian reuse of the NAS land and
facilities, but the compelling need to rebuild the badly damaged local employment
base with a large number of high-quality jobs has focused attention on conversion of
the base to a high-technology industrial park. The emphasis on high technology is
derived from the regional character, which is heavily endowed with universities,
laboratories, and a technically skilled but under-employed work force. The "Alameda
Science City" (ASC) has been proposed as a specific concept that would implement
this aspiration. ASC is an ambitious plan to convert the NAS into a three-part
community. The Study will elaborate a vision of all three parts, with some emphasis
on the federally supported part: (1) a federally supported "International Institute for
Technology Development" (IITD), chartered to work closely with industry in the piloting
of new products and innovative manufacturing processes and to test alternative
approaches to business financing and ownership, work force education and training,
and multi-institutional and multi-national project management. It will be dedicated to
narrowing the "Research-Commercialization" gap, emphasizing science and
technology, as a nucleus for joint ventures beyond the means of a single large
company, as a liaison between small entrepreneurial enterprises and venture
capitalist, and as a center for work force education. The IITD will most likely occupy
less than ten percent of the land but will be an essential element to attract private
investment to the area. In order to establish the essential relationships necessary for
successful enhancement of national competitiveness and job creation, through the
support .of existing companies and the creation of new companies, we will define the
essential characteristic of the other parts of ASC: (2) an Industrial Park which will
eventually be home to as many as 100-150 advanced technology companies of
various sizes and business areas; and (3) a mixed-use component made up of
housing, recreational, educational and commercial infrastructure will naturally develop
in support of the Industrial Park and the IITD.
The goal for the ASC is to rebuild the employment base, through the creation of
30,000 to 40,000 new, high-quality jobs in the local area. The ASC will be built into
the fabric of the City of Alameda; structured to integrate into the local cultural
infrastructure and the regional economy. Thus the NAS will be converted into a
thriving complement to other primarily regional institutions in the near term, but in the
longer term, and on a larger scale, the intent is also to have a significant positive
impact on industrial competitiveness and economic health at the national level. The
IITD is the key to this ambition. The major function of the IITD, its staff, and facilities, is
to rapidly pilot-manufacture new advanced technology products. It does this by
aggressively seeking ideas and intellectual property, that can advance the nation's
critical technology base, from national and private laboratories, universities, and
others both within the US and abroad. By forming joint ventures with selected
industrial partners and finally transferring the manufacturing know-how, and key IITD
personnel, if required, to the industrial partner, rapid commercialization of the product
can be realized.
6
The nation and the world are in a period of rapid economic change — structural change
that goes beyond simple growth or recession. Industry is rapidly becoming
internationalized; economies and finances worldwide have become closely linked and
interdependent. Information and knowledge are joining, or replacing, capital and
labor as the basis for economic eminence. Developing countries are becoming (have
become) competitive in high-technology product development and manufacturing,
stripping jobs and economic dominance from the "developed nations". US national
security can no longer be based singularly on the traditional oligopsony and the
military will be increasingly forced to adapt and employ civilian products and
commercial systems in its operations. Domestically, the proper scope and nature of
government-industry relationships is being stridently debated even as it quickly
evolves. The federal government has embarked upon a variety of novel programs and
procedures for coupling the federally funded technology base into the commercial
sector (CRADAs, TRPs, etc.). Government laboratories, along with military industries,
are driven to establish new roles and identities in this post-Cold War economic era.
Established modes of conducting business, finance, competitiveness, education, and
work force organization toward common goals are inadequate to the challenges of
today. A new framework for testing alternative ways is needed and the IITD will
provide such a framework. The University of California's Haas Business School and
the Berkeley Round table on the International Economy (BRIE) have given particular
attention to these matters in recent years.
The need to attract many industries to the ASC to rebuild the employment base is
clear. However, there are impediments to realizing this goal, as evidenced by the
general motion of industries out of California as they seek locations more hospitable to
business operations. To reverse this trend the ASC will be designed as an attractive
place to live and work, and the IITD will provide a variety of support functions that will
facilitate start-up enterprises and enhance the productivity of established firms.
Additionally, it will be necessary to offer financial inducements in the form of
appropriate tax, fee, and regulatory incentives and generally to create a business-
friendly environment. The report of the California Military Base Reuse Task Force,
January, 1994, to Governor Wilson addressed these issues. It presented a lengthy list
of recommended regulatory and fiscal policy changes that should be made by the
local, state, and federal governments to encourage job creation at military bases
scheduled for closure. These recommendations are formulated for California overall
but most of them are relevant to the NAS specifically. In order to rebuild this job base
in a timely manner, a substantial economic stimulus package will be required,
including not only city and county incentives but also state and federal incentives
(such as one-stop permitting, tax holidays, rebates, subsidies, job training, special
business zone status, industrial development bonds, loan guarantees, direct
government investment, etc.). A diversified portfolio of incentives is needed in order to
provide an optimum subset that uniquely matches the needs of each individual
company.
7
2.3 Proposed Planning Study
The first step in creating the ASC is to conduct a detailed planning study that
addresses the full range of questions and issues raised by this ambitious concept.
This Planning Study will complement the work of the NAS Base Conversion Office and
be an integral part of a comprehensive Community Reuse Plan. The study will be
directed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and the University of
California is prepared to participate in the study, focusing on the planning for the IITD.
The IITD is proposed as a federally sponsored institution chartered to carry out applied
science projects in close cooperation with industries in areas of high national interest,
such as manufacturing competitiveness, work force training, and environment and
health. A major milestone will occur nine months into the study when the "Preliminary
Integrated Plan" (PIP) will be presented to the sponsors and all concerned parties.
This PIP will comprehensively describe the ASC and will identify the legislative
actions, funding issues, and the decisions that will be needed at the end of the study to
keep the enterprise moving forward on a timely basis. The second phase of the study
will add detail and substance to the PIP, as modified by the feedback received from
sponsors and concerned parties.
3.0 The Proposed Reuse and Recovery Program: The Alameda Science City
Here we describe the initial concept of the Alameda Science City (ASC). In the course
of the Planning Study this concept will be refined, and possibly modified as various
constraints, opportunities, and community interests are accommodated.
3.1 Overview of the Proposed ASC
Functionally, the ASC is intended to provide (with the IITD) an exciting focus for a new
generation of advanced technology industries and in the process attract the best and
most creative of domestic and foreign companies. The "Appendix on Science -Based
Parks" provides some perspective on international experience with such
developments; the experience at Hsinchu, Taiwan, is particularly relevant to this
proposal.
The primary objective of the ASC is to create 30,000 to 40,000 primary jobs at the site
and in the local area with gross annual revenues of $3 billion to $4 billion. The
majority of these jobs will be generated by private companies. The companies will be
a mix of existing firms that will have established operations in the Industrial Park and
new start-up companies, many of which will emerge from the support and incubation
processes at the IITD. In terms of character, industrial and institutional composition,
size, job generation, and revenues, this objective is similar to what has been
demonstrated by the Hsinchu Science -Based Industrial City, which was launched by
the government of Taiwan in 1980. Hsinchu and other Pacific Rim science cities have
8
been attracting American and European high-tech industries. A secondary objective
of the ASC is to create an American alternative to these Asiatic centers and prompt a
reverse flow of investment and jobs.
The mission of the ASC is to enhance the competitive position of the United States in
advanced technology and commerce. To accomplish this, the ASC will be structured
to provide an efficient and effective interface between the advanced technology base
(available in the national laboratories, universities, and private research laboratories
worldwide) and product-producing commercial enterprises. That interface is deficient
in the US, as reflected in our frequent failure to translate our worldwide technical
leadership into marketplace dominance. The IITD will be a critical factor in bringing
the research and development and manufacturing communities into more effective
partnership. It will function as an entrepreneurial team-builder to create joint projects
between the communities and it will act as a force for innovation in piloting new
products and manufacturing processes. Innovations in manufacturing processes in
particular have very high leverage potential but they are frequently too risky and
unconventional for industries to undertake on their own. Much of the competitive
advantage in high-technology manufacturing, that has fallen to the Japanese and
other Pacific Rim countries in recent years, has resulted from their innovation of better
processes — processes which the US has been forced to emulate in an effort to stay
competitive.
Beyond the piloting of new products and processes, however, the IITD will undertake
selected projects in new ways to conduct business. Such projects are generally far
beyond the resources (or interests) of private companies. These projects will be
generally directed toward finding more efficient means of coupling the talents of
individuals to problems and opportunities, even those problems and opportunities that
lie beyond the normal interests of the individuals' employer. As examples: alternative
modes of interaction between companies and the community in education and other
public services; alternative modes of finance and ownership in the processes of
product development, manufacturing and sales; new organizational and
entrepreneurial approaches to multi-national projects; and (hopefully) trans-
institutional coordination of personnel policies and benefit packages.
Within the IITD flexible personnel policies will be established that will encourage the
interaction and exchange of people between the Institute, the Industrial Park, and
universities and national laboratories. Much of the activity at the IITD will be project
oriented with project teams assembled from various local, national, and international
organizations. To support efficient execution of these projects the IITD will be
equipped with comprehensive communication facilities and residential
accommodations for guest workers.
A vital activity at the IITD will be the support and/or incubation of new businesses. To
this end, the IITD will provide a complete support agenda that will permit individuals, or
groups, to enter the program with only ideas (carefully assessed for feasibility and
9
commercial promise) and to exit the program with initial manufacturing capabilities in
place, including facilities, staffing, finances, and business plans. In return for this
support, the IITD may take an equity position in the resulting companies. In time, the
accumulation of equity positions in growing companies should build an independent
fiscal base for the IITD and tum it into a profit-making enterprise. When that condition
is reached, the Government should privatize the IITD and recoup some or all of its
investment (albeit the return on the government's investment will be greatest from the
creation of new companies and jobs and the associated expanded tax base).
By way of summary, Figure 3.1 offers one perspective on the role of the IITD in filling
the research-commercialization gap between universities, national laboratories and
commercial industries. This is, of course, a simplistic view of the situation and certainly
does not capture the multi-dimensional character of relationships among the
organizations described. However, this proposal is based on the proposition that a
new framework is needed to improve the ability of all participants to contribute more
effectively to the creation of new jobs and the _enhancement of the nations competitive
position. The subject of science-based parks has been written about extensively and
recent media articles (cf. The Economist, the New York Times, Nature, Science, etc.)
have discussed some key characteristics of successful parks. It is rational to question
the need for a new government sponsored institution, when three federal laboratories
(Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia) already exist in the Bay Area,
and to be concerned about competition for limited federal funds. The Planning Study
will address these issues thoroughly. It suffices here to recognize that these existing
institutions, while they can make major contributions by making available special
facilities and personnel, were created to fulfill a paradigm different from that
envisioned for the IITD, are dedicated to the Department of Energy (DOE) with specific
assignments, and are operated under specific DOE orders that were not designed
specifically to meet the objectives laid out for the IITD. The IITD will be designed to
provide a bridging framework between these institutions and the industrial participants
in the ASC. Thus, this Planning Study is based on the assumption that a new
organization will be advantageous for creating a new culture essential to achieve the
success envisioned here, even though existing institutions can play a vital role.
3.2 Management of the ASC
It is likely that when the NAS is closed as a US naval base the property will be
transferred to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and/or the City of
Alameda. The terms and conditions of the transfer are yet to be determined but may
include provisions for long-term lease agreements with new industrial tenants,
acknowledgment of continuing federal responsibility for environmental cleanup, a
formula for financial return to the Government based on the commercial use of the
property, etc. Additionally, if the ASC proposal is accepted, there may be both federal
and state legislation associated with the property transfer, that establishes special tax,
tariff, and regulatory features, as well as federal legislation that implements the IITD. A
Special Development Authority (SDA) will be chartered to oversee and
10
o
k o
.1>;•;
11
manage the operations of the ASC. The SDA will be a legal entity, established by the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). It will have responsibility for
development of the ASC, for the disposition and use of the property under the terms
and conditions of its transfer to civil authority, for attracting appropriate companies to
the Industrial Park, and for managing the finances and operation of the enterprise
infrastructure. Additionally, the ASC must be smoothly interfaced and coordinated
through the ARRA with the City and County of Alameda in terms of commercial and
public services (fire, police, schools, health facilities, utilities, maintenance, etc.) and
the SDA will work closely with the city and county authorities to assure this. The
interests of the County, State, and Federal Government as well as the City of Alameda,
must be reflected in the actions of the SDA and the best means of incorporating those
interests will be elaborated during the Planning Study.
An essential feature of the ASC will be close cooperation between the IITD, the
companies of the Industrial Park, regional national laboratories (Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratory/Livermore), universities (e.g., University of California (UC) Berkeley, UC
San Francisco, Stanford University, California State University at Hayward, College of
Alameda) and local high-technology industries. The goal is to have these different
elements form a regional network of advanced technology capabilities spanning
research through manufacturing and capable (within legal restrictions) of lowering
institutional barriers and undertaking joint efforts toward shared objectives. To
institutionalize and facilitate this close cooperation between autonomous
organizations, a Science City Board of Advisors (SCBA) will be established.
The SCBA will be composed of representatives of the various concerned
organizations and political entities (specific composition to be determined during the
Planning Study) and it will be chartered to evaluate and recommend policies,
investments, and joint activities to advance the common goals.
3.3 The International Institute for Technology Development
The IITD will be a federally chartered and supported institution, managed and
operated by a contractor. The DoD, because of its perceived responsibility to support
economic recovery of previously occupied bases, would be the logical government
department to fund the Planning Study and such support would be consistent with the
DoD's dual-use/dual-benefit investment strategy. However, because the scope,
infrastructure and services of the IITD conceived here will be relevant to several
federal departments, some type of innovative multi-agency sponsorship will be
considered; in any case, IITD sponsorship should be evaluated in light of the emerging
new relationship between government and private industry that cuts across traditional
federal department lines of responsibility and authority.
The University of California, Office of the President, (UCOP) being located less than
three miles from the NAS, might serve as the management contractor for the IITD if this
role is consistent with the needs of the region and is a proper UC role. UC currently
12
operates three R&D facilities for the Department of Energy — Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. Its experience would expedite start-up of the IITD. A UC role in operating
the IITD could be similar to its role with those three laboratories but appropriately
modified to meet the unique needs of a new national mission. Its essential function
would be to appoint the top management of the IITD, establish the personnel and
operating policies, and oversee the performance of the management as measured
against the goals established for the Institute.
The ownership of the land and buildings occupied by the IITD is an open question to
be addressed in the Planning Study. It is expected that they will be owned initially
either by the Federal Government or the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority but eventually transferred to private ownership and/or to long-term lease (up
to 50 years). If they are privately owned or leased, they will contribute in the normal
manner to the tax base of the City and County. If they are owned by the government,
provision should be considered for offset contributions to the City of Alameda as
compensation in lieu of taxes.
Although final sizing will be determined by the Study, the IITD is currently envisioned
to have a staff of approximately 3,000 at full maturity. It is also envisioned to occupy
between 100 and 200 acres of land and three million square feet of office, laboratory,
classroom, and prototype manufacturing space with a cost of $600 million to build and
equip. Some of these moneys will be used to develop promising concepts that reside
at our national laboratories and universities. It will be equipped with state-of-the-art
instrumentation, flexible fabrication facilities, computers, communications, and
instructional aids. Its facilities and capabilities will be coordinated with those of the
nearby national laboratories and universities so that high-cost, one-of-a-kind
equipment is not duplicated.
The key to success for the IITD will lie in the selection of personnel. There are
adequate supplies of competent scientists, engineers, technicians, skilled workers,
and administrative personnel in the Bay Area and an aggressive program in work-
force education and training at the Institute will assure a skilled blue-collar work force
for the Industrial Park (and regional industries). However, the activities of the IITD will
largely originate in novel, or even visionary concepts, followed up by energetic
entrepreneurial outreach to imagine possibilities, identify opportunities, build
consortia, arrange financing, and to market concepts. The IITD must identify and hire a
cadre of individuals capable of this type of creative activity and thinking, and it must
provide the institutional framework within which they can function effectively. The
question of how to build and sustain a hard driving core of imaginative and
entrepreneurial talent at the Institute is one of the key questions that must be answered
in conjunction with the Planning Study.
13
The IITD will be organized around Centers which reflect the spectrum of projects that
the Institute will undertake. These Centers may be differentiated not only by the
character of the projects they undertake but also by differences in federal-department
sponsorship, cost accounting rules (e. g., overhead structure), and selected personnel
management policies. In the preliminary "Conceptual Business Plan", six such
Centers were discussed: (1) the Center for Development of Products and
Manufacturing Capabilities: this Center will support the transition of innovative
technologies and manufacturing processes from development to commercial use; (2)
the Center for Environmental Science and Technology: this Center will not
only support transition of remediation, diagnostic and analytical technologies into
commercial practice but will also work with others centers to develop technologies that
reduce and/or eliminate the need for environmental remediation; (3) the Center for
Advanced Health Care Systems, including biotechnology: this Center will
concentrate on the technological aspects of health care systems and support the
transition of advanced technologies into practical usage; (4) the Center for
Computational Science Applications: this Center will emphasize the
computational aspects of technology development, manufacturing processes, and
practical applications; (5) the Center for Science and Technology Education:
this Center will work with industry and educational institutions to support the training of
people to fill industrial manufacturing needs; and (6) the Center for
Socioeconomic Policy Studies: this Center will study the obstacles to technology
commercialization and ways to overcome them and also the impact of technology
development and commercialization on society and the economy. The Planning
Study will refine the identification of Centers and will address in detail the
organizational framework, the criteria for establishing a Center, and the business
management of the IITD. In addition to the Centers, there will be a headquarters
responsible for overall integration and administration, which will also be staffed to
support start-up enterprises with legal, financial, contracting, procurement and other
services.
Reflecting a primary mission of the IITD, the Center for Development of Products and
Manufacturing Capabilities was conceptualized as the largest of the centers,
accounting for about two-thirds of the staff, facilities, and funding of the Institute. It
should be noted, however, that all of the Centers are expected to have an orientation
toward industry and commerce — emphasizing those aspects of their disciplines which
lead to new products, new methods and processes, work force upgrading, and/or new
approaches to organization and management.
The IITD will engage in several different types of activity:
(1) Joint projects with industries, universities, and laboratories. In these joint
projects, the IITD will perform both entrepreneurial and performance functions
including: identifying or evaluating opportunities proposed by others, bringing together
project teams, arranging for some (or all) of the project financing, performing some
portion of the technical effort, providing facilities and equipment necessary for the
14
projects and accommodations for team members, as needed, providing support
services (legal, contracting, etc.), and project management. The funding for the IITD
activities in these projects will normally be provided by the federal government,
although in some cases the Institute may be funded by industry. The other project
participants may also be funded by the federal government or may support their own
participation, depending on the nature of the project. The federal govemment support
of the IITD in these projects will provide an inducement for industry to undertake
enterprises that would otherwise be inhibited for reasons of risk or required
investment. The concrete payback for the Govemment will be in the form of royalties
and the creation of jobs and corporate sales that generate taxes. However, some
projects may be conducted simply to find better ways of doing business which may
have an indirect, non-financial payoff for the nation. Joint projects will be of several
varieties:
(a) new product development
(b) testing and refining of advanced manufacturing processes
(c) new ways of starting, organizing, staffing, managing, and
financing projects
(d) new techniques for educating and training the work force
(2) Incubation of new companies. The IITD will offer a "one-stop" resource for
individuals or groups with promising new ideas for products. For carefully selected
proposals, it will provide conception-to-birth support in the form of facilities for product
development, design and engineering assistance, pilot production capability,
assistance in raising start-up capital, business planning, and assistance in
management and administration. To enhance the survival rate of start-up companies,
IITD staff members involved in incubation projects will have the option of continuing
with those projects on a leave-of-absence basis after the project has "gone on its own".
(3) Industrial support and assistance. The IITD will purchase selected special
equipment to maintain the "latest and the best" equipment and skills based on advice
and approval by selected boards of expert advisors drawn from the relevant user
industries and from universities and national laboratories. This infrastructure will be
available to industry on a negotiable basis to assist in solving singular problems. It will
not be available to industry as a routine production aid or as an alternative to industry
investing in skills and equipment that will be routinely needed in business operations.
Additionally, only the more advanced equipment and out-of-the-ordinary skills will be
offered in this manner to avoid putting the IITD in competition with the commercial
design and specialty fabrication firms. Personnel training assistance in advanced
techniques and the use of exotic equipment will also be provided to companies when
they decide they need to incorporate those skills and equipment into their regular
activities.
(4) Government support projects. The IITD will take on scientific, technical, or
analytical tasks as needed for any of the departments or agencies of the Federal
Government. It will also be available for tasking by the State. Unlike most Federally
15
Contracted Research Centers (FCRCs), Government Owned/Contractor Operated
(GOCO) laboratories, and Government laboratories, the IITD is not envisioned to be
narrowly controlled and tasked only by a single department or agency. In this sense,
the IITD is conceptualized as an executive-level corporate technical institute for the
federal government — a "National Institute" where the "national" truly means a multi-
department institution. This highlights the question of the logical "ownership" of the
Institute in the long term. A new paradigm is needed and pptions will be raised during
the Planning Study. (The "ownership" issue has been. emerging also with some of the
existing FCRCs and GOCOs as they seek an expanded sponsorship base to
compensate for funding cut-backs in their sponsoring departments.)
(5) Institute projects. Some fraction of the Institute revenues, probably 5 to 6%, will
be used to support an internally directed R&D program. This is comparable to the
funding level for "internal research and development" activities in private industry and
in the national laboratories, and it will be employed to similar ends: To sharpen the
skills of the staff and to explore new ideas generated by the staff. The organizational
level for collection and disbursement of such R&D funds remains to be determined.
(6) Education and training projects. Specific programs in education and work-
study will be planned and pursued in close cooperation with local schools, colleges,
national laboratories, and universities to help identify the educational, training and
• retraining needed in the community to successfully reemploy displaced and
unemployed Bay Area workers, as well as those expected to enter the work force in
the near future. For example, work-study programs, in conjunction with industrial
organizations, will be designed wherein displaced workers spend half time in
education classes and half time in an industrial work assignment. In regard to
children, studies indicate that it is particularly important to develop students interest in
science and technology at a very early age. Therefore, the Institute will work
cooperatively with established community programs to determine how it might best
make a contribution. For example, working with the Alameda School District, the
Institute could sponsor a science-technology work segment of the curriculum tailored
to encourage students in grades 10-12 to further their education and to provide them
with work experience that will assist them in the job market.
3.4 Developing the ASC
The potential limitations on access to NAS property due to environmental restrictions
(cf. Section 4.4 below) may preclude full development of the ASC, either on a fast track
or any track at all, but this proposal assumes ready access to the property. Alternative
dilatory schedules will be assessed during the study. With this assumption, the ASC
will be developed in three stages: a transition stage lasting two to three years after
approval of the Community Reuse plan, a build-up stage lasting -less than ten years,
followed by a consolidation stage lasting less than ten years. At the end of these three
stages the construction will be complete and the ASC will have reached full
occupancy and mature operations.
16
The primary activities during the transition stage will be the Planning Study and a
sustained effort to attract new enterprises to locate in the region in support of job
creation. A rapid start on rebuilding regional employment is needed, and to move in
this direction some of the existing facilities at the NAS will be made available to
projects and companies on an interim-lease basis. Several hundreds of millions worth
of potential joint private-sector and DOC and/or DoD dual-purpose, cost-shared
projects have been identified as candidates for near-term start-up at the base and
some tens of millions of potential stand-alone private-sector projects have been
identified that are interested in exploring the advantages of locating there. Primary
considerations of these prospective clients include the attractiveness of business
incentives, the support of expedited development procedures, the possibility of
obtaining foreign-trade-zone status, etc. The possibility that a major federal
demonstration project such as the ASC might get underway in Alameda is also
definitely a strong incentive to company executives. Prior to the establishment of the
industrial incentives and to the development of a more concrete plan for the future of
the NAS, it will remain very difficult to obtain firm commitments for job creation in the
interim-lease phase.
The Community Reuse Plan will be completed in less than two years, and it is
important that the buildup stage begin immediately thereafter and, if possible, before
the full ASC Planning Study is complete. The local employment situation is acute, and
will not tolerate periods of inactivity and uncertainty. However, several decisions and
actions must be taken before construction can start: the ASC plan must be approved
by local authorities and then by federal authorities, detailed architecture and
engineering plans for the initial construction phases must be completed, regulatory
and permitting actions must be taken, federal and state legislation must be passed,
and budgets must be authorized and appropriated. In addition, marketing the ASC to
selected industries must be well advanced. These processes take time, even if treated
as priority items. To facilitate a smooth transition between the planning study and the
buildup stage, nine months into the Planning Study a "Preliminary Integrated Plan"
(PIP) will be produced. This will provide a top-level description of the ASC, the
business plan, estimates of the investments required and the revenues projected, and
specification of the legislation needed. The PIP will provide the basis for a decision to
proceed by local, state and federal authorities, and will supply the framework for the
various decisions and actions needed by the end of the study.
The buildup stage, will see the completion of the base cleanup (except for some long-
term environmental remediation projects), construction of the core infrastructure for
transportation and utilities, the IITD facilities largely complete and the IITD fully staffed
and operational. If the full scope of the IITD is approved, old buildings will be largely
replaced by new structures, up to as much as three million square feet of new floor
space for the IITD alone, and associated improvements to land will be completed
during this phase. About half of the industrial investment will have been committed to
the Industrial Park and about a quarter of the construction will have been completed or
17
started. Several key "magnet" firms will be in place. Job generation, not including
construction jobs, will have reached about 8,000. Portions of the residential/
commercial sector will be complete and occupied.
A critical challenge during the buildup stage will be construction scheduling and
phasing to allow productive occupancy to occur simultaneously with heavy
construction. The Planning Study will address this issue. The use of NAS facilities will
continue into the buildup stage but many will have been replaced by the major new
facilities. By the end of the buildup stage the ASC will have the semblance of a livable
and productive community.
The consolidation phase, will see the construction completed, the Industrial Park fully
subscribed, and the residential/commercial sector fully occupied.
The Planning Study will produce rationalized projections of costs and revenues for the
ASC, but preliminary estimates are as follows: The capital investment required will be
about $800 million from the federal government, primarily for the IITD; and $3 billion to
$4 billion from the private sector to build the Industrial Park, provide the utilities and to
develop the residential/commercial sector. This investment will generate 30,000 to
40,000 primary jobs locally and an equal number of commercial and support
infrastructure jobs. The sales revenues from the industries created by the ASC will be
$3 billion to $4 billion annually. The taxes generated for the local, state and federal
governments will be in excess of $1 billion per year.
4.0 Proposed Planning Study
The ASC Planning Study will involve an extensive public participation and approval
process, and will be broken into two phases in order to fully accommodate this
process. The first phase will take about nine months, cost about $3.5 million, and
provide a Preliminary Integrated Plan (PIP) structured as an integral component of the
Community Reuse Plan. This Plan will be submitted by the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to the Department of Defense (DoD), although it is
anticipated that other federal departments will also participate in the Study and
support implementation of the ASC project. The second planning phase will proceed
if and when an ASC concept is adopted in the final Community Reuse Plan. The first
phase of the ASC study is presumed to begin promptly in January 1995 with an
assessment that will establish criteria for the overall ASC plan.
The study will be accomplished through eight primary working teams, each
responsible for a critical planning area, and the work of these teams will be
coordinated and synthesized by a management team responsible for providing overall
direction, final integration and review. These teams are as follows:
18
• Science and Technology Strategy
• Business Strategy
• Regulatory
• Urban Planning
• Architectural and Engineering
• Legislative
• Human Resources and Education
• Financial Systems
• Integration and Review
The term "strategy" is used here to encompass the broad responsibility for designing,
developing and marketing a plan with the relevant constituents.
4.1 Work Teams, Cost Allocations, Organizations, and Management
The work teams were defined in Section 4.0. Each team will be constituted by drawing
upon organizations throughout the Bay Area and the Country and upon diverse
groups represented in the East Bay.
The Science and Technology Strategy Team will draw heavily upon the universities
and national laboratories but will also include significant industrial participation,
especially with regard to defining the special equipment infrastructure to be
established at IITD. The primary industries, industrial associations and consortia and
small business organizations will be called upon to serve on this team.
The Business Strategy Team will also utilize the primary industries, industrial
associations, consortia, and small business organizations. It will include
representatives from the local business community and interested community groups
(e.g., Berkeley Round table on the International Economy, BRIE).
The Regulatory Planning Team will work with appropriate government agencies to
establish regulatory requirements but will rely primarily on the work of contractors
supporting the Base Conversion Office. The Community Reuse Plan will provide the
basis for Environmental Impact Documents (EIR/EIS).
The Urban Planning Team will primarily use local professional planning organizations
familiar with the Alameda community, including private industry, university planning
departments, and public interest groups.
The Architectural and Engineering Team will be led by a primary A&E firm selected
early in phase 1. This team will interact closely with all other teams because of its
obvious integration role. Essentially all elements of the community will be invited to
work with this team to provide input on design tradeoffs.
The Legal and Legislative Planning Team will rely heavily upon the advice of
19
California's individual elected officials and special committees and councils such as
the Defense Conversion Council. The work team will be formed from a combination of
local and national law firms, emphasizing those with offices in Washington D.C. and
Sacramento, due to the requirements to develop enabling legislation for the IITD and
industrial incentives legislation. Selection considerations will include experience with
environmental issues, women/minority/disabled veteran business enterprise
(W/M/DVBE) issues, education and community development issues. To the extent that
UC is involved, the existing University Council will be utilized.
The Human Resources and Education Team will be formed from already existing
groups within local schools, colleges, national laboratories, and universities. Industrial
organizations will work with the education community to design and implement
specific work-study programs wherein displaced workers spend half time in education
classes and half time in an industrial work assignment. Equally important will be an
effort to develop near-term training and jobs for displaced workers.
The Financial Systems Planning Team will be developed around a nationally
recognized accounting firm from the Bay Area. All participating teams will provide
input to this team as the team responsible for providing an integrated ASC financial
plan. This team will also develop financial constructs essential to the formation of joint
ventures among national laboratories, industries, universities, and similar foreign
organizations, giving special consideration to the appropriate returns to the
government and private investors when public and private funds are combined to
achieve mutually beneficial goals.
The Integration and Review Planning Team will be formed primarily from University of
California, including national laboratory, staff. However, key individuals and
community groups from local cities and Alameda county will participate extensively in
the review process; indeed, these groups will be essential to achieve final support
from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority which is the local sponsor for
this proposal.
The cost allocations for these teams are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 and
represent an emphasis on producing a final report that supports an aggressive
program to develop ASC facilities. Table 4.1 concerns funding for Phase 1 and the
preparation of the Preliminary Integrated Plan (PIP) and Table 4.2 provides the
funding allocation for Phase 2 to produce the Final Report of the ASC Planning Study.
We have somewhat artificially constrained the total cost of this effort to $10 million,
which should be adequate to provide the essential planning information.
Added costs will be incurred prior to completion of the final detailed plans, but these
costs are more appropriately included as a part of the individual IITD construction
projects. The level of effort represented here is adequate to produce the necessary
legal, legislative, and regulatory documents as well as the cost estimates and
associated validations needed to achieve authorization of IITD projects.
20
w
ca frn
T.. ■ 1111 <
0
In °I- CO In
Ci l V CD
03
4) CC 0 N et CO 02 RS. 41 7,-, CD Kr
in Od CI CO M C+1 1.... In CO
CO 1 LLI 0
Lo co Lo co co ,gt. co 14., ,— co
(,) N N r- N N CO CO
"0 LU
C41
= 0 .
CD
0) N! CO 0) N co ,ce- 0 co 0
0) > co et N CO 'I' ID r-. r- •er ,—
0
C co
Z
E '
co 1.— en
N. ,— co co ,— ..:1- N cu ao
U) N °O° U1 CD 1.... 1.^. 0 N.
0 co
(...)
Cn a o
< Led N. 4tt 0 10 i■ - co N 'I' N-
I' (1) en CO co to Lo N co ,— co
Rs.
en
0 LI o
to to co 0 co a) co co co
0 M co t•- co N. CD 00 .0" r... 0 co
fa <
u_ z
Preliminary Integrated Plan (PIP)
:a
co
>-
N 0 co co 0 0 co
N CO • CO CO
00 CO
0
CO CO
14) • 4.0 - CO (0 ▪ (0 1""
Ta
• 0 CO CO 1••• 0) CO 0 r.....
1..
LO 1.... CV 01 '1" CO r-, "qt
M CO
CC
D. CD CO Ul CO 0
w
z
1994/95 MONTH:
WORKING TEAM
"rt r- 04 .ra CO
('1
co Cr)
▪ 0) 1.0 - CO (CO
• r-
SCI & TECH STRATEGY
0
0 Cr) 0
r-
LU
!BUSINESS S
REGULATORY
URBAN PLANNING*
CT)
r- 0J 00
z
w
w
z
3
z iu
w >
o5
HUMAN RESOURCES & EDUCATION
CD
• C.0
c)) T■ N 01 t- CO CO I— r..., V 0
O ui 0 0 N 0 N N. 0 N c 0
w cl) ir) (.0 0.) V CD 10 CD 01 0 10
1.- 4
< M 1— v— CD
0 co
IL/
I— z
Z z
Z 0 1.-- co 10 Ni- LO co 0
Lf) N. I— LO 10 N. CO LO 0
0) 0 CO 1.... 0) CO
CZ
U) ce
1--
rz a) co (0 co a) r-,- co co N N.
.4: <
0 m
0 co r,
...- uj 01 01 Yi- 3.- T.-. 01 N I— NT 0)
u.
0 N
:5 • z
co c.j a) 'I— ..... C'.1
Cei c c' � CO Cr) Ta 10
C 44
O "7
CO
OJ 0) 0 CO CO T■ 0) Ya° CO 0
0
>■ U.1 CO CO CO N 0 CO CO
0
649-
CO T." CO •Ct CO 0). CTI 0 .1—
0 '31° LO N (Y) CO 'yr LO •r- 00
LO
0) Z
0) 0) ,-- CO 0) N 'cl"
0 LO 0) CO LO 10 N 0 .4.
C0 0
a. co � o
O W 10 CO 0) Yct N. CO CO N
CI)
co co tr) cx) a) a)
10 0 0 ,kt a0 (0 N
,
eii <
....1 10 CO 0) N t•-• Y:1- MI CO CO N.
(1) 0 CO N Y-- LO 0 T., N. 01 CO cr) 1
COI
CU ,
1-- Z 0 r- 0) CO ..— CO LO CO 0 1.■
10 T- N. T-. 01 CO al ,
ft N- CO 0 CO 0 01 CO 0
LO CO 0 -Ict 10 CO N. N
.<
0
0
EE
4#9.
Is, Lu n
0 Z 0 >-
to ›.- a w
Z w co
w
07.
W 0 W > ci) 0 7 Et
I-- W E 111 LI ra 2 0
< Lu Z
CC Z n - cc (ID Z w D cf.) .5 n
Z 5 o >-, Z <
co
= (r) w (0 0 =
' 0 co 0 __I LLI -J i"...
W U.) 111 025 cc < I= 0 Z
- w Z I-- __I 5 z 0
ots z < z < z 0 5
7: a5 al 0 CI < 111 Z
ORKING
e start of Phase 2 is scheduled to allow sufficient
Many organizations will participate in this Planning Study but there are some key
organizations that will provide the primary focus of the effort:
• University of Califomia (UC)
- Office of the President
- UC Berkeley
- UC San Francisco
- Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• The City of Alameda
• The City's Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG)
• The County of Alameda
• The County's Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB)
• The East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
• Primary Industries, Industrial Associations, Consortia, and Small
Business Organizations.
These key organizations will work with numerous other groups to obtain advice and
generate ideas for the ASC and its relationships with the surrounding community.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), through the Office of the
Executive Director, will provide the primary management role and will integrate the
efforts of all participants into the Community Reuse Plan. The University of Califomia
is prepared to participate with the ARRA in the overall ASC Planning Study effort and
will specifically focus on integration of the results of all IITD planning teams, sponsored
through the Planning Study, into a coherent contribution to the broader Community
Reuse Plan.
4.2 The Preliminary Integrated Plan — Nine Month Milestone
In general terms, the PIP and the final report will cover the same topics, albeit the PIP
will be more cursory on design details. Tables 4.3 summarizes the schedule for this
first phase. We are postulating a start date early of January 1995. The first four
months of the study will focus on comprehensive assessments of critical elements of
the ASC.
These assessments (cf. Table 4.3) will include participation of key groups that have a
stake in the potential future outcome of the study. For example, the committees on
science and technology infrastructure will include representatives from key industries
and/or industry associations, consortia, and small business groups as well as
universities and national laboratories. The requirement is to design an IITD,
supporting the goals of enhanced national competitiveness, that meets the needs of
those industries challenged to achieve enhanced competitiveness and also that
ensures optimum contributions from universities and national laboratories. As
appropriate, a similar approach will be taken to include stake holders in performing
23
1
Z
Cr <
0 —J
>-
0
W W
_I U) W
M M
0 w
CC W
W
C/)
X
C.) >• W
W
co 1— (1) D�0
Z
Z CI) W
w E5 i2
< 0 W Z< W
20 CC < _ Z
S RFP REQTS
LE
Cr)
ffi
co
MCOREGROUP
>-
0
LC) co r•-. co C71
I o !
CT SUPPOR CONSULTA
Cf) . u) u)
03 w l-
c° fr
: ca_
05 ce a. D. m 0 LU I= LL
Uj
C O u- M 0 W
Z W<z— < -J'
z P
—.I .--1>-
i::: Z
co 06 mi CC i= Z —1
la° I—Uj z• i— OZ 0 n° u9 oz "7,— . oz oz o▪ 2 oz<
- D ,
0 „x P 2 i= < -,,” I= CC Z 1—
w . — z :i z , Er. . z 5, < z .21
22)<wcaci 0. UJ UJ UJ k u j w 1
WujzZ.ZZZzZzujm . W
w co 0 co _3 W ' 111 LIJ W _3 W _a co cr co u) _J [kJ 1
.:11-1.01(0Tr*I'ca:mical,...10,41r) .4.:w1colt.„10010)10',... CV M !
MASTE
z
— J
>-
w
cn
cc LI-I
0
>••
cn
Z cn
2 z
2 8
ow,
cc
co
CC
0
11,
w
CC
LL
ASC PLANNING STUDY
Tt°
1—
z
w
w
co
co
< >-
.ra <
u j Z
cc 0
O Z
WW
}—
. z
1—
z tm
th I CO
< cc
al cc 2 < Z LLI 0 D uj 0
0 0 < O E F z0 ciC" ) Li- I=
CO C)
Z CC
_I Z
CC .,• 0 a 21— z z p r•-- < <
1=z• 2
< 0 < LLJ
0 cl. Z
• • CC <- - LII E az
y LJJ 0 UJ Z I-
- I Z cn co co zztzcni3
ii: 0 <m < D
0. 0 = 0 IL 0 Z 0 —J 03 0 0 0
2 5 E- . -; LI- na 3 (5 Lu5
0 CC 03
LU I— CC 0 0
c0
0)
011 Crl
811
co
z
a.
w
th
DEVELOP PRELIM.
I's] CO
CO CO
.........
5
O <
uu I-
< < 0
LU
a. 0-
(fl(I)
O 0
I-
=
u-
• w
00
UJ UJ
CC CC
0- CL
co
co
PRELIM. A &E DESIGN
0
cn
0
0
cc
0
w
1
Iu
u_
0
cn
cc
uj
1—
z
0
0
co
co
z
z
CC
5
en
en
wl-
ots
17.
0
01
cn
w
z
z cc
5
D_
0
z
cc
2
1-1
CC
CL
w
1—
z
0
cc
1
0
—3
0
cn
uj
GO
< > 5 0
0 a
cc . cr.
ti
z A
z w
0 I— GO
CC JuJ <
< C° > CC
• z
z .
fttt
CI) W
cc <
GO a_ _Q.
migrl
>-•
-J
z
0
z
w
z
cc
0
CL
CL
GO
:
8 .c.„
• -I
CO CD '
(1) .
0
• CV 0 .
.• - .0
.• 0 .
. = 1
LO
0
•
Lc
:
;
. ›n;
ET!'
a)
0)
•
0
0
CO
CO
;
0
Q. Z
d
Er -I
Z -J
< <
2 z z
7,1 0 Lu 0
co —
I Z W Z Z
CL cr.
OE if
oz oz
LII” S" 5
CL. CO GO CO,
a)101-T—I
z
5
cri
w
CC
0
0
0
0 1
other assessments. The four months allotted (cf. Table 4.3) to complete these
assessments may be inadequate and they may continue throughout phase 1, although
not indicated in the table.
After four months of assessing and defining requirements, a preliminary integrated
assessment will be completed; then, the effort will shift to the development of specific
frameworks for each element of ASC, including legal structure, organizational content
and interfaces, physical layout, etc. These frameworks will serve as the bases for
drafting implementation charters for the different ASC elements as well as any
legislation required to implement these charters and/or provide additional
industrial/investor incentives. The ASC relationships among UC, the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority and other parties will be formalized during this period.
Based on a preliminary land-use plan, the boundaries of the IITD will be defined and a
preliminary layout of key facilities will be completed consistent with the overall
Community Reuse Plan. The special facilities and special scientific equipment will be
given added emphasis during this period. The PIP will contain a level of conceptual
design adequate to support initiation of a detailed design, one step removed from a
construction start.
During the last five months of phase 1 a preliminary marketing plan (cf. Table 4.3) will
focus efforts on the development of investors and industries to participate in ASC.
Forming a network of investors, both public and private, as well as obtaining
preliminary commitments from numerous industrial concerns will be a primary goal of
the final months of this phase. The commitments must be adequate to reassure
potential government sponsors that "if we build it, they will come".
The PIP will treat all aspects of the Planning Study, but with lesser detail than the final
report. The PIP will provide decision makers, planners, the public and legislators the
information they require to decide whether to proceed with the ASC, based on
approval after phase 1, and what modifications should be inserted into the plan. When
the PIP is approved, the planning study will move ahead to add detail and more
substance, incorporating the modifications decided upon during the review. Approval
of the PIP will also permit action to begin on legislation, on regulatory approvals, on
marketing the Industrial Park, on project planning for the IITD, and on detailed design
and engineering of the initial IITD construction projects.
4.3 The Final Report
The final phase will begin after considerable community review and feedback from
government officials, and the schedule of activities and funds are summarized in Table
4.4. During an estimated four month hiatus in funding, the study team will be redefined
to focus on the development of specific designs.
In addition to a definitive land-use plan and facilities designs, the special equipment,
27
utilities, and transportation infrastructure necessary to support the IITD will be specified
at the detailed design level, adequate to authorize a construction start. The final report
will also include a. number of projections in the form of five year plans for the IITD.
These include an overall marketing plan, an operating plan for each IITD center, an
industry participation plan, a university and national laboratories participation plan, a
NAS facilities transition plan relevant to IITD, an IITD staffing plan, a job creation plan,
and a financial plan. Taken together with the specific facilities design documents, the
business characteristics of the plan will be complete. However, additional special
plans will be needed in order to address the full spectrum of community interests. In
particular, a displaced workers program, a W/M /DVBE program, an education and
training program, and a community involvement program must all be part of the final
plan.
The interactions with government to produce the necessary legislation will continue
along with sustained marketing of the ASC proposal and associated reuse projects. A
major effort during this phase will be devoted to obtaining industry commitments not
only to future but also to near -term investment in new ventures at NAS to achieve a
successful' conversion of this site to beneficial economic use.
The final integrated plan will be available for public review twenty -seven months from
initiation of this project if funding is consistent with the proposed schedule. If the
government process of approval and funding of ASC proceeds in parallel with
development of the plan, then new construction could begin at ASC in 1997.
The following discussion highlights in more detail some of the key areas to be covered
in the final report.
• A land - use /physical plan of the ASC including: layout, zoning, transportation
and utilities; top level architectural design of some of the key features specific to the
IITD as a part of the overall Community Reuse Plan (parks and recreation, schools and
other public buildings, and magnet features) and notional architectural schemes for all
of the areas; description of lifestyle amenities to be included (education, culture,
entertainment, dining, recreation, shopping, security, esthetics).
• A development plan covering: the phasing and scheduling of cleanup and
construction: sequence of actions and commitments needed to support the
construction plan including detailed engineering designs, permits, marketing,
legislation, and funding; and an assessment of problems related to concurrent
occupancy and construction.
• A business plan including: a marketing strategy to attract industries to the
Industrial Park; identification of targeted industries; the approach to new business
support and incubation; projected growth profiles for occupancy, employment and
28
4
1
la) I
0
0
Z
z
0
w
°
�ow
(.11 `,') ,
c c z
o z
uj 2z2
< LL
c•1
LU
—LULiJCI)
Z
P: CI51
4 8 (<2
04 co 1 vd in co
Ct. OD
CC u)
co • cc -3 2
cc w 5 5 0
z > cc
.f
o
5 .3
c3 1.- 0 a. z
O r LIJ —cc ZZ50
P • co 01 0 z L1,1 0 0 p* .1c a. CC
4 ° 12 1 C- co -.
0.. c,
0 El
x Z n:
0_ Ld < ,c( 5
-- d LU 1 [el >7 (9 cc a_ a. : EE g () LU IA (C 0 CD GU > uJ 2 2' 03
( 1 ) > 0 al Z 0 )- m cc ---1 .4- a ) ....---1 . " la LU 0 6 - ".T1*, C 2 > . - ■__LU I*-- WI co zz
() CL
Ec cn z uj 0_ Y < Ci) _J
.- 9" c3<cL=2<zz2z1=a)— z— w°9
®. < LL Ca 0 w 0 al 0 0 CD — LL, CD 4 Q. < < u-
=
I,. 1 CO 0) . ,
01.-1-011011V110 &Olt, CO I CD I 0 ' r- ; NI col •Lr I in; col p•LI CO I a, 0 L.... CL1 CI V LL11 CO I 1°.• 0)
I I-, Ir. 1 1- i N- I I.- 1 r. r-, r r-I rl CY CM 1 CC 01 1 0;11 CC 0.1 I LNI 1 CC 01 01 0°) CI CO (47 C", 1 tn 1 CO C., 1
, ..
. . .
01'
st -
Lo • ..z?
EC
O co' CC
(.0
uo •
O raL, Z^LI
O E
#
, . R. 2
z z : ; 0 .-.1
. :
111 a) •,-;
....
co E
1:1 2
= »-
a t
,c o
a):
CD co
.0 -
29
costs and revenues of the IITD, the Industrial Park, and the residential/commercial
sector; specification of the terms and conditions for companies to occupy the Industrial
Park; and a detailed breakout of the IITD organization.
• Projections of the demography , produced from earlier work in the Community
Reuse Plan, and the implications including: breakout of the residential area by income;
the Industrial Park and the IITD by employment categories; the commercial areas by
types of services offered and employment base; work force skills needed and
availability; implications for transportation and utility requirements; availability of
housing and services; blending with the City of Alameda and the surrounding areas.
• Regulatory. legal, and legislative analysis including: an assessment of the
limits on use and development of the area; permits, waivers, and licenses required;
legislation needed for the development; and environmental impact.
• An organization, management. and administration plan including: charters,
authorities and responsibilities, and membership specifications for the SDA and the
SCBA; interfaces with city and county governments; mechanisms for public
involvement; public services to be offered, and integration of those services with City
and county services; staffing requirements and personnel policies; costs and revenue
sources for marketing, management and administration; and alternatives for federal
ownership of the IITD.
• A work force education and training plan including: the types of training to be
offered and numbers of trainees; coordination with local schools and universities;
coordination with local industries; facilities needed; follow-through job placement and
costs.
• A comprehensive financial plan including: time profiles of funding required from
the federal government and-from various private sources; sales revenues generated
from the Industrial Park and the IITD; income from the sale or rental of property in the
residential/commercial sector; operational costs of administering the ASC; and taxes
and fees generated by, and as a consequence of, the ASC. A special focus on the
development of financial incentives consistent with government and private-sector
requirements, that will enhance joint government and private-sector investments to the
benefit of both parties. A special need exists for incentives for all participants in the
IITD and the Industrial Park while maintaining appropriate safeguards for the
taxpayers.
• An assessment of regional and national impact including: projections of the
impact of the ASC on regional and national employment, economics, and balance of
trade.
30
4.4 Attention to Risks and Potential Show-Stoppers
There are several factors that could militate against the feasibility of the ASC; these
will be addressed early in the Planning Study, and to whatever detail is needed to
understand the limits they impose and the possible solutions. These factors are
primarily as follows:
• Environmental and Regulatory The NAS has extensive contaminated areas
that must be cleaned and/or remediated before they can be developed for further use.
It is the nesting site for the endangered California Least Tem, and also supports a
variety of plant and animal species. Additionally, the central core of the NAS has been
identified as a historic resource requiring protection. These, and other regulatory
issues, will impact the ASC design but the impact may be mitigated through regulatory
relief legislation.
• California Business Climate Industry has been more inclined to move out of
California than into it in recent years for a variety of reasons. Critical questions are
"What will it take by way of tax, fee and regulatory incentives, and by way of innovative
features to attract industry to the ASC?" In-depth discussions with industrial
associations and with industries of the types that are desired at the Industrial Park,
both foreign and domestic, will be held in an effort to develop credible answers to
these questions.
• Conveyance of Land There are potential land-use restrictions that include
land reserved for maritime use, endangered species and wetlands, the homeless
under the McKinney Act, etc.
• Infrastructure The transportation and utility infrastructure represent unique
problems. Because of the estuary separating Alameda and Oakland, the existing
structures on the Oakland side, and environmental considerations, an upgrade to the
existing or addition of new transportation capacity will be problematic and could place
a fundamental limit on job creation in the local area. The NAS utilities are owned by
the Navy but they must eventually be integrated into prevailing civilian infrastructure
which may introduce problems associated with validation and liability. Of course, these
problems will be relatively easily resolved if the ASC proposal is adopted by the
government.
31
5.0 Organization and Finance Considerations
The organization for this study will be built around the work teams described in
Section 4.1 and these teams will be staffed by drawing personnel from universities,
national laboratories, private industry and industrial associations and consortia. Table
5.1 diagrams the organizational approach and shows the ARRA in the primary
participation/review role as well as the direct project management structure. The term
"Industry" is used in this diagram to represent any private sector institution as
appropriate for the designated activity.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) will establish an
appropriate review process for the participation of individual citizens and organized
groups, e.g., the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) with representatives drawn from
the City of Alameda, the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
(EBCRC), and the Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) of Alameda
County. Also, elected officials and staff, relevant councils and committees
representing the broad interests of California will be solicited for input to the Study and
to support implementation of interim milestones as the study progresses. Of course, it
will be essential to establish at the outset top-level federal criteria and to maintain a
close working relationship with the appropriate federal officials. It is expected that the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority will maintain the primary interface with
government officials and the Planning Study Team will provide support to the Reuse
Authority and its Executive Director.
The primary legal organization for the receipt of federal funds is the Reuse Authority
and it is expected that the funds for the ASC Planning Study will be administered
through the Office of the Executive Director. The ASC Planning Study Team will work
with the Executive Director to validate the proposed costs for each work team and
agree upon a final distribution among the teams. Financial management control will
be maintained by the Office of the Executive Director at the work-team level; otherwise,
change control will be delegated to the individual work-team leaders through the ASC
Integration and Review Team.
The ASC Integration and Review Team Leader will be responsible to the Executive
Director for day-to-day management of the ASC study effort. As general manager of
the ASC Planning Study, he/she will reconcile interfaces and assure timely reporting,
cost control, and delivery of work products. Each Team Leader will assure similar
results for her/his area of responsibility.
32
C13
2
0
1.
0
0
N
ct
0
CD
Table 5.1
'11,21•■■■■.
as
a)
0 15
73 0 4.7. 2
c „c -a „.
CU
Alameda Reuse
33
6.0 Appendix on Science-Based Parks,
Over the past forty years the concept of gathering technically oriented activities into
community-scale concentrations has found worldwide appeal and has become widely
practiced. Some of these concentrations have come about spontaneously, as with
Silicon Valley in Califomia and Route 128 in Massachusetts, but most have been
planned developments with government, academic, or entrepreneurial origins. There
are about 200 planned developments worldwide; about half of these are located in the
US. In numbers and size they range from many small "technology parks" to about a
dozen full function "science cities", such as Tsukuba Science City in Japan and
Hsinchu Science Based Industrial Park in Taiwan. They are varied in character: some
are specialized to R&D-only or high-tech industry-only; most have mixed composition.
Whatever the size or character of such developments, their motivating factor is usually
a desire to invigorate regional or national economies. These concentrations of
scientific, technical, and industrial enterprise,,when properly implemented, have
proven to be powerful generators of new technologies, products, companies, jobs, and
revenues, with an economic impact exceeding that projected for the same investments
broadly diffused. The fact of proximity appears to infuse the participants with a higher
level of competitive intellectual and entrepreneurial ferment.
Out of lessons learned from these many developments (including many failures and
slow-growth problem developments) a standard paradigm for success has emerged.
To become a financial success, which means essentially attracting large amounts of
high-tech industrial investment a development must be:
• credibly conceptualized — adequately sized and funded at the front-end to
give potential occupants confidence that this is a good place to invest.
• designed to incorporate attractive life style amenities.
• seeded with one or more major government or university sponsored R&D
organizations.
The amenities and the R&D core organizations function as magnets for industrial
investment in additional R&D facilities and manufacturing, and once a critical size has
been reached growth proceeds rapidly until the development is fully occupied.
Increasingly, the planned developments are offering special services and facilities to
support start-up industries. Additionally, depending on the circumstances,
inducements in the form of tax, fee and regulatory relief may be offered to industry in
the early phases to effect a rapid buildup to the critical size.
The City of Alameda has recent experience with a redevelopment project, involving
the conversion of an abandoned shipyard, that created a small science-based park
called Marina Village. This project was completed over a ten-year period through
1992 and resulted in the creation of approximately 1.5 million sq. ft. of new floor space,
including commercial amenities. This project was financed entirely from the private
34
sector, using innovative financing, and resulted in the placement of 200,000-300,000
sq. ft. per year. It is now essentially fully occupied with about 110 small high-
technology companies with a significant biotechnology component. Close proximity to
the University of California and a city government willing to support business
development aggressively were essential ingredients of this success. Although on a
much smaller scale, the Marina Village shows that the paradigm for success described
above is largely independent of scale.
The Alameda Science City has been conceptualized to follow this paradigm. It will
rank with the large, full function science cities and, of those enterprises, the one
closest to ASC in size and character is the Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park
(HSIP) in Taiwan.
Hsinchu is located 50 miles south of Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, the Republic of
China. The HSIP was initiated by the Taiwanese government during the 1970s, in an
effort to transition the economy of the Republic of China from labor-based to high
value-added manufacturing-based. It was opened in 1980, and has received some
$400 million of government investment, mostly in land acquisition and infrastructure
development. It presently occupies about 1000 acres of developed land, and planned
expansions will increase this to 2500 acres.
Learning from the start-up problems experienced by Tsukuba Science City in Japan,
where failure to provide life-style amenities resulted in little appeal to workers or
investors for nearly fifteen years, the Taiwanese government included residential,
recreational, and commercial features in HSIP from the beginning. (Tsukuba turned
this problem around, starting in 1985, and has since become a premier location for
high-technology industries and for workers.)
The core magnet for Hsinchu is the government funded Industrial Technology
Research Institute (ITRI), which employs 4000 people. The HSIP and the ITRI have
been central to the government's strategic plan for national development: to
competitively earn a significant share of the world market first in electronics, second in
telecommunications, and third in biotechnology. The first two goals have been
essentially accomplished, and the biotechnology thrust is now underway.
The HSIP is growing rapidly, but as of mid-1994 about $3 billion of private investment
has accrued to the HSIP. There are 150 companies located there, 32 of those
companies are foreign owned (28 are US owned) and 118 are domestically owned.
The companies cover six industrial specialities — in rank order: integrated circuits (43
companies), computers and peripherals, telecommunications, optoelectronics,
precision machinery and advanced materials, and biotechnology (the new thrust, with
9 companies).
35
One of the aspirations for the HSIP was to attract back to Taiwan some of the large
number of technically skilled Chinese who had migrated overseas. Some 1000 have
returned, mostly from Silicon Valley in the US, and many of those returnees are senior,
highly skilled people. Of the 150 companies in the HSIP, 73 were founded by these
repatriated technologist-entrepreneurs — a major loss to the US and a major gain for
the Republic of China. The first Director General of the HSIP was Irving Ho, who had
learned the semiconductor business at the Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. of Silicon
Valley in the 1960s and '70s. The HSIP provides a school with a bilingual curriculum
as an aid and an attraction to returning expatriates.
The employment at HSIP is currently about 30,000, about half of which is educated
beyond the high school level. The HSIP supports training programs to assure an
adequate supply of skilled workers and engineers for both its own consumption and
for industries throughout Taiwan.
Sales revenues from the companies at the HSIP have risen to $5 billion annually.
Thus, averaged over the HSIP, the capital investment per employee has been about
$13K from the government and $100K from private investment; the generated revenue
is a very respectable $165K per employee per year, and speaks to the high value-
added character of the companies.
In addition to its capital investment, the government provides a variety of financial
inducements to attract foreign firms and new investment: tax credits to encourage
automation and worker training, four to five year tax holidays (available to companies
investing in strategic industries throughout Taiwan), reduced corporate taxes, duty-free
importation of equipment and materials, and low-interest loans. In the early years of
the HSIP the government also provided some investment capital for new firms, in
return for an equity position, but that practice has dropped off as private investment
capital has become more available. The HSIP provides factories-for-rent and
dormitories for 2000 people to facilitate quick start-up at minimum cost for new
companies.
In terms of return-on-investment for the Taiwan government, the $400 million of capital
investment together with whatever value is imputed to the tax breaks, is returning
better than $1 billion per year in increased income, business and sales taxes. Truly, a
marvelous investment.
36
7.0 Appendix on Related Activities
The primary purpose of this appendix is to provide a summary discussion of programs
and govemment agencies involved in base conversion activities. But because of their
primary relevance to this proposal, a very explicit summary of the relationship between
the Alameda Science City (ASC) proposal and the Alameda Center for Environmental
Technology (ACET) proposal is provided here first. Discussion of other related
activities is much more generic and no attempt is made here to define a specific
relationship to the ASC proposal; although relationships clearly must eventually be
defined, this will be done when the ASC proposal is adopted by the community.
7.1 Relationship between the ASC and ACET proposals: Although these two
proposals were originated by different individuals and are considerably different in
scope, they share some common organizational support and some similar goals; for
example,
• creating jobs,
• linking public sector R&D with private enterprise,
• developing projects to convert closing military bases to productive enterprises.
The ASC proposal is larger than ACET in its scope of land use and it features an
International Institute for Technology Development (IITD) that supports the broad
objectives of national competitiveness and job creation, including a Center for
environmental science and technology. The ACET proposal envisions relatively
modest land use and its focus is more narrowly confined to environmental products
and processes, emphasizing remediation and restoration. The University of California
(UC) is prepared to participate in the ASC Planning Study to support development of a
Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station, and the Planning Study will
define the appropriate management and organizational approach for the IITD. The
ACET proponents have already adopted a specific organizational concept and have
drafted papers for formation of a stand-alone non-profit corporation.
Strategically, these differences are not in conflict and they can be complementary if
properly integrated into the overall Community Reuse Plan. On the one hand, the
larger ASC framework can in principle readily accommodate the ACET proposal and,
on the other, the success of the ACET proposal could in principle support the larger
ASC framework. Given the many uncertainties (funding sources; markets; closure and
cleanup schedules; competing proposals from other regions, etc.) associated with
base conversion, it is only prudent at this time to retain all proposals that are mutually
compatible in principle, until the effort to develop an integrated Community Reuse Plan
has had more time to evolve toward a final product.
During the development of the Community Reuse Plan, it will be important to assure
that the ASC and ACET advocates are mutually supportive and that government
funding support is implemented without any duplication of effort. While these goals
37
can be largely accomplished by coordinating both efforts through the Alameda Base
Conversion Office and/or the Office of the Executive Director, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, the ASC and ACET advocates have mutually agreed to
support and promote both projects in the following manner:
• If ACET is funded as a project independent of ASC, it will proceed without
obligatory consideration of the ASC proposal. But if ASC is funded as a project
independent of ACET, the portion of the funding for planning and/or implementing the
ASC/IITD Environmental Science and Technology Center will be clearly identified as
funding for planning and implementing both ASC and ACET initiatives in
environmental science and technology.
• The ASC Planning Study will specifically evaluate the appropriateness of an
ASC/IITD Center for Environmental Science and Technology if, for example, either (a)
the ACET corporate structure is not compatible with ASC/IITD business requirements
or (b) the ACET proposal is not adopted as part of the Community Reuse Plan.
• On a quarterly basis, beginning in the fourth quarter CY94, key planners from
each project will meet with the Office of the Executive Director, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, to coordinate activities in support of the development of an
overall Community Reuse Plan.
• The University of California, as a potential major participant in both projects,
will evaluate periodically its potential role in the management and/or coordination of
any ASC and/or ACET activities as the Community Reuse Plan is developed.
These specific commitments are representative of a much deeper and broader
commitment to the strategic objective of beneficial base conversion.
7.2 Synopsis of related activities: A broad range of related activities and programs
are relevant to the ASC and ACET proposals. Some of these were initiated by
government agencies while others were spontaneous outgrowths from preexisting
local community groups interested in sustainable Bay Area development. The
following provides a synopsis of such activities.
7.2a Department of Commerce (DOC):
EDA. Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. EDA is an
important source of funding for the "bricks and mortar" projects needed by •
communities hit by defense conversion. A plan is required before being eligible for
EDA funds and the funds usually go to a governmental agency. Generally a
community applies for an OEA grant first to create the plan, but this is not a
requirement.
NIST. National Institute of Standards and Technology. One of the six participating
federal agencies in the Technology Reinvestment program (TRP). Part of the federal
38
Department of Commerce, NIST supports science and engineering research in
commercially important areas. Of their more important programs, the Manufacturing
Extension Centers (MEC) is part of the Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP), but
the Advance Technology Program (ATP) and State Technology Extension Program
(STEP) are not.
ATP. Advanced Technology Program. A NIST program focused on the
development and commercialization of precompetitive generic technologies as
well as on refining manufacturing practices. ATP is directed only at industry and
provides substantial support to small businesses.
MEC. Manufacturing Extension Center, formerly referred to as Manufacturing
Technology Centers (MTC) and Manufacturing Outreach Centers (MOC). This
NIST program is part of the Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP). BARTA
has applied to NIST for a STEP planning grant to establish a center in Northern
California and has received preliminary_approval for funding. EDAB has taken
the lead in applying for the center itself and raised $1 million in cash and $1
million in matching funds for this $4 million center.
STEP. State Technology Extension Program. This NIST program provides
funding to states to plan for the deployment of technology to manufacturers.
BARTA has applied for a STEP planning grant to establish a Manufacturing
Extension Center (MEC) in Northern California. NIST's Western Regional Office
has indicated BARTA has been awarded the funds subject to some negotiation
on the plan.
7.2b Department of Defense
ARPA. Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Defense. Formerly
known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the name was
changed when ARPA took over the lead responsibility for managing the Technology
Reinvestment Program.
TRP. Technology Reinvestment Program. This is a hybrid program
administered by ARPA. TRP combines programs from six different federal
departments — the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of
Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the
Department of Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of
Transportation (DOT). The TRP offers four matching grant programs in the area
of technology deployment, three in technology development, and one in
manufacturing education and training. In general, TRP grants in any of these
areas require 50% local matching funds, a military as well as commercial benefit
(called "dual use "), and private sector participation. The State's Gold Strike
program was originally a TRP proposal. In June another TRP proposal was
39
submitted to ARPA to establish a Manufacturing Extension Center (MEC — see
NIST programs under DOC).
RTA. Regional Technology Alliance, Department of Defense. This is one
of the programs supported by TRP. RTA's are regional efforts to
commercialize technology and to provide infrastructure support to
clusters of associated firms. The alliance is intended to increase the
baseline of manufacturing technology in both products and processes.
CSRC. CALS Shared Resources Center. This D0D program aims at the same client
base as the MECs — manufacturers with under 500 employees and will use many of
the same methods to reach that group. Instead of increasing the level of
manufacturing technology, however, the emphasis is on electronic commerce and the
use of information technology in business and manufacturing. Concurrent Technology
Corporation (CTC) is the prime contractor for establishing a CSRC that has been
awarded to Oakland. Locally, Interlinear Corporation and Peralta Community College
District are negotiating a sub contract with CTC to operate the center. On the federal
level as well as locally, efforts are being made to integrate MEC and CSRC activities.
OEA. Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. OEA provides funds to
create a recovery plan. These funds must go to govemmental bodies and OEA
strongly prefers to give these funds to bodies capable of establishing regional
consensus. Using OEA funds Congressman Ron Dellums has established a regional
commission (see EBCRC) to plan and reach consensus concerning defense
conversion in the region. Since the commission is not a governmental body, the
County of Alameda receives the funds for the commission.
7.2c Local.Programs and organizations
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). An organization created
through a joint powers agreement to produce a reuse plan for Naval Air Station
Alameda. It is comprised of all five Alameda City Council members, the Mayors of
Oakland and San Leandro, the Alameda County Supervisor from the Third District and
the congressional representative from the Ninth District. The plan produced by the
ARRA will provide the basis for setting cleanup criteria for the Navy's Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and future use of the Alameda NAS.
ACET. Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies, formerly Pacific
Environmental Resources Center. This is a project to link the environmental
technology resources, the regulatory community and the commercial environmental
industry of the area. It proposes to establish an headquarters facility at the NAS.
Objectives include commercialization of new technologies, promotion of
environmentally benign manufacturing, and provision of expert assistance in
environmental policy and remediation. The industry — research linkage will be
designed to boost the competitiveness of U.S. industries in the international market
40
and to create new companies and jobs. ACET was initiated by EDAB, but is a full
partnership of public and private sector institutions and agencies.
BAEF. Bay Area Economic Forum. This public-priviate-academic-labor, non-profit
organization was formed through a partnership of the Bay Area Council (BAC) and the
Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG). It's activities are aimed at catalyzing
action — including defense conversion projects — to improve the economic vitality of the
nine-county Bay Area.
BADCAT. Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team. A partnership formed by
the BAEF, BADCAT brings together the regional parties directly involved in
defense conversion projects, to create a coordinated regional action program
which will achieve shared goals in defense conversion. A major BADCAT
project is a cluster analysis of the region's industries to define how specific
industries affect their communities, which clusters reflect regional strengths and
what the potential needs of these clusters are.
BRAG. Base Reuse Advisory Group. A citizens group established to advise the
Alameda City Council regarding community opinion on base reuse and mitigation
measures.
DEFENSE CONVERSION COUNCIL. Chaired by Secretary of Trade and Commerce,
Julie Wright, and staffed by OST, this council is comprised of representatives from a
number of state agencies involved in defense conversion activities. Trade and
Commerce has the lead for activities related to businesses dealing with loss of
government contracts and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research has the
lead for base closures. A statewide plan is being developed.
OST. Office of Strategic Technologies, formerly known as the Office of
Competitive Technologies, is an office of the Trade and Commerce Agency, and
has responsibility for administering the Gold Strike program. OST also provides
staff support to the Defense Conversion Council.
GOLD STRIKE. A State program to establish a statewide system for
encouraging technology commercialization. There are three regions — San
Diego (SANDRTA); Los Angeles (LARTA); and the Bay Area (BARTA). Gold
Strike is modeled after the highly successful Ben Franklin Partnership in
Pennsylvania. Currently EDA funds are being requested to augment funding for
this program. Gold Strike is administered by the Office of Strategic
Technologies in the State Trade and Commerce Agency. BARTA, LARTA and
SANDRTA are all non voting members of the State's Defense Conversion
Council.
BARTA. Bay Area Regional Technology Alliance. The Bay Area portion
of a statewide regional technology alliance called Gold Strike, this
41
partnership of EDAB and JVSV serves the counties of Contra Costa,
Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin. BARTA
helps form partnerships to commercialize technology and reviews
proposals seeking State match for federal technology commercialization
programs. BARTA's mission also includes creating partnerships for
technology commercialization. The State has initially provided $250
thousand for BARTA activities.
EBCRC. East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission. This organization was
created by Congressman Ron Dellums specifically for the purpose of conversion
planning. The initial grant was a special grant to create a conversion model for an
area that includes both military base closures and national laboratories facing a
mission change. The Executive Committee of the EBCRC includes, among others,
Mayors Withrow and Harris and Supervisors Perata and Carson.
EDAB. Economic Development Advisory Board. A public-private economic
development organization established to advise the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors and to conduct activities to improve the business climate of the region.
Among other defense conversion activities, EDAB is co-partner with JVSV in
establishing BARTA; has initiated ACET; and is sponsoring an MEC proposal for
Northern California.
JVSV. Joint Venture:Silicon Valley. EDAB's partner in BARTA, JVSV is in its second
year as an innovative economic development program driven by the private sector.
The core of the organization is defense contractors and they have raised several
millions of dollars for their efforts. JVSV initiatives include an environmental incubator
an enterprise network to support startup companies, and a defense space consortium
to promote dual use among defense contractors.
OBC/CTF. Oakland Base Closure/Conversion Task Force. OBC/CTF is the City of
Oakland's planning group to determine a reuse plan for the Oakland Naval Hospital
site and to provide alternatives for Oakland residents who are displaced due to base
closures and defense conversion throughout the Bay Area. OBC/CTF has three
subcommittees — Employment and Social Impacts, Finance and Legislation, and Land
Reuse.
42
WHAT IS ACET?
A Catalyst. ACET is a nonprofit. oraanization formed to speed the development of
California s environmental industry the growth of related businesses and the
commercialization of environmental technologies. It will catalyze this development by fully
leveraging the extraordinary environmental. financial. business. and governmental resources
that already exist in the region.
A Strategic Partnership. ACET was formed by participating industries. national laboratories
and institutions of higher education representing many of the premier technical resources of
the nation. It has worked closely with government and environmental regulators and has
gained broad community support.
A Change Agent for Sustainable Economic Development. Through creation of an
environmental business incubator. a revolving loan fund. and specialized facilities and
programs. ACET represents sustainable development for both the community and the
environment by:
creating technologies to preserve non-renewable resources
developing solutions for regulatory compliance
accelerating regional economic development
creating and retaining jobs
facilitating conversion of a defense dependent economy
providing powerful resources for local businesses to compete in an expanding
global marketplace
WHY IS ACET NECESSARY?
Regional Economic Restructuring. ACET is necessary to help revitalize the region's
economic base. The 1993 decision to close four major Navy bases in the San Francisco Bay
area means the Bay Area will suffer the loss of nearly 60,000 jobs - the greatest net job loss
in the country. Including the 1988 and 1991 rounds of base closures. California has suffered
over half of the total net job losses nationally from all the base closures of all the military
services. In addition, the Bay Area's private sector defense industry has lost approximately
80,000 jobs due to reductions in federal defense procurement. As the region struggles to
replace a major part of its economic base, ACET's role is not only as a catalyst to create new
jobs in the environmental industry, but also as a resource to help emerging and existing
businesses sustain themselves during economic restructuring.
National Competitiveness. ACET is necessary to keep pace with rapidly growing
environmental industries in Europe and Asia. In large part regulatory standards create the
environmental market. Those standards cannot exceed the limitations of technology and
bearable costs on the one hand, but must be responsive to the need for greater environmental
remediation and protection on the other. For this reason national and international leadership
in this market depends on a successful partnership among regulatory agencies, industry,
technical resources and societal interests. ACET is a strategic partnership of all those
resources ar� represents the collective mLerestsOf both the private and public sectors inIona
term growth.
Broadened Technology Transfer. ACET is necessary for the efficient transfer of
environmentai technology and the use of resources at laboratories and universities.
Businesses often experience difficulty working directly with national laboratories and
universities cue to differences in objectives. funding. administration and other factors.
Because this is a labor-intensive job. so far large companies have been the primary
beneficiaries of these technology transfer programs. ACET represents an experienced
intermediary. with dedicated staff and a detailed working knowledge of programs. researchers
and policies related to environmental technology. ACET specializes in drawing out
appropriate environmental technology for the private sector and finding the right private sector
partners for promising technoogy. ACETs cumulative knowledge base wil! create efflcencies
for large companies and will level the playing field for small and mid-sized companies.
Successful Technology Commercialization. ACET is necessary to define successful
environmental technology commercialization strategies. The market for environmental
technology is significantly different from other markets. Besides costs and benefits it is
influenced by regulation. technology. financing, other business factors. and public perceptions
of risk. These perspectives are inc!uded in the ACET partnership and will be central to the
development of successful technology commercialization strategies.
WHAT WILL ACET DO'?
ACET will stimulate environmental businesses and technoogies by partnering extremely high
quality. locally available. technical, financial and business resources in networks that include
regulators. local government. and community interests.
The ACET par-tnership has demonstrated technical expertise in the following areas:
Environmental rennediahOn and ecological restoration
Instrumentation for environmental monitoring
Waste prevention. Aand|ing, treatment and management
VVat8[ .pu
8� hYi��iOnand reuse
u
Environmentally conscious manufacturing
Green building technologies
Lessening the environmental impacts of transportation
Through focused programs, special laboratory taCi|ide3, a revolving loan fund, an
environmental business incubator, and the technical resources of five of the world's premier
research institutions, ACET will provide the following services:
Directed Technology Development. ACET will sponsor or cosponsor technology
development with Ngh'p8y0ff. high-impact environmental and commercial OppOrtuOitY, to
create new businesses and new jobs.
Technology Demonstration. ACET will expedite the commercialization and application of
new technologies by sponsoring demonstration sites (e.g. Alameda Naval Air Station and
Mare Island) or partner sites (e.g. McClellan Air Force Base and Fort Ord) in California. Ex
Situ treatment will be demonstrated in ACET laboratory facilities.
Business Assistance. ACET will provide business assistance including management. legal.
financial. and marketing services for both existing and start-up companies. It will also provide
financing to start up businesses through a revolving loan fund and broker venture capital for
commercializing ACET sponsored technologies. National and global market opportunities will
be identified and networked.
Environmental Training and Retraining. ACET will facilitate a trainingiretraining network
for new, displaced. and veteran workers involving community colleges, the California State
University system. and the University of California system to provide hands-on environmental
skills for both cleanup operations and modern environmental industrial practice.
Complementary programs at other closing facilities will also be included. Additionally. ACET
will sponsor workshops and short courses to quickly communicate advances in environmental
technique and management.
KEYS TO SUCCESS
Success in the commercialization of technology depends on technical and financial resources,
business skills and experience. Fortunately. the Bay Area is unique in the quality and quantity
of all these assets. In addition. regional economist Anna lee Saxenian has pointed out that
this region is greatly advantaged by a culture of free-flowing communication across institutions
and business sectors.
Quality and Proximity of Intellectual Resources. ACET's technical resources come from
a sophisticated regional research and development base built over decades. A significant
amount of environmental technology research, development. training and administration is
already occurring among ACET's partners. Within an hour's drive of ACET's proposed
headquarters at Naval Air Station Alameda, ACET's partners include:
•
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratories
California State University, Hayward
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, San Francisco
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District
Peralta Community College District
Other potential partners in the area include: NASA Ames: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center:
San Jose State University; Stanford University; University of California Davis; and Ohlone
Community College.
The maturity and quality of these intellectual resources allows ACET to concentrate on
responding to emerging markets and opportunities. Rather than having to develop resources
and core ccrrcetencies. ACET's focus is on creating strategic networks. developing
common vision. and leveraging existing resources.
Superior Business Environment. Given the number and quality of the research institutions
in the area. it is not surprising that in a 1993 study ranking the nation's top 60 metropolitan
areas. Moran Stahl and Boyer found the Bay Areas three metropolitan areas among the
leaders in a number of key areas:
RANKING OF INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENT IN
TOP 60 METROPOLITAN AREAS
OAK-
LAND
SAN SAN
FRAN JOSE
Presence of Innovative firms lst
Venture Capital Invested
1st
Access to Industry Thought Leaders
5th
% Workforce with College Degrees
6th
% Workforce with Graduate Degrees
6th
8th 1 6th
14th 3rd
1st 3rd
2nd 3rd
2nd 3rd
These figures illustrate more than the presence of research. They also represent the
tremendous strength of the San Francisco Bay Area business infrastructure in commercializing
new technologies and spawning new knowledge-based industries. By far the largest portion
of the nation's venture capital is invested in the Bay area. and there is a pervasive high level
of knowledge shared within the financial community and other parts of the business support
infrastructure. The San Francisco Bay Area has a proven track record of technology
commercialization built on a tradition of cooperation across corporate and academic
boundaries. High tech. biotech. software, and environmental technologies all have a strong
presence in the region and substantial portions of these industries originated here. Because
both the quality and quantity of elements critical to success already exist in the Bay Area.
ACET's opportunities to catalyze environmental technology and sustainable development are
greatly enhanced.
MARKET OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY.
Both domestically and internationally there is a great need for new cleanup and control
technologies. For instance:
The Department of Defense estimates the federal cost to clean California
bases will reach $2.5 billion. Considering contractors have estimated the
cleanup cost at one Northern California military base. alone. in that range. this
may be conservative.
Freliminary Department of Energy estimates for the cost to clean DOE
properties nationally. range from $500 billion to $1 trillion.
Locally. Silicon Valley has 20 superfund sites and several cities face major
difficulties attracting and retaining businesses due to the extent of
contaminated properties.
Between 1992 and 1995 it is estimated the national market for solid waste
treatment and disposal technologies will grow 50% to $45 billion. and for air
pollution control equipment the market will grow almost 100% to $45 billion.
The international market for environmental technologies is projected to arow
from $300 billion currently to $600 billion by the year 2000.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACET AND OTHER PROPOSALS
A number of environmental centers and programs have been proposed throughout the state
and the country. Some complement ACET and contacts have been made seeking
collaborations where there is mutual benefit. Centers are especially likely to be proposed at
federal facilities with significant toxic problems and scheduled for closure. A partial listing of
other environmental programs is listed in Attachment A.
ACET is also a proposed reuse at Naval Air Station Alameda. scheduled for closure in early
1997. However, ACET is only one of several uses for the base, and the base's proximity to
key resources is far more important than the base toxic problems. In general. ACET differs
from other environmental proposals in several key respects:
Catalyzing Proven Resources. Most proposals list participation of one or several
universities or laboratories. but few can match the technical resources already actively
engaged in developing ACET. More importantly, many proposals focus on using the
environmental center itself to create or attract the complete range of necessary institutions.
ACET's advantage lies in the demonstrated capabilities of the region's entire spectrum of
technical. financial, business support, trade and other resources supporting technology
commercialization. ACET does not have to develop resources, it seeks to catalyze them.
Another key ACET advantage is the geographic proximity its wide range of resources. ACET
planning meetings are regularly attended by all three national laboratories and a number of
business. regulatory and educational institutions. The process of catalyzing and networking
these institutions outside the San Francisco Bay Area would be much more difficult.
Market access. ACET's customers are consultants, engineering firms, equipment
manufacturers, test labs, and other companies in the environmental market. As an industry
catalyst. ACET is ideally situated in the nation's best market. Several private firms have been
central players in the development of ACET and will continue to be heavily involved in further
development of ACET programs and facilities. By contrast. the Hanford facility in Washington
State has employed a large number of remediation experts. but is isolated from private sector
firms that couic benefit from its technology. Other centers have not generated ACET's level
of business involvement.
Public participation and outreach. ACET has also drawn broad-based public support and
involvement. The d.evelopment of ACET has included several months of review. discussion.
changes and endorsement by public entities and community groups such as:
- Alameda City Council
- San Leandro City Council
- Alameda County Economic Development Advisory Board
- East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
- (City of Alameda) Base Reuse Advisor/ Group
- Bay Area Economic Forum
As a result of this public process. the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is
expected to include ACET as part of the initial, officially recognized reuse plan for the
Alameda Naval Air Station.
Public understanding is important for most technology commercialization. but it is even more
important in the case of environmental technology. Local governments and the general public
are frequently directly involved in deciding issues such as what standards should apply. which
technologies are appropriate and whether certain technologies can be tested. For this reason,
public participation will be extremely critical to any significant progress toward sustainable
economic development. .
Public outreach. input and educational assistance are an integral part of ACET's program.
ACET's organization reflects its goal to involve all affected parties in the development of
environmental technology. Besides extensive public review of ACET, the public will have a
continuing role in the development of new programs and the conduct of ACET activities
through representation on ACET's Board.
ACET'S STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Organization. Incorporation papers to establish ACET as an independent nonprofit
organization have been drawn up and should be filed shortly. A small, interim board of
directors has been selected and will organize a search for an executive officer. The board
will be expanded after first year funding has been identified and an executive officer has been
selected.
Coordination with State Programs. Discussions are underway with the State's
Environmental Protection Agency, Cal EPA, concerning collaboration between ACET and the
recently announced California Environmental Technology Center. A memorandum of
understanding will be drafted shortly concerning areas of mutual sUpport, The State's Trade
and Commerce Agency continues to be a major supporter of ACET.
6
Base Reuse. ACET has been endorsed as an Alameda Naval Air Station reuse activity by
the City of Alameda, and should be approved by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority shortly. ACET will serge as one of several technology commercialization centers
envisioned in a large-scale reuse proposal. called Alameda Science City. Federal funding for
ACET will be part of a consolidated request for the entire plan. The University of California,
a key ACET participant from its inception. has agreed to lead the Science City planning effort
and is in the process of recruiting a project administrator.
Implementation Plan. ACET's immediate focus is in four areas with priorities to be
determined by ACET's board:
Establish a small administrative unit in temporary offices to oversee ACET
development
• Create immediate job and business opportunities through a revolving loan fund
• Organize local resources to take maximum advantage of State and federal
resources available to support the region's environmental industry
• Initiate technology commercialization by marrying technology and business
expertise in a "business incubator without walls"
The progress of ACET programs does not depend on the creation of laboratory and other
facilities at Alameda Naval Air Station. The closure of the base is scheduled for the first part
of 1997. but funding for base cleanup has been lagging behind schedule. For this reason
permanent ACET facilities may be several years away. In the meantime, ACET resources
should be employed to help achieve local. State and federal program goals. A small
administrative unit is needed to coordinate these resources and to develop programs
responding to those needs.
The region's most pressing need is to create jobs and businesses. For this reason ACET's
revolving loan fund and "business incubator without walls" will receive early emphasis. The
revolving loan fund will provide immediate job benefits by supporting the growth and stability
of the existing regional base of environmental technology firms. The "incubator without walls"
will marry business expertise with the region's most promising technologies. Besides the
extensive list developed among ACET partners, several Department of Defense laboratories
have approached ACET for assistance in commercializing DoD technology.
In-situ technology demonstration is another activity that does not require permanent facilities.
It will receive priority according to the potential for job creation and funding. Facilities
planning and development will be conducted as funding and site information become
available. It is expected that the actual remodeling or construction of laboratory and other
facilities will begin in 1997.
FUNDING ELEMENTS
Federal interest in the promotion of a U.S. environmental industry is high. In November 1993
citing some of the same market projections listed above, Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown
announced a federal initiative to promote the export of environmental technologies. In July.
1994 the National Science and Technology Council published Technoloay for a Sustainacie
Future with a cover letter signed by President Clinton and Vice President Gore. This
publication of the administration's national goals for federal investment in environmental
technology. is expected to be followed by the announcement of programs in as many as eicht
different . federal departments.
Federal Sources. Once ACET is officially approved by the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority. congressional staff support has been promised to identify
appropriate programs to fund ACET activities. For instance:
The Department of Energy is investing a percentage of its considerable cleanup costs
in the development and commercialization of innovative technologies. ACET coulc
provice support for these activities as a contractor to DOE.
• The national laboratories. as part of their community service and assistance to small
businesses. continue to make substantial contributions of staff and resources to the
development of the ACET proposal.
• As part of the community's plan to mitigate the economic impacts resulting from the
closure of Alameda Naval Air Station. ACET will be eligible for federal planning
support. These funds are administered through the Office of Economic Adjustment
in the Department of Defense.
• ACETs technology commercialization programs, particularly those involving
Department of Defense technology, may be eligible for support as a Regional
Technology Alliance under guidelines that are yet to be published. The Regional
Technology Alliance program will be part of a fall solicitation for the Technology
Reinvestment Project and will be administered by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology in the Department of Commerce.
The Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce funds
projects in communities affected by base closures. This is a potential source of funds
for ACET programs such as the revolving loan fund and business incubator.
The Small Business Development Administration has funds to establish incubators.
The Department of Defense has already awarded $25 million for testing three
innovative technologies at Alameda Naval Air Station, but these funds can only be
applied to the base cleanup itself. ACET will leverage these DoD expenditures and
advance commercialized of these important technologies by attracting other sources
of funds for demonstration.
ACET will support the administration's environmental export initiative announced
November 1993 by Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. ACET will also seek Bureau
of Export Administration assistance in marketing ACET technologies abroad.
8
Department of Labor funds will be sought to train and retrain workers affected by base
closures in skills needed by environmental companies.
Besides the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. funding for ACET
business lines will be sought. as appropriate. from the Environmental Protection
Agency. and Department of Transportation. among others.
State Sources. The State has also expressed interest in supporting and promoting
California's environmental industry. Cal EPA has announced a state plan. offered support for
several environmental incubators and announced the establishment of the California
Environmental Technology Center. Discussions with the CETC administrator and with Cal
EPA indicate several areas of mutual support. Other sources of state support include:
•
The Office of Strategic Technology in the Trade and Commerce Agency provides up
to half of the local match requirements for projects seeking federal funds and is
particularly interested in developing technology commercialization infrastructure.
Training in the skills needed by environmental technology companies will be sought
through the State's Employment Training Panel which provides funds for workers
displaced by base closures and reductions in defense procurement.
ACET technology commercialization projects and business lines can be funded, in
several different agencies and departments including: the Petroleum Violation Escrow
Account. Caltrans, Employment Development Department and Cal EPA.
As a community service, The University of California, California State University, and
the State's Community College system continue to provide staff and resources to
assist in the development of ACET.
The Case for Federal Funding. With superior technical and business resources. ACET is
extremely well positioned to make substantial contributions to local, State and federal
objectives. In return, ACET Will request funding. State and private sector donations, fees for
service, and royalties will also be sought, but ACET will rely more heavily on federal funding
because:
The demand for environmental goods and services is primarily affected by government
regulation, not by internally generated market demand. Although the public receives
benefits, creating those benefits does not necessarily increase the profits of the
company. This is the reason banks are reluctant to make loans for pollution control
equipment. When there is a public benefit, but it is unfair to ask the private sector to
assume the risk of providing that benefit, it is appropriate for government to support
that activity.
As a responsible employer, the federal government assists communities in developing
programs to mitigate the effects of base closures and reductions in defense
procurement.
0
ACET ;.-,rovicies an essential service to the federal government by helping It reduce
costs and increase efficiencies in hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cleanuc
resod nstilities.
FIRST YEAR BUDGET REQUEST:
$ 400,000 Administration
400.000 Technology demonstration
600.000 Technology Commercialization
500.000 Business assistance
200.000 Environmental training and retraining
200.000 Community development and outreach
200,000 Planning
5,000.000 Revolving Loan Fund
7.500.000
Total
Administration ($400.000): The administrative unit is necessary to formalize collaborative
relationships established during the planning process. A single. dedicated point of contact is
necessary to negotiate with federal, State and private sector companies in developing and
implementing programs. The administrative staff will represent ACET to the environmental
industry and the public. respond to State and federal requests and opportunities, as well as
establish and manage the administrative systems for daily operation of the program.
$156,000 Chief Executive Officer ($120k + 30% benefits)
65.000 Administrative Assistant ($50k + 30% benefits)
45.500 Secretary ($35k + 30% benefits)
$133,500 Expenses including rents, equipment, business systems. accounting, legal.
public relations training, travel, etc.
Technology Demonstration ($400,000): The cost of demonstrating the feasibility and
effectiveness of a technology in the field may or may not include the cost of cleanup itself.
When appropriate, these funds will be applied to projects where cleanup is already funded by
another source. For example, the Navy has funds to experiment with three new remediation
technologies in the cleanup of Alameda Naval Air Station. It does not have demonstration
funds to make the testing of these potentially valuable technologies accessible to the
environmental industry, clients. and the regulators making decisions about the technology's
applicability. Many such opportunities are lost in the private sector as well since private
property owners do not receive any special benefit from an investment in demonstration.
Technology Commercialization ($600,000 4-): There are a number of technologies in public
research laboratories that require assistance to reach the commercial market. In order to
begin tapping this resource, three projects at $200,000 each will be undertaken. These funds
could be augmented by accessing State and federal programs aimed at commercializing
technology.
10
Business and Technical Assistance ($500,000): Prior to the creation of the incubator
facility. the core of ACET services will be provided to existing and startup companies in an
"incubator without walls" program. A package of technical services will be provided using the
resources of the ACET partners. Business services will be provided by existing organizations
wherever possible to take advantage of existing resources and to avoid duplication of
services. Examples include: the East Bay Small Business Development Center. Northern
California Business Environmental Assistance Center. Eastbay Net. U.C. Access, and the
business schools, and support organizations associated with local institutions of higher
education.
Environmental Training and Retraining ($200.000): This is an area of community need.
Using State and federal funds. training that meets the specific needs of this emerging industry
will be provided to the region's displaced workers. Existing training institutions and
organizations will be used.
Community involvement and outreach ($200.000): As previously discussed. public
understanding of the issues is extremely important to attain progress toward a sustainable
economy. Initially, four projects at $50.000 each will be awarded to communities needing
better public understanding of difficult environmental problems.
Planning (S200.000): Facilities planning is necessary to ensure ACET becomes a successful
base reuse. The early development of this plan will also allow ACET to anticipate funding
opportunities and to present a proposal at the earliest opportunity.
Revolving Loan Fund ($5,000.000): The revolving loan fund is an area of great community
need and interest. It takes advantage of the considerable business skills and technical
development work of the region's private sector. For qualified firms loans from this fund will
be packaged with the technical and business services offered through the business incubator.
SUBSEQUENT YEAR PROGRAMS
Directed Technology Development: These are projects undertaken to solve client
problems. Currently clients negotiate with each laboratory separately to find assistance.
ACET will provide an organized, efficient method of focusing these resources and will create
specialized facilities, not currently available, to deal with these problems.
Technology verification/validation/certification: This is the main focus of the Department
of Energy's California Environmental Enterprise. ACET will work closely with CEE to become
the non-profit organization sponsoring its activities.
In-House Business Line and facilities staffing: Because of differences in organization and
basic program objectives, it is difficult for businesses to efficiently contact the appropriate
technical assistance in public laboratories. For the same reasons it is difficult for researchers
to find private sector applications for promising technologies. ACET will support a small staff
of experts who will serve as intermediaries and brokers to help make the appropriate
11
connections cetwee,n resources and needs. The initial ACET staff .N II perform some of this
function along Kith othercluties.
1.2
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS AND FROGIRAMS RELATED TO ACET
CEE California Environmental Enterprise is the California component of a national program
Department of Energy program. All three national |8b3 participate. CEE originated in a
federal Department of Energy strategic plan process. Although there has been no national
implementation yet. an RFP is out. CEE's focus is on demonstration: commercialization:
technology brokering: and producing an inventory of lab technology. CEE currently needs
a not-for-profit to sponsor its activties. There is an opportunity for ACET to take this
role and to integrate DOE programs with its own.
AB2060 DOE and the three labs are supporting this |egi3|aUon aimed at creating one stop
verification and validation of emerging environmental technologies. Passage of this bill
would help' ACEToonnnnercia||ze technology.
CETP California Environmental Technology Partnership. Related tOAB2O5O.
CETC California Environmental Technology Center is 8coUBbor8tOn of UC San Diego. the
Scripps Institute and C8| EPA. Richard Green of Cal EPA has been instrumental in getting
this program funded. CETC is interested in developing programs in market Assessment.
assessment of techno|ogieS' coordination of R&[) in the state. As stated, these activities
fit well with ACET. Early coordination could create a complementary program with
CETC performing administrative and liaison activities. CETC could be very helpful in
seeK|ngfedera|fundsooaoo18tedw|th"Teohno|ogyforoSusta|nab|eFuture''.Hoxvever,
CETC is in its formative stages and seems to be searching for its niche.
California State University. Hayward Center Sam Doctor. Congressman Pete Stark. The
Center has been placed as a line item in the defense appropriation biU, but it has not been
funded yet.
Presidio The CSU Hayward Center may land here according to a newspaper 8rtiC|e.
Primarily oriented to policy, the Presidio has been looking to attract a program. Vice
President Gore recently praised the center in a public speech at the Presidio during his mid-
September visit to the Bay Area.
Fast Track - This is a $25 million program to try three experimental technologies in the clean
up process at Alameda Naval Air Station. Biocontainment and Professor Kent Ud8U'S
dynamic steam stripping process are two of the technologies. NAS AJanled8, VVESTO|V, the
three labs and the University of California are involved. ACET would add a valuable service
by providing additional funding for demonstrating the technologies to induStry,
regulators and the public.
STEP - This center is proposed as a reuse of Fort Ord. It is being sponsored by UC Santa
Cruz and draws on |0c8| strengths in marine environmental science. Discussions between
ACET and UC Santa Cruz sponsors have addressed a potential division of
specialization to create complemefltary strengths.
Environmental Business Cluster - Sponsored by Joint Venture Silicon Valley, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, and CaI EPA. It recently opened in a arge facility in San Jose
L3 '
with con5ideracie State and community Initial conversations have been held
about potential jOint projects and requests ue3tS fo[ funding, but nothing has progressed
beyond the discussOfl stage.
Alameda Science City - A large scale technology commercialization plan that will likely serve
as the core of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority plans for the reuse of the
Aiameda Naval Air Station. Besides AARA itself. key players nclude ARRA staff. Don Parker:
the Concept ceve|oper. Jim Davis: and the potential program manager. the University of
California. By mutual agreement ACETvv|U serve as Science City's environmental center
and ACE 'a federal budget request will be included in a consolidated proposal for the
entire reuse plan.
14