1995-06-28 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda High School Cafeteria
West Wing
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
Alameda, CA
Wednesday, June 28, 1995
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.
I. ROLL CALL
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of May 3, 1995.
B. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 7, 1995
11. AGENDA ITEMS
A. Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Community Reuse
Plan Goals and Objectives.
Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alternative Plans
Evaluation Criteria.
Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD) Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal.
Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the Pan
Pacific Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal.
Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the
Conservation Science Institute (CSI) Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal.
Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the Alameda
Naval Air Museum Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal.
G. Report by the Executive Director Recommending that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Members Receive Compensation in the Amount of $100 Per
Meeting to be Funded by Each Member's Own Jurisdictional Entity Providing the
Member's Jurisdiction has the Available Resources to Pay for the Meeting Compensation.
ORAL REPORTS
A. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the Reuse
Authority on BRAG Activities.
B. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding:
1) The Consultant Planning Schedule (Timeline) and Critical Decision Dates.
2) The Proposed Change in ARRA Meeting Date of October 5, 1995.
3) The Proposed Marketing Plan Strategy.
4) The Status of the NAS Forced Sewer Main Improvement Project.
5) The Public Benefit Conveyance Proposals and Process Presentation on July 13.
6) Current Lease Negotiations.
7) ARRA Staff Changes and Additions.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the Governing
Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.)
V.
VI.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
ADJOURNMENT
Note:
* Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Elizabeth
Brydon, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request
an interpreter.
* Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is
available.
* Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
* Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
MINUTES
OF THE
REGULAR MEETING
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, May 3, 1995
6:00 p.m.
The meeting convened at 6:55 p.m. with Chair Ralph Appezzato presiding.
I. ROT .T. CAT.L.
Present: Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate
Tony Daysog for Councilman "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda;
Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland;
Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Supervisor
Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3;
Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice -Mayor
Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for
Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Ex-
officio Alternate Helen Sause,Vice- Chair, Alameda Base Reuse
Advisory Group; Ex- officio Member Gail Greeley, Alameda
Unified School District. Absent: Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San
Leandro.
A. Approval of Minutes - Special Joint Meeting of April 5, 1995.
Alternate Roberta Brooks moved for approval of the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix and passed by a unanimous voice vote.
B. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 5, 1995.
A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix to approve the minutes. The motion
was seconded by Supervisor Wilma Chan and passed by a unanimous voice vote.
II. AGENDA ITEMS:
B. Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Approval of the
"Standards of Reasonableness" Developed with the Alameda County Homeless
Providers Base Conversion Collaborative for the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority in Compliance with the Base Closure and Community
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994.
After a presentation by Interim Executive Director Dave Louk, Alice Garvine,
Chair of the BRAG Housing Subcommitteeand Dena Belzer, Homeless Consultant
for the ARRA, and discussion by Members, a motion was made by Alternate
Roberta Brooks to accept the recommendation of staff. The motion was seconded
by Vice -Mayor Mannix and carried by unanimous voice vote.
Speaker. •
Elaine deColigny, representing the Steering Committee of the Homeless Collaborative
stated that she wanted to express the Collaborative's strong support of the "Standards of
Reasonableness ". She stated that the Collaborative did not get everything they wanted
going in, but feel what they got is something that the Collaborative can live with and
something that represents a reasonable accommodation to homeless needs in the county.
She reviewed briefly, the process that the Collaborative went through before coming to this
agreement by stating that more than nine months ago, to Don Parker's and Julie
Mantrom's credit, the ARRA came to the homeless groups after the homeless groups had
submitted a draft plan that had everyone's fur flying. This draft plan came as a result of
the McKinney Act, which represents the homeless entitlements to surplus federal property.
At this time, Don Parker suggested that a different process be set up for Alameda, i.e.,
a process that integrates homeless needs and concerns with the whole base planning
process. Initially, there was a lot of suspicion and concern on both sides regarding this
approach. This is no longer the case today. The Collaborative agreed to work in this
collective process and out of this process, before submission for any particular properties,
parameters should be set up to work within (reasonableness) so that both the homeless
groups and the ARRA both know and understand "reasonableness ". After two months
of intense negotiations, and hours and hours of meetings, standards have been developed.
The Base Closure Collaborative passed the "Standards of Reasonableness" at their last
meeting in its entirety. She then urged the ARRA to pass the "Standards of
Reasonableness" intact, in its entirety so the planning process can move forward. She then
expressed, on behalf of the Collaborative, what a pleasure it had been to work with the
negotiating team from the City and ARRA. She pointed out that they negotiated with
integrity and represented the position of this community well in the process.
Barbara Kerr, resident of Alameda, stated that she was in opposition to portions of the
"Standards of Reasonableness ", i.e., Item 5 on page 2, Public Service Fee regarding police
and fire services. This item concerns her because the public safety services are not funded
by the County or the Congressman's office, or the State, but are paid by the property tax
payers in the City of Alameda and this is a direct cost to the people who live here and
people are very sensitive about taxes right now. She stated that she believed that the
language should be that they will pay for the public safety costs that they incur and that
it should not be conditional. She requested that the Authority not include this language
that would allow the police and fire costs fall back onto the residents of the City of
Alameda alone.
Richard Nevelin, displaced base worker, stated that he feels that the homeless "Standards
of Reasonableness" is good document and should be approved, but it leads the way to
other directions that need to be taken with the "Standards of Reasonableness" for the local
people who have lost their jobs and the base workers that have lost their jobs. Some
financial incentives need to go along with these requirements, i.e., significantly lower rent
or reduction in property tax, etc. to attract business. A tracking plan should also be
developed for compliance of these requirements.
Bill Smith, of Bases Commercialization Bureau, stated that he has found from his research
of companies like Rubicon (who provide needs for Homeless) have developed their own
standards which are very difficult to meet. Rubicon goes in and upgrades a building with
their own people (homeless). They have been doing ground maintenance work at Treasure
Island.
Helen Sause, Vice -Chair of the BRAG, stated that the BRAG feels that these are truly
"standards of reasonableness" and stated that the resulting product is something which
provides an exciting opportunity to be a model for such accommodations of the population
the BRAG feels needs to have its needs addressed. As background, the Housing
Subcommittee and the Economic Development Subcommittee deliberated extensively over
the document, making changes to the document, with the Collaborative agreeing to the
changes. She concluded by stating that she feels that the resolution which resulted is one
which really achieves the best of all worlds, i.e., the opportunity for job training and,
referral for people that are being housed in these units is one which will only add to the
economic viability of the base land. She then thanked those who negotiated for the City
and the ARRA and thanked the Collaborative for agreeing to come to such an agreement.
A. Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Request
for Proposal for a Commercial Market Broker for Facilities Located on the Naval
Air Station, Alameda.
Interim Executive Director Dave Louk stated that this item was being pulled at the
request of the BRAG.
III. ORAL REPORTS:
A. Oral Report from Master Chief Bishop, Assistant Base Closure Officer for Alameda
Naval Air Station, Regarding the Status of the Historical Preservation Program
"Preserving the Legacy ".
Master Chief Bishop gave a short presentation regarding the Historical Preservation
Program "Preserving the Legacy ".
B. Oral Report from Mr. Robert Hrubes Representing the Golden Gate Audubon
Society Regarding Potential Economic Benefits of the Proposed Alameda National
Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Robert Hrubes representing the Golden Gate Audubon Society, gave a
presentation related to a recent report released by the Golden Gate Audubon
Society regarding the potential economic benefits of the proposed Alameda
National Wildlife Refuge.
C. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on
Reuse Authority Staff Activities and Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority.
Interim Executive Director Dave Louk updated the Authority Members on recent
Reuse Authority staff activities and the next agenda for the ARRA.
3
D. Oral Report from Chairman of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG)
Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities.
Helen Sause, Vice -Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) gave an
update to Reuse Authority Members regarding recent BRAG activities.
IV. ORAL COMMUNTCATTONS:
Speakers.
Barbara Baack, Volunteer for Historical Preservation, gave an update to the Reuse
Authority on recent historical preservation activities.
William J. Smith, representing the Sierra Club, S.F. Bay Chapter and the Environmental
Committee of the EBCRC and the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), stated that he and
Sierra Club Members of Alameda and the East Bay are generally well disposed towards
the National Wildlife Proposal, because protection of wildlife habitat is certainly one of
the fundamental things that the Sierra Club stands for.
Bill Smith, of Bases Commercialization Bureau, stated that there has been a lot of rumors
about what the homeless are going to Alameda to do. He stated that Treasure Island has
a fire training service, and that these services could be brought to the base.
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY:
VI. A D TOT JRNMENT.
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Brydon
Secretary
6t7i4t7--
4
MINIM. ES
OF THE
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, May 3, 1995
5:30 p.m.
The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. with Chair Ralph Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL:
II. AGENDA ITEMS:
Present: Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate
Tony Daysog for Councilman "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda;
(Note: Alternate Daysog is an alternate to Councilman Arnerich
only as an Authority Member - Council Members do not have
alternates); Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland;
Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Wilma Chan,
Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Councilmember
Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City
of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Sandre Swanson,
District Director, 9th Congressional District; Ex- officio Member
Lee Perez, Chair, Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group; Ex-
officio Member Gail Greeley, Alameda Unified School District.
(Summary: 8 ARRA Members, 3 Alameda City Council Members
and Alameda Mayor were present) Absent: Mayor Ellen Corbett,
City of San Leandro.
A. Presentation /Public Hearing Recommending Acceptance of the Proposed
Alternatives and Directing the Consultant Team to Proceed with Phase V of the
Scope of Work Assessment of Land Use Alternatives.
Mr. John Petrovsky of EDAW gave a presentation on the Proposed Alternatives
for NAS, Alameda. The primary action requested of the Authority was approval
of the range of alternatives as follows:
1) Mixed Use /Regional Open Space Emphasis - This alternative would look
to NAS Alameda as a major source of regional open space for
preservation and recreational purposes. The main focal point of activity
in this alternative is the existing core area of the Base. It is envisioned
that the core area will develop as a "flex- zone" to accommodate a mixture
of uses based on the interim (near term) reuse of existing facilities with
redevelopment and in -fill changes, additions, demolition occurring over
time. The development of the mixed use core has an emphasis on
nff;na /1 ;aht inrinctru anti rnmmerrial ncec
2) Mixed Use /Regional Open Space with Seaport Industrial Emphasis -
Mixed Use Core - This alternative would look to NAS Alameda as a
major source of new jobs and industry for Alameda and the regional as
well as a preservation of regional open space resources. Its emphasis is
the development of a regional seaport facility on the north edge of the
island utilizing the Oakland Inner Harbor. The northern edge of the
airfield area is developed as a regional seaport facility with a buffer of a
golf course to the south.
3) Seaport Industrial Emphasis -Mixed Use Core - This alternative would look
to NAS Alameda as a major source of new jobs and industry for Alameda
and the region. Its emphasis is the development of a regional seaport
facility on the north edge of the island utilizing the Oakland Inner Harbor.
4) Residential /Mixed Use Emphasis - Mixed Use Core - This alternative
shows NAS Alameda developing primarily as residential neighborhoods
with cluster centers of mixed uses capable of providing services and
workplace uses. Its emphasis would be development of a mixed use core
and residential /mixed use in the northern portion of the airfield area.
5) Residential /Mixed Use Emphasis - Disperse Centers - This alternative
shows NAS Alameda developing primarily as residential neighborhoods
with other uses scattered throughout the Base. There is a development of
dispersed centers focusing on other uses including the existing core area
of the Base with a commercial, residential and education emphasis.
Mr. Petrovsky reported on what the next steps would be. A full set of goals and
objectives is in the process of being formulated to govern the planning process
and be a feature of the ultimate final plan. This is currently in the BRAG
process. All of the public involvement input received to date has been evaluated
and, utilizing EDAW's own Trends and Conditions Report and Interim Reuse
Strategy Reports, will be put all together into a comprehensive set of policy level
statements. This will come to the ARRA for approval after going through the
BRAG. Through this list of goals and objectives, EDAW is developing a series
of criteria on which they will assess the alternatives. The criteria being utilized
are: 1) Economic - EDAW will be looking at these alternatives and compare
them from the standpoint of their fiscal feasibility, their financiability, how many
jobs and what type they will provide versus how many residential units of what
type; implications that each of them may have from the standpoint of phasing
(phasing infrastructure, financing infrastructure; 2) environmental regulatory;
response to each one to biological resource concerns, primarily the Endangered
Species Act; State Lands Commission jurisdiction, public trust; extent to which
any of the alternatives has an influence or is adversely influenced by the clean -up
effort; 3) land use and social - land use balance and mixture, compatibility with
existing uses in Alameda, i.e., at what point is a bridge or tunnel necessary?
Mr. Petrovsky stated that the consultant team is scheduling the ARRA Board to
make a decision on a preferred plan in August or September.
stated that he and his neighbors were concerned with the issues of the seaport plan and
problems associated with the plan which were addressed by Councilmember Chang very
well regarding transportation and the issue of the Fish and Wildlife Service claim to such
a large portion of land for a game preserve and that the grid system is the most workable
plan to meet everyone's needs.
Mr. Thomas Okey, of Conservation Science Institute and a member of the Environmental
Subcommittee of the BRAG and the RAB. He stated that a large omission had occurred
regarding the formation of the reuse plan, which is the public surveys which had been
conducted which, according to Mr. Okey, show clearly that the priority of the public for
reuse of the Naval Air Station is open space, habitat restoration and environmental
cleanup. He stated that one of the BRAG Chairs (at a recent BRAG meeting) stated that
a public survey should never have been done, because now the public would tell the
BRAG what to do and that it was too valuable for a democracy. He stated that he
assumed the person meant that the land was too valuable for a democracy.
Chair Appezzato stated that like this Commission or any other Commission, the
Commissioners cannot control anyone's opinion nor can they control an opinion
of even a Chair of the BRAG. All opinions must be weighed evenly and will be
done in public.
Neal Patrick Sweeney, resident of Alameda, suggested that the Base Reuse Advisory
Group (BRAG) be included as a regular item on the City Council agenda for BRAG
activities and that the transportation connection should be a tunnel from the City of
Alameda West end toward the City of Oakland. He also suggested that business
proposals not accepted by the City of Alameda Reuse Authority should be forwarded to
other Reuse Authorities in the country.
Bill Smith, of Bases Commercialization Bureau, stated that he is from Emeryville and
that they have the Transportation Research Center in Berkeley who are looking at doing
a three wheel electric car to shuttle people down to the Watergate Towers from BART.
He suggested a proposal for a foot bridge, with a little electric vehicle utilizing it to go
to BART getting the working community in and out of the Base.
Richard . Nevelin, former base worker and member of several BRAG and EBCRC
committees, stated that some of the things that need to be added to the plan are some
sequencing questions which have to do with how to implement the plan - having the
consultant work up some sequence as to likelihood and development and perhaps have
an alternative. He also stated that fowler base workers should get at least as much
entitlement regarding inclusion in the plan as do the homeless.
Ken Hanson, BRAG Chair, stated that he felt that the Authority should support the
concept of what is being presented and that it is a cornerstone that can be developed into
what is best for the City of Alameda. He added that the Golf Course was presented as
an idea because it would generate revenue. The second reason it was presented was
because it could become a buffer zone between the undeveloped, uninhabited wildlife
area.
Vice -Mayor Mannix made a motion to accept the recommendation of staff. The motion
was seconded by Supervisor Chan and passed by a unanimous voice vote.
4
Chair Appezzato stated that he felt it was very wise for the consultant team to
include the annex in their planning process.
Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr. stated that he had been a Port Authority
Commissioner for a number of years and stated that in order for a port to be
successful, rail and truck transportation systems are required. He stated that he
felt it would be rather difficult on the Island of Alameda to have rail and truck
transportation systems crossing over residential areas of the community.
Councilmember Lucas stated that she shared Mr. Chang's concern regarding the
seaport.
Speakers:
Mr. Tim Little, Director of the Rose Foundation stated that at the last presentation given
in the Theater by EDAW, Mr. Petrovsky had indicated that there would not be any
further consideration of moving the lease tern colony because there is overwhelming
biological evidence that moving,the colony does not work. He questioned Mr. Petrovsky
as to whether some new evidence had come to light supporting the idea of moving the
colony.
Chair Appezzato stated that no alternative should not be at least discussed. He
stated that Mr. Petrovsky had four out of five alternatives which do not require
relocation of the tern colony.
Mr. Little then asked when the report regarding the alternatives would be released to the
public.
Mr. Petrovsky stated that there is no deadline currently on publishing the
alternatives and that the next step is to do the assessment of the alternatives and
then report back to the Authority with the analysis. This will occur in
July /August.
Mr. Little then asked what the timeline for the public would be in order to digest a
lengthy and detailed report in order to be able to offer meaningful comment.
Dave Louk stated that there will be reports to both the BRAG and ARRA at
which time there is available time for public comment. Additionally, reduced
sized maps will be available at the library for the public to review.
Mr. Petrovsky suggested that the maps will be available at the Reuse Authority
office once they are quantified in terms of number of units, acres of use, etc.
Mr. Stephen Fee, member of the Planning Board and Chair of the Land Use
Subcommittee of BRAG urged that the Board recommend acceptance of the proposed
alternatives and direct EDAW to proceed with Phase V.
Mr. Ronald Michael Basarich, representing RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) and
BRAG (Base Reuse Advisory Group), speaking as a citizen of Alameda, stated that he
supports the proposals and recommended that the ARRA move forward to Phase IV. He
3
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Appezzato stated that this meeting would be the last meeting that Dave Louk,
Interim Executive Director, would be the Interim Executive Director of the ARRA. He
then thanked Mr. Louk for his outstanding job since Don Parker left and introduced the
Staff of the ARRA who gave Dave the following presentation:
"The old saying goes, 'It's been a swell ship for the Captain, but
a hell ship for the crew', but with Dave Louk as our Captain, it
has been just the opposite. We, the Staff of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority are taking this opportunity to
publicly express our appreciation and gratitude for Dave's
leadership and support as Interim Executive Director for the past
six months. Dave's thoughtful team spirit, good humor,
commitment and patience have kept the Reuse Authority office
together and the reuse process moving forward. Dave, your
fellow crew members would like to wish you fair winds and a
following sea always...."
The Staff then presented a Captain's hat to Mr. Louk.
Dave Louk thanked the Staff for the nice presentation. He stated that it had been really
interesting sitting in the driver's seat for the past six months and that the ARRA office
had kept it together very well since Don Parker left. He added that none of it would
have been possible without the excellent Staff and that everyone in the office took on a
tremendous extra amount of work in the past six months, a lot of hours which really
hadn't been recognized, including a lot of nights and weekends and taking work home.
He concluded by stating that he did not think the ARRA would be where it is today if
it wasn't for the work that Julie, Paul, Elizabeth, Josi and Emily had put into the day to
day operations of the office as well as the support received from the BRAG and from the
Members of the ARRA. He then thanked the Members for making it easier for him.
Chair Appezzato stated that Dave and his Staff are to be congratulated and that for six
months Dave had filled two jobs which is extremely difficult under any circumstances.
Alternate Roberta Brooks seconded Chair Appezzato's sentiments and added that it had
been a real pleasure to work with Dave. She then thanked Dave for his ability to keep
everyone apprised of everything, all of the time, which is an extraordinary thing to be
able to do.
Vice -Mayor Mannix stated that he was looking forward to working with Dave in the
future.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY:
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Elizabeth Brydon
Secretary
5
MINUTES
OF THE
REGULAR MEETING
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 7, 1995
5:30 p.m.
The meeting convened at 5:37 p.m. with Chair Ralph Appezzato presiding.
ROT.T CAT ,T, • Present: Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony
Daysog for Councilman "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda; Councilmember
Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San
Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Supervisor
Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3;
Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice -Mayor Charles
Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Sandre Swanson,
District Director, 9th Congressional District; Ex- officio Member Lee
Perez, Base Reuse Advisory Group; Absent: Ex- Officio Member Gail
Greeley, Alameda Unified School District. (Note: Alternate Tony Daysog
arrived at 5:40 p.m.; Mayor Ellen Corbett arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
A. Approval of Minutes - Special Joint Meeting of May 3, 1995.
Councilmember Karin Lucas moved and Vice -Mayor Mannix seconded a motion
to approve the minutes. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
II. AGENDA ITFMS •
A. Report from Bill Norton, Current Executive Director ,Regarding the Designation
of the Executive Director for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Ms.
Kay Miller. (NO ACTION NECESSARY)
Mr. Bill Norton, City Manager of the City of Alameda and current Executive
Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority informed the
Authority Members of the appointment of Ms. Kay Miller as the new Executive
D irector.
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Ultimate
Aerospace Refinishing Company (UARCO) Interim Reuse Proposal and
Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate with the U.S. Navy and
UARCO Concerning Lease Rates, Terms and Conditions of a Master Lease, and
Sublease Respectively with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) .
Speakers.
Neil Patrick Sweeny, resident of Alameda stated that all of the proposals for Naval Air
Station, Alameda were not getting equal publicity.
After a brief presentation by staff and discussion, a motion was made by
Councilmember Lucas to accept the recommendation of staff to endorse the
proposal. The motion was seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix and passed by a
unanimous voice vote.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Fleet Industrial
Support Center (FISC) Annex Come Under the Jurisdiction and Control of the
ARRA, and Transmission of a Request from the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory
Group (BRAG) to have the BRAG be the Advisory Group for FISC as It Has Been
for the Alameda Naval Air Station.
After a brief presentation by staff and discussion, a motion was made by Vice -
Mayor Mannix to accept the recommendation of staff to endorse the proposal. The
motion was seconded by Councilmember DeWitt and carried with one abstention
(Alternate Tony Daysog).
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of BRAG Reporting
Function to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. (Endorsed by
Alameda City Council April 18, 1995 Meeting )
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, resident of Alameda, stated that the BRAG should continue to report
to the City Council rather than the ARRA, because the City Council meetings are televised
and pleaded with the City Council of Alameda to continue to include the BRAG reports
to the Alameda City Council.
After a brief presentation by staff and discussion, a motion was made by
Councilmember DeWitt to accept the recommendation of staff regarding the
reporting function of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG). The motion was
seconded by Councilmember Lucas and was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Corbett of San Leandro requested the Chair that staff give a briefing to the
regional members regarding who currently are serving on the BRAG and the
function of the various committees so that regional members could assist in
recruitment of regional members. Staff agreed to arrange this briefing. After the
briefing, the regional members will discuss a proposed plan for recruitment of
regional members.
2
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the
Environmental Aqua Services, Inc. Proposal for an Interim Use to Develop and
Operate a Business at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda for Environmental
Clean -up for the Remediation of Soil and Groundwater Contamination, and
Authorization for the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) to Negotiate and Execute a Lease with Lease Rates, Terms, and
Conditions with the U.S. Navy and Environmental Aqua Services, Inc. for the Use
of Buildings and Facilities at NAS Alameda.
Speakers.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, a resident of Alameda, stated that he has declared war on the
environmental clean -up of Alameda Naval Air Station.
Bill Smith, of the Base Commercialization Bureau, stated that he supports this proposal and
its applications.
After a brief presentation and discussion, a motion was made by Vice -Mayor
Mannix to accept the recommendation of staff. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Corbett and passed by a unanimous voice vote.
(Secretary notes Supervisor Wilma Chan's departure, with Alternate Mark Friedman replacing
her.)
F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Support for SB 1180 Relating
to CEQA Reform for Military Base Reuse Plans.
After a brief presentation and discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Mark
Friedman to accept the recommendation of staff. The motion was seconded by
Vice -Mayor Mannix and carried by a voice vote with one abstention (Alternate
Tony Daysog).
G. Report from the Executive Director on the Request from the Arms Control Research
Center for the Use of Buildings and Facilities at NAS Alameda for the Bay Area
Ship Recycling Complex (BASCR) and Request for $50, 000 as a Grant or Contract
or In -Kind Services for Preparation of the BASRC Detailed Business Plan.
Speakers:
Mr. Neil Patrick Sweeney, resident of Alameda, stated that the EBCRC and Mare Island
Shipyard liked the idea of ship recycling and that he supports the proposal.
Mr. Bill Smith, representing Bases Commercialization Bureau, stated that he has seen this
proposal presented several times and stated that he supports the idea, but suggested Todd
Shipyard instead.
3
Mr. Richard Nevelin, a former worker at Naval Air Station, Alameda, urged the Authority
Members to support the proposal.
Alternate Mark Friedman stated that he had been in contact with the proponents of
ARC, and made a motion that the ARRA postpone this item so that they can
continue to meet with the BRAG and receive endorsement by the BRAG prior to
presentation to the ARRA. The motion was seconded by Mayor Corbett and
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
III. DRAT, REPORTS:
A. Oral Report from the Executive Director on the Status of Utility Transfers.
Dave Louk stated that the Bureau of Electricity's Board gave the Bureau the
authority to negotiate with the Navy to enter into an Operations and Maintenance
Contract for the Bureau of Electricity to operate the distribution center on the base,
with the long term goal of having the entire system turned over to the Alameda
Bureau of Electricity.These negotiations /modifications of the current contract
would optimistically be completed within sixty to ninety days. Additionally, the
City of Alameda will be taking over the storm and sanitary sewers as studies are
being completed. Pacific Bell is waiting for new customers to sign up, and will be
utilizing the Navy system which goes through a switch until base closure, then a
single point of entry will be made for each business on the base.
B. Oral Report from the Executive Director on the Status of the CALSTART Lease.
Dave Louk gave a status report on the CALSTART lease. The basic lease
between the ARRA and the Navy for Building 20 will hopefully be completed in
one -two weeks. This will then have to go the Secretary of the Navy for approval.
C. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Status of Alameda Unified
School District's (AUSD) Public Beneficial Conveyance Proposal.
Kay Miler stated that she had been working very closely with the BRAG regarding
scheduling and deadlines for public beneficial conveyance requests, and stated that
she is proposing that the ARRA consider for approval in concept, (no designated
facilities), the remaining beneficial conveyance requests. The deadline for public
benefit conveyance requests is July 14, 1995. At that time, all approved benefit
conveyance requests will be turned over to the consultant to consider as part of the
final reuse plan. These pending proposals should be acted on at the BRAG's June
14, 1995 meeting and will be agendized for the next ARRA meeting to be held on
Wednesday, June 28, 1995. At this time, it is hoped that the Authority can act on
these pending proposals in concept only.
D. Oral Report from the Executive Director on the Funding Status for the NAS
Alameda Sewer Forced Main Improvement Project.
4
Kay Miller stated that the most recent development regarding the funding for the
sewer is that the opportunities for federal funding look very good.
E. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on Reuse
Authority Staff Activities and the Next Agenda for the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority.
Kay Miller reported on current staff activities and the next agenda for the ARRA.
F. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Regarding
BRAG Activities.
Lee Perez, Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group updated the Authority
Members on current BRAG activities.
IV ORAL COMMUNICATIONS_
,Speakers•
Dave Louk stated that he was thankful for the opportunity to work on base closure. He added that
the two people he most wanted to thank were not present: Don Parker and Bill Norton. He
emphasized the extreme complexity of base closure and wished the new Director and staff well
in their future endeavors. He also commended the Authority Members for their tenacity and
perseverance in making difficult decisions and their thoughtful preparation before each ARRA
meeting. He concluded by commending the current staff of the ARRA for their excellent work.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, resident of Alameda, stated that the community was going to miss Dave
Louk, and stated that Dave was leaving behind a great staff and requested that it not be changed.
He stated that Alameda is lucky to have a community involvement subcommittee chaired by Diane
Lichtenstein and that they do an excellent job of getting news out to the public. He then discussed
some recent articles in the local newspapers.
Ann Mitchum, of Bases Commercialization Bureau, stated that she recommended that various start-
up companies coming into the base should be given the opportunity to have a lease based on the
profits of the leasee company, i.e., a sliding scale lease based on revenues earned quarterly or
annually so that companies making a sizeable accelerated profit can ultimately help improvements
to the base and their own properties.
Bill Smith, of Bases Commercialization Bureau, stated that Environmental Aqua Services is not
going to be able to tap into the University's 25 million dollars. They (the University) have three
technological projects that they are looking at, and EAS cannot touch it.
Richard Nevelin, a displaced worker, stated that the base reuse process is not easy and added to
Dave Louk's statement regarding the current staff of the ARRA, that the ARRA does not have
a policy for hiring displaced workers and stated that it should be something which leads the way.
He added that there are many displaced workers from the base which could be utilized to augment
staff.
5
V.
11111 £ •& :941 I / .4 :99
Vice -Mayor Mannix requested staff, working with the BRAG, to undertake more public education
in light of some misconceptions that are being fostered in the community about future homeless
programs at NAS Alameda. He said that he would follow up with a written document on his
request.
Councilmember Lucas requested that compensation for the Authority Members be agendized for
the next ARRA meeting at $100 per meeting with a maximum of $100 per month.
W. AD.TOURNMENT_•
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Brydon
Secretary
6
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inner - Office Memorandum
June 21, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Community
Reuse Plan Goals and Objectives
Background:
A major component of any plan is a statement of the community's Goals and Objectives for
the future. The Goals are an outline, in broad and general terms, of the aspirations, the purposes and
the intent for the future redevelopment of the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. Objectives are
more detailed steps to be achieved within each goal. These goals and objectives serve as the
framework that articulate the community vision to be achieved through all future actions regarding
interim use and long term redevelopment at NAS Alameda. This overall framework is used to guide
decisions as the Community Reuse Plan is implemented and as it evolves over time.
The following goals and objectives were developed as part of the Planning Consultant's
ongoing scope of work. The Goals and Objectives were reviewed by the BRAG and its
subcommittees. At the time of writing of this staff report, the BRAG had not yet made a
recommendation on the final wording of the Goal and Objectives. The draft document presented here,
however, does incorporate the BRAG recommendations as of their last meeting. The BRAG will
make a final recommendation to the ARRA at the BRAG's special meeting on June 21, 1995.
Discussion/Analysis:
The proposed Goals and Objectives were compiled from numerous sources and input
including the past BRAG public workshops, input from the EBCRC and the BRAG. The goals and
objectives form the basis for the analysis of alternatives, and for assessing future development
proposals. The Goals and Objectives will be incorporated in the very first section of the Community
Reuse Plan. Thus, the final wording will return to the ARRA for adoption as part of the Final
Community Reuse Plan.
The Goals and Objectives are divided into twelve major categories following the major
elements of California Planning Law. In this way, the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan can
easily be used as a guide for the future changes required in the City of Alameda's General Plan.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
The major categories of the Goals and Objectives include:
June 21, 1995
Page 2
1. Land Use
2. Transportation and Circulation
3. Environmental Resources
4. Employment and Economic Development
5. Housing
6. Urban Design and Neighborhood Character
7. Education and Public Services
8. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
9. Cultural/Historic Resources
10. Infrastructure
11. Interim Reuse
12. Public Participation (to be added)
A number of editorial corrections and minor additions have been recommended by the BRAG
and the ARRA staff. The consultant will be making these changes and a final version of the Goals
and Objectives will be presented at the ARRA's regular meeting. Some of these additions include
goals and objectives for improving Air Quality, reducing energy consumption, and providing for
continued public participation.
CEQA Compliance:
Approval of the Goals and Objectives does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines.
Approval of the proposal in concept does not: constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license,
certificate or other land entitlement; and is not an activity undertaken which would result in
construction, clearing or grading of land, improvements to structures, amendment to zoning
ordinances, general plans or elements of plans.
In addition, the Goals and Objectives are part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study
for possible future actions for NAS Alameda and thus "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines
(Article 18. Section 15262).
Fiscal Impact:
Adopting the Goals and Objectives will have no fiscal impact on the ARRA or the City of
Alameda. However, implementation of the Goals and Objectives through the ongoing planning and
redevelopment process will have significant fiscal implications. These will be covered in detail in later
phases of the planning process (Phase IV Analysis of Alternatives, and Phase V Preparation of the
Final Community Reuse Plan).
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation:
June 21, 1995
Page 3
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse the NAS
Alameda Community Reuse Plan Goals and Objectives.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT /dpt
Attachments: Goals and Objectives
DRAFT
NAS ALAMEDA
COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN
Goals and Objectives
Revised, June 6, 1995 (substantive revisions shown in italics/strikeoutformat)
Draft, April 12,1995
INTRODUCTION
The revised Goals and Objectives presented herein, once finalized and adopted by the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), are intended to reflect the intentions and desires ofthe
affected community and the ARRA related to reuse ofthe Naval Air Station Alameda and evolution
of the NAS into "West Alameda", a new neighborhood of the City. From them, the primary criteria by
which alternatives for the Community Reuse Plan are beingwillbe assessed and compared have been
will be derived; through these criteria, the Goals and Objectives will serve as a central evaluation tool
for the ARRA in deciding on a preferred plan. The final Goals and Objectives will also be included as
an integral part ofthe final Community Reuse Plan document and will provide an overall framework
to guide decisions as the Plan is implemented and as it evolves over time. This framework will
articulate a vision to be achieved through all actions regarding interim reuse and long term
development.
The Goals and Objectives have been synthesized from the following sources ofpublic input and
technical analysis; as such, they reflect both the dream and the reality related to existing conditions
and the future of the installation:
• Conditions and Trends Phase Report, Public Review Draft, January, 1995;
• Public Involvement Report-- Phases I and II, March 1995 (a report which presents the public
input received through the following activities)
BRAG Commission Workshop, October 12, 1994
Public Forum, October 29, 1994
Public Survey, November/December, 1994
Public Forum, January 28, 1995
• Proposed BRAG Goals, March 16, 199.5
• Interim Reuse Strategy, March ,1995
• BRAG Vision Workshop, April 7/8, 1995
• BRAG review of and comment on the April 12, 1995 draft of these Goals and Objectives
Upon BRAG approval of these revised Goals and Objectives (to be considered at the June 14, 1995
BRAG meeting), they will be proposed for approval by the ARRA Governing Board at a late June,
1995ARRA meeting.
D: wPwLNfo.WPDOCTCaORED.wPD
Draft Final
Page 1 NAS Alarneda Goals & Objectives
DRAFT
The Goals and Objectives are organized according to the following themes or elements:
A. Land Use
B. Employment and Economic Development
C. Housing
D. Urban Design and Neighborhood Character
E. Institutional and Educational Uses
F. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
G. Environmental Resources
H. CulturaUHistoric Resources
I. Transportation and Circulation
J. Infrastructure
K. Interim Reuse
A. LAND USE
GOAL Al: Achieve a balanced mix of land uses, creating a vibrant and diverse
new neighborhood in Alameda.
Objectives:
•
Emphasize mixed use development as the overall reuse vision , wit ll L11didLte11bt1LS Uf sl.dlt
di 1U UeSigi11I1USt pi iLed Vy -tlIC Lu11u11u1u1y.
Ensure that the Community Reuse Plan is economically viable.
Fully integrate the existing NAS Alameda into the City of Alameda, creating the new West •
Alameda; witli the full integration includes land use compatibilitywithin and surrounding
the installation,-and matches with the urban fabric of Alameda, and realization ofi;i edW a
seamless transition between the existing City and the NAS site d1 ea and the entire island of
Alameda.
L11JliI e ldild use i uinpdtlbllrty ditlulij uSCS W1111111 tlIC NAS di ea, ds Well dS l et wean USCS at
?�iAS dilll t11esU11UU11�111Y "LVI1Ii11Ullity. •
Embrace and celebrate the Pi Vlliule d culturally and economically diverse community that is
Alameda. :
Provide a balance among between public benefit, and private sector, and environmental uses
and concerns; include provisions for open space, recreational resources, environmental
protection, and viable economic development.
BdId111:C Ili UVISiU11 U1 open spdC%e /1 y...
Seek esouiLes dull dill eIll tICJ Wit 11 tie Velopuleilt
11CLCSSdiy tV aGllleve couilu11llL vldblhly.
Seek creative solutions to provide energetic land useswhile reducing the impact of the
automobile andt 1energy consumption. Seek d bU- dlaw..e bel W 1 jobs and lhuusiug, the uiix U1
1d11U uses should be uiie LI1CdI1S Ul 1 CUULlilb t1 Q.1.t1L genet dliuii dull eiiei6y LV11sU111�t1Ui1.
Achieve optimum response to public trust uses on lands within State Lands Commission
jurisdiction, consistent with achieving other important economic, social, cultural, and
environmental goals and objectives.
(See also: Urban Design and Neighborhood Character)
iwvwwcmwroocsoeoaEN .WPD
Draft Final
Page 2 NAS Alameda Goals & Objectives
DRAFT
B. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL B1: Achieve job creation and economic development toprovide replace
the employment and economic benefits which historically have been
associated with NAS Alameda.
Objectives:
• Enhance the economic opportunities for NAS Alameda ("West Alameda") by providing
necessary infrastructure. (See J. Infrastructure)
• Actively seek and promote businesses which provide significant employment and are
forward - looking. This may include seek a mix of light industries emphasizing opportunities
for technology research and development and technology transfer.
Emphasize employment and economic development opportunities which do not adversely
compete with economic development strategies in other parts ofAlameda; coordinate
economic development decisions for West Alameda at NAS Ald111edd with plans for other
areas ofthe City.
• Seek eLC/11u11UL dt velopnient wllll,l lop tlllially it-spundJ to t1 ell dJ 111 the to dl, 114 tlutldl, ci11U
glubdJ ltldl ketpldLe.
• Prioritize ARRA and /or City revenue generation in major land use decisions, consistent with
the intent to balance economic development needs with public benefit conveyance and
public /community service uses.
• Develop funding mechanisms (e.g. redevelopment authority) to enable and support
conversion.
• Provide organizational, planning and streamlined permitting support for new businesses
considering locating in West Alameda at NAS A1dinedd (also applies to K: Interim Reuse).
GOAL B2: Enhance reemployment opportunities.
Objectives:
Encourage P1 iu1 itize uses which provide employment for displaced workers.
Work with and provide incentives for businesses locating in West Alameda at NAS AId111edd
to establish retraining programs.
Seek other means of providing training, retraining and educational opportunities for a
broad spectrum of people. •
Provide organizational and planning support, as well as incentives to the extent practicable,
for business ventures proposed by displaced workers.
Encourage and provide incentives to businesses which provide employment and training for
members ofthe homeless community consistent with the Homeless Strategy developed in
conjunction with the Homeless Collaborative ofAlameda County.
D: SWPWL1601WPDGCS'.GI.OREN WPD
Draft Final
Page 3 `AS Alameda Goals & Objectives
Dr') P tcla
C. HOUSING
GOAL C1: Ensure that both existing and new housing resources at the new West
Alameda optimally meet the current and future housing needs
of the Community.
Objectives:
• Provide diversity in housing opportunities in the new West Alameda at NAS Alaiuedd to meet
the needs of all income levels in the community.
• Reflect the existing lu-w density and single family residential character of Alameda in new
housing developments as much as possible considering the need to provide of mix of housing
types.
• Accommodate the needs of the homeless according to the Homeless Strategy developed in
conjunction with the Homeless Collaborative of Alameda County.
• Promote a jobs - housing balance to the extent practicable.
D. URBAN DESIGN AND NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER
GOAL D1: Achieve complete integration of West Alameda with the rest ofthe
island ofAlameda; this is to be a seamless integration characterized by
the many neighborhoods, open space, and the best qualities ofthe
existing City. lutegi ate NAS Alarueda with the i est of the City,
pruvrdtug "seamless" urban, ueibhbur lioud, and opeu space
character cuusisteut with the best qualities of the existing, City.
Objectives:
• Create the same "small town" character in West Alameda at the NAS which is highly valued
by the existing Community.
• Create a series of neighborhoods, each with a central focus of mixed use development,
including local- serving commercial and recreational uses and a mixture of housing densities.
• Encourage development of distinctive and individualized neighborhood character.
• Continue the "low- rise" character of all development, including commercial, industrial,
institutional, residential, and visitor - serving uses.
• Reflect the architectural heritage of Alameda in redevelopment and new development.
GOAL D2: Achieve human - scale, transit- oriented development.
Objectives:
• Emphasize "walkable streets ", restricting most traffic circulation to specific major access
routes.
D:IWPWL46(PWPDOCS'.O.SORE1'. W'PD Page 4 NAS ,3dameda Goals & Objectives
Draft Final
DMT
Achieve the same human - scale, tree -lined character of neighborhood streets found
throughout the existing City.
Enhance the viability and use of transit and other alternative modes of transportation in all
development, through deliberate design ofneighborhoods, commercial, industrial, and
recreation/open space areas.
Reflect the grid street pattern which is characteristic of existing Alameda and which
provides a framework for emphasizing transit modes.
GOAL D3: Protect and enhance the water - oriented (island) character ofthe new
WestAlameda, including preservation, enhancement, and creative
celebration of and the expansive Bay views available a t NAS
Alameda.
Objectives:
•
Optimize access to the waterfront in all development and open space planning.
Expand visual and physical access to the water by incorporating water features in new
development and redevelopment and by emphasizing the grid pattern of streets.
Provide, frame and accent views ofthe surrounding Bay environment as part ofdevelopment
planning and implementation; emphasize public views throughout development in West
Alameda and discourage blockage ofBay views along circulation routes (roads, trails, paths).
E. • : • • DUCATIONAL AND PUBLIC
SERVICE USES
GOAL El: Provide appropriate educational facilities and opportunities at West
NAS Alameda.
Objectives:
• Assign priority to the needs of Alameda Unified School District in use of existing educational
facilities.
• Iffe isib1e, Providefor a variety of educational opportunities fui including a
university /college /educational campus to meet local and regional needs for higher education
and to complement College ofAlameda esuu► LeS.
• Explore opportunities to provide vocational and specialized training and adult education,
particularly in support ofworker training/retraining, through a variety of public and private
means.
• Provide educational opportunities based on the natural resources and environmental
conditions at West Alameda, emphasizing biological, marine, and environmental sciences.
D:IwPWD3CnWPDOCS`GAOREI' W o
Draft Final
Page 5 NAS Alameda Goals & Objectives
DP\AFT
GOAL E2: Provide appropriate and high quality public and social services.
Objectives:
• Work with the City of Alameda to ensure high quality law enforcement and fire protection
services to NAS Alameda.
• Ensure that adequate health care, and emergency medical, and social services are available.
• Explore opportunities for development of a youth center to serve as a focus for youth
activities.
• Explore opportunities for child care services /facilities to serve the needs of West Alameda
residents and workers; prioritize the needs of AUSD related to the existing child development
center.
F. PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
GOAL Fl: Protect and provide natural/natural - appearing open space as a key
amenity throughout the installation.
Objectives:
Provide a system of natural, landscaped, and/or recreational open space linking all areas
within West Alameda of and linking West Alameda 'lie iustallatiuit with other
parts of the City. Promote use of greenways as linkages, structuring elements, and separators
among development areas.
Protect appropriate portions of the Bay shoreline as natural/landscaped open space.
Incorporate wetland and wildlife habitats protected through Environmental Resources
goals /objectives into the open space system.
GOAL F2: Provide needed recreational opportunities for workers and residents
of the NAS area, the City of Alameda, and surrounding
communities.
Objectives:
• Provide a balanced mix ofrecreational opportunities, both active and passive, outdoor and
indoor .
• Use land and facilities at NAS to provide recreational opportunities which are in short supply
elsewhere in the community; fill "gaps" in existing resources.
• Assign priority to youth recreation in facility and program planning.
• Explore the feasibility of developing a golf course at NAS Alameda.
• Explore the feasibility ofdeveloping a new public and/or private marina in the Seaplane
Lagoon and/or at the site of the existing Navy marina.
• Provide a pedestrian and bicycle trail system linking West AlamedaN with the rest of the
City.
DAWPWC so+,,POOCS'G &Oa '...7o Page 6 NAS Alameda Goals & Objectives
Draft Final
DRAFT
G. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
GOAL G1: Achieve appropriate clean -up of environmental contamination.
Objectives:
Work with the Navy to ensure that Environmental Baseline Surveys and the Base Clean -up
Plan are completed in a timely manner and correspond with the ARRA's adopted Interim
Reuse Strategy and Community Reuse Plan; provide direct guidance to the Navy regarding
the priority sequence for clean -up of land parcels and facilities.
• Assist in ensuring appropriate agency coordination (local, state and federal) during the clean-
up planning and implementation process.
• Support a human and /or wildlife health risk -based approach to establishing and planning for
clean -up levels.
• Maintain vigilance in monitoring and ensuring Navy /federal adherence to the adopted clean-
up schedule, including reliable appropriation of funds to accomplish that clean -up schedule.
• Work with the Navy to ensure minimal disruption to interim reuse tenants' activities
associated with clean -up efforts.
GOAL G2: Conserve and protect vegetation, wildlife, and water quality
resources.
Objectives:
Provide for conservation and protection ofrare, endangered and threatened species and
species of special concern, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and other relevant
federal and state regulations.
• Protect and eulidi1Le wetland resources; restore such resources where practical irrtlre
W ester ii pet' L of llie uistdlldtioii.
• Incorporate natural open space as a prominent feature in reuse planning, both for
conservation ofvegetation and wildlife resources and for the enjoyment ofthe community,
visitors, curd special interest groups.
• Create /designate a wildlife refuge /park in the western part ofthe installation, consistent with
other goals regarding economic development and balanced land use planning.
• Preserve and enhance existing mature landscape resources in the developed areas of the
installation to the extent feasible.
• Ensure appropriate control of surface drainage and other sources of water quality impact,
including implementation of needed drainage system improvements and response to all
water quality permitting requirements.
DAWP WW40, WPDOMCAOREV. WPD
Draft Final
Page 7 NAS Alameda Goals & Objectives
DRAFT
GOAL G3: Encourage sustainability and resource efficiency in all development.
Objectives:
Promote energy efficiency in facility development.
Promote use of locally generated and /or recycled materials.
Apply low water demand techniques in all new development, including all landscape
development.
Establish measurable indicators, for a sustainable community.
Minimize waste and prevent pollution in all new commercial, industrial, and housing
development plans.
(See also: Transportation goals and objectives)
H. CULTURAL /HISTORIC RESOURCES
GOAL Hl: Reflect and celebrate the rich history of both Alameda and the NAS
in planning and design for reuse.
Objectives:
Reflect the architectural and urban design heritage of Alameda in the design of new
neighborhoods and commercial areas.
Achieve a Programmatic Agreement with the Navy, the City, and the State Historic
Preservation Officer for implementation ofthe National Historic Preservation Act and
treatment and protection of the NAS Historic District; seek City /ARRA authority to
administer implementation ofthis Agreement.
Retain a representative collection of historic artifacts from NAS Alameda and seek
opportunities for public display and enjoyment ofthis collection.
Seek opportunities to obtain retired Naval vessels and aircraft, representative ofthe Bay
Area's Naval history, for public display and enjoyment as part of recreational and visitor -
serving development on the installation.
GOAL H2: Provide cultural and arts facilities for the benefit of Alameda and the
surrounding Community.
Objectives:
• Seek opportunities for establishment of a cultural /arts center in West at NAS Alameda.
• Work with the Navy and the Alameda Historical Society to pursue iu seeking opportunities
for museum facilities on the installation to display historical resources from both the City and
the NAS.
1WPW0140, WP Dxs•.oa ORE, +wo
Draft Final
Page 3 `AS Alameda Goals & Objectives
:AT
L TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
GOAL 11: Provide adequate vehicular access to and within WestAlameda NAS
without significant adverse effects on access to existing areas of the
City.
Objectives:
• Integrate the NAS street system with the existing roadway system of Alameda, including
reflection of the grid street pattern.
• Establish the Atlantic Avenue gate as the main route mill duce into WestAlameda the
111JtdlldtlVll.
• Focus traffic, including truck traffic, into /from West Alameda NAS onto a limited number of
designated arterial routes as a means of minimizing impact on existing and future
neighborhoods.
• Consider traffic generation and destination during peak hours in making lland use decisions
1,10'1101e d 1111x Vf uses W111e11 11ll1ll11llheS dest111c/11011S outbid e V1 1VAS till W V1 A1aliledtl..
• Work with CalTrans to improve Highway 880 connections.
• Explore the feasibility of establishing a new bridge or tunnel connection linking western
Alameda with Oakland, across the Oakland estuary. Establish the point in time when such a
new connection will be necessary due to reuse and development at WestAlameda the ?SAS, if
a new connection is found not to be feasible and all transit options are at capacity, restrict
development at NAS to levels serviceable by the existing cross - estuary linkages.
Work with the City of Alameda to provide necessary roadway improvements and
maintenance on the street system needed to support the Interim Reuse Strategy.
• Study the feasibility of closing/abandoning some streets at the installation to reduce
maintenance costs and to increase land use and circulation efficiency.
• Ensure that the Navy provides caretaker maintenance on the street system not needed for the
interim period (i. e. pending full property transfer from the Navy to the ARRA).
• Develop and implement a phased program for bringing the street system on the installation up
to current standards as needed in accordance with the interim and long -range plans (i. e.
width, striping, signage, lighting, sidewalks, etc.).
GOAL I2: Optimize use of transit and other alternative modes of transportation
to reduce vehicular traffic and dependence on the automobile.
Objectives:
• Work with existing transit agencies to extend service routes and facilities into WestAlameda
the illstdlldti Vu both from Oakland and the broader region and from other areas of Alameda.
• Promote continued and expanded ferry service as an alternative to the automobile.
• If a new bridge or tunnel is feasible and is pursued, incorporate appropriate transit linkages
with BART and other local/regional transit systems
• Establish a viable pedestrian and bicycle circulation system within the installation and linking
D:1wpwLV 60w7oocsraoREv.wvo
Draft Final
Page 9 NAS Alameda Goals & Objectives
DRAFT
NAS with the rest of Alameda.
Explore the feasibility of long -term development of other forms of transit, such as light rail, in
context of planning for the entire City of Alameda and its linkages with the rest of the region.
J. INFRASTRUCTURE
GOAL J1: Achieve efficient and cost - effective transition of infrastructure
systems operation, maintenance, and capital improvement
responsibility from the Navy to appropriate local service providers.
Objectives:
• Achieve optimal integration ofNAS infrastructure systems with surrounding/related systems,
in conjunction with local service providers.
Document and implement appropriate guidelines for acceptance by local service providers of
NAS infrastructure systems.
• Obtain all available reference material and documentation related to infrastructure systems
from the Navy.
• Ensure that all necessary infrastructure /utility services are provided to support the Interim
Reuse Strategy; contract with the Navy or an agreed -upon third entity to provide services
during the interim period (i. e. at least the first five years).
• Work with the Navy to ensure that infrastructure systems or portions of systems not needed
by the ARRA in the interim period (and prior to full property transfer) are properly maintained
under Navy caretaker status (and are not a fiscal burden on the ARRA or the local service
providers).
• Use the interim period to carefully plan for and begin implementing transfer of systems to
local providers.
• Establish a phased capital improvement program to bring infrastructure systems up to current
standards and to support planned long range development; distinguish between
improvements which are required immediately due to public health and safety concerns and
those improvements which can be made over the longer term.
• Explore the feasibility of achieving appropriate infrastructure system upgrades as part of
tenant improvements carried out by facility lessees.
GOAL J2: Obtain necessary funding to support infrastructure improvements,
operations and maintenance.
Objectives:
• Seek opportunities for the Navy to provide infrastructure improvements as part of their
transition and transfer responsibilities.
• Explore local, regional, state, and federal mechanisms /sources to finance needed capital
improvements.
• Plan for a combination oflease revenues, public entity service fees, and other appropriate
revenue sources that is adequate to fund necessary systems operations and maintenance;
service provision should not be a fiscal burden on the ARRA or the City of Alameda.
COWPWNW WPDOCSCdOREV.WPD
Draft Final
Page 10 NAS Alameda Goals & Objectives
or nn AFT
K. INTERIM REUSE
GOAL Kl : Ensure a coordinated transition between the Interim Reuse Strategy
and the long -range Community Reuse Plan.
Objectives:
• Achieve Optiiniz immediate and near -term reuse of existing facilities; implement the Interim
Reuse Strategy.
• Prioritize uses of existing and new facilities which respond to trends in the local, national and
global marketplace al c optimally ufai ket -I cspuffsivt and provide maximum employment
opportunities.
• Ensure that interim period tenants which seek to remain at NAS Alameda in the longer term
are accommodated in detailed reuse and redevelopment planning and in lease contracts.
• Continue to assess building suitability and ensure demolition of buildings that are not
economically viable for interim reuse.
twPw0:60 WTDOCS‘CAORE1'wpD
Draft Final
Page 11 NAS Alameda Goals & Objectives
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inner -Office Memorandum
June 21, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alternative
Plans Evaluation Criteria
Background:
The Planning Consultant team has proceeded into phase 4 of the scope of work, the Analysis
of Alternatives. Phase 4 of the scope.of work consists of a technical evaluation by the consultants
of the five land use alternatives 'endorsed by the ARRA at its regular meeting of May 4, 1995. The
consultants' evaluation of alternatives will assess and compare the five alternative, long -range land
use plans based upon a number of evaluation criteria presented here. These evaluation criteria are
a "tool" to be used in this phase of the planning process.
As a planning tool, the criteria represent the primary measures by which the alternative plans
will be compared, at a "general level of detail." It is this analysis that will also be used in the
development of the "preferred" land use alternative.
At the time of writing this staff report, the BRAG had not taken any action on the proposed
alternatives evaluation criteria. The BRAG had previously reviewed these criteria, and have
scheduled another review at a special BRAG meeting of June 21, 1995.
Discussion/Analysis:
The evaluation criteria are organized following the same twelve headings as the goals and
objectives. Although based upon the Goal and Objectives, there are several aspects of the goals and
objectives which cannot be measured at this stage of the planning process. The evaluation criteria
are developed as a "measurement" tool, and not all goals and objectives are "measurable." In most
cases these criteria will be quantitative measures (acres of development, number of jobs created,
income generated, etc.). Further discussion will address the more "qualitative" aspects of each
alternative land use plan, (adjacency of land use types, potential timing of development, ease of
implementation, etc.).
The evaluation process involves working with the BRAG, and the public (public workshop
September 9, 1995) in the next three months on three major tasks. First, ranking of the criteria in
terms of priority (which is more important than another). Secondly, rating the alternatives using each
criteria. This evaluation process will allow the BRAG and public to identify the salient aspects of
each plan. And third, developing a preferred land use plan based upon this analysis.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 2
The purpose of the ARRA endorsement of the evaluation criteria is to ensure, as much as
possible, that all participants in the planning process, are using the same factors in the decision
making process. While individuals and groups may differ in terms of weighing the importance of each
criteria, all participants should be using the same criteria and definitions.
Some minor changes or additions may be recommended by the BRAG at the ARRA's meeting
on June 28, 1995.
CEQA Compliance:
Endorsement of the evaluation criteria does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines.
In addition, the evaluation criteria are part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study for possible
future actions and is therefore "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section
15262).
Fiscal Impact:
Endorsement of the Alternatives evaluation criteria will have no fiscal impact on the ARRA
or the City of Alameda.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse the
Alternative plan evaluation criteria.
Respectfully submitted,
4x
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT /dpt
Attachments: Alternative Plan Evaluation Criteria
DRAFT
NAS ALAMEDA
COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN
Alternative Analysis Criteria
Draft May 30,1995
INTRODUCTION
The following criteria are being used to assess and compare the five alternative long -range land use
concepts approved for analysis by the ARRA. They have been derived from careful review ofthe
Community Reuse Plan Goals and Objectives and are presented under the same thematic headings as
those Goals and Objectives. These criteria will serve as the analytical basis on which a preferred land
use concept will be selected by the ARRA.
The criteria represent the primary measures by which alternative plans can and should be compared at
the general level of detail which characterizes the current phase ofthe ARRA base conversion
process. In this regard, a review ofthe Goals and Objectives will reveal that several aspects ofthe
Community's vision cannot be measured at this stage in the planning process. This fact illustrates an
important distinction between the broad intent ofthe Goals and Objectives and the criteria
appropriate for use in this stage ofthe process. The Goals and Objectives are intended to portray the
ARRA's intent over multiple, short-, mid -, and long -term horizons of plan implementation; they will
serve as guidance for decision - making at several levels ofdetail including the current general planning
effort and beyond, through implementation. Criteria for measuring success in achieving the Goals
and Objectives will change and become more detailed during subsequent stages ofplanning and
implementation. The criteria presented herein are those most appropriate to selecting a preferred
land use concept from among the five primary concepts adopted for detailed analysis.
In reviewing this draft of the alternatives evaluation criteria, it will be noted that no indication of
priority or importance is identified between one criterion or set of criteria and another. Certainly,
some of these criteria will be considered more important to decision - making from the standpoints of
the BRAG, the broader public, and the ARRA Governing Board. In fact, the process ofidentifying a
preferred land use concept will be significantly influenced as a function ofthe relative importance
assigned among the criteria. In this regard, the current document is intended only to establish the full
list of criteria which will be considered in making a decision on a preferred land use alternative. The
process of assigning various combinations of priority (relative importance) among the criteria will be
the focus ofupcoming BRAG, public, and ARRA workshops. Techniques for assigning these
priorities and tools for understanding their influence upon selection of a preferred plan are currently
being designed by the ARRA planning team.
D wPWL\60 WPDOCS CPJIRE'' WPD
PRELIMINARY
Page I NAS Alameda Alternative Criteria
DRAFT
A. LAND USE
GOAL:
• Achieve a balanced mix ofland uses at NAS, creating a vibrant and diverse new
neighborhood in Alameda.
Criteria:
Al . Economic viability (Measures: Relative "financibility" and " marketability" ofthe alternatives.
The former is a quantitative measure, using such factors as timing, overall costs, and relative
risk to assess the likely ability of each alternative to generate sufficient revenues to pay for
capital improvements. The latter is a qualitative measure, applied through discussions with
real estate and market professionals).
A2. Fiscal Impact to City General Fund (Measure: The net fiscal impact of each alternative on the
City's General Fund based on the cost to provide appropriate public services including police,
fire, emergency medical, parks and recreation and public works; as well as the revenues
generated- -both with and without a Redevelopment Project Area).
A3 . Land use compatibility /seamless transition (Measure: Qualitative assessment of each
alternative in terms of potential for land use conflicts and/or consistency with existing
Alameda neighborhoods).
A4. Balance -- Private sector economic development and public benefit uses (Measure: The
degree to which the alternatives assign uses for buildings/lands consistent with requests
received for public benefit conveyance and/or homeless assistance; conversely, the degree to
which alternatives assign uses to buildings/land areas which conflict with these requests).
A5. Balance- -Jobs and housing (Measure: Estimated ratio of new jobs created at NAS with
employed residents living at NAS at build -out for each alternative).
A6. Balance - -Urban development and open space /recreation (Measure: Ratio of open
space /recreational land to developed land uses in each alternative).
A7. Public Trust consistency (Measure: Acreage ofland use in each alternative which is
consistent with the Public Trust).
B. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOALS:
• Achieve job creation and economic development to provide the employment and
economic benefits which historically have been associated with NAS Alameda.
Enhance reemployment opportunities.
D WPWC:60 WPDOCS 7PIrRE,' WPD
PRELIMiINARY
Page 2 NAS Alameda Alternative Criteria
DRAFT
Criteria:
B 1. Net job creation (Measure: Total number ofnew jobs created minus the jobs lost through the
base closure process).
B2. Opportunities for light industrial and research and development activities (Measure: Total
square feet in each alternative that could be developed for light industrial and/or research and
development activities based on acreage allocated for these uses and typical floor area ratios),
C. HOUSING
GOAL
• Ensure that both existing and new housing resources at the new West Alameda meet
the current and future housing needs of the Community.
Criteria:
C 1. Total dwelling units (Measure: Total dwelling units anticipated by each alternative).
C2. Housing Diversity (Measure: Number ofunits that could be created under a "mixed use" land
use designation, assuming that this designation would provide for a diversity of housing
types).
C3. Jobs- housing balance (see A4).
D. URBAN DESIGN AND NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER
GOALS:
• Achieve complete integration of West Alameda with the rest of the island ofAlameda;
this is to be a seamless integration characterized by the many neighborhoods, open
space, and the best qualities of the existing City.
• Achieve human - scale, transit - oriented development.
• Protect and enhance the water - oriented (island) character of the new West Alameda,
including preservation, enhancement, and creative celebration of the expansive Bay
views.
D WPWP460 WPDDCS CM}iE\' WPD
PRELINfI\ARY
Page 3 NAS Alameda Alternative Criteria
DRAFT
Criteria:
(No substantive criteria are applicable at this level ofplanning)
E. EDUCATIONAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE USES
GOALS:
• Provide appropriate educational facilities and opportunities at West Alameda.
• Provide appropriate and high quality public and social services.
Criteria:
(See A2 and A4; beyond these measures, no substantive criteria apply to this level of planning)
F. PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
GOALS:
• Protect and provide natural/natural - appearing open space as a key amenity
throughout the installation.
• Provide needed recreational opportunities for workers and residents of the NAS area,
the City of Alameda, and surrounding communities.
Criteria:
F 1. Natural open space: (Measure: Acreage allocated to natural/natural - appearing open space in
each alternative).
G. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
GOALS:
• Achieve appropriate clean -up of environmental contamination.
• Conserve and protect vegetation , wildlife and water quality resources.
• Encourage sustainability and resource efficiency in all development.
D WPW N60 WPDOCS CPJTP.EV WPD
PRELIMINARY
Page 4 NAS Alameda Alternative Criteria
DRAFT
Criteria:
01 . Efficiency /extent of environmental clean -up (Measures: [1 ] The total land area ofrisk-
adverse use - -e.g. residential development -- occupied by IR sites, [2] consistency of proposed
use with existing use, and [3] acreage constrained in the longer term due to proposed use
requiring higher levels of clean-up).
G2. Avoidance ofprotected and sensitive species and habitats (Measure: Does the alternative
avoid direct removal of any portion ofthe existing resource ?):
Least tern colony?
Wetland habitats?
Caspian tern colony?
California brown pelican roosting site?
Harbor seal haul -out?
Western gull colony?
03. Mitigation potential (Measure: In alternatives which cannot completely avoid subject
resources, is there sufficient area to mitigate on -site by re- creating lost habitat ?):
Least tern colony?
Wetlands (minimum 1:1 ratio)?
Caspian tern colony?
California brown pelican?
G4. Long term protection (Measure: Does the alternative provide the potential for funding of an
active management program to protect the least tern colony, brown pelican roost site, and
other protected or sensitive resources ?).
05. Adjacent land and water use compatibility (Measure: Will adjacent land and/or water uses
have an adverse affect on the viability, health, or management ofthe resources? For the least
tern colony, adverse effects can include increasing feral animal activity, removing important
foraging habitat for predators, affecting important forging habitat for the terns, increasing
public access in proximity to the colony, and increasing perching sites for predators in
proximity to the colony. For the brown pelican, adverse effects can include increases in
uncontrolled boat traffic in the vicinity ofthe roosting site, increased human access to the
area, or re- connection ofthe Island Breakwater).
G6. Affect ofrequired remediation on protected or sensitive resources (Measure: Will the
remediation required for proposed land uses have an adverse affect on the California least tern
colony, the brown pelican roost site, or other sensitive biological resources ?).
G7. Compatibility of land use with water quality protection (Measure: Qualitative evaluation of
potential water quality hazards associated with alternative land use patterns based on
proximity to potential point and non -point sources ofwater quality degradation to receiving
waters [i. e. Oakland Harbor and San Francisco Bay]).
D. WPw1N6o ".?DOGS CPSiRE\'wVD
PRELIMINARY
Page 5 NAS Alameda alternative Criteria
DRAFT
H. CULTURAL/HISTORIC RESOURCES
GOALS:
• Reflect and celebrate the rich history of both Alameda and the NAS in planning and
design for reuse.
• Provide cultural and arts facilities for the benefit of Alameda and the surrounding
Community.
Criteria:
(No substantive criteria apply to this stage of the planning process; any alternative will be required to
provide for management ofthe historic district)
I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
GOALS:
• Provide adequate vehicular access to and within NAS without significant adverse
effects on access to existing areas of the Alameda.
• Optimize use of transit and other alternative modes of transportation to reduce
vehicular traffic and dependence on the automobile.
Criteria:
I 1. Standards compliance (Measure: Would applicable traffic standards of [ 1 ] the CMA or [2]
the City be exceeded at build -out ofthe alternative? If so, to what extent [i.e. degree, number
of locations] ?).
I2. Requirement for major new regional access (Measure: Would the alternative require major
infrastructure improvements for regional access to NAS Alameda [i.e. bridge, tunnel or
innovative technology] ?).
I3 . Requirement for new local access (Measure: Would the alternative require construction of
the Tinker and/or Mosely connections or require other major roadway improvements in
Alameda ?).
I4. Increased truck traffic (Measure: Would the alternative result in significant truck traffic
impacts to existing and future neighborhoods within the City ?).
I5. Transportation improvement cost (Measure: Total costs for each alternative of
D WPWL,60 WPDOCS CRrra v WPD
PRELIMPNARY
Page 6 NAS Alameda Alternative Criteria
DRAFT
transportation system improvements required to provide adequate regional/local access to
and internal circulation within West Alameda for vehicles, freight, bicycles and pedestrians).
I6. Transit compatibility (Measure: Is the alternative land use pattern conducive to optimizing
use oftransit and other alternative modes oftransportation to reduce vehicular traffic and
dependence on the automobile ?).
J. INFRASTRUCTURE
GOALS:
• Achieve efficient and cost - effective transition of infrastructure systems operation,
maintenance, and capital improvement responsibility from the Navy to appropriate
local service providers.
• Obtain necessary funding to support infrastructure improvements, operations and
maintenance.
Criteria:
J1 . Major off -site improvement requirements (Measure: Does the alternative, at build -out,
require major off -site infrastructure capacity expansions or acquisition ofadditional capacity
rights over those held by the Navy ?):
Wastewater system?
Water system?
Energy systems?
Drainage system?
P. Cost of off -site infrastructure improvements (Measure: Cost to implement major off -site
infrastructure improvements or acquire additional capacity rights).
J3. Cost of on-site infrastructure improvements (Measure: Cost ofrequired on -site
infrastructure capital improvements).
K. INTERIM REUSE
GOAL:
• Ensure a coordinated transition between the Interim Reuse Strategy and the long -
range Community Reuse Plan.
D WPWD:60 W?DOCS C1UTP1 ' wPD
PRELIMINARY
Page 7 NAS Alameda Alternative Criteria
DRAFT
Criteria:
K1 . Compatibility with Interim Reuse Strategy (Measure: The number ofbuildings that would be
occupied during interim use that could continue in the same use at build -out under each
alternative).
Compatible transition between interim and long -term reuse (Measure: The compatibility
between build -out land uses and existing buildings which are proposed for reuse by employee
operated enterprises or other potential reuses which could reemploy displace workers. The
focus is on the paint shop, the corrosion control shop, the plating shop, and the buildings to be
used by AGE and the extent to which these uses would be compatible with the surrounding
land uses permitted under each ofthe alternatives).
D WPWD:6O WPDOCS CRI[RE'' WPD
PRELIMINARY
Page 8 NAS Alameda Alternative Criteria
Alternatives
Residential/Mixed
Use Emphasis -
Mixed Use Core
Residential/Mixe d
Use Emphasis -
Dispersed Centers
Mixed
Use/Regional
Open Space with
Seaport Industrial
Emphasis - Mixed
Use Core
Seaport Industrial
Emphasis - Mixed
Use Core
Mixed
Use/Regional Open
Space Emphasis -
Mixed Use Core
Affect on required remediation on sensitive species and Habitat I
'Economic Viability
Fiscal Impact to City General Fund
Land Use Compatability
Public/Private Balance
Jobs /employed resident Balance
Urban/Open Space Balance
Public Trust Consistency
nt & Economic Development
Total job creation
Opportunity for R &D
Housing diversity
reation and Open Space
Natural Open Space
ntal
Effciency /extent of environmental clean-up
Avoidance of Sensitive species and Habitats
On -site mitigation potential
Long term protection of habitat
Adjacent Land & Water Use Compatability
Land Use Compatability w/ Water Quality
M
CI)
'4
1:1
-
LVI
BI
B2
Housing
C1
(..)
0
'G2
0000
016MEMP.XLS
Seismic Risk
Prioity locations for critical structures
Minimize development Costs
ion
City and CMA Standard's Compliance
Require Major New Access
Require New Local Access
Increase Truck Traffic
Improvement Costs
Transit Compatability
ure
Offsite Wastewater Major Improvements
Onsite Wastewater Trunkline
Wastewater improvements through cyclic replacement
1Onsite Wastewater Improvement Costs
Onsite Stormwater Improvement Costs
Onsite Electric Improvement Costs
1Onsite Gas Improvement Costs
use
1Compatability with Interim Reuse Strategy
Compatible transition between interim and long -term
, - -.
.•••••
C.,1
I...
Cn
0.••••
'I'
..•
tr)
.....
■c.
,•',
1Infrastruct
...) ■■.•;
•
CI
''
Q
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inner- Office Memorandum
June 21, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Beneficial Conveyance Request
Proposal
Background:
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) has requested eight buildings and sites for public
benefit conveyance, including: the existing George Miller School property (Site 179), the Child
Development Center (Bldg. 258), the Engineering Materials Lab (Bldg. 7), the Public Works Center
(Bldg. 534), Public Works Center/ Housing Office Site (Site 182), the Family Service Center (Bldg.
105), the old refinery site (Parcel 149), and the Auto Hobby Shop (Bldg. 167) and adjoining parcel
(Parcel 168). A description of the proposed AUSD uses and a location map are attached.
At the time of writing this staff report, the BRAG had not taken any action on this proposal.
The BRAG had previously reviewed this and other AUSD proposals. The BRAG has scheduled
further review and action at a special meeting of June 21, 1995.
Discussion/Analvsi s:
Many of the proposed conveyance requests overlap and conflict with other planning goals
and objectives for the ultimate reuse of NAS Alameda. This includes: other Public Benefit
Conveyance Requests, Federal Conveyance Requests, and the contemplated ARRA Economic
Benefit Request. Housing request are still outstanding and will be submitted by July 14, 1995. In
addition, each Public Benefit proposal is required to be sponsored by a federal agency (Department
of Education, Department of the Interior, etc.). Thus, each proposal must also be submitted to the
appropriate federal agency for review and approval.
ARRA staff will evaluate all requests and make recommendations to the ARRA as part of
the ongoing Community Reuse Planning process. Review of the proposals will include proof of
financial feasibility, a proven track record, and other factors to help ascertain the project's potential
success and contribution to the redevelopment of NAS Alameda.
However, many of the proposers need some indication of conceptual support in order to
secure funding and to finalize their plans. Thus, while it is premature to approve the specifics of
each proposal, it would be helpful to approve each proposal "in concept." This would allow each
organization to secure the necessary finances through fund raising and grant applications, and
negotiate specifics and other tradeoffs with the staff.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 2
The Miller School building is now owned by the School District. It makes logical sense that
the school district take ownership of the land (Parcel 179) under the building. The Engineering
Materials Lab is one of the newest and potentially most leasable in the private market place at
competitive rates. The Public Works Center housing office (Parcel 183) was already requested by
the Coast Guard under the Department of Defense screening process.
Assurances for Success:
A number of issues and concerns must be addressed in the detailed stages of the review
process to provide assurances and protection for ARRA that each projects success. These issues will '
also form the basis of criteria for review and recommended conditions on Public Benefit
Conveyances. For example, five of the major issues include:
1. Property Reversion Clause. ARRA needs assurances that if a project fails, is unable to
perform, goes into bankruptcy, or otherwise goes out of existence the property would revert
to the ARRA. This could take the form of a first right of refusal or other property reversion
mechanism. Details of a reversion clause may need special legislation and/or further legal
clarification from the Department of Defense.
2. Demonstrate Financial Feasibility. Each Public Benefit Proposal should provide
assurances and demonstrate to the ARRA its financial feasibility to successfully complete
the proposed project within a specified period. This could include a financial feasibility
analysis, a business plan (including detailed building and site improvement costs), a pro -
fonna analysis for ongoing operation and management, identified funding sources, and proof
of funding commitment. This could also include provisions for securing an initial funding
amount by a set deadline.
3. In -lieu Public Service Fee Payments. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair- share"
of public service costs to cover police, fire, and other public services to their specific site or
building.
4. Fair Share Infrastructure /Utility Costs. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair -
share" of on -site and off -site infrastructure /utility improvements. This would include streets
and circulation improvements, water, gas, sewer, electrical services, etc.
5. Site Development /Rehab Plans. Each public benefit applicant should be responsible for
development costs. A detailed site development and building re -ha plans should be
submitted for approval. These plans form the basis of rehab costs and are a commitment to
make necessary building code and site improvements at an acceptable level within a
specified time period.
All these assurances and conditions are to protect the ARRA and the City from unsuccessful
projects that create urban blight and would severely impact the successful redevelopment effort for
Alameda West.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
CEQA Compliance:
June 21, 1995
Page 3
Endorsement in concept of the AUSD proposal for reuse of buildings and lands at NAS
Alameda does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines. Approval of the proposal in concept
does not: constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other land entitlement; and is
not an activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing or grading of land,
improvements to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans or elements of plans.
In addition, the AUSD proposal is part of the ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse
of NAS Alameda for possible future actions, and is therefore "statutorily exempt" under CEQA
Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262).
Fiscal Impact:
Endorsement of the AUSD proposal in concept will have no fiscal impact on the ARRA or
the City of Alameda at this time.
If implemented, all Public Benefit Conveyances could have significant fiscal impacts for the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the City of Alameda. While each individual
conveyance may have a small financial impact, cumulatively the impacts could be substantial. It is
imperative that the ARRA make a wise decision on this and other Public Benefit Conveyances.
Conveying to other public entities land and buildings with significant leasing potential could put a
significant financial burden on the ARRA or the City of Alameda.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse "in
concept" the Alameda Unified School District Public Benefit Conveyance proposal and that details
for the reuse of exact buildings and lands at NAS Alameda be evaluated with all other conveyance
proposals (including the Homeless Request) within the context of the overall Community Reuse
Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
/.ety 'A6410 ,pmt
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT /dpt
Attachments: AUSD Proposal and AUSD Map
Alameda Unified School District
We Serve Children
PUBLIC BENEFIT CONVEYANC
Superintendent's Office located in:
Historic Alameda High School
2200 Central Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
(510) 748 -4060
FAX (510) 522 -6926
Dennis K. Chaconas, Superintendent
The Alameda Unified School District proposes to submit applications for Public Benefit
Conveyance of Surplus Federal Property to the U.S. Department of Education. The proposed
concept of the property acquisitions is for the following purposes:
1
George P Miller Elementary h 1
The Miller School building on Parcel #179 is owned and maintained by the Alameda
Unified School District. The building, however, is on property owned by the federal
government; expiration of the lease is on February 28, 1997. The school currently serves
students from military - connected families living on and near the base. The location of the
school lends itself to continue as a K -5 school for students moving into the area following
departure of the military without the need for structural modifications to the building.
Miller School has a capacity for 530 students and a staff of one principal, 18 teachers, one
secretary, one clerk, one health clerk, one media center teacher, two instructional
assistants, two custodians, and itinerant support staff of a psychologist and speech
therapist one day a week
The maintenance of Miller School as a K -5 elementary school ensures continued
employment of the entire staff and potential new employment for 4 -5 teachers if the
school's enrollment capacity is reached. The school was completely renovated in 1992, at
a cost to the school district of more than $1,000,000; therefore, facility upgrading will not
be necessary for a number of years. Financial funding for the school is provided by a state
formula for student enrollment based on average daily attendance (ADA). Miller School
currently has a budget totaling $1,092,999.
The building could also be easily converted for use by the school district as a location for
other programs should the housing not be redeveloped.
Child Care
The Woodstock Child Development Center (WCDC) has been funded over 50 years by
the California State Department of Education Child Development Division to provide an
educational program and child care services for 200 children, 2 years to 9 years of age.
The program provides service to low- income families whose parents are employ : d or
attending school. The services include an educational component with focus on the social,
physical, cognitive, and language development needs of the children, and provide
"Children are the world's most . aluahle resource and its best hope for the future. " J. F. Kennedy
breakfast lunch, and a snack. It is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 245 days of the
year.
WCDC currently has a staff of one director, 14 teacher instructional The relocation would
one
custodian, one cook, one secretary, and one clerk/health clerk.
maintain all current employees.
The property requested is needed to relocate the WCDC program because the current
facilities are inadequate and in need of major renovation and repair. In addition, the
relocation of only the preschool component of the program will allow for school -age child
carp; to continue to be provided at Woodstock Elementary School, as well as add school -
age child care to Miller School. It should also be noted that NAS Child Care Center was
des,gned as a child care facility and is a model site. Therefore, there will be little need for
major renovation of the property.
In addition to the State Department of Education Child aDevelopment s, and the Alameda
also comes from state and federal nutrition programs, parent
Unified School District. The total operating budget is $1,201,400. Parents are required
to pay fees based on a sliding scale, which is determined by the State Department of
Education. The scale is based on the size of the family and income level. Parents who
have income beyond the scale pay full cost for child care. The relocation of the prograrn
could generate additional full -cost families which would bring in additional revenge.
This proposal is linked to the conveyance of NAS property by the U.S. Department of
Education (DOE). The DOE regulations regarding public benefit conveyance provide for
property transfer for educational uses which our proposal meets. It should be noted that
approval of an application by DOE does not assure actual transfer. The final decision
regarding disposal of federal surplus real property is the legal responsibility of the disposal
agency (Navy), which must also consider the interests, requests, and requirements of
others, i.e., Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority final reuse plan.
3. Administrative Offices
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) is currently in the process of determining the
feasibility of renovating the district office facilities and possible relocation. As part of that
review, it was evident that district office services are in inadequate facilities and in need of
additional space.
AUSD needs one facility to convert to office space for central office staff. The
administrative offices currently comprise the following departments/divisions:
Staff
2.5
1.5
2.0
7.0
Superintendent's Office
Transition Planning Office
Educational Services
Special Education Services
Special Education Local Plan. Area (SELPA)
Curriculum/Program Development
Multi- Lingual/Multi- Cultural Program
Child Welfare and Attendance
Vocational Education/ROP Programs
Personnel Services
Business Services
Fiscal Office
Management Information System
Maintenance and Operations
Project Management
Cafeteria Services Office
Purchasing Department
3.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
8.0
2,0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
The initial plan would be to relocate some of the departments and integrate services into
the new facility.
The district office's current operational expenditures are paid from the general fund as well
as categorical funds. The funding source for the operation of the district office will
continue to be based on the total average daily attendance (ADA) of our enrollment. Even
though we are projecting decreases in enrollment from FY 1995 -96 to FY 1997 -98, the
district office will not decrease substantially because the need for general operations for
the entire district remains a constant.
The current operating cost of the district office is $4,365,897. The maintenance cost for
district office averages 54,085,191 per year. It is anticipated that the relocation to either
of these facilities will not increase costs. The relocation/move of the district office to
another facility would be funded through the issuance of certificates of participation to be
paid by the general fund or maintenance fund (bond interest).
4. Island fti h school
This concept involves the relocation of Island High School (the continuation high school)
from a residential area on Eagle Avenue to an area adjacent to Encinal High School.
Island High is currently located on a site (150' by 240') with eight portable buildings,
which is inadequate to serve the 181 students enrolled. The new site on NAS property
would need to consist of 4 acres, which would provide a long needed expansion of the
school campus and accessibility to nearby physical education facilities at Encinal High
School.
By relocating the portable buildings to the NAS site, students will have the opportunity to
share facilities with the comprehensive high school located nearby, as well as providing
easier access to the College of Alameda, Two -Plus -Two Program, which are available but
now present a transportation problem for Island High students, The inclusion of the
School -Age Parent and Infant Development (SAPID) Program at the nearby child care
location would also provide continued services and access for teen parents to their.
children.
The staff at Island High School includes 7 teachers, .6 guidance counselor, a part-time
health clerk, one secretary, one office assistant, one part -time career technician, 5 infant
care instructional assistants, one designated instructional service, 1.2 ROP teachers, 2
SAPID teachers, and a principal. The continued employment of the current staff is
assured with the relocation; the planned expansion of the program to a 6-12 grade
configuration would employ additional staff as needed. The staff is dedicated in their
effort to motivate students to earn a high school diploma, to assist them in preparing for
careers and job opportunities, and to prepare for furthering their education.
5. Community Personal and Professioua GIQ tth Center.
The proposal involves the use of a facility to house all of the district's staffdevelc'pment
activities, including, but not limited to, curriculum development and revision, instructional
methodology training, classroom management, and inservice in assessment strategies. In
addition, the facility would provide space for meeting the inservice needs of parents and
community via parent and community -based education. Alameda Adult School could also
use the facility in the evening to provide classes in computers, parent education, or other
subjects to benefit the community.
The conversion of a facility to a staff development center for training and professional
development meetings and activities will involve limited renovations to reshape the space
for small conference rooms, office space, and classrooms. The only facility currently being
used by AUSD is a 1200 square foot portable building which is not adequate for 45 -50
adults who sometimes gather for a training session, and in 1995 -96, its location will need
to be moved due to lack of space.
Staff development is a critical need in public school districts if we are to improve the
quality of educational programs for students. AUSD is fully committed to ensuri7g that
staff continue to maintain their skills to the highest levels. In spite of limited bud;;etary
resources, the district has continued to support regular professional growth opportunities
for its employees.
Other benefits that can be realized from the development of the facility include it:;
collaborative use with other
Community and Sona�a�drProfess organizations al Growth Center We believe the concept
truly become a reality.
The center will need an adjacent parking lot. Funding for the operation of the program,
remodeling, and maintenance of the facilities will be supported by categorical program
funds and general fund. These funds are provided by the State Department of Education
and are restricted to uses such as staff development. AUSD is required to provide staff
development and the current funding level for staff of the Curriculum Instruction and
Program Development Department is $774,933.
The staff of that department consists of one secretary, one testing technician, one teacher
o n special assignment, and one coordinator. In addition, the department receives
$100,000 from the general fund to operate the various activities and the staff training for
which they are responsible. The staff provides service to staff through workshops,
facilitation of curriculum and program committees, and specialized training for staff' The
proposed use of this site would also involve the Special Education Department, the
Multilingual Department, the Mentor Teacher Program, and the District Office. These
departments or offices would also use the site for meetings and training sessions.
6. � l=poe s n.dSten.tr Cafeteria rvic„
This concept is designed around the intention of AUSD to relocate the district warehouse,
maintenance yard, and to centralize the cafeteria cooking kitchens into one location
instead of the current two locations. This will reduce cost for transportation and
equipment. The consolidation of these support services to one location, rather than
throughout the city will provide management benefits to our maintenance, operations and
cafeteria services.
The establishment of the central kitchen will improve the food services operation as well
as to decrease the cost. The decrease in cost of the operation could be used to further
improve the quality of meals to be served to the students of the district.
The long -term plan for this proposal begins upon acquisition of the property. AUSD will
sell the current maintenance yard, which is located in prime residential property at 2615
Eagle Avenue, Alameda. The projected timeline for sale is a maximum of one year from
the date the property is placed on the market. When the revenue is acquired, it would be
used to fund the required construction. It is anticipated construction will take a maximum
of one year.
The 1994 -95 budget for the maintenance and operations department of the school district
is $4,0$5,191. The operating expenditure of the maintenance yard and warehouse is
funded by the general fund and will continue to be so funded. The cafeteria funs is
$1,500,409, which is supported by state and federal child nutrition revenue and is
otherwise self - supporting through student lunch fees.
The jobs provided will involve the transfer of current staff in our maintenance department
and food services department to the new locations. This would consist of' 15 maintenance
and 22 food services personnel. Both departments also employ substitutes which provide
temporary employment on the average of 20 jobs per year.
6/7/95
s'
walti
Ili lira
si Imon 1
,m.rimmismitmrrini Of T - IP ' '
i IA
In ligalmc_----,-1
_Jallirmkamiri
%MIMI INILIPI,NW Tam_
47:1 all 1115147ANt iiia 1' -,
Ell 0 ail I /7* 1
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inner -Office Memorandum
June 21, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the
Pan Pacific Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal
Background:
This proposal is another of the four major Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) requests
submitted to the ARRA for approval. The deadline for all PBC submissions is July 14, 1995. The
review process will be completed in the next four months. The final recommendations on the exact
buildings and use of space will be submitted to the ARRA for approval, for incorporation in the
"Preferred Land Use Plan" (October 1995), and then adopted in the final "Community Reuse Plan"
(January 1995).
Each Public Benefit proposal is also required to be sponsored by a federal agency
(Department of Education, Department of the Interior, etc.). Thus, each proposal must also be
submitted to the appropriate federal agency for review and approval.
At the time of writing this staff report, the BRAG had not taken any action on this proposal.
The BRAG had previously reviewed parts of this and other PBC proposals (including the East Bay
Regional Park District proposal which included AUSD), and have recommended approval of the
request "in concept." The BRAG has scheduled another review, and action, at a special meeting of
June 21, 1995.
Pan Pacific University is requesting conveyance of the major portion of the Historic District
at NAS Alameda for use as a major new university (see attached map). Pan Pacific University
request also includes the potential purchase of portions of the on -base housing areas, and a
cooperation agreement for joint use of recreation facilities with the Alameda Parks Department.
Discussion/Analysis:
Some of Pan Pacific University's proposal overlaps with and conflicts with other requests.
The Pan Pacific University proposal overlaps with two known public benefit requests including the
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), Alameda City Parks Department/ & East Bay Regional
Parks District (EBRPD) proposal, and some homeless requests. Pan Pacific University has
negotiated shared use of a number of the sports facilities (the gym, pool, baseball fields, and O'Club)
with the Alameda Parks Department.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 2
Other conflicts have yet to be resolved. Other locations or buildings may be available and
more suitable for the proposed use. These and other details still need to be resolved for each
proposal in the context of the overall reuse plan. ARRA staff will be evaluating details of all
requests and making recommendations to the ARRA as part of the ongoing Community Reuse
Planning process. Review of the proposals will include proof of financial feasibility, a
demonstrated track record, and other pertinent factors to help ascertain the project's potential success
and contribution to the redevelopment of NAS Alameda.
Many of the proposers, however, need some indication of conceptual support in order to
secure funding and to finalize their plans. Thus, while it is premature to approve the specifics of
each proposal it would be helpful to approve each proposal in concept." This would allow each
organization to secure the necessary finances through fund raising and grant applications, and
negotiate specifics and other tradeoffs.
Use of the historic core area for a University Campus has many advantages. The historic
district would be preserved and many of the buildings with little commercial value and high
demolition costs would be put to good use. The influx of a large student population both day and
night would give added vitality to Alameda West, and would also provide additional sales to the
Webster Street Commercail area. Pan Pacific would pay its "fair share" of redevelopment costs
(infrastructure and public services).
Assurances for Success:
A number of issues and concerns must be addressed in the detailed stages of the review
process to provide assurances and protection for ARRA that each projects success. These issues will
also foiui the basis of criteria for review and recommended conditions on Public Benefit
Conveyances. For example, five of the major issues include:
1. Property Reversion Clause. ARRA needs assurances that if a project fails, is unable to
perform, goes into. bankruptcy, or otherwise goes out of existence the property would revert
to the ARRA. This could take the form of a first right of refusal or other property reversion
mechanism. Details of a reversion clause may need special legislation and/or further legal
clarification from the Department of Defense.
2. Demonstrate Financial Feasibility. Each Public Benefit Proposal should provide
assurances and demonstrate to the ARRA its financial feasibility to successfully complete
the proposed project within a specified period. This could include a financial feasibility
analysis, a business plan (including detailed building and site improvement costs), a pro -
forma analysis for ongoing operation and management, identified funding sources, and proof
of funding commitment. This could also include provisions for securing an initial funding
amount by a set deadline.
3. In -lieu Public Service Fee Payments. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair- share"
of public service costs to cover police, fire, and other public services to their specific site or
building.
Honorable Members of the June 21, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
4. Fair Share Infrastructure /Utility Costs. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair -
share" of on -site and off -site infrastructure /utility improvements. This would include streets
and circulation improvements, water, gas, sewer, electrical services, etc.
5. Site Development /Rehab Plans. Each public benefit applicant should be responsible for
development costs. A detailed site development and building re -ha plans should be
submitted for approval. These plans form the basis of rehab costs and are a commitment to
make necessary building code and site improvements at an acceptable level within a
specified time period.
All these assurances and conditions are to protect the ARRA and the City from unsuccessful
projects that create urban blight and would severely impact the successful redevelopment effort for
Alameda West.
CEQA Compliance:
Endorsement in concept of the Pan Pacific University Public Benefit Conveyance proposal
does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines: Approval of the proposal in concept does not:
constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other land entitlement; and is not an
activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing or grading of land, improvements
to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans or elements of plans.
In addition, endorsement of the Pan Pacific University proposal in concept is part of the
overall feasibility and planning study for NAS Alameda for possible future actions and is therefore
"statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262).
Fiscal Impact:
Approval of the Pan Pacific University proposal in concept will have no fiscal impact on the
ARRA or the City of Alameda at this time.
However, if implemented, all Public Benefit Conveyances could have significant positive
or negative fiscal impacts for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the City of
Alameda. While each individual conveyance may have a small financial impact, cumulatively the
impacts could be substantial. It is imperative that the ARRA make a wise decisioin on this and other
Public Benefit Conveyances. Each use should at least "pay its own way" in order not to put a
significant financial burden on the ARRA, the Navy or the City of Alameda. An overall concept
may be supported by the community, but it may not be financially feasible. It may not be possible
to have large amounts of building space and land area dedicated to the public sector and still be able
to pay for the essential public services and redevelopment costs. Some buildings requested may be
more profitable (to the ARRA) to lease in the private sector at competitive market rates in order to
pay for redevelopment costs.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation:
June 21, 1995
Page" 4
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse the Pan
Pacific University proposal "in concept" and that specific reuse of buildings and land at NAS
Alameda for Pan Pacific University be evaluated with all conveyance proposals (including the
Homeless Request) in the context of the overall Community Reuse Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT /dpt
Attachments: Pan Pacific University Proposal
Map
abd
• . A - . W thin th
a
4'
.calt
t!S
RS
z
W wf
•1� �l V
t
re
a
ZOOZ 02 5661 -- !S !ufl )00d -u0d 4 uald ssawsng
v2-v o_ 4'
uuc`rs 2
a'0.
`+~ H e • 0
4 "0 < 0 O ai 0 £1..
3 e=i.00 44 0
• Q u
MUM
WOO
L. 4) ` E
c�
u= 0
Is O +0 ^0
0 C � u
4 v N D4
0.
b •
2 0 ' N
o
-4c 3 a -c
_ i_I
I /�� ∎I NI IN I
artalowilwr
./Wilt •
.1.■•110U1R 1:
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inner - Office Memorandum
June 21, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the
Alameda Naval Air Museum Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal
Background:
ARRA staff recently received this proposal for the establishment of an Alameda Naval Air
Museum at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda as a Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC). This
proposal is an outgrowth of the historic preservation efforts of Barbara Baack and Marilyn York.
These two citizens were appointed by the City of Alameda Mayor to represent the City in the
retention and preservation of historic artifacts at NAS Alameda.
The proposal is to use Building 77, the old "air terminal ", and Building 41, a hanger, as the
home of the Alameda Naval Air Museum. The museum would display historic artifacts,
photographs, plaques, and various memorabilia from NAS Alameda. In addition, the museum would
strive to have older, decommissioned ships and aircraft (battleships, aircraft carriers, etc.) located
at one of the NAS Alameda piers as historic artifacts open for public view.
This proposal is one of five major Public Benefit Conveyance requests submitted to the
ARRA for approval. The deadline for submissions is July 14, 1995. The review process will be
completed in the next four months. Recommendations on the exact buildings and use of space will
be submitted to the ARRA for approval, for incorporation in the "Preferred Land Use Plan" (October
1995), and for adoption in the final "Community Reuse Plan" (January 1995).
At the time of writing this staff report, the BRAG had not taken any action on this proposal.
The BRAG had previously reviewed this and other PBC proposals (including Parks and Recreation).
The BRAG has scheduled another review and action at a special meeting of June 21, 1995.
Discussion/Analysis:
Many of the proposed conveyance requests overlap and conflict with other planning goals
and objectives for the ultimate reuse of NAS Alameda (this includes: other Public Benefit
Conveyance Requests, Federal Conveyance Requests, potential Homeless Requests, and the ARRA
Economic Benefit Request). The request for use of Building 77 and Hanger 41 does not now
conflict with other known public benefit requests, homeless requests, nor the federal agency
requests. Some interest has been expressed in the reuse of Building 41 at competative market rates.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 2
The ARRA staff will be evaluating all requests and making recommendations to the ARRA
as part of the ongoing Community Reuse Planning process. In addition, each Public Benefit
proposal is required to be sponsored by a federal agency, (Department of Education, Department of
the Interior, etc.). Thus, each proposal must also be submitted to the appropriate federal agency for
review and approval. Review of the proposals will include proof of financial feasibility, a
demonstrated track record, and other factors to help ascertain the projects potential success and
contribution to the redevelopment of NAS Alameda.
Many of the details of each proposal are not complete. Overlaps and conflicts between
proposals have yet to be resolved. For example some buildings requested may be more profitable
(to the ARRA) to lease in the private sector at competitive market rates. In addition, some other
locations may be available and more suitable for the proposed use. These and other details still need
to be resolved for each proposal.
However, many of the proposers need some indication of conceptual support in order to
secure funding and to finalize their plans. Thus, while it is premature to approve the specifics of
each proposal, it would be helpful to approve each proposal "in concept." This would allow each
organization to secure the necessary finances through fund raising and grant applications, and
negotiate specifics and other tradeoffs with the ARRA staff.
Assurances for Success:
A number of issues and concerns must be addressed in the detailed stages of the review
process to provide assurances and protection for ARRA that each projects success. These issues will
also form the basis of criteria for review and recommended conditions on Public Benefit
Conveyances. For example, five of the major issues include:
1. Property Reversion Clause. ARRA needs assurances that if a project fails, is unable to
perform, goes into bankruptcy, or otherwise goes out of existence the property would revert
to the ARRA. This could take the form of a first right of refusal or other property reversion
mechanism. Details of a reversion clause may need special legislation and/or further legal
clarification from the Department of Defense.
2. Demonstrate Financial Feasibility. Each Public Benefit Proposal should provide
assurances and demonstrate to the ARRA its financial feasibility to successfully complete
the proposed project within a specified period. This could include a financial feasibility
analysis, a business plan (including detailed building and site improvement costs), a pro -
forma analysis for ongoing operation and management, identified funding sources, and proof
of funding commitment. This could also include provisions for securing an initial funding
amount by a set deadline.
3. In -lieu Public Service Fee Payments. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair- share"
of public service costs to cover police, fire, and other public services to their specific site or
building.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 3
4. Fair Share Infrastructure /Utility Costs. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair -
share" of on -site and off -site infrastructure /utility improvements. This would include streets
and circulation improvements, water, gas, sewer, electrical services, etc.
5. Site Development /Rehab Plans. Each public benefit applicant should be responsible for
development costs. A detailed site development and building re -ha plans should be
submitted for approval. These plans form the basis of rehab costs and are a commitment to
make necessary building code and site improvements at an acceptable level within a
specified time period.
All these assurances and conditions are to protect the ARRA and the City from unsuccessful
projects that create urban blight and would severely impact the successful redevelopment effort for
Alameda West.
CEQA Compliance:
Endorsement in concept of the NAS Alameda Museum Public Benefit Conveyance proposal
does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines. Approval of the proposal in concept does not:
constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other land entitlement; and is not an
activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing or grading of land, improvements
to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans or elements of plans.
In addition, endorsement of the NAS Museum proposal in concept is part of the overall
feasibility and planning study for NAS Alameda for possible future actions and is therefore
"statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262).
Fiscal Impact:
Endorsement "in concept" of the NAS Alameda Museum proposal will have no fiscal impact
on the ARRA or the City of Alameda at this time. However, if implemented, all Public Benefit
Conveyances could have significant positive or negative fiscal impacts for the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and the City of Alameda. While each individual conveyance may have
a small financial impact, cumulatively the impacts could be substantial. It is imperative that the
ARRA make a wise decisioin on this and other Public Benefit Conveyances. Each use should at
least "pay its own way" in order not to put a significant financial burden on the ARRA, the Navy or
the City of Alameda.
If implemented, all Public Benefit Conveyances could have a significant fiscal impact for the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the City of Alameda. While each individual
conveyance may have a small financial impact, cumulatively the impacts could be substantial. It is
imperative that the ARRA make a wise decision on this and other Public Benefit conveyances to
maintain a positive financial position for both the ARRA and the City of Alameda. Each new use
should at least "pay its own way" (for public services and infrastructure) in order not to put a
significant financial burden on the ARRA or the City of Alameda.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation:
June 21, 1995
Page 4
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse the NAS
Alameda Museum proposal "in concept" and that reuse of specific buildings and lands at NAS
Alameda for a museum will be evaluated with all conveyance proposals (including the Homeless
Request) within the context of the overall Community Reuse Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT /dpt
Attachments: NAS Alameda Museum Proposal and Map
JUN 1 9 1SE5
1
UASE CC!,IVERSION OFFICE
CITY Or ALAMEDA
PROPOSAL
FOR THE
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR MUSEUM
By Barbara Baack and Marilyn York
Address: 16148 Via Sonora, San Lorenzo, California 94580
Telephone: 510 352-2750
SYNOPSIS
To set aside Building 77 to serve as the home of the Alameda Naval
Air Museum which would display historic artifacts, photographs,
plaques, items and various memorabilia from the more than 55 years
of Naval Air Station history. These items are to be collected,
stored and catalogued according to Navy standards. When the Navy
leaves, the collection is to be turned over to the custody of the
City of Alameda under agreement of understanding between the Navy
and the City of Alameda. We are requesting that the ownership of
Building 77 be transferred by Beneficial Conveyance.
CU'
Signatures: Barbara Baack Marilyn York
Date: June 19, 1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We propose that Building 77 be set aside as the site of the Alameda
Naval Air Museum. Purpose of the museum is to house significant
historic documents, photographs, monuments, plaques, artifacts, and
items depicting more than 55 years of history of Alameda Naval Air
Station and the Naval Aviation Depot, known previously as the
Assembly and Repair Department, Overhaul and Repair Department, and
Naval Air Reork Facility. We further propose that the
establishment of this museum be made a part of the Reuse Plan for
the Naval Air Station Alameda. It is intended that the Museum be
planned as a long -term use of Building 77.
In conjunt'ion with the establishment of a museum in Building 77, we
propose consideration of the use of Hangar 41 as a site for display
of certain historic Navy aircraft which were either reworked at
Alameda or were part of squadrons there.
Items to be displayed include historic photographs currently on
display in the stairwell and entrance to Building 5 -A. These
include model of aircraft repaired at the NADEP, photograph of the
first SOC repaired at the O &R Department, composite photo of all
aircraft reworked at O &R, photos of A &R as its shops appeared at
the peak of World War II production in 1945, photos of all
Commanding Officers and their dates of command, composites of
engines, samples of missiles, samples of pattern making, display of
bearings from Avionics Clean Room, samples of zyglo parts to show
up corrosion of aircraft surfaces, examples of plating, aircraft
models if available, flags and scenes of NADEP as it appeared in
recent years.
Items saved from NAS could include photographs of aircraft carriers
homeported at Alameda over the years, items from the Supply
Department, Navy personnel manual, items from Public Works as well
as awards and memorabilia retained over the years. Programs from
public events would also be of interest.
If feasible an Essex type aircraft carrier, such as the USS Hornet
or USS Midway could be mothballed at Pier 2. This would be a
tourist attraction which could draw visitors to the NAS Alameda
complex. Picnic tables could be placed near the ship so families
and their children could enjoy the Bay view.
The geographic area near Building 77, Hangar 41 and the Carrier
pier are all near each other and may be reached by the public in an
almost straight shot from the East Gate. It is an ideal location
for a tourist attraction, which if done properly, could bring in
revenue to the City of Alameda.
We should point out the tremendous success of the Pensacola Naval
Air Museum which attracts visitors from all over the U.S. every
day.
Alameda citizens have always been proud of their history. We
believe that NAS has a rich history which should be incorporated
with the City's heritage. School children of the future would be
able to see what a slice of Navy life was like in Alameda and learn
of the rich record of public service in Alameda from World WAr II
through the Korean, Vietnam and Desert Storm eras. This history
must not be forgotten.
We believe that the above museum complex could be managed by
volunteers drawn from such local civic organizations as the Alameda
Navy League, members of the National Association of Retired Federal
Employees of which there are 12 chapters in the area as well as by
local members of the Naval Reserve who may be looking for a
suitable weekend assignment. There are a number of displaced Naval
Reservists in the Bay Area at present who could be assigned to run
the museum.
We hope to keep expenses to a minimum providing that the museum
facility starts out in good condition initially. Initial expenses
would include liability insurance and utilities. We hope to avoid
the cost of salaries by running the project with volunteers.
We hope to attract former military and civilian employees who have
an interest or former affiliation with the Base who might wish to
spend some time helping with this project. In Pensacola our docent
was a former Chief Petty Officer who displayed his love and
appreciation for the Navy with every word he uttered. His
enthusiasm made the tour memorable.
SPECIAL PROJECTS
We hope to devote a special section of the Museum to artifacts
relating to the Doolittle Raiders. We possess archival material
and books relating to their exploits as well as original
memorabilia from the two Doolittle Raiders reunions hosted at NAS
Alameda. Celebrities such as James Stewart and Bob Hope were
keynote speakers at these reunions. We also have original
photographs of the crews with their B-25 aircraft. taken aboard the
USS Hornet prior to deployment. Much of this material corrects
misconceptions and errors in fact which have ocurred over the
years.
We have started collecting oral histories from former military and
civilian employees. We hope to build on this effort as this
project develops.
We also hope to document each building aboard the Base as it looks
today. This will form a permanent record which can be used for
reference in the future.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
1. The forming of a non profit organization with a qualified Board
of Directors.
2. To obtain a liability insurance policy for two million dollars
at the cost of approximately two thousand dollars per year.
3. We propose to sell memberships to interested patrons at twenty-
five dollars per year.
4. We would charge admission fees to the museum at one dollars per
adult, fifty cents per child. If ship or aircraft visiting options
are viable, additional admissions could be charged.
5. Funding for the museum utilities would be paid as part of the
Parks and Recreation expenses.
6. We cannot project gross revenue at this time. We expect there
to be significant public interest and support from public schools
as a valuable educational resource.
7. We plan to share the services of a qualified museum curator
with the City of Alameda's Historic Museum.
8. We have documents of support attached from the Alameda Navy
League, the Alameda City Historic Museum Director, and two chapters
of NARFE, The National Association of Retired Federal Employees,
representing 1.200 members.
47;"1 /fa /7 10 19 21 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 211 23
,
•••• -0
•
-,••••••-
'7.: •
1--
30 31 32 93
/
0 • I • sa at
1
•
1 76 N
, 1 134 1
Ca
G=la = ••
• fi
S1111 2137
Osas
2
lArisannft
1
34 33 36 1 37 1 38 33 40
in.., 11
cO7'L.
tit —
(JI AAA
•
1 •
n
• : u,' .
g1;.7 o • I I i
.
••••
4
s's
11
0 I
,11 i • qz =-:,
19
100
• 390
r
Lawson / :sepia": 11•00a..4 A.,
NAS Alarn• eta inn., Neorb•r.
•
160
•
r_.51
ic ,.-----u--•=7..511
1 ;!,...„...,... ii I L . .:- —
: r --
3 M ---:... ____
1 0 if .!: -- — —7
,L..._ ., , • .: 1
11
Iririr
• -
11
San Tranefre• Say
Bose Conversion Office
City of Alameda, CA
NAVAL AIR STATION / PORTIONS OF ALAMEDA, CA
-; •
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inner - Office Memorandum
June 21, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report by the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the
Conservation Science Institute (CSI) Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal
Background:
Conservation Science Institute (CSI) has submitted a public benefit conveyance (PBC)
request for the reuse of Buildings 15 and 64 and portions of Building 162 as a Marine Science
Laboratory for educational and research purposes. Building 15 is an existing covered boat dock and
office space; Building 64 is the Navy divers office. Both are located on the Seaplane lagoon.
Building 162 is a warehouse building located west of the East Gate entry next to the seaplane lagoon
(see attached map).
This proposal is one of four major Public Benefit Conveyance requests submitted to the
ARRA for approval. The deadline for all Public Benefit Conveyance submissions is July 14, 1995.
The review process will be completed in the next four months and the final recommendations on the
exact buildings and use of space will be submitted to the ARRA for approval, for incorporation in
the "Preferred Land Use Plan" (October 1995), and adopted in the final "Community Reuse Plan"
(January 1995).
At the time of writing this staff report, the BRAG had not taken any action on this proposal.
The BRAG had previously reviewed this and other proposals and have supported approval of the
request "in concept." The BRAG has scheduled another review at a special meeting of June 21,
1995.
Discussion/Analysis:
Many of the proposed conveyance requests overlap and conflict with other planning goals
and objectives for the ultimate reuse of NAS Alameda (this includes: other Public Benefit
Conveyance Requests, Federal Conveyance Requests, and the ARRA's Economic Benefit Requests).
The CSI proposal overlaps with no federal agency request, nor any known public benefit request at
this time. Homeless requests will not be finalized until July 14,1995. A number of private interests
have expressed interest in leasing Buildings 15 and 64 at fair market rates for marina related uses.
Many of the details of each proposal are not complete, and overlaps and conflicts between
proposals have yet to be resolved. Each overall concept may be supported by the community, but
in detail may not be financially feasible. It may be impractical for the ARRA to carry large amounts
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 2
of building space and land area in the public sector, and still pay for the essential public services and
redevelopment costs. Some buildings requested may be more profitable (to the ARRA) to lease in
the private sector at competitive market rates. In addition, some other location or building may be
available and more suitable for the proposed use. These and other details still need to be resolved
for each proposal.
The ARRA staff will be evaluating all request and making recommendations to the ARRA
as part of the ongoing Community Reuse Planning process. Each Public Benefit proposal is also
required to be sponsored by a federal agency (Department of Education, Department of the Interior,
etc.). Thus, each proposal must also be submitted to the appropriate federal agency for review and
approval. Review of the proposals will include proof of financial feasibility, proven track record,
and other factors to help ascertain the project potential success and contribution to the redevelopment
of NAS Alameda.
However, many of the proposers need some indication of conceptual support in order to
secure funding and to finalize their plans. Thus, while it is premature to approve the specifics of
each proposal; it would be helpful to approve each proposal "in concept." This would allow each
organization to secure the necessary finances through fund raising and grant applications, and to
negotiate specifics and other tradeoffs.
A marina research center would be an excellent use located at NAS Alameda. The NAS boat
facilities have direct access to the Bay waters, tidelands and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed use
would be in keeping with the state land jurisdiction requirements, and would be compatible with
other marina, research, educational, and tourist type uses. However, the proposed location
(Buildings 15 and 64) may be more beneficially used for commercial (income generating) uses. If
funded and financially feasible, Conservation Science Institute could be provided a long term lease
(at a nominal cost) by the ARRA for some other marina space at some future date. This type of
arrangement would allow lands to remain in ARRA's control and ownership in case this or other
users fail.
Assurances for Success:
A number of issues and concerns must be addressed in the detailed stages of the review
process to provide assurances and protection for ARRA that each projects success. These issues will
also form the basis of criteria for review and recommended conditions on Public Benefit
Conveyances. For example, five of the major issues include:
1. Property Reversion Clause. ARRA needs assurances that if a project fails, is unable to
perform, goes into bankruptcy, or otherwise goes out of existence the property would revert
to the ARRA. This could take the form of a first right of refusal or other property reversion
mechanism. Details of a reversion clause may need special legislation and/or further legal
clarification from the Department of Defense.
2. Demonstrate Financial Feasibility. Each Public Benefit Proposal should provide
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 3
assurances and demonstrate to the ARRA its financial feasibility to successfully complete
the proposed project within a specified period. This could include a financial feasibility
analysis, a business plan (including detailed building and site improvement costs), a pro -
forma analysis for ongoing operation and management, identified funding sources, and proof
of funding commitment. This could also include provisions for securing an initial funding
amount by a set deadline.
3. In -lieu Public Service Fee Payments. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair- share"
of public service costs to cover police, fire, and other public services to their specific site or
building.
4. Fair Share Infrastructure /Utility Costs. Each public benefit project should pay its "fair -
share" of on -site and off -site infrastructure /utility improvements. This would include streets
and circulation improvements, water, gas, sewer, electrical services, etc.
5. Site Development /Rehab Plans. Each public benefit applicant should be responsible for
development costs. A detailed site development and building re -ha plans should be
submitted for approval. These plans form the basis of rehab costs and are a commitment to
make necessary building code and site improvements at an acceptable level within a
specified time period.
All these assurances and conditions are to protect the ARRA and the City from unsuccessful
projects that create urban blight and would severely impact the successful redevelopment effort for
Alameda West.
CEQA Compliance:
Endorsement in concept of the Conservation Science Institute Public Benefit Conveyance
proposal does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines. Approval of the proposal in concept
does not: constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or' other land entitlement; and is
not an activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing or grading of land,
improvements to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans or elements of plans.
In addition, endorsement of the CSI proposal in concept is part of the overall feasibility and
planning study for NAS Alameda for possible future actions and is therefore "statutorily exempt"
under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262).
Fiscal Impact:
Endorsement of the CSI proposal in concept will have no fiscal impact on the ARRA or the
City of Alameda at this time. If implemented, all Public Benefit Conveyances could have a
significant positive or negative fiscal impact for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 21, 1995
Page 4
and the City of Alameda. While each individual conveyance may have a small financial impact,
cumulatively the impacts could be substantial. It is imperative that the ARRA make a wise decision
on this and other Public Benefit conveyances to maintain a positive financial position for both the
ARRA and the City of Alameda. Each new use should at least "pay its own way" (for public
services and infrastructure) in order not too put a significant financial burden on the ARRA, the
Navy or the City of Alameda.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse the CSI
Public Benefit Conveyance proposal "in concept" and that specific reuse of buildings and lands at
NAS Alameda for the CSI be evaluated with all conveyance proposals (including the Homeless
Request) in the context of the overall Community Reuse Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT /dpt
Attachments: CSI Proposal
Map
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation Science Institute (CSI), a nonprofit, public - benefit, environmental education
organization, requests a public- benefit conveyance of real property at the Alameda Naval
Air Station including Building #64, Building #15, portions of Building #162, and some
dock space. These facilities will allow CSI to serve the educational needs of the people of
Alameda and the San Francisco Bay Area, to advance science, and to help sustain and
restore the natural resources and economy of Alameda and the region.
We feel that active research at the Alameda Marine Laboratory will be an excellent
complement to other educational and interpretive entities in Alameda, and that the base
closure process itself will provide excellent opportunities for a healthy marriage of science
and education. We contend that endorsement of our proposal for the Alameda Marine
Laboratory will lead to the presence of a world -class marine science and oceanographic and
educational facility in Alameda.
Our products consist of unbiased educational materials tailored to all segments of the local
and regional community. These include newsletters, curriculum materials, pamphlets,
reports, reviews, and letters. They are available free -of- charge, or for a nominal cost, due
to our public benefit orientation. Our services include educational excursions, school
educational programs, research expeditions, public lectures, and scientific contributions.
Our operations will consist mainly of field - oriented exploration, investigation, and
education at and around Alameda. Science curriculum enhancement programs will enable
students to be involved in real science and to participate in environmental problem solving.
Ultimately, CSI could support more than 30 full -time jobs and 30 part -time jobs in
maintenance, mechanical, technical, marine, scientific, teaching, youth - related, and
student - related categories.
The city of Alameda contains the most populated island in the largest California estuary, yet
no marine science education provider exists there. In fact, few similar organizations exist
in the entire San Francisco Bay area, and none with emphasis on public exposure to hands -
on, cutting -edge science exemplified by CSI. As interest in the world's oceans and coastal
environments continues to increase the marketplace niche for our organization on Alameda
becomes ever more obvious.
Because of our public benefit orientation, our targeted market is the general public of
Alameda and the San Francisco Bay area. We intend to solicit participation by all sectors of
the public in our programs. The requested facilities at the Alameda Naval Air Station are
ideally situated and accessible to the public.
Much of our research and educational activities will be funded by government sources and
other public sources. However, our marketing strategies will target the support of public
beneficiaries for field programs and special events. Advertising venues will include local
newspapers and entertainment guides, the yellow and white pages, bulletin boards and
handouts, street ads, internet, and direct mail. Marketing feedback is an integral
component of our marketing strategy.
Conveyances of property to Conservation Science Institute is risk -free because all
donations of equipment and facilities are dedicated to public benefit causes in perpetuity.
Furthermore, investments of funds in CSI carries inverse risk because the payoffs of a
better educated populous and a more enlightened scientific community are only positive.
The risks involved with the public outreach part of our operations are low and are offset by
our diversified income, low overhead costs, and lower threshold for viable operating
budget. Our liability risk is also small due to our non - profit status.
The initial funding will come from grants from government sources and other public
sources. As our programs get underway, additional funding will come from student fees,
field trips, special events, and public gifts and contributions. No-cost acquisitions of
property and equipment will offset our costs, and thus ensure the viability of Conservation
Science Institute to enhance the educational, economic, recreational, and natural resources
of Alameda for the prosperity of the general public.
The Alameda Marine Laboratory proposal is symbolic of the potential educational and
community service benefits that can be provided at the Naval Air Station during the coming
years. We are confident that, in the future, Alameda will be widely known, not only for its
successful economic conversion, but also because of its unique educational and aesthetic
value as an island of restored natural beauty in the midst of an urban sea. Through the
Alameda Marine Laboratory, Conservation Science Institute can play a constructive role in
enabling this vision to become reality.
iv
16 17. 18 19 21 21 22 2:1 24
. 23 28 27 29 29 30 31 32 , 33 34 33 36 37 38 39 40
----------____
. -••-
•••
•
1
7o',...-5.)=c...,..,_-,1:
____,r....—....._....i
c) ) 3
--------. -_......ti— . !,;•11=0 t•hi 1=-.:•---cs.77$-:74-.–;,;‘,
9 I F : ,--„__,- El Dii. sv-----'-• '
11 o r-----i J [
-... lilt, ill, c, U',..s4.40:.• _ .
Oak i•ssi
/nn•r ,,,,,
ill j
!II
!I
11
19
4t
4 00
12
Lapeer, / S oplana 13,-1.A•n. Ay.
1(45 Ala/nod. Inn•r Her t..r.
o
ditz•
San Franc (s1• Bev
Bose Conversion Office
City of Alameda, CA
NAVAL AIR STATION / PORTIONS OF ALAMEDA, CA
I v`"",
11 •
I
I 11,
I
to
k-e-t-- •
I
1
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum
June 21, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report by the Executive Director Recommending that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Members Receive Compensation in the Amount of $100
Per Meeting to be Funded by Each Member's Own Jurisdictional Entity Providing
the Member's Jurisdiction has the Available Resources to Pay for the Meeting
Compensation
Background:
On September 7, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA)
amended its Bylaws to allow members of the Governing Body to receive meeting compensation
in the amount of $100 per meeting should funds become available. The Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA) rejected the ARRA's budget request to provide meeting compensation for the
ARRA Governing Body, but the Bylaws were amended should another funding source become
available at some future date.
D iscussion/Analysis:
At the ARRA meeting of June 7, 1995, a member of the ARRA Governing Body
requested that compensation be provided for ARRA meetings at the rate of $100 per meeting.
Currently, the ARRA is allowed by OEA to use the Governing Body's time (at the rate of
$40.50 an hour) to meet the match requirement of the ARRA's OEA reuse planning grant. If
the ARRA board members were paid a $100 per meeting, that could be used as match in lieu
of the $40.50 an hour.
Since no new source of funding has been identified to pay for the meeting compensation,
it is recommended that each member of the Governing Body be paid a $100 a meeting by that
member's own jurisdictional entity - i.e. Oakland pay its representative on the ARRA $100 per
meeting, the County pay its representative on the ARRA $100 per meeting, Alameda pay its
representatives on the ARRA $100 per meeting, etc.
Fiscal Impact:
The amended ARRA Bylaws allow the Governing Body to be compensated at the rate of
$100 per meeting and no more than two meetings per month. The maximum annual expense
for the City of Alameda for five members and 24 meetings would be $12,000; however, the
ARRA generally only meets once a month for a total cost of $6,000. The maximum annual cost
to all other local and regional jurisdictions would be $2,400.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Recommendation:
June 21, 1995
Page Two
It is recommended that the ARRA support the proposal to have each member of the
ARRA Governing Body receive $100 meeting compensation for up to two meetings per month,
and that the compensation be paid to the ARRA member by his or her own jurisdictional entity
which that member represents - providing the member's local jurisdiction has the available
resources to pay for the meeting compensation.
Respectfully submitted,
%� U
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Attachment: Copy of Staff Report from September 7, 1995, ARRA Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum
August 31, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker. Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change
to Bylaws Allowing Members of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority to Receive Meeting Compensation
Background:
On May 19. 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) adopted
Bylaws. Subsequent to the adoption of the Bylaws. the ARRA staff in the proposed budget
submittal to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) included a line item to provide meeting
compensation for ARRA members. OEA rejected this budget request; however. should other
funding sources become available, the ARRA Bylaws must be amended to allow for the ARRA
members to receive meeting compensation.
Discussion/Analysis:
The City Attorney drafted the following proposed amendment to the ARRA Bylaws:
3.07 Meeting Compensation
"Each member of the Governing Body shall receive $100.00 for each meeting of the Governing
Body which the member attends; provided that no member shall receive such fees for more than
two meetings in any one calendar month; and provided that there is a budget for such fees."
Fiscal Impact:
None. Meeting compensation will not be provided to members of the ARRA Governing
Body until such time as a source of funding for the compensation has been secured.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that ARRA adopt the proposed amendment to the Bylaws allowing
members of the ARRA to receive meeting compensation should a source of funding become
available.
Respect.. Ily
n Parker,
DP:jm xecutive Director
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda High School, West Wing, Cafeteria
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
Alameda, CA
Wednesday, June 28, 1995
6:00 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY OR THE COUNCIL:
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
and City Council meetings.
ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEMS
A. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of the Joint
Alameda Recreation and Park Department, Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), and
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Beneficial Conveyance Request Proposal for
Alameda Naval Air Station
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Bodies 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.)
IV.
V.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODIES
ADJOURNMENT
Note:
* Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Elizabeth
Brydon, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request
an interpreter.
* Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is
available.
* Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
* Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum
June 26, 1995
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement in Concept of
the Joint Alameda Recreation and Park Department, Alameda Unified School
District (AUSD),. and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Beneficial
Conveyance Request Proposal for Alameda Naval Air Station
Background:
At its meeting of September 7, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) heard a proposal from the Alameda Recreation and Park Department, the Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD), and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for a joint
beneficial conveyance request for recreation facilities at the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS).
At that time, the joint proposal had been endorsed by the Alameda City Council and the
Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG). The ARRA reviewed and verbally supported
the proposal; however, took no formal action as the item was agendized as an oral presentation
only.
Discussion/Analysis:
At its meeting of June 28, 1995, the ARRA is reviewing for the first time the other
public beneficial conveyance requests for NAS Alameda and considering formally endorsing
those proposals "in concept "; therefore, it would be appropriate to also vote to support "in
concept" the joint recreation proposal previously presented to the ARRA and endorsed by the
City of Alameda and the BRAG.
CEQA Compliance:
Endorsement in concept of the joint Alameda Recreation and Park Department, AUSD
and EBRPD proposal does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines. Approval of the
proposal in concept does not: constitute issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other
land entitlement; and is not an activity undertaken which would result in construction, clearing
or grading of land, improvements to structures, amendment to zoning ordinances, general plans
or elements of general plans.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 26, 1995
Page 2
In addition, endorsement of the joint recreation proposal in concept is part of the overall
feasibility and planning study for NAS Alameda for possible future actions and is therefore
"statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18. Section 15262).
Fiscal Impact:
Approval of the joint Alameda Recreation and Park Department, AUSD and EBRPD
recreation proposal in concept will have no fiscal impact on the ARRA or the City of Alameda
at this time.
However, if implemented, all Public Benefit Conveyances could have significant positive
or negative fiscal impacts for the ARRA and the City of Alameda. While each individual
conveyance may have a small financial impact, cumulatively the impacts could be substantial.
It is imperative that the ARRA make wise decisions on this and other Public Benefit
Conveyances. Each use should at least "pay its own way" in order not to put a significant
financial burden on the ARRA or the City of Alameda. An overall concept may be supported
by the community, but it may not be financially feasible. It may not be possible to have large
amounts of building space and land area dedicated to the public sector and still be able to pay
for the essential public services and redevelopment costs. Some buildings may be more
profitable (to the ARRA) to lease in the private sector at competitive market rates in order to
pay for redevelopment costs.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA endorse the joint Alameda Recreation and Park
Department, Alameda Unified School District, and East Bay Regional Park District Beneficial
Conveyance Request proposal "in concept", and that the specific reuse of buildings and land at
NAS for this : proposal be evaluated with all conveyance proposals (including the Homeless
Request) in the context of the overall Community Reuse Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director