The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-11-01 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * * ** Historic Alameda High School Cafeteria - West Wing Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street Alameda, California Wednesday, November 1, 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. 1. ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of October 5, 1995 III. ACTION ITEMS B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Introduction, Goals and Objectives, and Disposition Strategies Elements of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan. C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of a Proposal to Lease Portions of the NASAlameda Piers for Docking of the Hornet Aircraft Carrier as a Private Museum. [Tabled from October 5, 1995 meeting. ] V. ORAL REPORTS D. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the ARRA on BRAG Activities. E. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on ARRA Staff Activities. 1. Response to ARRA Directives and Questions on the Plan 2. Request for Contribution from ARRA Member Communities to Provide Matching Funds for an Urban Land Institute (ULI) Panel to Evaluate the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan 3. Update on Discussions with BCDC on Port Priority Designation 4. Update on Discussions with State Lands Commission 5. Update on Coast Guard Housing Request 6. Update on Lease Negotiations 7. MBE/WBE Update Requested by Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson 8. Miscellaneous Issues. V. 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.) VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY VII. ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, 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 OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thursday, October 5, 1995 The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Mayor Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda; Alternate Garry Loeffler for Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Alternate Doug DeHaan for Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG); Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District Absent: Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District. H. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 6, 1995. A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Alternate Leonhardy. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. III ACTION ITEMS Chair Mayor Appezzato announced that he had received a letter signed by President Clinton in response to a request from the ARRA and the City Council for federal funding in the form of loans to finance capital improvements on the base. Chair Mayor Appezzato read one sentence from the letter that he found hopeful: "I have asked the National Economic Council to assemble officials from the Department of Defense, Commerce, and OMB to explore whether such a program could be accomplished under existing law or whether specific legislation is needed." B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Preferred Land Use Plan for the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan. Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director, stated that she was recommending its adoption as a framework plan. This framework plan will then be refined to greater levels of detail and staff will work at resolving the remaining issues (most notably, determining the extent of the wildlife refuge area with Fish & Wildlife and addressing public trust issues with the State Lands Commission). After a presentation from John Petrovsky of EDAW on the present state of the plan, direction was solicited from the Governing Body. Public Comment: Tom Okey of the Conservation Science Institute made a presentation of the results of a postcard survey mailed to 31,000 residents of Alameda in September. Michael Warburton, representing the Public Trust Working Group, presented their goals in supporting the Public Trust and its allowable uses. He urged the Governing Body and its staff and consultants to work with the State Lands Commission and his group to insure more public trust uses. Leora R. Feeney, a wildlife biologist and member of the Golden Gate Audubon Society, encouraged the ARRA to consider the heritage of Alameda and its wildlife population and to be as generous as possible in allotting land at the northern end of the refuge to ensure the Least Tern's survival. William John Smith of the Sierra Club presented citizen petitions with 1,004 signatures in support of establishing a National Wildlife Refuge on approximately 600 of the 1,700 acres at Alameda NAS. Arthur Feinstein, Program Coordinator for the Golden Gate Audubon Society, urged the ARRA to support of the National Wildlife Refuge. Tim Little, representing ARC Ecology and the Military Base Closures Environmental Network, cited that while DoD has projected $8.83 billion nationwide for base closure cleanup, only $2 billion has been budgeted. He stressed that we must all pull together and fight for the toxic cleanup money needed to clean up Alameda NAS properly. He then presented a paper to the Board titled "Environmental Principles for Military Base Closures" published by the ARC /Arms Control Research Center in collaboration with the Center for Economic Conversion Urban Habitat Program. Ruth Gravanis, a Bay Area educator, stressed the importance of establishing a large refuge with an interpretive center in the old aviation tower as an educational resource to meet a major Bay Area -wide deficit. She also urged the ARRA to remember that the state trust portions of the base are to be held in trust for all the citizens of California. Corinne Stefanick of Citizens for the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge and Alameda citizen, stated that she held her own Sunday afternoon survey at the Lucky Store, gathering 97 signatures in three hours supporting open space, wildlife, refuge, education, and trails. Chair Mayor Appezzato clarified that presently, 44% of the base is planned in open space of which 585 acres (or approximately one -third of the base) is planned as a wildlife refuge. Laura Collins of the EBCRC (who currently manages the Least Terns at NAS Alameda) answered questions on predator management. Ex- officio Member Greeley, President of the School Board, voiced the need to insure an appropriate site for school facilities if the present level of housing is set aside, as strict siting requirements make it very difficult to find appropriate sites. She also stressed that outdoor education opportunities raise self - esteem and awareness of the natural world and AUSD would make full use of any educational opportunities provided by the wildlife refuge. 2 After comprehensive discussion and questions from the Governing Body, Chair Mayor Appezzato asked for a motion. A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix to endorse the Preferred Land Use Plan and Alternate Daysog seconded the motion. Alternate Alves requested an amendment to change the designation of the inner harbor to a mixed use area and to delete the housing. Executive Director Miller clarified that she took that to be direction to review whether the housing in the marina area should be removed or flipped over into the area currently designated as a regional park. She stated that those are all options that the consultants can consider and that can be taken back to the BRAG for their further consideration. Alternate Alves requested that the regional park area currently located below the inner harbor be joined with the inner harbor and designated as mixed use for possible commercial developer use, relocating the park to the east shore. Chair Mayor Appezzato then summarized the Governing Body's guidance to the staff: Ensure housing is consistent with Measure A; continue discussion with BCDC regarding port designation; residential areas should be consistent with the Tidelands Trust provision; and talks should continue to resolve the issues around the Fish & Wildlife refuge areas. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Chair Mayor Appezzato thanked the public for their participation and the BRAG and the staff for all their hard work. C. Report from the Personnel Director of the City of Alameda Recommending Approval of a Proposed Policy on Benefits for the Staff of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). After a short discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Vice - Mayor Mannix to approve the proposed policy on benefits for the ARRA staff. Public Comment: Martha Caron, on behalf of Alamedans for a Better City, asked to be heard on item III.B regarding housing within the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan. Upon receipt of a speaker's slip, Chair Mayor Appezzato asked for a motion to reopen item III.B. Alternate Alves motioned that item III.B be reopened for public comment. The motion was seconded by Alternate DeHaan. Ms. Caron questioned why, when the City of Alameda has committed itself under the Guyton Settlement to 2,386 units of low income housing by April 1997, those housing needs are not being primarily addressed in the NAS land use plan. Chair Mayor Appezzato directed Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin to meet with Ms. Caron to address those concerns. A motion was made by Alternate Loeffler and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix to close the item. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. The motion to approve the proposed policy on benefits for the ARRA staff carried by a unanimous voice vote. D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of a Proposal to Lease Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Docking of the Hornet Aircraft Carrier as a Private Museum. 3 Executive Director Miller stated that the BRAG had recommended that the item be tabled until information from the Port/Marina Study consultant on possible uses of the piers is received and reviewed. Public Comment: Mr. Jerry Lutz, Executive Director and CEO of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, gave a presentation on the Foundation's goal to make the U.S.S. Hornet a world -class museum. A motion to table the recommendation pending results of the study on marina and port uses was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. IV. ORAL REPORTS: E. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities. Lee Perez, Chair of the BRAG, emphasized that this is a critical time for the work groups. They are attempting to get the most information so they can provide the best advice. F. Oral Report from the Executive Director on Current ARRA Matters. Alternate Leonhardy requested that Item III.F.6 be carried over to the November 1 meeting and Chair Mayor Appezzato concurred. 1. Executive Director Kay Miller introduced ARRA Planner Paul Tuttle, who reviewed the timeline for final plan preparation and adoption. 2. Talks have begun with the Coast Guard over where the 582 units of housing they will occupy will be located and the possibility of the ARRA retaining title of the property and leasing it back to the Coast Guard. 3. CALSTART has begun building improvements and the lease may be consummated within a week. 4. AEG lease negotiations are ongoing; the City of Pittsburg is offering a very attractive package and we are striving to make our package equally attractive. 5. The Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) is a DoD agency that supplies all of the exchange services. AAFES is setting up four regional warehouse distribution centers and they are interested in a 75 -acre site to house a 700,000 - 1,000,000 sq.ft. facility. 6. MBE /WBE update to be carried over to November 1 meeting. 7. (a) Staff is presently in negotiations with UARCO; (b) National Airmotive and Francis Plating have entered into a joint venture to lease the plating shop; (c) the Marina/Port Feasibility Study will address some port designation issues and a meeting will be held with BCDC on port designation; (d) NAS Alameda will not be designated as a Superfund site; and (e) Jo Chavez - Backster, the new Departmental Secretary, was introduced to the Governing Body. 4 V 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.) Richard Nevelyn, Hornet volunteer, urged people to attend Fleet Week and tour the Hornet, which provides a wonderful educational opportunity for the City. IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Supervisor Wilma Chan thanked Kay Miller, Paul Tuttle, and Lee Perez for conducting a San Leandro forum in September. Doug DeHaan thanked the representatives of environmental organizations and BRAG participants who served on the Fish & Wildlife working group for all of their hard work. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Mayor Appezzato at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, g et E. Ensley Secretary 5 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary September 26, 1995 Report on Diversity of ARRA Staff and Consultants As requested by Sandre Swanson at the September 6 ARRA meeting, the attached report has been prepared on the diversity of ARRA Staff and Consultants. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter - Office Memorandum September 27, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director on the Diversity of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Staff and Consultants Background: At the September 6, 1995 meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson requested a status report on the diversity of the ARRA's staff and consultant contracts. Discussion/Analysis: ARRA Staff The ARRA has seven staff positions: Executive Director, Facilities Manager, Planner, Administrative Management Analyst, Office Manager /ARRA Secretary, Receptionist/BRAG Secretary, and Departmental Secretary. Prior to the recently approved budget amendment from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), the Administrative Management Analyst position and the Receptionist /BRAG Secretary position were funded through the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC). In the recent budget amendment, OEA agreed to add a Departmental Secretary in lieu of part-time clerical support. That position has now been filled. Five of the seven staff members are women (71 %), and two of the seven positions are from racial minority groups (29 %). Consultants Prior to the recently approved OEA budget amendment, OEA had allocated $1,083,307 for ARRA's reuse planning. EDAW is the ARRA's main consultant. From EDAW's team, 20% of the subconsultants are Women Business Enterprises (WBE) with contracts totaling $211,957, and 6% of the subconsultants are Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) with contracts totaling $60,805. Shortly after OEA approved last year's 'reuse planning grant, OEA authorized the AI2R.A's Executive Director to contract for a $40,000 building marketability analysis, and the firm utilized was not a MBE /WBE firm. Therefore, $272,762 —or approximately one quarter of the $1,123,307 consultant contracts —were awarded to MBE /WBE firms. In the recently awarded OEA budget amendment, OEA provided $15,000 for the ARRA's environmental consultant (a WBE firm) to assist the ARRA in negotiations with Fish and Wildlife. OEA also provided $25,000 to another ARRA consultant (also a WBE firm) to conduct an port/marina market and feasibility study. Honorable Members of the Page 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority September 27, 1995 The amendment increases the OEA grant for ARRA's reuse planning to $1,163,307, and increased the MBE /WBE consultant contracts to $312,762 or 27% of the consultant contracts. OEA authorized the ARRA to utilize the existing NAS consultant team for these two studies because timely input was required to complete the plan to avoid the delay that would have resulted from a competitive solicitation. For the timely coordination of the NAS and FISC planning efforts, OEA authorized $100,000 for the Alameda Fleet AI�u Industrial Supply Center staff (FISC) not yet allocated the $100,000 ARRA' existing consultant team. ED among the existing consultant team; therefore, MBE /WBE percentages cannot be reported yet on these funds. In addition, OEA has provided grant funds for the following studies for which the consultants have not yet been selected: $200,000 toward a utility study (total utility study cost $600,000); $200,000 for an Alameda science and technology center study (OEA also provided $50,000 for University of California to participate in the study); and, $50,000 to develop an interim marketing plan and prototype marketing materials. OEA also provided $42,000 Urban Land Institute review panel (total cost of the review panel $84,000 remaining funding must be identified), and $12,000 for an engineering analysis of structural deficiencies in AEG lease premises utilizing AEG's engineering firm —the diversity of this firm was not determined at the time of this staff report. All the RFPs and newspaper ads for the additional OEA grant funds will state that the ARRA encourages efforts by contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative steps to encourage participation by Disadvantaged Veteran Business Enterprises, Minority Business Enterprises, Women Business Enterprises, and Small Business Enterprises. Also, consultants are encouraged to retain businesses in the local jurisdictions represented by the ARRA. The RFP requires applicants demonstrate how they achieve diversity and /or local participation. Finally, a $400,000 grant application toC T �AlamedaDCentep for Environmental (EDA) was submitted by the ARRA for A Technologies). The diversity of this grant/consultant award has not been determined at this time. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 26, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Introduction, Goals and Objectives, and Disposition Strategies Elements of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan. Background: The Community Reuse Plan will consist of individual chapters or "elements" that parallel the elements required in both the California General Plan law and the City of Alameda General Plan. In addition, the Community Reuse Plan will include specific elements that satisfy the requirements of federal regulations for base closure planning. These additional elements will include a recommended land disposal strategy, a homeless element, and specific implementation recommendations relating to base closure and reuse. Individual elements will be presented to the ARRA over the next three months for their review, input, and endorsement. In this way the ARRA will become familiar with the contents of the Community Reuse Plan and provide input and direction to the staff and the consultants in the process of developing the final plan. Recommendations and endorsement of individual elements will allow the consultant and staff to make changes and adjustments to the plan before final adoption at the ARRA's special meeting at the end of January 1996. The elements presented to the ARRA in this meeting are the Introduction to the Plan (Chapter 1), including the plan goals and objectives, and the proposed Land Disposal Strategy (Chapter 8). The Introduction to the Plan is a brief overview of the base closure process, the planning process, major issues, and goals and objectives for the reuse of NAS Alameda. The goals and objectives were reviewed and endorsed by the ARRA at their meeting on June 28; 1995. Comments on the goals and objectives by the ARRA and the BRAG were incorporated into this draft. The Land Disposal Strategy outlines the ARRA's recommendations to the Department of Defense regarding the conveyance of NAS lands for use by other federal departments, state and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the County Homeless Collaborative. In addition, the Disposal Strategy recommends conveyance of other property to the City of Alameda or the ARRA for reuse purposes through the Economic Development Conveyance process and the Port Conveyance Process (ports and marinas). We believe the proposed conveyance of base closure property conforms to the Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1993 and the appropriate federal regulations and guidelines. Honorable Members of the October 26, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Fiscal Impact: There is no immediate fiscal impact of endorsement of the plan elements and the Land Disposition Strategy of the Preferred Plan. Ultimately, approval and implementation of the final plan will have a very large fiscal and economic impact on the City of Alameda and Alameda County. Land dedicated for other than tax generating uses limits the overall redevelopment potential for base reuse. The proposed disposition strategy allocates over 48.6% of the NAS property to federal and local agencies, the Alameda Unified School District, nonprofit organizations, and Homeless Collaborative organizations. While many of the proposed uses do not produce tax revenues, the cost of providing public services and infrastructure is substantial. At the same time, the activity and uses proposed in these land use programs provide an important resource to the City of Alameda and Alameda County that affect the quality of life for the whole community. However, the burden of paying for the public service and infrastructure costs cannot be borne by the remaining land uses at the base nor the City of Alameda. Each non -tax paying entity must pay their fair share of the land improvements costs and city services for base reuse. In order to offset the cost of services and infrastructure improvements typically paid by local taxes, the reuse plan will identify other strategies to offset these costs, such as in -lieu public service fees, infrastructure assessments, and federal loans and grants. Environmental Review: Endorsement of the Land Disposition Strategy for further development in the Community Reuse Plan does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Preferred Land Use Plan 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). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the ARRA endorse, by motion, the first elements of the Community Reuse Plan —the Introduction and the Land Disposal Strategy —and give any appropriate recommendations or directions to the staff, the consultant team, and the BRAG for changes, alterations, and additions for the final Community Reuse Plan. Respectfully submitted, VW.1,sit./ Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachments: Planning Elements Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Margaret Ensley, ARRA Secretary DATE: October 25, 1995 SUBJECT: Additional Attachments to the Staff Report on the Proposal to Lease Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers to Dock the Hornet Aircraft Carrier As you will recall, the staff report on the proposal to lease portions of the NAS Alameda piers to dock the Hornet Aircraft Carrier was tabled pending receipt and review of the Port/Marina Study consultant's report on possible uses of the piers. Following item III.0 —the staff report on the Hornet—you will find two additional attachments for your review before the November 1, 1995 ARRA meeting: 1. A letter from Edgar Rust, Ph.D., Carrier Area Leasing Alternatives; and, 2. A copy of the October 4 briefing made by Gerald G. Lutz, CEO & Founding Trustee of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum September 20, 1995 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Kay Miller Executive Director ARRA SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of a Proposal to Lease Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Docking of the Hornet Aircraft Carrier as a Private Museum Background: The Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, Inc. (Hornet Foundation) has requested a lease of one of the NAS Alameda piers for docking the USS Hornet (CVN -12) to be used as a museum and tourist attraction. The U.S. Navy has shown interest in providing the ship for this purpose. However, to use the ship the Navy has also required the Hornet Foundation to secure a location to dock the Hornet. The USS Hornet (Hornet) was decommissioned in 1970 and was designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service in 1991. The Hornet has contracted for scrapping with Astoria Metals in 1994. It is anticipated this scrapping contract will be terminated in October 1995. The ship and crew played a significant role in the Second World War, was the ship used in the historical Doolittle Raid, and recovered the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 space crafts and crew the first two manned missions to the moon. The Hornet has been docked at the NAS Alameda pier for the past four months and has been on display during Fleet Week and other local events. The Hornet Foundation and others have been instrumental in cleaning and repainting the ship over the summer. Discussion: This ship and other ships could be a great attraction as part of the proposed future Marina Development. There are many examples of historic and not -so- historic ships being used as museums and tourist attractions. Several ships (and a submarine) are now docked in San Francisco as tourist attractions. Some of these museum are more successful than others. To use the piers would require the Hornet Foundation to apply for a City of Alameda Use Permit and environmental review (CEQA), and comply with provisions for adequate parking, handicapped access and restroom facilities, and other site improvements. The Hornet Foundation should submit a detailed business plan, financing plan, and site development plan for their use permit review and approval. The operators would also have to provide the necessary insurance and operate the museum and its restoration in an environmentally safe manner. Old ships can potentially be an Honorable Members of the September 20, 1995 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 environmental hazard due to leaking fluids and peeling lead -based paint, and can present other potential environmental problems. Fiscal Impact: Fiscal impacts of leasing a pier for the docking of the Hornet could exclude other opportunities for use of the piers for commercial purposes. It is assumed that the lease of the pier for this semi - public activity (a private museum) would be less than market rate. In addition, a lease could create a burden on the ARRA and the City if the project fails and is no longer able to operate economically. It is critical that neither the ARRA nor the City of Alameda be responsible for financially supporting the Hornet preservation at this time. Also, the ARRA and the City of Alameda cannot assume responsibilty for relocating the ship if the museum is unsuccessful in meeting its financial obligations. Environmental Review: Endorsement of the Preferred Land Use Plan for further development in the Community Reuse Plan does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Preferred Land Use Plan 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). Conclusion: Despite the financial hurtles and development concerns, preservation of the ship for a historical museum is a worthwhile goal. The proposed use has the potential of creating a tourist magnet and generating significant economic benefits to the base reuse effort as well as the community of Alameda. The proposed use is consistent with the interim reuse strategy for the station and the preferred land use plan now being considered by the ARRA. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority endorse by motion the proposal to lease portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for docking the Hornet Aircraft Carrier for use as a Private Museum and direct the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a short-term lease for this use. Respectfully submitted, Wu. Kay Miller Executive Director DP /dpt Attachments: Letter Proposal and Map 9 August 1995 Ms. Kay Miller Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station, Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1995 BASE CONVERSION OFFICE CITY OF ALAM iDA Dear Ms. Miller, The "Aircraft Carrier Ilornet Foundation" (a non - profit corporation) was formed in late June 1995 and it's our plan is to acquire the USS IIornet, convert her into a museum and, with the permission of the ARRA and recommendation of the BRAG, berth her at pier #2, Naval Air Station, Alameda, CA. This confirms our telephone conversation on 2 August 1995. The USS Hornet is a true icon of this nation's rich Maritime history, and is an impressive symbol of greatness in terms of American's commitment to peace throughout the world. During HORNh I "S operating lifetime, in particular her successful "Doolittle" raid against Tokyo during World War II and the historic Apollo 11 and 12 recoveries in late 1960's, she developed a superb reputation for operational readiness and combat effectiveness unmatched by any other ship of her type. Every aviation squadron that flew off Hornet in World War II formed and trained at NAS Alameda. Hornet air groups were those most feared of any by our enemies in the Pacific. Where better to preserve her heritage than here at Alameda? The impact of having the Hornet as a standing attraction and museum at the NAS Alameda piers will be a significant tourist impact. More than 750,000 came to see her sister ship INTREPID in New York last year. Will having the Hornet based in Alameda create jobs and add to the city's economy over a period of three, five or ten years? The answer is yes; as long as there is effective planning and support in the mutual' interest of ARRA, Alameda community and the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation. Hard issues have yet to be addressed, and, to be sure, the HORNHI Foundation is working non -stop with a limited window of opportunity to acquire the ship. Once saved, it should be in Alameda, a city rich in not only civilian history but Naval history as well. In summary, we, the Aircraft Cat i ier Hornet Foundation, would like to work with your organization for the attainment of two main goals: First, to provide the city of Alameda with an educational museum attraction that will enhance Alameda's historical fabric and, secondly, to ensure the preservation of a precious piece of America's heritage for future generations. Sul/ ely, z Executive Director Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation I I"Ii ICI "I - I - i i"1 r ix 'f/ ,/ 171 NAVAL AIR STATION / PORTIONS OF ALAMEDA, CA I- I- I "I =I -I 1- I-I =1•I =I.1 >I "I- 1- I >I >i >1 -I -I- Ix I:18121dl=I81E1 Edgar Rust, Ph.D., AICP Planning and Applied Economics 67 Parkside Drive, Berkeley, CA 94705 510/654 -9134 Mr. David Paul Tuttle Alameda Reuse & Development Authority NAS Building 90 Alameda, CA 94501 Subject: Carrier Area Leasing Alternatives Dear Paul, RECEIVED OCT 19 1995 :;ASE CONVERSION OFFICE CITY OF ALAMEDA October 18, 1995 Pursuant to your instructions to me in in our meeting of October 4, I have investigated the following leasing and development alternatives for the Inner Harbor piers and wharves at Alameda NAS. • a lease to the Hornet Foundation, to berth the carrier Hornet and operate a naval history museum • a lease to the U.S. Maritime Administration, to berth and service Ready Reserve Force vessels . Astoria Metals, a ship dismantler now operating at Hunters Point, is reportedly in the market for pier space in the San Fancisco Bay area. This leasing alternative was not investigated because it is a heavy industrial use and not compatible with the proposed mixed - residential development of the adjacent area. For each leasing and development alternative, I have investigated the lessee's development concept and space needs, approximate rents they would pay, and the impact of the leasing and development alternative on the use and development of other NAS Alameda property. I have also addressed the possibility of combining the two alternatives. 1. Site Capability The pier and wharf faces with 20' of water depth or more at the Inner Harbor docking area total approximately 6,300 linear feet, enough for the Cape Mohican, nine or ten smaller ships and several tugs or workboats, as follow: NAS CARRIER AREA DOCKING CAPACITY Nominal No. of Depth Length Ships Pier No, 1 South 40' 650' 1 Wharf No. 1 40' 600' 1 Pier No. 2 North 40' 1000' 1 Hornet? Pier No. 2 South 40' 1,300' 2 Wharf No. 2 20'+ 350' tugs, wkboats Pier No. 3 North 40' 1100' 2 Pier No. 3 South 50' 1300' 2 Total 6,300' 9 to 10 , + boats 1 The Carrier Docks are served by very high capacity power and water lines, plus oily water and sanitary sewers, compressed air and steam. Steam is generated by an independent plant in Building #584, which could be operated by the owner or included in the lease. (The plant is currently slated for demolition for energy efficiency reasons.) An oily water separation plant serves the piers and is in good condition with current EPA discharge permits. It will be important to keep the permits in force if any future use of the plant is intended. Repairs to utilities and bulkheads may be required due to past earthquake damage. Portions of Pier No. 2 are restricted from carrying heavy loads, but this restriction may be acceptable to MARAD. The cost of repairs to Pier 2 was estimated in 1991 at $1.9 million. Maintenance dredging of the channel, turning basin and berth areas is currently performed every two years by the Army Corps of Engineers under a contract with the Navy that would expire when the base is closed. New or renegotiated dredging arrangements and permits would be required. Records for 1981 -1986 indicate that an average of 500,000 cy /year of sediment accumulates in the 356 -acre area, an average of just under 1 foot per year. Maintenance dredging and ocean spoil disposal costs are currently in the range of $3.00 -$5.00 /cy, but are expected to escalate rapidly with restrictions on ocean dumping. 2. Hornet Foundation Museum Dockage Analysis Background. The Hornet is an Essex -class aircraft carrier, constructed in 1942 -3 and based in Alameda for much of her career. She served in World War II and, after conversion, in anti- submarine patrol and as recovery ship for the Apollo 11 moon mission. She was decommissioned in 1970, moved to Bremerton, WA, and designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1991. An unsuccessful attempt was made by the community of Tacoma, WA in 1993 to establish a USS Hornet Historical Museum. She was placed under a scrapping contract with Astoria Metals in 1994 to dismantle her at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. She was moved to her present berth on Pier No. 2 to be displayed in the Fleet Week /VJ Day Celebration of October, 1995. Meanwhile, some doubts began to arise as to the economic feasibility of scrapping her in the U.S. The Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation was founded in June and incorporated in October, 1995, with the goals of saving the Hornet from scrapping, converting her into a world -class museum and creating an economic magnet for Alameda and the East Bay. The Foundation mobilized 127 volunteers, raised interim working funds, refurbished large areas of the ship for public access, assembled historical exhibits on board, and conducted guided tours throughout Fleet Week. The Foundation intends to submit an operating plan to take permanent responsibility for the ship to the Secretary of the Navy by October 28. Rescission or renegotiation of the scrapping contract and congressional approval will be required. At that point the Foundation plans to undertake a second, more ambitious phase of fund - raising and project planning. Development Concept The Hornet Foundation's first goal is to keep the Hornet at Pier No. 2 and develop her as a museum ship. On -board exhibits would include historically appropriate 2 aircraft, ship's gear, crew memorabilia and other artifacts illustrating her role in U.S. Navy history. Market Context The Hornet would be the only aircraft carrier museum on the West Coast; others in the U.S. are the Intrepid in New York City (750,000 visitors /year) and the Lexington in Corpus Christi, Texas (350,000 visitors /year). Other maritime and naval museums in the Bay Area are the Pampanito submarine exhibit on Pier 45 (200,000 visitors /year), the San Francisco National Maritime Museum, including the Hyde Street Pier historic ship collection (157,000), and small collections of models and artifacts at Treasure Island (30,000) and Vallejo (15,000). A historic shipyard district has been proposed at Mare Island, Vallejo. The four sites are readily linked by ferry, suggesting the possibility of all -day tours and joint marketing. The Foundation projects attendance in the range of 200,000 to 700,000 visitors per year. These levels appear optimistic in relation to comparable offerings. To reach the 200,000 level, the Hornet would have to establish itself on a par with the San Francisco attractions, which are located in the midst of the Fisherman's Wharf tourist district, with plentiful lodging, shops and restaurants, parking, public transit and ferry terminals nearby, -and . a worldwide reputation as a tourist destination. To reach 700,000, given the smaller population and visitor base of the Bay Area compared to New York, would require a fundamentally more attractive offering and a more aggressive marketing approach. The kinds of visitor attractions which draw such volumes of attendance in the Bay Area combine professionally presented educational features with other things to do on site to justify a family day trip, such as a variety of active recreation opportunities, frequent high- quality entertainment, and ample shopping. Adequate parking, convenient public transit and a choice of restaurants are mandatory. Convenient lodging is a plus, but not essential for the day -trip market. Examples are Pier 39, Marine World /Africa USA and Great America. Space and Facility Needs The Hornet occupies 894', all but westernmost 106' of north side of Pier No. 2. will require permanent use of one dock at Pier No. 2, minimum water depth of 28', and access along the pier. It should be noted that if the military stops maintaining the entry channel, berths and turning basin, the whole area will eventually silt in to the depth of surrounding water, which is only a few feet deep south of the breakwater. Silt deposition in the ,dredged channel and berthing area averaged 500,000 cy /yr for the period 1981 -1986, or about one foot per year. The ship will need to be drydocked occasionally, at which point portions of the channel may need to be redredged. Periodic dredging of the berth and an entry channel, dredged in 1993 to 40', will eventually be required (beginning several years in the future), and is normally the owner's responsibility. Some structural repairs to the pier may be required due to past earthquake damage (estimated at $1.9 million in 1991), and maintenance of the pier structure and utilities will be required periodically. Onshore, the Hornet Museum will need parking space for several hundred cars (roughly three to five acres), plus tour bus parking, local bus service and peak overflow parking. An adjacent ferry terminal would be desirable and could make 3 joint use of the parking. It would improve pedestrian circulation and leave the pier face usable for larger vessels to locate the ferry terminal on Wharf No. 2 or just west of the existing marina rather than on Pier No. 2 as shown in the Preliminary Land Use Plan. Approximate Rents and Revenues Lay berthing a ship this size in a Bay Area public port with serviceable utilities would cost approximately $10,000 /month. Port commercial tenants often pay a minimum rent plus a percentage of gross revenues designed to yield market rent at the anticipated level of business, but to give the tenant some relief during start -up and to provide both parties an incentive for the business to succeed. Assuming a target gross revenue of $1,000,000 /year, monthly rent of around $5,000 plus percentage rent of 6% would meet these criteria. The lease should pass on to the tenant the cost of utilities and pier surface maintenance. The owner's cost of channel dredging, berth dredging and structural maintenance are likely to exceed the expected revenues unless the Hornet Foundation agrees to make up any shortfall. The project should therefore be evaluated primarily in terms of its external benefits to the surrounding area. Impact on the Use and Development of other NAS Alameda Property For the project to benefit the civilian redevelopment of the base, it will be essential to develop a complex of closely linked activities onshore. Many of these may have to be non - commercial in nature, given the limited attendance prospects of the Hornet alone. (A stream of 200,000 well - heeled visitors a year, spending ashore $10 each per visit, would support under 9,000 square feet of new, high - quality shops and restaurants.) Complementary developments might include: • Shops and restaurants, approx. 5,000 -9,000 sf. • Additional historical exhibits (e.g. a Naval Aircraft Museum) • Tourist - oriented RV park • Ferry terminal • Boat rentals • Harbor tours, wildlife tours and dinner cruises • Beach and related amusements (e.g. waterslide, game arcade) • Event facilities (e.g. Renaissance Pleasure Faire, Boat Show, music festivals) 3. MARAD Ready Reserve Force Dockage Analysis Background During peacetime, the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) keeps a fleet of cargo and support vessels ready for rapid deployment in support of overseas U.S. military actions. The ships are kept empty of cargo but in working order, are periodically taken to local yards for maintenance, and often have crews living aboard. Maintenance expenditures in the local area vary from $100,000 to $1 million per year per ship. A portion of this fleet is stationed on the West Coast, including several ships now at Hunters Point, where utilities and water depth are less than desirable, and one at the FISC Terminal. MARAD has initiated a request to the Navy that it be given permanent use of the aircraft carrier docks as well as the docks at the Alameda Annex under an interagency transfer when the base is closed. If this request is not approved, they might consider renting dockage from the future base owner if the rent is competitive. 4 Space and Facility Needs MARAD would consider berthing up to thirteen ships at Alameda. One, the Cape Mohican, is a long, deep vessel, needing 970' of dock and a 39' depth of water. The other twelve are 500' -700' in length and draw 20' to 28'. The berthing area and an entry channel would have to be dredged periodically, though probably not as large a turning basin as the Navy requires. The ships would use and pay for fire protection, water, and power. They would utilize oily water treatment, sanitary sewerage and steam utilities if available. They need truck and light crane access, and would use a small crew parking and storage yard if available. Land areas adjacent to unmanned vessels will be fenced. The term for which the berthing complex would be needed is unknown, but current trends are towards increasing the size of the Ready Reserve, and the number of ports willing to berth them seems to be declining. Market Context Lay berthing with utilities (at least power and water) is available at several Bay area public ports. The Port of Richmond has two graving (shipbuilding) docks up to 748' long, large enough for any MARAD ships except the the Cape Mendocino, and would be willing to negotiate long -term leases at rates in the range of $5,000- $10,000 /month. At the Port of Redwood City, wharves are available up to about 600', and daily dockage is quite high but lower long -term rental rates could be negotiated. The Port of San Francisco, which has numerous unused deepwater berths, demands at least $20,000 /month per berth, which MARAD does not consider competitive. Port of Oakland will rent unused berth space only on a day -to -day basis. Approximate Rents and Revenues The negotiating range for this type of dockage in the San Francisco Bay Area appears to be in the range of $8.00 to $16.00 per foot per month. suggesting a possible total rent of $600,000 to $1.2 million per year. The excellent utilities at the Carrier Docks may warrant a rent in the upper part of the range, although MARAD is unaccustomed to paying that much. The cost of dredging, any needed repairs and ongoing maintenance are normally the owner's responsibility and should be deducted from expected net revenue or made the tenant's responsibility in return for reduced rent. Dredging costs for the channel and berth areas could easily exceed expected revenue and are likely to increase sharply in the future. The military function of the Ready Reserve Force might provide justification, however, for continued Government dredging of the Inner Harbor channel and turning basin. Impact on the Use and Development of other NAS Alameda Property The most valuable benefit of docking Ready Reserve Force vessels would be to provide a military justification to keep the Inner Harbor Channel and berthing area dredged at Government expense. The cash value of the dredging exceeds any reasonable estimate of dockage revenues. The channel dredging would probably reduce or eliminate the accumulation of sediment in other parts of the Inner Harbor and Lagoon. It would also greatly improve the feasibility of retaining the Hornet as a museum ship, and keep open the option of realizing future maritime development opportunities. Other benefits will be the employment of Alameda -based maintenance contractors and the associated business and property taxes collected by the city. 5 The onshore land use impacts of docking Ready Reserve Force vessels would consist of minor traffic, parking and open storage requirements for maintenance contractors and crew, and the noise, glare and fumes associated with on -board painting, welding, etc. It may be necessary to restrict the amount, hours and kinds of maintenance work done on ships at dockside to keep these impacts at acceptable levels. Exterior maintenance and repairs might be restricted, for example. The logistical, security and public safety requirements of MARAD should be carefully coordinated with the design of access and circulation to nearby public facilities such as the ferry terminal, Hornet Museum and marinas so as to avoid potential conflicts and still incorporate the Ready Reserve ships as an attractive feature of the whole. 4. Conclusions The Hornet Museum is a potentially attractive element of a tourist - oriented entertainment and commercial complex, but should not be regarded as a major attractor in its own right. For it to succeed, a large piece of adjacent land should be designated for such use and a private developer with outstanding capability in tourist - oriented entertainment and commercial projects should be solicited to develop it. Marina, boating facility and Regional Park development concepts should be coordinated to provide a viable cluster of mutually supportive tourist attractions. Dredging, structural maintenance and other costs for berthing the Hornet need to be weighed against the projected revenues from the ship and its contribution to shoreside development value. Without subsidized dredging the balance will probably not be favorable. Docking the Ready Reserve Force could be very beneficial to the city and the base redevelopment, but it carries inherent financial risk unless the lease is structured so that any large or unpredictable costs are paid directly by the federal government. The lease should not be considered without a firm Government commitment to continue regular dredging of the berth and channel areas. The alternatives discussed do not appear to be mutually exclusive. Reserving space for the Hornet from MARAD 's lease and renting it separately to the Hornet Foundation on a percentage or deferred rent basis would reduce the owner's initial revenues but could enhance the value of the site in the long run. cc: Dena Belzer Sincerely yours, �c -L--r 1---- Edg. Rust 6 U 0 ct e-i GTh a o� N oU 7," • ;-1 CCU o U • Ct� V PRESIDENT / TRUSTEE Statement Of Pur 0 �a-)+ O 4) c 3 t4-4 al RS 0 "0 CD 4U4 a.) .E°'� Ewo° 3 3'' o R'a)b ca Iii a) .0 o O E 48 o 0 as ci) O� 0('�.O O'er Ci) ) CO -e a ct - a) 0 � -4 as c # O 'L a O C y C o E o E' .. v U fl = O C Q •••••4 0 ocp oa E a. uoE0 o Ga -,.c`.- o -e•- o o 0 a�COU �al> ° E Ct s. x0 t. e4 01'4 0 c O A. v 'E `n ° 9 •—• C/) cis cti ,., i cn Co ., . .. ', O o ; ; o v� ›, .8 ra a O :(1):4 cc = '174 cuc.$4 481 4. ,...,(1) CU �-o o,� .� c CId EL' °-v -up 0ci!, orE o oho 0.4 ° ca O �.4.... ilo p W) C)) rqcct s...'o z-• •... ,.0 o v, 8 O O c) c.. E-' a E- +,$)71 ct H-eE U vs as czt a) cd -O 0 � x a) C � O`n -L7 04 0 .--� • o un a) vD.E cn O "c 0 0 M- ° an E as o O .c 0 . cat • A � C w 3 O 3•E N 0 N . E �-+ U U c o cip wt) 44 1- Ctt o o al ••4 v, rcs O E-i Gc13 0 U ct 0 c/) 0 9 E—+ •� .(/) 0 tx (lc> a) ,� o 714) o 6e." val '473 4c.'5 :45j C44 Cc/;)) � U r1 L-4 (71 4 cci ;r:2i tJ •4 .0 - o u el N m's 0 can p o w 175 4C-tj .4.1 49 0,9 0 reTjti-4 0tvpo QOv� � �C CTZ o k7 EC ct Q .• v� C.) An economic magnet for Alameda and East Bay • N 0 E• F--�I 0 •1) 1. Decommissioned in 1970 2. Designated a National Historic Landmark by National Park Service in 1991 Failed attempt in 1993 by community of Tacoma for the "USS Hornet Historical Museum" M 4. DRMS scrapping contract with Astoria Metals - 1994 thru today cci O cz U •'- 0 O 0 E -5�, v? O cz v o a .- 75 4-I Ct cn •T, ' •..., ,c c�ia SZi� v Q Q- v vz ©0 CZ . ' :i Ca) O a) ) 4 t1.0 CZ 4 cn (1) t4 rci 4 co o , cd o v ca a)o V w a H 8. Developed the "Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation" (see org/status charts) 9. Anticipate scrapping contact will be terminated prior to 15 October 1995 0 h o 0 7; I ca 13 78 4 t•O + s~ U t.. cs ` Ts S-. .a >, u • "0 ,:.4 0 v 0J▪ s. � >. " v v cd C7▪ 'O¢ 0w, 3ZFq,d,=op., `E 06 0.c5r4 n)7 v vi v o . >'rtivn - NNCYi -} tr),J(-oOG; Q ca a 4 , -4cdcl ov . ->a v Ali QE-■a,,,, aUxv j .- iNN cc; d'tA Peter Knudsen 0 ., 4 w b H O 0 • 0 O O v Q7 0 z 0 cl U v 46!) 1-, CJ 0 z0 at J as > LLO ai x v v can /Ray Vyeda O G3 z 1. Rescission or Default on Scrapping Contract a z U CB cv O ;'D cats °"1u� E 724 0 ,o a �L) a Q) Crg v� w0 Qw NAS Alameda Pier #2 (.1) Limmi cit CID a.; u 0 z 4.) 0 crp v 0 'd cti V) N V N O co U7 Z Cr 4, N p L2 '2 O czs v cu � u CO O: ay O a) 4..J 0 c�a,aw (-) N O S 0 v Z .E: 5) cz r::) EI-., 0 7:44 in N ty.; trj 0 bA U bz V C/3 .Zi C4 47' ct 0 CTS O 0 ccs 4a CZ 0 RI u x O 0 v V ''—' ct - � o .5, a a1 aS w Z a.4 N Fund raising initiatives have started U 4-) cn S-.4 a) a) 4-) a) •o r.., U •• N "E-‘) a O t� ,t '+"' •V) 0 al 74) C4 b.° 0 Cr *a & g bi) 71 co c!) .� to ;.■, C/a U ,1 ' RI RI N U t' Oct; .,.., 0 4z ct b.A •—{ r--4 U v 0 0 O - Q O ' ti - - - 140. 4Z Cip a ct .< p4 Q-3 d ►—a cat) 0 „..4 ci • O N. 00 CS; t--+ National initiatives start when ship is released from contract r�a/h� 4) O s.4 .- ct to •° p tt) C4 • vai 4 6, TICS till) O .,� 0 u • ..—, U, �, •� CU rc) - o wa4 73 < E ct .,c5 ›, (i) u ;_, cU u u S� S� L-44 E 17:$ 4.4 • v.,4 +") .-4 S.-I 2 rci E c4 (71 .-d 0 ..:1,) „9 0 E fa4 " $1L 4c7)) ,:a4 '14) ° .v."4 (1) v cc� �} O © Ct ,. � `d in s—i w-,,, c./.3 U Ci) 7'71 .2 .....) o $:-. '-' 4 (cY) 0 cu '- ct c.) c:Li (71 v) -4--) c) ,-,,,&)< 1 4E1' >1 os-EEcT)4E5m, *4-4 75 4-) (79, • '-' 75 t+20-1 c, t 0 +...) c%) 4...) 0 0(4-4 (174)::: 1 s-4 4.) ci)a).4.:14Oog (1.) cv o (.4-5 44) E rti � °p • 7:, Cr cr � �- • 7$ u „. N 0 .4•••.) ct ›' ; � al C � cn cv u S-4 ;�,, rte+ : •N ,4 u 41 ..—, •.-r p r—+ ci) pct (a) ,, rzci u C.....0 1-4 C\I (^r) 7i: tr; Economic Benefits slo 0� c ct ±� (5 r\I 4.:a4 714 ccC1) • '94 . � '� ' 0 'E. rommi to'� h (1) t. r" CU U 0 0 0 (`r) o • C:14 1 U 0 (U U ✓'� z Irj o Ri v ,4 OS) .� U Bottom Line ›-1 Ct CI) a. •tea) a� • o 15 C/3o a) t.T1' c:).4 (714r< ci) 71(4 rcs ct o c/3 cu .54 ocf) HANDOUTS FROM OCTOBFR 5 ARRA MELTING Conservation Science Institute Exploration, Environmental Problem Solving, and Education 1826 Nason Street Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 814 -9469 1 October 1995 ARRA Chairman Ralph Appezzato Office of the Mayor City of Alameda City Hall, Room 301 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 RECF!"- OCT 5 - BASE CONVERs1c,' CITY OF ALAI^;., SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF PUBLIC LAND USE SURVEY Dear Mayor Appezzato: Conservation Science Institute has recently conducted a survey of community attitudes towards potential land use scenarios at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. This survey was funded by the San Francisco Foundation and conducted as a community service. Specifically, it is intended to support the efforts of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to develop a community reuse plan that reflects the community's interests. A four - question, business reply, postcard survey was mailed to every possible residential address in the City of Alameda (31,038). The surveys were color -coded so that separate information could be attained from three Alameda regions: Western Alameda (West of 9th Street and closest to the NAS), Eastern Alameda (Fast of 9th Street on the main island), and Bay Farm Island (farthest from NAS Alameda). The majority of the surveys were mailed on 19 September 1995 and the remainder were mailed on 22 September 1995. The survey results presented herein include only those responses received by 29 September 1995. By this date, we had received 3,610 responses, fully 11.6 percent of the surveys that were mailed. Therefore, 11.6% of Alameda's "families" have participated thus far. The four questions are based on real proposals and current discussion within the planning community. The survey was designed to be unbiased, as Conservation Science Institute is a non - partisan, educational and research organization dedicated to providing reliable information. The questions are intentionally simplistic to assure maximal public participation and to acquire the most useful information about public attitudes towards land use alternatives. We feel that this was accomplished, notwithstanding the inevitable differences of opinion regarding the appropriateness of our questions. Our assumptions included the idea that members of the public are intelligent and that they are informed enough to participate in land use decisions (write -in comments on the surveys support these assumptions). I have attached a copy of the entire survey and provided the four questions below so that you will have the tools to properly interpret the results for yourself. The following questions are followed by the overall percentages that indicated Yes or No on the survey cards, and they are preceded by the preliminary statement that appeared on the survey: Of the 4,600 acres of non - military land in the city of Alameda, 67' is residential, 15th is commercial /services, 97( is golf course, 47( is industrial, 4% is mixed urban /open, and 277 is parks (from Association of Bay Area Governments 1994). The 1,700 acres of land on the soon -to- close Naval Air Station consists of a 1.000 -acre eastern portion of developed land (industrial, commercial, residential) and a 700 -acre western portion of undeveloped land (open space, wetlands, coastal scrub, beach areas, runways, etc.). 1. Is your family in favor of setting aside the 700 -acre undeveloped western portion of what is now NAS Alameda for open space uses such as a National Wildlife Refuge, regional parklands, outdoor recreation, nature tourism, and environmental education ? Yes 81% No 17% Abstention 2% 2. Is your family in favor of building more neighborhoods and shopping centers within the 700 -acre undeveloped western portion, in addition to the redevelopment already slated for the 1,000 -acre developed eastern portion ? Yes 19% • No 77% Abstention 4% 3. Is your family in favor of more industry on the western portion? Yes 28% No 67% Abstention 5% 4. Is your family in favor a new golf course on the western portion? Yes 28% No 68% Abstention 4% Both Table (1) and Figures (1) through (4) show that responses to the questions varied among the three geographic regions of Alameda. Question (1) revealed a geographic gradient of attitudes in Alameda: respondents from Western Alameda were over seven -to- one in favor of setting aside the 700 -acre undeveloped western portion of NAS Alameda for open space uses whereas respondents from Eastern Alameda were only five -to -one in favor of the idea and those from Bay Farm Island were only three -to -one in favor of the idea (Table 1, Figure 1). Another interesting pattern was revealed by the forth question: respondents in Western Alameda were 2.3 -to -one opposed to a new golf course, and those in Eastern Alameda were 2.8 -to -one opposed, but respondents from Bay Farm Island were only 1.7 -to -one opposed to a new golf course on the western portion of NAS land (Table 1, Figure 4). The Bay Farm Island respondents were also the the least opposed to building more neighborhoods and shopping centers at 2.8 -to -one opposed to the idea as compared to the overall pattern of 3.9 -to -one opposed (Table 1, Figure 2). The Bay Farm Island respondents were also slightly less opposed to more industry on the western portion at 2- to -one opposed compared with the overall pattern of 2.4-to -one opposed to the idea. The overall results of this survey are consistent with every previous survey and quantitative assessment of public attitudes towards reuse of Naval Air Station, Alameda that we know of. For example, recreation areas captured the highest approval rating (70%) among over 1,000 Alameda residents sampled in a 1994 survey undertaken by the office of the Alameda County Supervisor, Wilma Chan (Chan 1994). This recreational category was the only category relating to open space on that survey. This approval rating, along with its associated disapproval rating of 16 %, is similar to the results of Question (1) herein. The results of our survey are also consistent with the results of the public survey undertaken by the ARRA and the BRAG during November of 1994 (ARRA /BRAG 1995). That survey revealed that 'Parks /Recreational Areas' are the public's highest priority for long -term use of NAS Alameda followed closely by 'Technology Research Park', 'Mix of Light Industries', and 'A Nature Refuge'. These options all ranged between 40 and 35 percent of respondents respectively (Figure 5). Although consistent with our results, the results of the ARRA/BRAG survey are not directly comparable because questions therein were not explicit and respondents were often asked to choose several categories out of many per question. Thus, approval ratings were not possible —only relative rankings of unspecific concepts were extractable from the ARRA/BRAG survey. This was due in part to its conceptual nature and the earlier phase in which it was conducted. The results of our Question (2) are consistent with the low score that the 'New Housing' category achieved in question three of the ARRA/BRAG survey (compare Table 1 with Figure 6). In addition, you may refer to my letter to you dated 19 May 1995 for a discussion of mis- interpretation of public survey data by those who advocate new residential development on the western portion of NAS Alameda. In addition, participants of the 29 October 1994 public forum chose 'Maintain and Enhance Wildlife Habitat' far more than any other option (Figure 7). This is consistent with our findings. Unfortunately, since this October meeting, the format of the public forums has been changed such that only conceptual or qualitative information is extractable from them and quantitative information is no.longer extractable. This disempowering change of strategy as well as the BRAG's reluctance to conduct further public surveys is illuminated by statements made by a BRAG subcommittee chairman to a public audience during a full BRAG meeting on 26 April 1995. This BRAG member said "We should never have done public surveys 'cause now they're (the public) going to tell us what to do. ", and when asked about where the democratic process might fit in to such a scenario, he responded "It's (NAS land) too valuable for a democracy ". A preponderance of evidence demonstrates that this attitude does not reflect public opinion. This is indicated by the the write -in comments and response ratio to our survey (11.6% and climbing) and by and Wilma Chan's survey results which indicate that 82% of Alamedans feel that they should have the right to approve or reject any plan for the area (only 4% thought they should not have that right). A final report of our survey will be available before the end of October. This report will include a detailed description of our methodologies and incorporate the responses received after 29 September 1995 (we project a total response of approximately 15 %). We predict that the data presented in this preliminary report are essentially representative of those final results. The final report will also include all of the excellent, and sometimes passionate, write -in comments that were received. Conservation Science Institute is a 501(c)(3), non - profit and non - partisan, publicly - supported, environmental research and education organization. We were happy to provide the public with this avenue to participate in the process of developing a community reuse plan for the successful conversion of the public land at Naval Air Station, Alameda. We are sure you will find the preliminary results of this survey useful as you prepare to make your decisions on the Preferred Reuse Plan at the ARRA meeting this Thursday evening, October Sth. If you have any questions or comments regarding the methodology, validity, interpretation, or reliability of this survey, or if you have any comments whatsoever, please do not hesitate to call me at (510) 814 -9469. Sincerely, �671uC1 a Thomas A. Okey, M.S. Executive Director/ Research Coordinator Conservation Science Institute BRAG Environmental Subcommittee Member EBCRC Environmental Committee Member Natural Resources Focus Group Chair, Restoration Advisory Board, NAS Alameda San Francisco and Monterey Bay Area Community RAB Caucus Member cc: Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, ARRA Member Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, ARRA Member Mayor Ellen Corbett, ARRA Member Supervisor Wilma Chan, ARRA Member Councilmember Karen Lucas, ARRA Member Councilmember Albert DeWitt, ARRA Member Mayor Elihu Harris, ARRA Member Ms. Gail Greely, Ex- Officio ARRA Member, AUSD Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director, ARRA Mr. Paul Tuttle, Planner, ARRA Mr. Lee Parez, Chairman of the BRAG Ms. Diane Lichtenstien, Chair Community Involvement Subcomittee, BRAG Ms. Pattianne Parker, Chair Reuse Subcomittee, BRAG Mr. Malcolm Mooney, Chair Environmental Subcomittee, BRAG Mr. Daryl DeBoer, Chair Fish and Wildlife Working Group, BRAG Ms. Jane Rogers, The San Francisco Foundation Mr. Tim Little, Rose Foundation For Communities and the Environment Ms. Margaret Kolar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ms. Leslie Zander, EDAW team Mr. Martin Vitz, East Bay Regional Parks Mr. Aurthur Feinstein, Golden Gate Audubon Society Mr. Bill Smith, Sierra Club Mr. Marty Rosen, President, Trust for Public Land Ms. Silvia McLaughlin, Board of Directors, Save San Francisco Bay Association Ms. Heather McCulloch, The National Ecolomic Development and Law Center Frank and Janice Delfino, Ohlone Audubon Society Ms. Aimee Houghton, Career /Pro, SFSU Ms. Kathleen Kirkwood, Staff Writer, Alameda Times Star Alameda Journal, Editor LCDR Mike Pettouhoff, BRAC Environmental Coordinator, NAS Alameda Mr. Carl Anthony, Chair East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission The Hon. Ronald V. Dellums, House of Representatives, District Nine President Bill Clinton, President of the United States of America open distribution Literature Cited ABAG. 1994. Existing Land Use in 1990: Data for Bay Area Counties and Cities. Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, California. Chan, W. 1994. Base Conversion Survey Results. Alameda County Supervisor's office, 1221 Oak Street, Suite 536, Oakland, CA 94612. EDAW /ARRA. 1995. NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan: Public Involvement Report - Phases I and II, March 1995. EDAW and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. Fig 1. "...setting aside the 700 -acre undeveloped western portion..." 100- of Survey Respondents W. Alameda E. Alameda Bay Farm Alameda Region Yes No n=3,610 Fig 2. "...building more neighborhoods and shopping centers..." 100- % of Survey Respondents W. Alameda E. Alameda Alameda Region Bay Farm Yes No n=3,591 Table 1. Preliminary results of Conservation Science Institute's public land use survey. Data were separately compiled for each pre - chosen geographic region within the City of Alameda. These data were then combined to give information about the overall population. Surveys were mailed to every possible residential address in the Alameda (31,038) and these data represent over 11.6% of Alameda "families" (3,610 returns). Data are presented as total numbers, ratios of approval or disapproval, and by percentage both per region and overall Alameda. The text of corresponding questions is provided below followed by a measure of overall tally precision. Question 1 Yes No Absten Question 2 Question 3 Yes No Absten Yes No Absten Question 4 Yes No Absten. Western Alameda (West of Ninth St.) Subtotal 638 89 24 Ratios 7.2 to one Percentage 85 12 3 Eastern Alameda (East of Ninth St.) Subtotal 1841 363 49 Ratios 5.1 to one Percentage 82 16 2 Bay Farm Island Subtotal 445 148 13 Ratios 3.0 to one Percentage 73 24 2 147 556 one to 3.8 20 75 Overall 2924 600 86 Ratios 4.9 to one Percentage 81 17 2 399 1768 one to 4.4 18 79 154 427 one to 2.8 26 71 700 one to 34 5 85 4 21 3 2751 140 3.9 19 77 4 213 481 51 213 496 39 one to 2.3 one to 2.3 29 65 7 28 66 5 605 1528 113 576 1590 88 one to 2.5 one to 2.8 27 68 5 26 71 4 189 387 29 211 361 30 one to 2.0 one to 1.7. 31 64 5 35 60 5 1007 2396 193 2.4 one to 28 67 5 1000 2447 157 one to 2.4 28 68 4 1. Is your family in favor of setting aside the 700 -acre undeveloped western portion of what is now NAS Alameda for open space uses such as a National Wildlife Refuge, regional parklands, outdoor recreation, nature tourism, and environmental education ? 2. Is your family in favor of building more neighborhoods and shopping centers within the 700 -acre undeveloped western portion, in addition to the redevelopment already slated for the 1,000 -acre developed eastern portion ? 3. Is your family in favor of more industry on the western portion? 4. Is your family in favor a new golf course on the western portion? total counts 3,610 % return 11.63 overall tally precision ( %) 99.47 3,591 3,596 3,604 11.57 11.59 11.61 Figure 5. Use for Long-term Vision (ARRA/BRAG question 5) My long-term vision for primary reuse of the NAS would include the folowing uses (Check the four most important) Parks/ Recreational Areas Technology Research Park Mix of Light Industries A Nature Refuge University/ Educational Campus Mixed Use/ New Town Developmen New Residential Areas Seaport Facilities for Cargo Retail/Shopping Areas Medical Research Campus New Marina Aviation Maintenance Facility A Civilian Airfield Entertainment Theme Park -MENEM Schools (K-12) Adult School -MEE other —EMI 0 10 20 30 40 50 % of respondants indicating particular use Figure 6. Key Issues (ARRA/BRAG question 3) What are the key issues which the Base reuse planning process should pay particular attention? (check the three most important) Economic Developement & Jobs Environmental Cleanup of Base Env. Conservation & Protection Community Involvemen Educational Quality Public Transportation Traffic Improvements Added Transport. Across Estuary Additional Rec. Facilities Providing for Youth Recreation New Housing Energy Conserv. for Constrution other 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % of respondants who indicated particular issue Fig 3. "...more industry on the western portion..." % of Survey Respondents 100- 80- 60- 40- 20- Yes No W. Alameda E. Alameda Bay Farm Alameda Region n=3,596 Fig 4. "...a new golf course on the western portion..." % of Survey Respondents W. Alameda E. Alameda Alameda Region Bay Farm Yes No Figure 7. Public Forum Voting, October 29, 1994 Maintain & En. Wildlife Habitat Ensure complementary Dev. -Alam. Mixed Uses/Human Scale Assess Utility & Building Cond Educational Facilities Provide various Social Services Incorporate Trails & Bike Paths De- emphasize Automobiles Assure Financial Feasibility Base Clean Up - Haz. Substances Cultural /Arts Center Low Income Housing Sustainability & Efficiency Community Education/Involvement Recreation Facilities 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Number of times particular issues were designated important by participants SIERRA CLUB San Francisco Bay Chapter it it t7da County Contra Costa . Miarin . San FrAtliiSCu Conservation Offices 5237 College Avenue, Oakland, CA 94618 (510) 653 -6127 Bookstore 6014 College Avenue, Oakland, CA. 94618 (510) 658 -7470 Sierra Club & Audubon Society collect over 1000 signatures in support of establishing the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge 10/5!95 During August and September 1995, the Sierra Club and Audubon Society, with the assistance of Arc Ecology and the Military Base Closures Environmental Network, circulated a citizen petition in support of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's request to establish a National Wildlife Refuge on a portion of the Alameda Naval Air Station. Based on the most current information available at the time about the proposed alternatives for the Alameda Reuse Plan, petitions were mailed to Sierra Club and Audubon members in the City of Alameda and adjoining areas of Alameda County, initiating a volunteer, grassroots effort by environmentalists throughout the area. Over 1000 signatures were collected: City of Alameda 661 Alameda County 198 greater Bay Area 139 Michigan 3 Florida 2 Washington DC 1 Petitions called for the establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge on approximately 600 acres of the 1700 acre Navy Base. The refuge would be home to several endangered and threatened species including the Califonria Least Tern, provide habitat for 1000's of other birds, mammals, fishes and insects, and provide public access to the shoreline as well as sweeping views of San Francisco Bay. Proponents point out that the refuge would generate millions of dollars per year in gross revenues to the city and region's economy, and does not compete with job - creating development elsewhere on the soon- to -be- closed base. Proponents also point out that the refuge will not require expensive infrastructure investments as do other forms of development, and that the refuge is a fully compatible use with the Public Trust Doctrine. Finally, proponents point out that the refuge is projected to cause less traffic gridlock than any other development alternative under consideration. For more information about the petition drive, and the Sierra Club's position regarding reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station, contact Dr. Bill Smith (510)522 -0390. (,) A Arms Control Research Center Center for Peace and Progressive Politics 833 Market Street Suite 1107, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 495 -1786; Fax (415) 495 -1787 ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES for Military Base Closures Saul Bloom Carolyn Crampton Ruth Gravanis Arthur Feinstein David Hawthorne Tim Little Paul Okamoto Dr. William J. Smith Michael Warburton edited by Tim Little co- authors Arms Control Research Center Hunters Point artist Restoring the Bay Campaign Golden Gate Audubon Architects, Designers & Planners for Social Responsibility Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Urban Ecology Sierra Club Ecology Center and the Military Base Closures Environmental Network Published by ARC /Arms Control Research Center in collaboration with Center for Economic Conversion Urban Habitat Program November, 1994 ARC /Arms Control Research Center The ARC /Arms Control Research Center specializes in military base restoration and economic conversion. For over ten years, ARC's work on monitoring the remediation of the United States military's environmental pollution, coordinating community comments on federal base closures, developing community economic conversion plans, and empowering local communities through information sharing and direct organizing has saved federal and local governments hundreds of millions of dollars, halted wasteful federal defense programs, quantified the environmental impacts of war and helped lead the way for the growing conversion movement. ARC has also developed partnership programs with non - governmental organizations in the Philippines and Great Britain to empower citizen -led military base restoration and clean up. Military Base Closures Environmental Network The Military Base Closures Environmental Network began to form in early 1994. Its initial discussions focussed on proposals for the reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station. The discussions quickly broadened to encompass all of the closing military facilities in the Bay Area. Representatives of ARC /Arms Control Research Center, Architects, Designers & Planners for Social Responsibility, Alameda Peace & Environmental Network, CAREER PRO, Ecology Center, Golden Gate Audubon, Hunters Point artists, Northern California Recycling Association, Restoring the Bay Campaign, Rose Foundation, Sierra Club and Urban Ecology decided to meet regularly to share analysis of base closures issues and opportunities. Network meetings are open to all activists and representatives of non - profit or non- governmental organizations. For information about the activities of the Military Base Closures Environmental Network, call Tim Little (510)658 -0702. Bay Area Base Conversion Project To ensure that base conversion activities in the Bay Area maximize local community development activities, particularly for low income and communities of color that already bear heavy burdens of economic dislocation and environmental degradation, the ARC /Arms Control Research Center, Center for Economic Conversion and Urban Habitat Program have formed a collaborative project, the Bay Area Base Conversion Project. The overall mission of the collaborative is to facilitate the full participation of disadvantaged communities in the conversion of Bay Area military bases in a manner that enhances the economic, social and environmental health of the region as a whole. Acknowledgements ARC extends its heartfelt thanks to the co- authors and other members of the Military Base Closures Environmental Network for their many hours of pro -bono time in crafting these Principles. ARC gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the Environmental Committee of the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission, whose in -depth discussions of environmental principles helped spark this Statement of Environmental Principles. Finally, ARC extends its sincere thanks to the Rose Foundation for supporting the development of these Principles through its "loaned organizer" program. November 1994 Executive Summary These Environmental Principles for Military Base Closures offer four basic statements to help guide reuse efforts. They explain how members of the Military Base Closures Environmental Network will analyze reuse proposals. Drawing from the authors' broad experience in environmental protection, sustainable economics and design, and environmental justice, these Principles state essential elements of sustainable reuse plans. While recognizing that all aspects of the Principles may not be applicable to every land parcel or reuse plan, the authors recommend that they be incorporated as a goal statement in all reuse plans and environmental impact statements. The goals of the principles are to: • Encourage and facilitate economically sound commercial and in- dustrial ventures, affordable housing, and protected wildlife habitat. • Educate and guide stakeholders and participants in the reuse planning process, including government officials, planning con- sultants, members of Restoration Advisory Boards, and interested citizens. • Highlight the opportunities presented by base closures. • Help bridge the gap between existing regulations and base closure opportunities. • Facilitate the incorporation of sustainable environmental concepts into all Bay Area reuse plans, environmental impact reports, and other related documents. 1) All the region's diverse stakeholders must be included in military base reuse. The various communities of the region, particularly communities of color who have been negatively im- pacted by existing operations and /or closure hardships, must be involved as partners in the decision making process. Rather than viewing community involvement as a hurdle to overcome, successful reuse efforts will build on a strong founda- tion of community support. As conflicts or tensions arise which cannot be solved through a participatory discussion, mediation and /or binding arbitration should be considered so that overall reuse and conservation efforts may move forward. Reuse proposals should generate jobs which match existing skills in the local community, and provide training to help develop necessary new skills. 2) The basic rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and walk on clean soil must be protected in reuse plans. The right to clean air, water and habitat does not depend on either socio- 1 Stakeholders in Military Base Closures (a partial list) Artists Base Workers Base Workers' Families Cleanup Contractors Community Economic Development Advocates Defense Labs Developers Environmentalists Ethnic Communities Homeless Labor Unions Local, State & Federal Government Military Agencies Native Americans Neighbors People Who Fish Regulators Small Business Owners Universities & Colleges economic dass or wildlife species. Many sites have serious and expensive contamination prob- lems. Cleanup decisions must maximize reuse options and recog- nize that full cleanup may take decades. Reuse plans should adopt a multi - phased cleanup approach which allows available cleanup dollars to be targeted most effectively, contains the spread of contamination on sites which cannot be immediately cleaned up, and moves towards a goal of full restoration of all sites. The military agency currently holding title should not be allowed to relinquish liability for full cleanup until contaminants have been removed to levels found in nearby undisturbed areas. 3) The globally significant resources of the San Francisco Bay Region must be respected and protected. Each of the diverse elements of the Bay Area ecosystem must be respected in its own right. The proximity of different wildlife habitats and the resulting interlocking and interdependent food webs constitute both known and yet to be discovered genetic resources for the entire planet. Simply protecting endangered species does not preserve the larger resource, although we must certainly strive to assure the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Impacts on local habitats should be evaluated both in their own right, and for the potential ripple effects on larger populations of species. To main- tain and restore the Bay Area's biodiversity we must protect and enhance the integrity of the entire ecosystem and its ability to support all indigenous species and natural processes. 4) Reuse planning must not stop at the physical boundaries of the bases, but must encompass the entire region. The region's challenge is to engage in full bioregional planning which recognizes that the Bay Area's irreplaceable natural resources are tightly linked to its diverse social, cultural, architectural, and economic resources. Sustainable reuse planning should be directed towards im- proving the overall quality of life within the region. Federal base closure assistance funds could and should be preferentially ap- plied to projects and conversion efforts which create sustainable jobs, affordable housing, respect the natural environment and rebuild communities. The military bases slated for closure are public lands. For decades the federal government has held title for purposes of national security. Now these lands, which have always been held for the general benefit of all citizens, are available for new public benefit uses. Base Closure Opportunities • Build "infill" develop- ments on large parcels which combine indus- trial, residential and commercial uses without threatening the greenbelt. • Ease siting tensions for industrial development since portions of the bases have historically been used for industrial - type activities. • Integrate affordable housing into reuse plc • Apply federal funds preferentially to sustain- able reuse efforts. • Recognize that military security has created de facto wildlife sanctuar- ies. These valuable refuges can be enhanced and permanently pro- tected. • Engage the region's diverse communities in bioregional cooperative planning. • Unite diverse stakehold- ers around the common interest of successful conversion. Statement of ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES for Military Base Closures 1) All the region's diverse stakeholders must be included in mili- tary base reuse. The various communities of the region, particularly communities of color who have been negatively impacted by existing operations and /or closure hardships, must be involved as partners in the decision making process. Impacted communities, whether or not they are geographically contiguous to the base, should be consulted and included. Historical claims to the bases, such as those being made by Native Americans throughout the country, must also be taken into account alongside contemporary reuse proposals. Rather than viewing community involvement as a hurdle to over- come, successful reuse efforts will build on a strong foundation of community support. Both the decision making process and any eventual reuse plans should require access by the region's diverse communities of people regardless of income, race, religion, cultural and sexual orienta- tion and be sensitive to each community's particular needs. Reuse plans should require access to community facilities, open space, natural wild- life and agricultural areas where appropriate. One necessary step towards securing community support is to ensure that reuse proposals generate jobs which match existing skills in the local community. Since reuse proposals are, by nature, forward looking, they should also contain training programs which are accessible to local communities. Prospective workers must be given the opportunity to learn new skills needed to participate in the region's revitalized economy. Reuse planners must recognize that tensions exist, and will arise, between different communities of interest. Mediation and /or binding arbitration should be considered to resolve conflicts so that overall reuse and conservation efforts may move forward. 2) The basic rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and walk on clean soil must be protected in reuse plans. The right.to clean air, water and habitat does not depend on socio- economic class, ethnicity, or species. Many sites have serious and ex- pensive contamination problems. There is pressure verging on panic to develop these quickly. Expense and concerns about timing cannot Building Job Opportunities for Stakeholders into Reuse Plans Community Contracting When the new Federal Building was built in Oak- land, the General Services Administration required: A Community Contract Compliance Monitoring Committee 20% small business set - aside 30% minority & women - owned business set - aside. Bay Area Ship Recycling Complex The ARC /Arms Control Research Center is promot- ing development of a Bay Area Ship Recycling Com- plex. The complex could employ dislocated workers at Hunters Point, Mare Island & Alameda to scrap the "mothball fleet." In addition to generating over 1500 jobs, the complex would boost local scrap and remanufacturing markets, and ensure that the shipbreaking work would be performed to US environ- mental standards. Past practice has been to sell scrap ships to Pacific Rim nations to avoid US wage scales and environmental laws. become the catalyst for weakening environmental protections. Cleanup decisions must maximize reuse options and recognize that full cleanup may take decades. Reuse plans should adopt a multi - phased cleanup approach which allows available cleanup dollars to be targeted most effectively, contains the spread of contamination on sites which cannot be immediately cleaned up, and moves towards a goal of full restoration of all sites. The military agency currently holding title should not be allowed to relinquish liability for full cleanup until contaminants havebeen removed to levels found in nearby undisturbed areas. This preserves strict accountability for cleanup and encourages the military to proceed as rapidly as possible towards full cleanup. However, reuse authorities or other title holders must be liable for any increased cleanup costs associ- ated with, or caused by, reuse activities. Short Term Cleanup: Assess and contain contamination (1 - 3 years) Contamination at all sites must be accurately assessed and mapped before the base closes. Stopping the spread of contamination at all sites must receive a higher priority than beginning active clean up. Once contamination is contained, all technologies available for cleanup must be assessed. Informed decisions about what, how, and when can only be made after accurate and complete mapping of contaminated sites and secure containment. In the short term, it is preferable to focus reuse to fully or easily cleaned sites. Medium Term: Effectively targeting cleanup dollars (2 -10 years) Human health risk assessments cannot have any degree of accuracy until complete data about site contamination is collected and analyzed. Once these processes have been completed, both ecological and human health risk assessments must be used to allocate cleanup dollars. Some land use restrictions must also be accepted in the intermediate phase. Interim cleanup levels should be compatible with both the proposed land use and the best available cleanup technology whenever practi- cable. Final Term: The long road to full clean up (10+ years) The final cleanup phase equals a combination of full restoration and cleanup to levels found in nearby undisturbed areas. Full cleanup may take decades to achieve on the most contaminated parcels. However, until the final term cleanup is achieved, the military agency responsible for creating the pollution should not be allowed to relinquish liability for full cleanup. Monitoring of ongoing cleanup and restoration should be conducted by the appropriate independent state or federal agencies. Potential Cleanup Incentives Require military agencies to be responsible for mainte- nance until actual property transfer. Prohibit military agencies who are responsible for contaminated bases from relinquishing title until fin cleanup is completed. Create a locally- controlled cleanup fund with an assessment on commercial and residential reuse ven- tures. The fund could be earmarked to help with final cleanup. 3) The globally significant resources of the San Francisco Bay Region must be respected and protected. Each of the diverse elements of the Bay Area ecosystem must be respected in its own right. The proximity of different wildlife habitats and the resulting interlocking and interdependent food webs constitute both known and yet to be discovered genetic resources for the entire planet. In recognition of its importance to global biodiversity, the United Nations has declared the entire region a United Nations Biosphere Reserve. Simply protecting endangered species does not preserve the larger resource, although we must certainly strive to assure the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Impacts on local habitats should be evaluated both in their own right, and for the potential ripple effects on larger populations of species. To maintain and restore the Bay Area's biodiversity we must protect and enhance the integrity of the entire ecosystem and its ability to support all indigenous species and natural processes. Endangered Species Endangered and threatened species, species who are candidates for protected status, and other species of special concern found on Bay Area military bases include: the California Least Tern, California Clapper Rail, black rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, Suisun shrew, California Brown Pelican, American Peregrine Falcon, snowy plover, and burrowing owl. • Assure the recovery of endangered species by preserving, managing and restoring adequate quantity and quality of habitat. • Develop, adopt and implement recovery plans for all endangered species. • Set aside enough land and water to provide the full range of habitat types to sustain the ecosystem and prevent the decline of not -yet- endangered species. Habitat Protection Sr Restoration Enough habitat should be protected in designated refuges to sustain existing wildlife populations and allow for the recovery of species in decline. Habitats can also be protected and enhanced within portions of the bases which are either currently developed or proposed for develop- ment. • Transfer large habitat areas to appropriate natural resource protection agencies. Placing some of the most sensitive areas into public steward- ship could answer many environmental questions at the outset, and help galvanize support for economic reuse plans targeted at some of the remaining acreage. Specifically, transfer requests submitted by resource agencies for acreage on Alameda Naval Air Station and Mare Island Naval Shipyard should be granted as soon as possible. • Provide enough of each kind of habitat to prevent conflicts between the needs of various species. .Beyond Endangered Species Caspian Terns are not considered endangered, yet their largest West Coast breeding colony is on Alameda Naval Air Station. Disturbing this colony could move a robust species towards threatened status. Protecting Sensitive Habitat Both the US Fish & Wild- life Service and the East Bay Regional Park District have requested that the military grant "public benefit conveyance " re- quests to protect sensitive habitat areas. The federal laws governing base clo- sures allow free transfers of land to other public agen- cies for the benefit of the general public. The Mili- tary Base Closures Envi- ronmental Network fully suports these requests: Alameda Naval Air Station 595 acres dry land 375 acres submerged land Mare Island 670 acres Portions of Hamilton Air Force Base and Skaggs Island • Protect and restore tidal and seasonal wetlands, including rnudflats and marshes, as well as aquatic habitats. • Maintain, enhance, restore and recreate a variety of upland and other habitat types that will provide adequate opportunities for roosting, foraging, nesting, hauling out and burrowing as needed for birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, insects, and other species which complete the food web. • Protect and restore native plant and wildlife communities and control harmful exotic species. • Provide adequate buffer areas between wildlife habitat and human activity. • Min imize, to the extent possible, any impacts on wildlife resulting from remediation of contaminated areas. • Plan transportation routes and improvements, including roads, rail- ways, shipping and ferries, to minimize impacts on wildlife. • Coordinate reuse planing and natural resource management efforts. Potentially diverse communities of interest will need to work together to help each other achieve their goals. Management Plans Natural Resource Management Plans can help assure that wildlife's needs are met. • Create, fund and implement Natural Resource Management Plans for each base. These plans should be based on ecological inventories and scientific assessments of wildlife needs. • Incorporate the management plans into the overall reuse plans.. • Designate agencies to be held accountable for implementation and monitoring. • Identify and secure long -term funding for ongoing protection, moni- toring and enforcement. Two possibilities are Department of Defense allocations, and structuring reuse plans to generate revenues dedi- cated to wildlife protection. Educational Opportunities Public education is the foundation for future wildlife protection. • Provide environmental education and interpretive centers. • Involve members of the community in designing and implementing environmental education programs. Include opportunities for hands - on restoration work. 4) Reuse planning must not stop at the physical boundaries of the bases, but must encompass the entire region. The military bases slated for closure are public lands. For decades the federal government has held title for purposes of national security. Now these lands, which have always been held for the general benefit of all citizens, are available for new public benefit uses. The region's challenge is to engage in full bioregional planning which recognizes that the Bay Area's irreplaceable natural resources are tightly linked to its diverse social, cultural, architectural, and economic resources. 6 "Placing some of' most sensitive areas into public stew- ardship could an- swer many envi- ronmental ques- tions at the outset, and help galvanize support for eco- nomic reuse plans targeted at some of the remaining acre- age. " Sustainable reuse planning should be directed towards improving the overall quality of life within the region. A comprehensive plan will provide for both restoration and development. It is important to re- member that human rights may need to be restored as well as natural resources. Particular attention must be placed on responding to histori- cal claims by Native Americans, addressing the needs of communities that have been negatively impacted by present or historical military uses, and to preserving cultural heritage sacred spaces. Bioregional Planning • Consider the relationships between people, the environment, and the economy. • Respect the habitat needs of all species. • Respect the livelihood needs of all species. • Develop ecological building systems. • Take the fullest possible_advantage of existing facilities. • Encourage the use of recovered or recycled materials and "low im- pact" construction materials in building codes. • Institute manufacturer buy -back programs such as refillable bottles and rebates for returning used car parts. Create incentives to reduce excess packaging. • Recycling collection programs should add value to the local economy by feeding appropriate local remanufacturing facilities. • Establish local farmers' markets. Public Trust Many of the bases include tidelands and former tidelands which are subject to the Public Trust. The Public Trust Doctrine is a time - tested legal concept that the state government does not actually own tidelands and navigable waters, but holds them in perpetual trust on behalf of all the people in the state. The federal government claimed jurisdiction over these lands in the interests of national security. Now that the bases have been declared surplus for national defense purposes, much of their acreage reverts to Public Trust. Many questions have already arisen about how to apply the Public Trust Doctrine to the bases, due to legal complexities including rever- sionary clauses, and uncertain boundaries between wetlands and up- lands caused by Bay fill. The State Lands Commission is charged with making public trust determinations. However, their efforts have been hampered by lack of funding. The Public Trust Doctrine is not an impediment to economic conver- sion of the bases. Public Trust designations allow numerous employ- ment- generating uses, as well as wildlife habitat and open space. Cur- rent law also provides a mechanism for public trust exchanges. In an exchange, the public trust designation can be transferred from one parcel to another, facilitating both economic development and environmental protection. Such exchanges should be conducted through an open public process. Public Trust Uses Include Boating Fishing Hotels Open Space Public Assembly Restaurants Shipping & Ship Repair Water - dependent Industries Water - related Recreation Wildlife Habitat Standards for Commercial & Industrial Development The need for industrial sites is recognized and encouraged. Manu- facturing or other industrial activities should be sited on areas which are currently (or have historically been) used in similar capacities. The relatively large size of some of the bases may allow creation of buffer zones to segregate industrial and residential uses. In some instances, industrial /commercial uses could serve as buffers between residential areas and wildlife preserves. Local governments (through their power to make land use decisions) and the federal government (by providing funding assistance) could exert strong leverage to encourage /require: • Good neighbor agreements between companies and the surrounding community. • Best available environmental controls and best practical mitigation of neighborhood impacts. • Funding subsidies tied to environmental performance. Subsidies and siting preference should be extended to companies which have a proven track record of exceeding standard regulatory compliance requirements or reducing hazardous waste generation. Siting prefer- ence should be extended to companies which produce environmen- tally beneficial products. Funding subsidies should also be tied to environmental justice records. • Siting preference for companies who employ unionized labor, pay prevailing wages, and comply with OSHA regulations. • No funding or siting preference given to industries whose viability is based on excessive resource consumption or production of hazardous wastes. • Federal business development funds made available to local, minority and women -owned businesses on a percentage basis that reflects the demographics of the surrounding communities. A community con- tracting oversight board should be created to ensure that community contracting set - asides are properly achieved. Land Use Decisions Development decisions should be made in a regional context. Land uses should encourage affordable housing and diverse job opportunities which utilize skills in the local and surrounding communities. Ideally, land use decisions should give people the option of living near their jobs and /or working near their homes. Development should blend with surrounding communities, be compatible with the local environment, and match existing infrastruc- ture whenever possible. Bases in urban centers should be developed more densely than bases in rural areas. Dense development should also ensure access to public transportation and include open landscape corridors for scenic value, wildlife habitat, recreation and gardens. Proponents of increased development should consider mitigating increased demands for power , water, waste and sewage disposal through encouraging conservation rather than increasing capacity. Environmentally Safe Industries Conserve resources. Use or produce clean fuels or alternative energy sources such as: • Solar or wind power. • Hydrogen, natural gas, or methanol. Build electric, alternative fueled cars, or public transportation. Use recycled materials like glass, aluminum, paper & cardboard to remanufacture valuable new products. Good Neighbor Agreements Encourage local hiring. Protect the community with Safety and Environ- mental Audits. Recognize the Community's legal Right to Know. Reduce waste and inefficiency, increasing productivity. Build trust between busi- nesses and communities. Transportation Systems Transportation planning should allow people to move freely both within and between communities. A comprehensive transportation network emphasizes low emission public mass transit, pedestrian ori- ented development, and encourages bicycles for both commuting and recreation. Provide priority parking for van and carpools, maintain access for emergency, disabled- persons' and service vehicles, and dis- courage private automobiles in urban and village centers. Parks, Recreation and Landscaping Landscape planning for developed areas should serve many func- tions, including recreation, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, energy conserva- tion, food production, erosion control, soil replenishment and visual screening. Public plantings, such as street trees or parks, should fit into an overall landscape system. The use of herbicides, pesticides, petrochemically -based fertilizers and invasive plant species should be discouraged, if not prohibited. Plants that are adapted to a dry- summer climate and benefit native wildlife should be encouraged. Space should be provided for commu- nity gardens, and residents should be encouraged to maintain home gardens. Sufficient space should be set aside on each base for a comprehensive open space system which includes wildlife habitat as well as developed parks. Recreational facilities should be designed and located to meet the needs of residents and workers - now, and in the future, Energy Systems Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power should receive the highest priority. Solar power considerations should include both active (solar panels which transform the sun's energy directly into electrical power) and passive (designs which orient buildings or rooms to take advantage of the sun's light and heat in the winter yet can be screened or shaded in the summer). Cogeneration (which captures heat or other by- products of one process for reuse as fuel or other purposes) should be emphasized whenever sensible. Cogeneration possibilities could include composting organic matter to produce methane and reusing excess industrial heat. Water Systems Reuse plans should help preserve and develop wildlife habitat by restoring creeks and marshes. Water systems in developments should collect and store runoff water for irrigation. Waste watershould be treated to appropriate levels. Reclaimed water can be used for irrigation, decorative ponds, ground- water recharge and dust control. Ecological Building Systems Reuse existing buildings, materials and equipment. Feature natural venti- lation and light. Build in grey water systems to reuse bath or shower water for irriga- tion. Capture and store roof- top rainwater for irriga- tion. Take full advantage of active and passive solar. Make recycling easy for residents, workers and visitors. Use low impact con- struction materials. Provide easy access to public transit. Solid Waste Management Solid waste systems should reduce the overall quantity of packaging and waste, and emphasize reuse, recycling and composting. Building materials should be reused and recycled to the greatest extent feasible. Building Codes Building materials codes should be created and enforced which establish positive criteria encouraging the use of resource - conserving materials, such as lumber from sustainable forestry and use of non -toxic indoor materials. Special attention must be paid to reducing the use or production of hazardous materials throughout the construction process. Building codes can also encourage recycling, and energy and water conservation by owners and tenants. References Alameda Naval Air Station's Natural Resources and Base Closure March 12,1994 Symposium proceedings Available through Golden Gate Audubon Society, (510)843 -2222 Base Closures: The Local Peace Dividend ARCJArms Control Research Center Call (415)495 -1786 Citizen's Guide to Military Base Clean -up and Conversion Center for Economic Conversion & Military Toxics Project Call (415)968 -8798 Citizen's Report on the Military and the Environment Pacific Studies Center Call (415)969 -1545 Defining Sustainable Communities Edited by Catherine Lerza on behalf of the Tides Foundation 2000 P St. NW #408, Washington DC, 20036 Discovering Sustainable, Career Jobs at Closing Military Bases Sierra Club, San Francisco Chapter Call (510)653 -6127 The Good Neighbor Handbook by Sanford Lewis and the Center for Public Policy 42 Davis Rd., #3B, Acton, MA 01720, (508)264 -4060 Guide to Federal and California Endangered Species Laws Planning and Conservation League Foundation 926 J St., Ste. 612, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916)444 -8726 10 Guidelines for Sustainable Base Redevelopment and Environmental Restoration Urban Ecology and Architects, Designers & Planners for Social Responsibility Call (510)251 -6330 Native Shrubs of California by Glenn Keator Available through the California Native Plant Society 909 12th St., Ste. 116, Sacramento, CA 95814 Principles of Environmental Justice People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit Available through ARC /Arms Control Research Center, (415)495 -1786 Public Trust Doctrine and Land Use Planning by Elizabeth Patterson, California Land Use Law & Policy Reporter, Dec. 1992 Available through Save San Francisco Bay Association, (510)452 -9261 The Regional Implications of Military Base Closures ARC /Arms Control Research Center Call (415)495 -1786 Restoring the Bay: A Citizen's Agenda for Restoring the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary Save San Francisco Bay Association Call (510)452 -9261 Sustainable Cities: Concepts & Strategies for Eco -City Development Edited by Bob Walter, Lois Arkin, Richard Crenshaw 4344 Russell Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90027, (213)662 -5207 11 ARC ECOLOGY ARMS CONTROL RESEARCH CENTER 833 Market Street, Suite 1107, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 495 -1786 Fax: (415) 495 -1787 Military Base Closures Environmental Network Statement of Environmental Principles for Military Base Closures Organizational Endorsements 5/19/95 African American Development Association Architects /Designers /Planners for Social Responsibility Asian Pacific Environmental Network ARC /Arms Control Research Center Baylands Conservation Committee California Network for a New Economy Career Pro Center for Economic Conversion Citizens for a Better Environment Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Clean Water Action Conservation Science Institute East Palo Alto Historical & Agricultural Society Ecology Center Global Vision 20/20 Golden Gate Audubon Society, Inc. Greenpeace International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 6 Mount Diablo Audubon Society National Economic Development Law Center Natural Heritage Institute Natural Resources Defense Council Northern California Recycling Association Pacific Studies Center Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment San Francisco Baykeeper Shipyard & Marine Shop Laborers Union Local 886 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Sierra Club - Northern California /Nevada RCC Sierra Club - San Francisco Bay Chapter Sustainable Systems Urban Ecology Urban Habitat Program, Earth Island Institute