1996-01-03 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * * **
Alameda High School Cafeteria
West Wing
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
Alameda, CA
Wednesday, January 3, 1996
5:30p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the
rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per. item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points
presented verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings.
I. ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 1, 1995 and December 6, 1995.
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Selection of DR /McGraw Hill
for the Alameda Science and Technology Center Feasibility Study and Authorization for the Executive
Director to Negotiate and Execute the Contract.
Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Oppose the Request for Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of Alameda Naval Air Station to the Army
Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES).
III. ACTION ITEMS
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Transportation, Open Space
and Conservation, and Health and Safety, and Implementation Elements (including Strategy and
Financial Analyses, Homeless Assistance Component [with Legally Binding Agreement], and
Implementation Action Plan) of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan.
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval, in Concept, of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Request to the Office of Economic Adjustment.
Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Direct Staff to Prepare Initial
Background Reports Necessary to Initiate the Formation of a Redevelopment Project Area for NAS
Alameda and to Prepare Special Legislation Necessary to Establish the Project Area.
Recommendation from the BRAG Modifying Language to Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and the Goals
and Objectives (Goal B2: Enhance Employment Opportunities and CI: Housing Opportunities).
IV. ORAL REPORTS
H Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the ARRA on BRAG
Activities.
I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on
(1) BCDC Port Priority Designation;
(2) Additional Military Housing Request;
(3) Current Lease Negotiations.
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 REGULAI,OPMENT AUTHORITY
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT
Wednesday, November 1, 1995
The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Mayor Appezzato presiding.
I. ROLL CALL ezzato, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th
Present: Chair Mayor Ralph App Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Jay
Vice -Mayor C
Congressional District Chang, Jr., City of Oakland;Councilmember
Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry Alternate Tony Daysog at 9:00 p.m.);
"Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda (replaced by Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San
Alternate Garry
Loeffler (left at 9:00 p.m.) for May
L e
for
anclro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; AM k Friedman at
Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Alternate Board of Supervisors,
6:40 p.m.) for Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda
' a County
ase Reuse Advisory Group
District 3; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez,
(BRAG); Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
),
Absent: None.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of October 5, 1995.
A motion was made by Vice-Mayor Mannix to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Alternate Loeffler. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
8. Noes: None. Abstentions: 1 - Councilmember Arnerich
III. ACTION ITEMS
from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement
of the Long-Range
B. Report f and Disposition osition Strategies El
Goals and Objectives, p
Community Reuse Plan.
Planner, stated that the BRAG had approved the Introduction,
D. Paul Tuttle, ARRA five
West" with "the western portion of
Goals and Objectives, and Disposition Strategies e ements with the following
changes: (1) replace references to "Alameda
Alameda "; (2) delete any reference to women as a minority or disadvantaged group in the Goals and Objectives; (3) In sections on Goals and Objectives, Housing, and Jobs, delete
one strong
any reference to cultural and ethnic diversity and put it in the beginning
(4) various editorial changes; and (5)
add an implementation goal that the plan
statement;
would be a guide for future development and that no changes recommendation ° loccur that the
woe process. Staff has
unless there was a full public review p part of the Goals and Objectives.
BRAG Vision Statement be added in the Introduction as p
backs ecific language for change (3)
The Governing Body asked the BRAG to bring p A motion was made by
above regarding statements on cultural and ethnic diversity.
ito Printed on recycled paper
Councilmember DeWitt and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix to reject the BRAG's
requested change (2) to delete any references to women as a minority group. Women will
remain listed as a minority group. All other requested changes were accepted.
Chair Appezzato suggested that since the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) may
acquire several public conveyances on the base, the School Board might consider
transferring the Mastick Senior Center to the City of Alameda. Ex- officio Greely stated
that the School Board had considered it at their last meeting. She felt the request was ".
.. that we should trade something we own that is valuable to which we have clear title for
something that you don't own and for fees that you can't charge us." Ex- officio Greely
assured the Mayor that she would take the request back to the Board for further
consideration.
After fully discussing the Introduction and Goals and Objectives and agreeing on specific
minor changes, Dena Belzer of Bay Area Economics presented the Disposition Strategy
(Chapter 8). The Public Benefit Conveyances (PBCs) were thoroughly debated and
discussion was opened to the public.
Public Comment:
Don Peterson of the Jack London Soccer League discussed developing 50 acres of badly
needed soccer fields at NAS Alameda. Kay Miller urged them to work with the Parks and
Recreation Department to meet their needs. Vice -Chair Swanson suggested that staff
work with the Soccer League to explore an interim lease arrangement.
Bill Smith spoke on several issues, including manufacturing, the Bay Trail, and electric
vehicles.
John Brauer of the Homeless Collaborative stated that the Legally Binding Agreements
insuring adequate lease terms must be signed before the Homeless Collaborative will
endorse the final base reuse plan.
.Ardella Daily, AUSD, expressed the District's thanks to the BRAG for their work on the
public benefic conveyance process.
John Fee, Economic Subcommittee, requested an area for goats and ostrich rides and
voiced questions regarding different aspects of the plan.
It was decided to separate the AUSD and Parks and Recreation PBCs for voting purposes.
A motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy and seconded by Alternate Loeffler to
approve the Public Benefit Conveyance to the AUSD. The motion carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: l— Member DeWitt.
A motion was made by Member Arnerich and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix to
approve the Public Benefit Conveyance to the Alameda Parks and Recreation Department.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: 2— Member DeWitt and
Alternate Alves.
A motion to accept the Introduction and Goals and ntca ri d by a unanimous voice
Leonhardy and seconded by Alternate Loeffler. The
A motion to accept the remainder of the Property Disposal Strategy was made by Member
DeWitt and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix. Assistant n�nbers in Tables7lunder Fgh &
asked that the motion be amended to delete the parcel
Wildlife to ensure consistency. The motion was so amended and it carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 1— Alternate Alves.
al to Lease
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending f the HHornet Airc�aft Carriersas a Private
Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Docking of
[Tabled from October 5, 1995 meeting.]
After discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember DeWitt and datio with the le by
Alternate Leonhardy to endorse the concept of the Hornet
issue to be addressed at a future time when all the data is available. The motion passed
unanimously.
IV. ORAL REPORTS:
D. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the
ARRA on BRAG Activities.
Chair Perez stated they are working on the reuse plan elements as they that become
BRAG meeting has been moved to January available. The next community g
community can view the complete plan.
E. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA- on ARRA Staff Activities.
1. The ARRA staff is working to address all the directives the and questions on the Plan
expressed by both the ARRA Governing Body and
2. A letter has been sent to the three communities that participate
�e County of Alameda) A
Governing Body(the cities of San Leandro and Oakland panel
to solicit financial assistance to help fund aanPl Urban Land Institute (ULI) p to
evaluate the Long -range Community Re
3. Talks continue with BCDC on Port Priority Designation.
4. Discussions with State Lands Commission continue.
5. The Coast Guard housing request is being addressed a lease, Dispowao felt tha� e
6. While lease negotiations with AEG did result
will be
"fought the good fight." Within the next two weeks 1pI.VCOSand FrancisePlating.
signed and we are in active negotiation with UAR
7. The MBE /WBE update requested by Vice -chair Sandre Swanson has been
completed and disseminated to the ARRA.
ral
8. There is a formal request from the Maritime Administratio
the for space at the deSC
screening process and allow a federal conveyance of P
Annex. They also plan to request all of the pier space Body not support led reopening th
staff will be requesting that the ARRA Governing y
screening because this property has a commercial reuse value; however, we would
like to continue negotiations on leasing them the space.
3
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Barbara Baack, the Naval Air Museum, thanked the Governing Body for consideration of their
proposal and expressed the hope that they would receive a 50 -year lease with a clause for
renewal.
Bill Smith discussed the fact that NAS is a very valuable base.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Tony Daysog requested that two items be agendized for the next meeting: (1) the McCain
Feinstein legislation, its status in Congress, and whether it should be applied to FISC; and (2)
an update on the capital impact fee and public service assessment fee and the legal premises
upon which they can be charged.
Vice -Chair Swanson announced that the ARRA and the BRAG and other groups working on
the conversion would be receiving invitations shortly for an event on November 10 to celebrate
CALSTART's signing the first lease on the base. The celebration will include an electric car
demonstration.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Mayor Appezzato at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/ 1 �
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'
Wednesday, December 6, 1995
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Mayor Appezzato presiding.
I. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice -
Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District; 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;
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 (replaced by Alternate Brown at 7:22 p.m.);
Alternate Helen Sause for Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse
Advisory Group (BRAG); Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School
District (arrived at 5:54 p.m.; departed at 7:35 p.m.)
Absent: None.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Adoption of Resolution Regarding Conflict of Interest Statement Required in Connection
with the Economic Development Administration Grant to the Alameda Center for
Environmental Technology (ACET).
After discussion, a motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix to adopt the Resolution.
The motion was seconded by Alternate Loeffler and passed by a unanimous voice vote.
III. ACTION ITEMS
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Land Use, City
Design, and Parks & Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools, and Cultural Facilities
Elements of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan.
After fully discussing the Land Use, City Design, and Parks & Recreation, Shoreline
Access, Schools, and Cultural Facilities Elements and agreeing on specific minor changes,
discussion was opened to the public.
Public Comment:
Susan M. Hone of the Audubon Society stated that the Audubon Society supports setting
aside 500+ acres for the Least Tern.
Judy Pollard, an Alameda resident, stated she supports setting aside at least 500 acres for
the Wildlife Refuge.
Tim Little of the Rose Foundation/ARC Ecology applauded the environmental theme in
the proposed plan. He then discussed a November 28 letter to the Honorable Ronald
Dellums signed by 24 environmental groups that outlines the economic and community
benefits and the widespread support for a Wildlife Refuge at NAS Alameda.
Mike Warburton of the Public Trust Working Group voiced a concern about the
possibility of the Public Trust being extinguished. He further stated that the public has
ownership of these lands, Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) recipients cannot be taxed
to pay for the infrastructure, and the views must be protected. Mayor Appezzato assured
Mr. Warburton that the Trust was not going to be extinguished and the PBCs are not being
dealt with lightly; however, the question remains of how to raise the revenue to pay for
the infrastructure.
Susan M. Withrow, an Alameda resident, stated that the Wildlife Refuge should be no less
than 500 acres and a golf course has no place near the refuge.
Sherri E. Withrow, a 32 -year Alameda resident, spoke in support of setting aside 500 -700
acres for a Wildlife Refuge.
Bill Smith, representing Virtual Agile Manufacturer, spoke in favor of alternative
transportation methods.
Arthur Feinstein of the Golden Gate Audubon Society spoke in favor of the Wildlife
Refuge, pointing out that among numerous other benefits, it would save on infrastructure
costs.
Bonnie J. Bone, a 10 -year Alameda resident, related her experiences in Chicago with
prairie transformation and encouraged the ARRA to give the maximum space to the
Wildlife Refuge.
Tom Okey of the Conservation Science Institute related the final results of the public
survey titled "Community Rates of Approval of Proposed Land Use Alternatives for NAS
Alameda" and left copies with the ARRA Secretary for interested persons.
William Smith of the Sierra Club voiced his group's support for the maximum amount
of land in the Wildlife Refuge.
A motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix to approve
the Land Use, City Design, and Parks & Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools, and
Cultural Facilities Elements of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Interim Leasing
Principles, Policies, and Procedures.
After intensive discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by
Alternate Daysog to add a provision to ensure that any lease that generates income of less
than 50 percent of fair market value has to have prior approval of the ARRA Board. The
2
motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 2– Alternate Alves and Alternate
Daysog. Noes: 7.
A motion was then made by Vice -Mayor Mannix and Alternate Loeffler to endorse the
Interim Leasing Principles, Policies, and Procedures. The motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2— Alternate Alves and Alternate Daysog.
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Oppose the Request for
Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda to the
Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD).
After discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy to oppose the request for
federal transfer of certain portions of NAS Alameda to MARAD. Vice -Mayor Mannix
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Oppose the Request for
Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) to the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration ( MARAD).
After discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy to oppose the request for
federal transfer of certain portions of FISC to MARAD. Vice -Mayor Mannix seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously.
F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Request for Federal Transfer of Certain Portions
of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Alameda Annex to the Army Air Force
Exchange Service (AAFES).
After discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember DeWitt to oppose the request for
federal transfer of certain portions of FISC to AAFES. Alternate Alves seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
IV. ORAL REPORTS:
G. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the
ARRA on BRAG Activities.
Helen Sause, Vice -Chair of the BRAG, reported on the BRAG's concern that the financial
impact of the present plan is only 1.4% and the BRAG would like to see a better margin
of error. She further reported (1) as there is an additional military housing request at
NAS, the BRAG is concerned that they should be shopping on the Alameda economy and
not at military stores; (2) there will be an ongoing need for citizen participation on some
level; and, (3) she assured those present that the BRAG is in favor of the wildlife refuge.
H. Oral Report from the Executive Director on Various ARRA Activities:
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director, reported on the following subjects: (1) McCainl
Feinstein legislation is pending; (2) a legal opinion on charging a capital impact fee to
PBCs has been referred to the ARRA General Counsel's office; (3) Heather McLaughlin,
3
Asst. General Counsel and Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner have been conducting monthly
meetings with State Lands; (4) there will hopefully be a decision by the Fish & Wildlife
service on the size of the Wildlife Refuge by January; (5) there has been an additional
request for military housing (500 units in East Housing) that will require a presentation
to the BRAG and the ARRA; (6) monies are available to hire Tom Iacafano of MIG to
research a framework for future citizen participation; (7) the BCDC Port Priority
designation for areas of NAS Alameda will be opposed at the Seaport Advisory meeting;
(8) the Board will be furnished with a current lease negotiation listing on a regular
basis — National Airmotive and Francis Plating are currently good lease prospects, as is
Nelson Marine; and, (9) a recommended consultant to conduct the Science City Feasibility
Study will be proposed at the January meeting.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith discussed alternative transportation and other unrelated issues.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Greg Alves thanked Mayor Appezzato and Kay Miller for going to Washington D.C. and voiced
his appreciation for their interactions with him.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Mayor Appezzato at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
4
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 29, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Oppose the Request
for Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS
Alameda) to the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES).
Background:
In addition to the transfer request for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Alameda Annex, the
Army & Air Force Exchange. Service (AAFES) has also submitted a request for a direct transfer of
property at the Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda) to their agency. AAFES is a federal
agency that supplies all military post exchanges (PXs) with products for sale to military personnel.
AAFES has requested transfer of portions (75 acres) of NAS Alameda for use as a product transfer
and distribution center. This use would involve the construction of a large warehouse building
(500,000- 700,000 sq.ft.) for shipping and sorting products for redistribution to post exchanges
around the world.
AAFES has requested transfer of property at NAS Alameda in order to fulfill their agency obligation
to test all federal excess property sites for potential reuse. In meetings with AAFES, staff has
expressed a concern that federal transfer of property at NAS Alameda is not acceptable. AAFES
indicated that if the community, through action by the local reuse authority (ARRA), does . not
support the federal transfer request, it will be withdrawn. ARRA staff has been in discussion with
AAFES about a possible ground lease at NAS to construct their distribution facility.
The federal screening period for transfer of NAS Alameda properties is closed and no additional
federal or public benefit request may be considered. However, according to the Federal rules, the
AAFES transfer request could be considered by the Navy as a federal transfer if the local reuse
authority, the ARRA, specifically allows the use in the Community Reuse Plan and recommends the
transfer in the Property Disposal Strategy.
Discussion:
The ARRA is too fax along in the planning process to reopen the federal screening period for transfer
of property to federal agencies. Transfer of seventy -five acres at NAS Alameda for federal uses at
this point would severely impact the reuse and redevelopment plan, which will be submitted to the
*le
Ito"Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
�ec
U.S. Navy in January. It would also take the property off the tax roles and
ability to finance necessary capital improvements and infrastructure for
Fiscal Impact:
Federal transfer of seventy -five acres at NAS Alameda for use by AAnzi
negative fiscal and economic impact on the City of Alameda, the ARRA.- -1o?
limiting the reuse and redevelopment potential of that site. It would also
tax roles and limit the ARRA's ability to raise funds to finance c7.---; _m:* --
infrastructure necessary for redevelopment. Lease revenues from NAS Al Yr
to the necessary up -front capital costs to pay for infrastructure improver.
Environmental Review:
A recommendation to the Navy to deny the Army & Air Force Exchange Ste.
of property at NAS Alameda does not constitute a project under the 1 -raia
Quality Act (CEQA). The Community Reuse Plan and Property Dispo ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse of NAS Alameda for
is, therefore, "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18, Se
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (1 r =asp
Force Exchange Service request for a federal transfer of portions of NAS
the Department of Defense deny their request for a direct transfer, alt. cc-
recommendation to AAFES and the Navy. Staff further recommends tha- A
discussions with AAFES about the possible location for their distribution s'179-.
under a ground lease agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
:mee
Attachment: AAFES Transfer Request
c:wp\arra \staff- re.pts \aafes.nas
INN MI Army & Air Force Exchange Service
rat FM WIL 4AMMI AAFES Operations Center
Startott■InginN P.O. Box 660320
Dallas, Texas 75266-0320
FS-S
A\
1111r,
30 November 1995
SUBJECT: Formal Request for Transfer of Excess Real Property Located on
Alameda Naval Air Station, Alamedia, California
Commander (Code 2411)
Engineering Field Activity West
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
900 Commodore Drive
San Bruno, California 94066-5006
1. In accordance with the Base Realignment and Closure Act 1995 (BRAC 95)
and DoD Base Reuse Implementation Manual, July 1995; the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service (AAFES), a DoD Component, hereby, formally request the
transfer of excess real property, from the Department of the Navy (DN), located on
Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California.
2. The excess real property transferred to AAFES will provide for a stand-alone
Distribution Center operation, requirements are as follows:
a. The amount of land identified for transfer is approximately seventy-five
(75) acres.
b. The facilities required for a consolidated mechanized operation are:
(1) Distribution Center 600,000 SF
(2) Administrative Activities 17,000 SF
(3) Organic Vehicle Repair 19,000 SF
(4) Flammable Building 70,000 SF
TOTAL REQUIREMENT 706,000 SF
c. The proposed Distribution Center operation will require approximately 600
employees from the Alameda/Oakland area.
SURE(
FS-S
SUBJECT:
Formal Request for Transfer of Excess Real Properry....
Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California
3. The information required by the DoD Base Reuse Implement= ft...
1995, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.2, to support a DoD Compone-7. r
follows:
a. The completed DD Form 1354, Transfer and Acceptar=.--4"
Property, is provided as Enclosure 1.
b. The subject request does not establish a new program. Tris -- -----
approved by Congress in the Fiscal Year 1995 Nonappropriatet "zinc— --
Commissary Surcharge Construction Program (Enclosure 2).
c. The AAFES real property holdings have been reviewe........d
property cannot satisfy requirements for the Distribution Center
d. The property requested will provide long-term econ=c
substantially reducing operational costs experienced with comr
mission.
e. This program will provide long-term mission requiremeii...-,
period of time.
• f. If the existing facilities on Alameda NAS are
unsatisfactory to provide the long-term AAFES operational ream.
available sites will be considered.
g. The scope of the AAFES requirement has been establisi—t_
West Coast Distribution Center was approved for the Alameda/alai-1'
area in January 1995.
h. Requests from DoD Components do not require an V_ -
and Budget (OMB) waiver for fair-market value. The AAFES vill
approval of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Economic Securri.
FS-S 30 November 1995
SUBJECT: Formal Request for Transfer of Excess Real Property Located on
Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California
1. On the date the property is available for transfer, the AAFES will accept
care and custody costs for the property. Environmental remediation and cleanup
of the property will remain the responsibility of the host DoD component and will
be accomplished under Public Law 103-160.
4. The AAFES is a nonappropriated fund instrumentality (NAFI) component of the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States. In addition, AAFES is a joint
and co-equal command of the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, under the jurisdiction
of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army and the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force. The transfer
of excess real property from the DN to the AAFES is authorized to be executed as
a non-reimbursable transfer. Therefore, the DN shall not be reimbursed the fair-
market value of the property.
5. The Point of Contact for:
a. BRAC issues is Skip ,Avritt, Engineering Program Manager, COM (214)
277-7431, DSN 556-7431, or FAX (214) 277-7364.
b. . Design and construction matters is Robert R. Brill, Special Programs
Engineer, COM (214) 277-7320, DSN 556-7320, or FAX (214) 277-7364.
PETER J. GELO
0,k Colonel, Corps o uneers
Command Engineer
2 Enclosures
•
!d to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
rations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202 -4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, paperwork
8. CONTRACT
NUMBER
ts
Ow
ul in
0 S
cc
a. z
csi
0 C4
<
—I
> <
< 0
Z.....
'
< < 0 LU 0 0
0 Z ca 1- I —I
W 0 W L) 07
< i III
-J 1.- -J LU l''' -J <
LL
CC
..
..".•
....
11.: •'"
tr. -
= -
U.; -""
..
.... .-- ----
"...:.'
.....' -
""
—
■-
—
''''
_
BENF /O
Q PHYSICAL COM
FINAN COM
OTHER (Specify)
REMARKS
26
7. SERIAL NUMBER
TRANSACTION •
0
4* 0 X
F- I-:
Z a <
w a. LI— Z
0
1- U — cr) 2
< <z D
0 1._noo
A. El NEW CONSTR.
El EXISTING FAC.
iiCAPITAL IMP
OTHER (Specify)
DRAWING
NUMBERS
25
6. JOB NUMBER
w
w (..)
z cr LI.2
1— 0 °
l'''' CC
(n w 0 cc
Z W C3 III
0<
Ui F-- • " CC .._ <
N
=
0 a. > • 2 0
fr LLI < d CC X
U.. 0 Z i`-' < U.1
-
5. DATE
1 DECEMBER 1995
cc
0 tli UJ
< < 0 Z
0 u
6 U./
< Z
ri
TOTAL
QUANTITY
23
4. OPERATING
AGENCY
AAFES
12. OPERATING
AGENCY
NAVY
3. DISTRICT
CODE
t-
0
EC w
F- 0
"0
60
•
z o < r4
2. OPERATING
UNIT
AAFES
10. OPERATING
UNIT
NAVY
11,
•• c-,
1-•
L6- V2 0
d z N
Z =
FROM (Installation Activity / Service and Zip code)
HQ AAFES
2727 LBJ FRWY
DALLAS, TEXAS 75234 -0320
.
.
.
:
(
ELD ACTIVITY WEST
ES ENGINEERING COMMAND
1E DRIVE
LIFORNIA 94066 -5006
1
FACILITY
(Category Description)
19
.
CATEGORY
CODE
18
2 •
I- z
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 27, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Selection
of DRI/McGraw Hill for the Alameda Science and Technology Center Feasibility
Study and Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute the
Contract.
Background:
In 1993, prior to the formation of the ARRA, the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and
the Alameda City Council began to review, and later endorsed, a proposal for an Alameda Science
City to assist with the conversion of NAS Alameda. Alameda Science City proposed capitalizing
on the advanced technology and research development strength of the East Bay to establish new and
more expeditious ways to increase technology deployment from universities and national laboratories
into the private sector to provide jobs and increased business opportunities at NAS Alameda.
In November 1994, the ARRA endorsed Alameda Science City and ACET (Alameda Center for
Environmental Technology) as the environmental component of Alameda Science City. At that time,
the ARRA anticipated receiving $2.5 million in federal funding for this effort. The funding was to
come from a $5 million business and development program to support technology centers in
adversely affected communities in the 1995 Defense Authorization Bill signed by President Clinton
on October 6, 1994. Later the ARRA learned that funding for this program was not specifically
included in the 1995 Defense Appropriations Bill.
The ARRA then submitted a funding request for the Alameda Science City /ACET proposal to the
Economic Development Administration (EDA), but after preparing and submitting the grant
application, the ARRA was informed that all of EDA's grant monies for the fiscal year had already
been committed. The ARRA also submitted an unsuccessful grant proposal for $750,000 to OEA
for an Alameda Advanced Technology Center that combined Alameda Science City /ACET and
Alameda Center for Excellence (ACE) - a proposal from the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for
the FISC site.
Rather than fund the proposals already presented to the ARRA and the community, OEA instead
provided $250,000 for a feasibility to study to determine if a science and technology center would
be a viable use at NAS, its size and character. The preferred alternative adopted by the ARRA and
community includes a "place holder" for a science and technology center.
� Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
In the ARRA's October 1995 Budget Amendment, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)
provided $250,000 for an Alameda Science and Technology Center Feasibility Study. OEA
allocated $200,000 for a consultant to be competitively selected and $50,000 for the University of
California faculty and staff to provide technical assistance and participate in the study.
Discussion/Analysis:
On September 22, 1995, the attached ad ran in the Alameda Times Star and the San Francisco
Chronicle. The original deadline for proposals was October 16, 1995; however, numerous
consultants requested additional time and the deadline was extended to October 30, 1995. Also, at
a meeting on September 21 with the EBCRC, the ARRA staff requested that the EBCRC staff
provide a list of consultants the Request for Proposal (RFP) should be sent to; however, the EBCRC
did not send the list until the October 16 deadline. At the September meeting the ARRA also
requested that Evonne Chen of the EBCRC participate on a Review Panel to help select the
consultant to conduct the study.
Over 73 RFPs were mailed, with five consultants responding. A Review Panel consisting of the
ARRA staff, Evonne Chen from the EBCRC, Helen Sause of the BRAG and Dr. Ted Hullar from
the University of California reviewed the proposals and decided to interview all five consultant
teams. Based on the first round of interviews, the Review Panel then decided to invite two teams
back for interviews. Following the final interviews, the majority of the Review Panel selected
DRI/McGraw Hill.
Phase one of the study involves the identification and analysis of various types of technology -based
centers and models of technology transfer. Phase two involves a market assessment and feasibility
analysis of selected science and/or technology transfer centers at the closing Alameda Navy facilities.
Phase three involves a detailed analysis of market and economic development parameters related to
the preferred redevelopment options.
The RFP requested that each proposer document how it addressed the issue of diversity and local
participation. San Francisco -based DRI/McGraw Hill teamed up with ROMA, a woman-owned firm
also based in San Francisco.
Staff recommends approval of DRI/McGraw Hill to conduct the Alameda Science and Technology
Center Feasibility Study contingent on the development of an acceptable scope of work. Work on
the study should begin in January 1996 and is anticipated to take approximately six months to
complete the study.
Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact:
OEA has provided $250,000 for the Alameda Science and Technology Center Feasibility' Study in
the ARRA's October Budget Amendment. Therefore, the only expense for the ARRA is the staff
time to manage this study /contract and the local match requirement, which was accounted for in the
OEA budget submittal.
Honorable Members of the Page 3
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 27, 1995
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA endorse the selection of DRI/McGraw Hill to conduct the
Alameda Science and Technology Center Feasibility Study contingent on the development of an
acceptable scope of work and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute the contract
with DRUMcGraw -Hill.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
ARRA Executive Director
KM:jm
Attachments: Newspaper Ad
Request for Proposal
iam¢aa gim¢s 4far
1616 Oak St. Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 523 -12d0 TS7640
LEGAL NO.
RUBLIC'.NOTICE
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS "'
•
e Alameda Reuse and hedevelopment
'Authority invites proposals by a consultants,
or consultant team . to prepare a feasibility ;•
study: for ati "Alameda- Science and Tech -: •
jnoiogy Center" at the closing ;Alameda*
Naval Air Station. The feasibility study is di-
vided into three parts:a concept delineation,;: -
concept feasibility,': and concept .: develop -s;.
_;. ment. Proposals must .arrive. by noon, Oc -.7, ;
tober,16 1995, to r; :
Kay Miller, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and •
Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
-:.Postal Directory, Building 90
,`Alameda, California 94501 -5012
Phone: (510) 263 -2870
FAX: (510) 521.3764,,::
'A copy of the Request for Proposals mays,
be obtained by calling Julie Mantrom at the ,.
above number. The ARRA encourages parti -.,
cipation. of Disadvantaged Veteran Business
• Enterprises,: Minority Business" Enterprises,, -
Women. Business enterprises,:: and Small,, -,"
l, ' Business ` Enterprises. The ARRA also sup
ports efforts by contractors and subcontrac-
tors •to take affirmative steps to encourage
the participation of these groups
Alameda Times -Star, Legal No. 7640
September 22,1995 ;
RECEIVED
OCT 191995
BASE CONVERSION OFFICE
CITY OF AIA�tEUA
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Case No:
In the matter ofA eda Reuse and Rede:ve opmevL
Authai.atu
An.vi<is...a....racket deposes and
says that he /she was the Public Notice Advertising Clerk of
ALAMEDA TIMES -STAR a newspaper of general circulation
as defined by Government Code Section 6000, adjudicated as,
such by the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda under the date of September 17, 1951, (Case No.
236092) which is published and circulated in Alameda in said
county and state daily and Saturday.
That
the .... Natt.a.e. RRequeist 4O/t. P oposa,JS
of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in every
issue of ALAMEDA TIMES -STAR on the following dates:
.S.e�em b•e�L .:.2 2, ....1.9.9 5
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Date SeptembeA, 22, 1995
at Alameda, California.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AN
ALAMEDA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION
I. INTRODUCTION
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is seeking qualified consulting firms to prepare .a
feasibility study for the development of an "Alameda Science and Technology Center. The Federal Office
of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has allocated up to $200,000 for this study. In addition, OEA will also
contribute $50,000 for the University of California (U.C.) faculty and staff to provide technical assistance and
participate in this study. ARRA staff will manage the U.C. participation in the study.
The attached Scope of Work approved by OEA is divided into three parts. The first part of the study involves
the identification and analysis of various types of technology based centers and models of technology transfer.
The second part involves a market assessment and feasibility analysis of selected science and /or technology
transfer centers at the closing Alameda Navy facilities. The third phase of the work involves detailed analysis
of market and economic development parameters relating to the preferred redevelopment options of a science
and technology center that might be located at the Alameda Navy facilities.
II. BACKGROUND
The ARRA was formed in April 1994 through a "Joint Powers Agreement" between the City of Alameda and
.ne County of Alameda. The ARRA is composed of nine members: the Mayor of Alameda and the four
Alameda City Councilmembers, the Mayors of Oakland and San Leandro, the Board of Supervisors member
representing the Third District, and the United States House of Representatives member representing the Ninth
District.
The ARRA is the local redevelopment authority recognized by the Department of the Defense (DoD) as the
entity responsible for submitting and completing the Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station,
Naval Aviation Depot and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, (herein referred to as "NAS "). (The Alameda
Naval Air Station and Naval Aviation Depot were BRAC 93 base closures, and the Fleet Industrial Supply
Center Alameda was a BRAC 95 closure.) The ARRA is also responsible for taking title to the base lands
conveyed from the federal government, and implementation of the final Reuse Plan.
In June 1994, the ARRA retained a consultant team responsible for the development of the Alameda Naval Air
Station Community Reuse Plan. The Community Reuse Plan is expected to be completed in January 1996 for
submission to the Navy. The preferred alternative currently being refined by the ARRA and the community
includes a "place holder" for a science and technology center. The community and the ARRA will rely on the
results of this feasibility study to help determine if a science and technology center would be a viable use on
the facility, its size and character.
As envisioned here, a science and technology center could assist the conversion of NAS Alameda by
capitalizing on the advanced technology research and development strength of the East Bay; to establish new,
more expeditious ways to increase technology deployment from universities and national laboratories into the
rivate sector; to fuse these new ways with new business formation and with business location and relocation;
and thereby provide jobs and increased business opportunities in the conversion of NAS Alameda.
1
III. CONSULTANT SELECTION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The ARRA is distributing this Request for Proposals (RFP) to consultants, inviting responses to the scope of
work for a feasibility study of an "Alameda Science and Technology Center." The scope of work includes:
assembly and analysis of science center and /or technology transfer mechanisms; a market analysis; a
management and organizational analysis for NAS Alameda; a financial feasibility analysis; and, an
implementation strategy and analysis.
The consultant team will be expected to have expertise in technology transfer and /or science centers, economic
and real estate market analysis, fiscal analysis, and land use planning.
The ARRA will review all responses to the RFP, and will select the consultant with the most technically
competent and complete proposal. The ARRA will be responsible for managing the contract and approving
the feasibility study. Legal services are not anticipated to be part of this contract. The work must be
accomplished at the level of funding provided. Any changes to the scope of work will need to be brought to
the attention of ARRA'S Executive Director for approval. The ARRA will withhold 10% of the payment to
the contractor until it is satisfied with the overall project.
IV. SCOPE OF WORK: ALAMEDA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER
This scope of work is divided into three parts: concept delineation, concept feasibility, and concept
development. The first part of the study involves the exploration and analysis of various types of technology
based research centers and models of technological transfer. The second part involves a market assessment
and feasibility analysis for the location of a new science and /or technology transfer center at the closing
Navy facilities in Alameda. The third phase of the work involves development and refinement of the type
of science and /or technology center that might be located in Alameda, including recommendations on the
organizational structure and preliminary cost estimates for start-up, construction and operation.
Part I. Concept Delineation
What do we know about science centers and technology transfer mechanisms that work?
Task 1.1 Identify, review, analyze, and summarize available information on technology -based research center
models, technology transfer models, and science/industrial parks.
Technology transfer is expected to drive new business formation; however, models for technology transfer
at existing science /industrial parks may not provide the full range of options that should be considered in
conceptualizing a new form of science /technology center for Alameda. Therefore, this task will review a
full range of technology transfer options to be considered in formulating a possible structure for Alameda.
This task will involve establishing a basic typology of science research and /or technology transfer centers,
and devising criteria for evaluating these science /technology transfer centers relative to each other and relative
to science /industrial parks. This will include an examination of such variables as: level of public investment,
degree of self - sufficiency, number of permanent jobs created, organizational models, size and relative amount
of space necessary to support activities, number of spin -off businesses that have been created, etc.
2
Task 1.2 Perform case studies of those science and /or technology centers which seem most suitable for
Alameda.
The list of typologies identified in the previous task will be narrowed down to the three models which
would appear to be most appropriate for implementation at NAS Alameda. More detailed case studies will
then be developed on the three types of science /technology centers and /or science /industrial parks which
seem most promising for Alameda. One center representing each typology will then become the subject of
an intensive case study process.
Task 1.3 Test concepts and secure feedback on possible models from the best sources in the geographic
area.
The typologies and evaluation criteria from Task 1.2 will be further refined through interviews with experts
experienced in development of each of the model types. These interviewees will also be asked to evaluate
the suitability and potential for success of the various model types at NAS Alameda. These sources may
include entrepreneurs, university and national lab officials, venture capitalists, executive for existing
technology -based businesses, real estate developers, lenders and /or government officials.
Deliverable: Alameda Science Center Phase I Report: Concept Delineation
Part II. Concept Feasibility
Does the Alameda Naval Complex appear to be a feasible site for a science /technology transfer center?
Task 2.1 Determine the advantages and disadvantages of the East Bay as a region for a science /technology
transfer center.
To some extent, the relative advantages and disadvantages of a science /technology based center at the
Alameda. Navy facilities could be determined by opportunities in the region. Depending on the typology
developed for Alameda, this task will determine if the Alameda proposal is unique in the region, and include
an analysis of regional incentives and barriers to technology development.
Task 2.2 Determine the advantages and disadvantages of NAS Alameda as a site for this undertaking.
This will include an assessment of principal stimuli and barriers for business location and relocation at the
NAS Alameda site, including an analysis of incentives and barriers to technology development, business
creation in present circumstances including economic incentives and disincentives, housing, education,
transportation, infrastructure, and environmental incentives and disincentives.
Task 2.3 Determine which technologies are available and promising for technology transfer from research
centers in the region.
This task will research the variety of technologies that could be appropriate for the Alameda center given
its proximity to several major research institutions including the University of California (U.C.) and the U.C.
managed national laboratories (e.g., Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley, Sandia, etc.).
3
Task 2.4 Determine current availability and market for commercial /industrial space in the region for
technology -based start -ups.
Identify key factors in the market place in which the Alameda science /technology center would be
competing: annual absorption rates, area's market potential to generate and absorb additional development
of the types being proposed; location characteristics, transportation, circulation, and access; and facility
(building) characteristics. Competition could impact the success of an Alameda science /technology transfer
center and must be considered in evaluating the overall efficacy of the Alameda concept.
Deliverable: Alameda Science Center Phase II Report: Concept Feasibility
Part III. Concept Development
Conceptually, what would an Alameda technology transfer center look like?
Task 3.1 Identify the organizational structure and linkages that would most likely result in success of an
Alameda science center.
This would examine such issues as various organizational forms; legal and administrative constraints and
opportunities; and players needed for success.
Task 3.2 , Develop the land use programmatic and site development requirements for an Alameda
science /technology center.
This task would identify the land use development characteristics essential for the success of an Alameda
science center including the size of the property needed, transportation requirements, infrastructure
requirements, building type and size, site amenities necessary, and potential need for support services and uses.
Task 3.3 Provide preliminary cost estimates for start up development, construction and operational costs
of an Alameda science center.
Estimate program start-up costs, both operational and capital. Identify essential development economic criteria
including: rents, absorption rates, construction requirements and costs. Define costs for on -going implementing
funding. Assess private and public funding constraints and opportunities.
Deliverable: Alameda Science Center Phase III Report: Concept Development
TOTAL BUDGET $200,000
4
V. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals should be single spaced and organized as follows:
• Executive Summary - Demonstrate grasp of RFP; summarize the proposal (maximum 10 pages).
• Scope of Work - Demonstrate grasp of proposal; identify services and /or other products to be
delivered (no page limit).
• Work Program and Schedule - Give details on how work would be performed (no page limit),
and timeline (one page).
• Organization and Personnel - Identify responsible parties and explain how work would be
managed (no page limit); resumes of key people (maximum 3 pages each) including client
references with phone and fax numbers.
• Cost Proposal - (one page).
• Qualifications - Describe and indicate the relevance of background experience and capabilities
(maximum 15 pages per firm or organization); include client references with phone and fax
numbers for relevant work and cost of services delivered. Identify key staff and percent of time
they will be dedicated to this project.
'Boilerplate" materials are not encouraged; if submitted, they must be bound separately from the proposal
itself.
VI. PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Executive Summary. The consultant should demonstrate grasp of RFP, summarize its proposal, indicate
the make up of its team, the work products each consultant will provide, and provide other salient
information.
Description of Consultant and /or Team. Describe the lead firm and /or proposed team of associated
subconsultants stating full name, address, phone and fax numbers of each member. Describe
qualifications, areas of expertise, and past experience of each member. Assuming a team of consultants
is proposed, outline the contractual structure of the team with a clear identification of functional
responsibilities of each firm.
Business Organization of Lead Consultant and /or Team. State the full name and address of the
organization and, if applicable, the branch office that will perform the work. Indicate whether you
operate as an individual, partnership or corporation; if as a corporation, include the state in which you
are incorporated.
Project Manager of Lead Consultant and /or Team. Identify the individual assigned as project manager,
listing complete qualifications and experience. Specify accessibility for interaction with the ARRA
Executive Director and anticipated frequency of contact.
5
Personnel of Each Consultant on the Team (if applicable). Include the number of executive and
professional personnel by skill and qualifications that will be employed in the work for each consultant.
Identify key personnel by name and title. Include resumes for all key participants that will be involved
in the project.
Diversity /Local Participation. 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
as a business providing service to the ARRA, are encouraged to retain businesses in the local
jurisdictions represented by the ARRA. Provide a section on how the consultant proposes to address
this issue.
Proposed Scope of Work/Work Program /Cost Proposal.
1. The consultant response should contain each task with an explanation of how the consultant plans
to approach the task and the steps that will be taken to complete the task. Applicants should
be cautioned that a mere repetition of the tasks taken from the Scope of Work will not be
considered responsive to the RFP. Applicants must demonstrate that they understand the issues
involved, and possess the knowledge and experience in this subject area to technically and
creatively address the issues.
2. Consultants should submit a work plan that identifies personnel to be assigned to each task and
their duty assignments. Each consultant should indicate the professional services they would
provide for a complete and acceptable project. Responses should include:
• A work schedule in chart form and the time schedule for completion of each sub -task and
task.
3. The cost proposal should contain at least the following information:
• The cost for the entire project broken down by sub -tasks as shown on the work schedule.
• Estimated periodic billing based upon the cost of the deliverable items, inclusive of
reimbursables.
Deliverables. Twenty (20) copies of administrative draft reports are required upon completion of each
major part of the project. Following approval by the staff of the ARRA, fifty (50) copies of the final
report are required.
One unbound copy of each final document and a computer disk copy containing all final documents and
all information are to be provided. The consultant will develop a system to assembly, organize, store
and utilize planning data in an electronic format. The consultant will submit the reports and planning
graphics in an acceptable format.
References, Related Experience and Examples of Work. Specify the following: client, location,
consultant firm members (noting, where relevant, past collaborations among participating firms),
participating individuals and role on team (principal, project director, etc.), outline of scope of work,
total fee, schedule, implementation results or status, examples of work, and other relevant information.
6
Indicate client contact, title, address and phone number of each. Provide a list (including staff resources
devoted to the project and status of completion) of all major projects ongoing and planned to which the
consultant is committed during the time frame of this project.
Additional Information and Comments. Include any other information that you believe is pertinent but
is not included elsewhere.
Consultant Agreement. A sample consultant agreement has been provided (Attachment 1) for the
consultants' review. If an applicant wishes to take exception to any of the terms and conditions
contained in the consultant agreement, these should be identified specifically; otherwise it will be
assumed that the applicant is willing to enter into the agreement as it is written. Failure to identify
contractual issues of dispute can later be the basis for the ARRA disqualifying an applicant.
General Qualifications
1. Restrictions on Lobbying
The Agreement will be subject to 24 CFR 87 which prohibits the payment of Federal funds to
any person for influencing or attempting to influence, any public officer or employee in
connection with the award, making, entering into, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment,
or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or agreement.
VII. CONDITIONS OF REQUEST
The ARRA also reserves the right to cancel or reject all or a portion or portions of the request for proposals
without notice. Further, the ARRA makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded to any firm
submitting a proposal.
The ARRA reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted in response to this request or any
addenda thereto. The ARRA also reserves the right to reject any sub - consultant or individual working on a
consultant team and to replace the sub - consultant or individual with a mutually acceptable replacement.
Any changes to the proposal requirements will be made by written addendum.
The ARRA shall not be liable for any costs incurred in response to this request for proposals. All costs shall
be borne by the person or organization responding to the request. The person or organization responding to
the request shall hold the ARRA harmless from any and all liability, claim or expense whatsoever incurred by
or on behalf of that person or organization.
No prior, current or post -award verbal agreement(s) with any officer, agency or employee of the ARRA shall
affect or modify any terms or obligations of this request for proposals or any contract or option resulting from
this process.
All proposals must be valid for at least 90 days.
The selected lead consultant will be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal
whether or not they possess them within their organization. The selected lead consultant will be the sole point
of contact with regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the
contract.
7
VIII. CRITERIA FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION
The ARRA will review and select the most qualified proposal based on the following factors:
Abilit of the Lead Consultant to Desi
n
an A
roach and Work Plan to Meet the Pro'ect
Requirements. An assessment of the overall quality of the proposal. (A mere repetition of the tasks
taken from the Scope of Work will not be considered responsive to the RFP.) Qualities and indicators
that will receive consideration include the firm's performance in converting the Scope of Work into a
detailed work plan; the detail, clarity and understanding of the discussion as to the applicant's approach
to undertaking the project; the firm's performance in identifying any special problems or opportunities
which may be associated with the project, and the preliminary ideas about how these should be
addressed; the inclusion of any unique approaches; and the demonstrated ability to work with
government bodies and a full understanding of applicable laws or regulations that relate to the project.
Ability of the Lead Consultant to Carry Out and Manage the Proposed Project. An assessment of the
past experience of the firm in this specific area of study. Qualities and indicators that will receive
consideration include the number and types of projects the film or its employees have completed; the
variety of projects completed and a demonstration of the firm's ability to undertake a range of differing
projects; the general level of experience in the areas of supervision, observing and monitoring projects;
the firm's ability to realize timetables and quality control objectives; and the demonstrated general
ability to bring about a successful completion of the projects under the firm's direction; and
demonstrated ability to successfully integrate work by others. Also, a description of the financial
history of the including the number of years in business.
Capabilities of the Consultant Film and /or Team. Assessment of the capabilities of the firms and
individuals that will be engaged in the project. Demonstrated understanding of the issues involved.
Knowledge and experience in this subject area. Qualities and indicators that will receive consideration
include what professionals will be doing /working on each task; the various professional, technical, and
educational achievements and registrations of each firm and individuals involved; the size,
diversification and depth of personnel; the overall experience of each firm; the applicable experience
of the proposed assigned staff; and the specific experience gained on similar projects.
Current Workload of the Consultant Firm and /or Team. An assessment of the perceived ability of each
consultant to devote the necessary human resources and management attention to the project. Qualities
and indicators that will receive consideration include the number and size of the projects presently being
performed by each firm and the assigned staff; the status of existing projects with respect to completion
timetables; the status of personnel to be assigned to the project; the number and type of projects that
would be concurrently undertaken by the assigned staff; the past ability of the firm to deliver projects
on a timely basis; and the nature of existing projects that are behind schedule or past the completion
date.
Proximity to the Project Involved for the Consultant and /or Team. The application of this criteria shall
include an assessment of the geographic proximity to the project; the location of the office from which
the proposed project will be administered; the use, role and location of any correspondent or branch
offices; the name /qualifications of the project manager; the perceived response time and general
availability of the firm's management to be on site; the perceived effect that project management
location will have on price and the ability of the project to be expedited on a timely basis; and the
availability of special travel or communication plans which would effectively mitigate difficulties
associated with location.
8
IX. PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND DELIVERY
fen copies of the proposal should be submitted at the following address no later than noon, October 16, 1995.
Proposals will not be accepted after this time. Proposals shall be addressed as follows:
Kay Miller, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, California 94501 -5012
Contact Person:
Julie Mantrom
(510) 263 -2870 - Phone
(510) 521 -3764 - FAX
Hand carried proposals will be accepted in Building 90, Naval Air Station Alameda, California.
have been provided in Attachment 2.)
(Directions
X. SELECTION SCHEDULE
Finalist will be invited to an oral interview on Thursday, October 26, 1995. Estimated start date will be
November 6, 1995.
XI. INFORMATION REQUESTS
Copies of the ARRA's consultant reports — centered around land use issues at NAS Alameda —are available for
review (by appointment) at the ARRA's office in Building 90 or can be purchased from the Alameda Copymat
(510) 522 -2679, 2236 Mariner Square Drive, Alameda, California 94501. (Attachment 3 is a list of ARRA
consultant reports and the cost for reproduction.) The consultant reports are also available for review at the
Alameda City Library (510) 748 -4660.
9
Attachment 2
Directions to Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Building 90, Alameda Naval Air Station
(510) 263 -2870
From San Francisco and North Bay:
Take 80 to Oakland, 880/580 East to 980 West (Downtown Oakland). on Webster This
tunnel to Alamedaan Jose).
the Jackson St. off -ramp. Left on Jackson, left on 8th St., left
San Jose and Peninsula:
Take 880 North to Oakland. Exit at Broadway. Right at Broadway and 7th. Right on Webster and through
tunnel to Alameda.
From Walnut Creek:
Take 24 to Oakland. This becomes 980 and joins 880 in Oakland. Take a the Jackson St. off -ramp. Left on
Jackson, left on 8th St., left on Webster St. and through tunnel to Alameda.
in Alameda:
Turn right on Atlantic St. (first light out of tube). Turn right ud onAhacks. Ave.
Buildi g 90 w 1 be on your fight
(cross Main St.) as if entering Naval Air Station through guard
before guard shacks..
Attachment 3
LIST OF CONSULTANT REPORTS
Reconnaissance Phase Report
October 1994
Phase 2 Report Conditions and Trends
January 1995
Public Involvement Report - Phases I and II
March 1995
Interim Reuse Strategy - Public Review Draft
March 1995
Long Range Alternative Analysis
August 199.5
Consultant Reports can be purchased from :
Copymat
2236 Mariner Square Drive
Alameda, CA 94051
Tel: (510) 522 -2679
Contact: Terry McSweeny
$13.30
$42.00
$15.00
$15.00
$ 9.52
Revised 12/13/95
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 27, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the
Transportation, Open Space and Conservation, and Health and Safety, and Imple-
mentation Elements (including Strategy and Financial Analyses, Homeless
Assistance Component [with Legally Binding Agreement], and Implementation
Action Plan) of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan.
Background:
The elements presented in this meeting of the ARRA are the final four components of the
Community Reuse Plan. As discussed over the past three months, the Community Reuse Plan
consists of individual chapters or "elements" that parallel the elements required of 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 components include a recommended land disposal strategy,
a homeless element, an interim reuse strategy, and specific implementation recommendations
relating to base closure and reuse.
Portions of the plan have been presented to the ARRA for endorsement over the past three months.
In this way the ARRA has become familiar with the contents of the Community Reuse Plan and has
provided input and direction to the staff, the consultants and the BRAG in the process of developing
the final Draft Plan. The ARRA's endorsement and recommendations on individual elements allow
the consultant and staff to make any necessary changes and adjustments to the draft Reuse Plan
before its final adoption at the ARRA's special meeting scheduled for January 31, 1996.
At the last two ARRA meetings the Board endorsed five sections of the Draft Community Reuse
Plan: the Introduction (including the Goals and Objectives and the Disposal Strategy), the Land Use
Element, the City Design Element, and the Parks and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and
Cultural Facilities Element. The elements presented to the ARRA at this meeting are the
Transportation Element (Chapter 4), the Open Space and Conservation Element (Chapter 5), the
Health and Safety Element (Chapter 7), and the Implementation Strategy (Chapters 9 and 10). Note
that the implementation strategy was divided into two chapters to make it smaller and easier to read.
Chapter 10 is a summary of all implementation actions.
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 2
The Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) has reviewed these four elements at their special
meeting of December 20. All the changes and additions recommended by the BRAG have been
incorporated into the Draft Elements being considered by the ARRA.
Discussion:
The Community Reuse Plan is not a City General Plan, nor a zoning map for the NAS Alameda and
FISC sites. Land use regulatory authority rests with the City of Alameda and changes or
amendments will be required to the Alameda t the federal requirements
for base reuse and transfer
Reuse Plan is a legal document necessary •
of NAS Property to the local reuse authority (the ARRA), other federal agencies, and Public Benefit
recipients. The Community Reuse Plan
and serves rves the basis for the intentions for reuse and its Record
redevelopment of the NAS and FISC sites
of Decision for Base Transfer, the City of Alameda's General Plan Changes, formation of a
Redevelopment District, and as a guide for interim reuse of existing buildings.
While the Reuse Plan is not a General Plan, the Community Reuse Plan does serve as a guide for
changes to the City's General Plan and land use regulations. These regulations will have to be
adopted through a City of Alameda planning process after completion of the EIR/EIS and the Navy's
Record of Decision (approximately April 1997). The City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
the legal documents that establish land entitlements (allowable uses and development intensities)
and provide assurances to property owners on the legally permitted uses for the redevelopment and
reuse of individual parcels at NAS and FISC sites.
Transportation Element
The Transportation Element of the Community Reuse Plan outlines the guiding policies in text,
diagrams, and a land use map for a full range of transportation systems associated with the reuse and
redevelopment of NAS Alameda. These transportation systems include the roadway network for
autos, buses, trucks, and bicycles; pedestrian and bicycle trails, paths, and routes; and other systems
such as the Alameda ferry service and planning for potential future light -rail. The transportation
goals and policies of the plan encourage alternative modes of transportation and discourage exclusive
use of autos in the reuse of the base. Every effort is made to create a land use pattern and supporting
transportation networks to reduce energy consumption and traffic on the existing roadway system.
Open Space and Conservation Element
The Open Space and Conservation Element provides the policies, text and diagrams governing the
location, character, and types of land for use as open spaces and conservation areas. A major area
designated for open space and conservation is the Least Tem Wildlife Refuge. As of the time of
writing this staff report, the ARRA has not received a formal reply on the issues related to the
wildlife refuge from the Department of Interior. While the plan identifies the goal of providing for
a wildlife refuge, the exact size and shape of the area has not yet been determined. In any case, the
size of the wildlife refuge will not be less than 390 acres.
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
Health and Safety Element
The Health and Safety Element includes policies and direction for the protection of the community
from both natural and human induced disasters. This element is one of the sections mandated by
State law for a City General Plan. The element considers seismic, geologic, and soil hazards, fire
hazards, flooding, hazardous materials, magnetic fields, and emergency management. Due to the
City of Alameda's flat topography, its built -up character, and its location, slope failure, wild land
fires and dam failure are not considered threats in Alameda.
Implementation Strategy
The Implementation Strategy outlines policy direction on a number of major implementation issues
including: personal property disposition for the reuse of industrial and business equipment on the
base, infrastructure improvements and costs, a fmancing strategy for infrastructure and public service
costs, a preliminary phasing strategy, an interim reuse strategy, a homeless assistance element which
meets the requirements of the Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, and a marketing program. Finally,
the Implementation section includes a summary of all the recommended plan actions identified in
the Implementation Action Plan. This Action Plan was separated into a new chapter (Chapter 10)
to help simplify the plan document and make it easier to read.
Homeless Assistance Element (Includes Legally Binding Agreement)
As required by the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Act of 1994
(Redevelopment Act), the Homeless Assistance Element provides information on the homeless
situation in the community, documents the outreach and public process through which the homeless
were accommodated, and includes the Legally Binding Agreement that the ARRA will enter into
with each homeless provider. When the Community Reuse Plan is submitted for approval to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and DoD, the Legally Binding Agreement
will be included in the appendix to the Homeless Assistance Element along with other
documentation of the homeless assistance process. Because the Legally Binding Agreement is a new
document that the ARRA has not seen before, it has been included here for the ARRA's
consideration.
The draft Legally Binding Agreement was prepared by the ARRA General Counsel's Office with
the assistance of a team that included the ARRA staff, the Housing and Community Development
Department of Alameda County, and representatives from the Alameda County Housing Providers
Base Conversion Collaborative (Homeless Collaborative).
The Redevelopment Act allows for either title transfer to the homeless providers or a lease. HUD
requires that the Legally Binding Agreement be in the form of a lease or a .title transfer, not a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the "Standards of Reasonableness" that outline the
ARRA's homeless accommodation, the homeless providers agreed to a lease rather than taking title
to the property.
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4
The Legally Binding Agreement is presented as a Draft lease agreement that will outline the major
issues and terms of the lease with each homeless provider. As presented, there would be a single
Legally Binding Agreement with attachments for each individual homeless provider. Most of the
program - specific details will not be available until after the Navy has completed the Record of
Decision (ROD) and Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) sometime in 1997. At that time,
individual parts of the Legally Binding Agreement will come back to the ARRA for approval to be
signed. The Legally Binding Agreement includes the process for determining the term of each lease;
compliance with all permits and codes; payment of fees; development of "Design, Development, and
Management Standards "; and a dispute resolution process.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no immediate fiscal impact of endorsement of the draft plan elements. 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.
The consultants' fiscal impact analysis indicates that the proposed Land Use Plan would ultimately
(at full build -out) have a net positive fiscal balance to the City of Alameda. This analysis used
conservative assumptions for build -out levels and service costs and is calculated on a very general
land use level. As more detailed analysis is prepared during the implementation stage, a more
finalized and detailed picture of the costs- revenue balance will be prepared. Conclusions of this
analysis, provided in the Implementation Strategy, indicate that the proposed land uses would, in the
long run, pay for the overall costs on an annual basis of public services provided by the City of
Alameda. However, the analysis also indicates that this net positive balance allows for only a 4
percent surplus in revenues to pay for expenses. In recommending approval of this element, the
BRAG noted that this surplus margin is too low and that the ARRA should strive to maintain at least
a 10 percent surplus of revenues in planning the base.
While the Plan provides for a positive balance in the long run (at ultimate build -out), in the short run
(5 -10 years) infrastructure development and public service costs will most likely exceed therevenue
available to pay for these costs. In particular, the up -front costs of providing necessary infrastructure
improvements to the old systems (streets, electric, gas, storm drainage, water, sewer) and the near
term police and fire protection service costs exceed the revenue to pay for them. Thus, a critical part
of paying for these services is developing a reuse strategy that stages development in phases over a
longer period of time. Sale of some sites in the early phases may provide funding to help pay for
necessary infrastructure improvements and community facilities (parks, fire station, community arts
center, etc.). In addition, the potential of new development occurring at the base would dramatically
impact its ability to pay for needed services.
A Summary of the financial analysis indicates total infrastructure improvements of approximately
$185,000,000. Note: this is adjusted down from the original estimate of $217,000,000 which was
based on the preferred alternative plan which included more development areas. Total infrastructure
costs include more than $4,790,000 for capital improvements in the first five years and another
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5
$71,000,000 in cyclic replacement costs over the next 10- 15- year period. Other capital costs for
infrastructure improvements over a 20 -year period are estimated at $107,307,000.
The Implementation Element (Chapter 9) of the Community Reuse Plan outlines a "Financing
Strategy" that identifies other potential financing mechanisms to help offset the projected cost of
services and infrastructure improvements typically paid by local taxes. The Financing Strategy is
a general policy document. Further details and implementation mechanisms will be outlined in the
next phases of the reuse planning process and the ARRA application for an Economic Development
Conveyance (EDC). The EDC is scheduled to be completed in 1996. It will include a market study,
a business plan, a more detailed phasing plan, and details of implementation mechanisms.
It is anticipated that a large portion of the needed development cost would be financed through
standard redevelopment mechanisms —paid for by redevelopment projects and through the sale or
leaseback of property and buildings to new business, and the use of tax increment financing (TIF).
The costs for infrastructure improvements to be covered by the City of Alameda or the ARRA could
be paid for through a number of financing mechanisms. However, the most significant financial
burden on the City of Alameda and the ARRA will be the financing of infrastructure improvements
(building demolition, utilities, and building improvements for lease) and public services (police and
fire) in the near term (first five years), when the City and ARRA have the least resources to pay for
them. It is critical that a Redevelopment District is formed and sites identified for early sale and
redevelopment in the private sector. Even if staged over the next fifteen years, it will be difficult to
pay for infrastructure improvements without significant assistance through state or federal aid (EDA
grants, federal guaranteed loans, or state revolving loans).
Ongoing more detailed planning and implementation tasks will likely include the formation of a
Redevelopment District for NAS Alameda (FISC is already within an existing City Redevelopment
District) and the development of the Economic Development Conveyance application (EDC). The
EDC will include a market study, detailed development plans for selected early development sites,
a cashflow model for redevelopment, and a more detailed business plan for the EDC application.
In addition, the ARRA will undertake a Port Development Application for the NAS piers and new
marina area that will include further market and business plans for this portion of the site.
Furthermore, a detailed infrastructure analysis and phasing plan now underway will be completed
in the next fiscal year.
If, in preparing the EDC application and business plan, it is determined that it is impractical to
redevelop the site under current financing mechanisms, staff will provide alternative direction and
recommendation for the ARRA for disposition of the base property.
Environmental Review:
Endorsement of these elements of the Community Reuse Plan does not constitute a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Transportation Element, the Open Space and
Conservation Element, the Health and Safety Element, and the Implementation Strategy are part of
the ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda for
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 6
possible future actions and is, therefore, "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18,
Section 15262). The Navy will prepare an EIS/EIR on the ARRA's recommended Community
Reuse Plan. Findings and conclusions of the EIS/EIR will inform the Secretary of the Navy's
Record of Decision and serve as the basis for the City of Alameda's General Plan Update. Every
effort has been made to prepare a Community Reuse Plan that incorporates potential environmental
impacts into the final plan document thus creating a "mitigated plan." Additional changes or
mitigation may be necessary as identified in the EIS/EIR and will be incorporated in the Navy's
ROD and the City of Alameda's General Plan changes.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the ARRA endorse, by motion, the four additional elements of the
Community Reuse Plan—the Transportation Element, the Open Space and Conservation Element,
the Health and Safety Element, and the Implementation Strategy —and give any appropriate
recommendations or directions to the staff, the consultant team, and the BRAG for changes,
alterations, and additions for inclusion in the final draft Community Reuse Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DP /dpt
Attachments: Planning Elements
Draft Legally Binding Agreement
C:\ Office \Pauldocs\ARRA\Memo95\mem 12 -26.95
OUTLINE OF TOPICS THAT SHOULD BE COVERED IN A
LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT AND PROPERTY LEASE
AMONG THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY, THE ALAMEDA COUNTY HOUSING PROVIDERS BASE CONVERSION
COLLABORATIVE,
and
EACH SERVICE PROVIDER WHO WILL LEASE PROPERTY
AT NAS ALAMEDA
Special Note on the Type Faces used in this document:
Most of the provisions of this document reflect the actual language proposed for the
final agreements with Homeless Providers at NAS. Several provisions, however,
indicate a description of what the final language should include rather than providing
the actual proposed language. This is because (a) some issues that need to be included
will not be addressed for several months, or (b) a specific provision is program - specific
and will be written specially for each individual Provider. The sections of this
agreement that are descriptions of language to be drafted later are shown in italic type.
Actual proposed language is provided in regular type.
This legally binding agreement and property lease [hereinafter the Agreement] is entered on
, 199_ by and among the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, a joint powers
authority formed under California '`'law, [hereinafter ARRA], Alameda County, through its
Department of Housing and Community Development, a political subdivision of the State of
Californ ia [hereinafter HCD] the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion
Collaborative, a , [hereinafter the Collaborative], and [listed here will be the
formal names of homeless service provider and its legal capacity ] [hereinafter individually referred
to as the Provider and collectively as the Providers]. Collectively all the signatories to this
Agreement are referred to as the parties.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of
1994 (the Redevelopment Act) requires that reasonable accommodations be made on closing military
bases to meet the needs of the homeless and the Redevelopment Act further sets forth procedures
and standards describing how such accommodations are to be made; and
WHEREAS, the Collaborative was formed in 1994 to enable social service and housing
providers who are serving the homeless of Alameda County to work in concert to access former
federal military property; and
1
WHEREAS, in February of 1995 the ARRA recognized the Collaborative as the official
organization representing homeless interests in the reuse process for the Alameda Naval Air Station
(NAS); and
WHEREAS, HCD has provided substantial assistance to the Collaborative by allocating staff
resources to aid in administrative matters, to facilitate financing and to provide other technical
assistance for the programs at the base that will provide valuable and essential services to homeless
persons in Alameda County; and
WHEREAS, a team representing public and nonprofit agencies, including current and
prospective homeless service providers working with the Collaborative, negotiated a statement of
policies and standards called the Standards of Reasonableness and these Standards delineate
reasonable uses of property at the Naval Air Station for provision of services to the homeless,
including provision of housing, jobs, economic development activity and occupancy and capital
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the ARRA found that the Standards of Reasonableness meet the requirements
of the Redevelop -ment Act to accommodate the needs of the homeless in balance with the other
needs that must be met, in particular by providing a mechanism to assure that specifically identified
types of facilities would be assigned to homeless service providers without specifying particular
structures to be used by each provider, thereby eliminating, the possibility that environmental
concerns at a particular site would adversely affect a specific program; and
and
WHEREAS, the ARRA formally approved the Standards of Reasonableness on May 3, 1995;
WHEREAS, following negotiation and adoption of the Standards of Reasonableness, the
parties negotiated and developed the terms set forth in this Agreement to implement the Standards
and comply with the requirement in federal law that a proposed form of a legally binding agreement
involving property to be used by homeless service providers be forwarded together with the
Community Reuse Plan; and
WHEREAS, the ARRA has formally approved this Agreement on
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, and promises described in
this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Property Leased (the "Premises ")
(a) Description of Leased Property. This provision must describe the precise real property,
personal property, and equipment (f any) being leased Some form of exhibit will be necessary for
each entity that will occupy real property. A diagrammatic exhibit is usually satisfactory, though
a legal description may be necessary in some cases. Any joint use (such as of a parking lot) will also
need to be described and an exhibit prepared. Personal property and equipment included in a lease,
if any, will probably be described in a separate exhibit.
All of the property being leased, including the real property and any personal property and
any equipment is referred to in this Agreement as the Premises.
2
(b) Preconditions. Any qualifications or conditions to the requirement to lease the described
property must be set out. These might include environmental clearance by Navy or completion of
retrocession by the State Lands Commission. This section will not be necessary if there are no
preconditions left to be met when the Agreement is actually signed by the parties.
2. Term of the Lease; Date for Commencing Program Operation
(a) Term of the Lease and Possession of the Premises. The term of this lease shall
commence after issuance of the Record of Decision (the ROD) if a Finding of Suitability to Lease
(FOSL) has previously been made or upon issuance of the FOSL if it succeeds the ROD. If
possession of the Premises is explicitly made conditional upon the occurrence of any action
described in subsection 1(b), and that act follows the issuance of the ROD or the FOSL if later, the
term of the lease shall commence upon the occurrence of that action. The ARRA agrees to take all
actions necessary and advisable to expedite completion of decisions and actions that are required to
make the Premises available to Provider.
(b) Prepossession Joint Inspection of Premises. Following execution of this Agreement and
before the term of the lease begins, representatives of ARRA and the Provider shall conduct a joint
inspection of the Premises to determine whether substantial rehabilitation of the premises is required
as set forth in the Standards of Reasonableness. If substantial rehabilitation is required, the ARRA
shall provide a written confirmation of that fact to Provider within one (1) month of the date the
inspection called for herein.
(c) Date for Commencing Program Operation. Provider shall occupy the Premises and begin
operating its program in accordance with the following:
(1) Provider shall commence program operation within one (1) year of the date upon
which the term of the lease begins and Provider takes possession of the property unless Provider
must accomplish substantial rehabilitation of the Premises and that fact has been confirmed by the
ARRA in writing, in which case Provider must commence program operation within two (2) years
of the date upon which the term of the lease begins and Provider takes possession of the property.
(2) Provider must apply for and obtain all permits, licenses, and permissions required
to occupy and use the Premises for the purposes set forth in this Agreement before occupying the
Premises. Such permits, licenses, permissions shall include but not be limited to a certificate
of occupancy from the City of Alameda.
(3) After obtaining a certificate of occupancy, if one is required, and before
occupying the Premises, representatives of ARRA and the Provider shall conduct a joint inspection
of the Premises for the following purposes:
(A) To assure that all pre- occupancy conditions applicable to the proposed
use, including but not limited to the conditions of any Use Permit or other City of Alameda planning
approval and the conditions or restrictions on the use of property that result from the federal
Environmental Baseline Survey and the Finding of Suitability to Lease have been met; and
3
of occupancy.
(B) To provide a record of the condition of the property at the commencement
(d) Date Lease Expires. This date will be tied to financing for individual Providers as is set
out in the Standards of Reasonableness. It is anticipated that the time periods will run for as long
as 59 years for some programs. The time periods are likely to be tied to the fact that many programs
will be funded by syndicated tax credits which run at least 55 years, and may run 59 years under
some circumstances.
3. Consideration for Use of Property
(a) No Lease Payments. The consideration for the possession and occupancy of the
Premises is use of the property to provide services to the homeless in satisfaction of the provisions
of the Redevelopment Act. In compliance with the Redevelopment Act, no monetary consideration
in the nature of rent or lease payments is required or provided for in this Agreement.
(b) Other Consideration. Although Provider need not, make any payments in the nature of
rent or lease payments, certain payments connected with the use of the Premises must be made by
Provider as consideration for the use of the Premises, as follows:
(1) Taxes, Assessments, and Fees. Provider shall pay any and all taxes, assessments,
and fees levied upon the Premises or its possession, use, and occupancy of the Premises.
(A) Taxes. Without limiting the foregoing, Provider shall pay any and all
property taxes, including possessory interest taxes, that may be levied upon it because of its
possession and use of the Premises and any income and excise tax, including employment taxes, that
may be imposed upon it by any taxing entity.
(B) Assessments. The obligation of the tenant program to pay property
assessment, including the proposed Public Service Assessment if imposed upon the Provider, will
be described here.
(C), Fees. The obligations of Provider to pay the proposed Capital
Improvement Impact Fee and any other fees (such as Building Inspection and Use Permit and other
Planning Department fees) will be set out here.
(2) Utility Charges
(A) Provider shall pay capital facilities or hookup charge imposed by any
utility providing service to the Premises.
(B) Provider shall pay any and all monthly service charges for utility service
provided 'to the Premises.
(3) Maintenance Expenses. Provider shall pay for all required maintenance of the
Premises and neither the ARRA, HCD, nor the Collaborative shall have any obligation to perform
or pay any maintenance expenses. The standards of maintenance required for the Premises are
4
described as a portion of the Design, Development, and Management Standards described in section
6 of this Agreement.
(4) Capital Improvements.
(A) Provider shall pay for any substantial rehabilitation, improvements
required to make structure habitable for initial occupancy, or any approved Provider - requested
modifications made to the Premises.
(B) Provider shall pay for any improvements required to keep the Premises
habitable, as well as any approved Provider - requested modifications made to the Premises.
(c) No Obligation of ARRA. In addition to the costs and expenses described in paragraph
3(b) above, the Provider shall pay any and all other expenses that may be incurred in using the
Premises. The ARRA, the County, and the Collaborative shall have no obligation to pay any costs
or expenses relating to the Premises whatsoever.
4. Assignment and Subletting
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) through (3) below, no assignments, assumptions,
or subleases of any kind shall be permitted.
(1) The Provider may make an assignment or permit an assumption of this
Agreement one time within six (6) months following Provider's execution of this Agreement to a
separate legal entity formed by the Provider for the sole or principal purpose of delivering the
services at the property described in Exhibit A. Such assignment shall be effective only if the ARRA
and HCD approve the assignment, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(2) The Provider may make an assignment, assumption, or transfer in lieu of
foreclosure that is compelled by the Provider's financing. Such assignment, assumption or transfer
shall be effective only if approved by the ARRA and HCD. In addition to other considerations that
may affect the decision to approve an assignment, assumption or transfer, the ARRA and HCD shall
consider whether it is compelled by the Provider's financing and whether the resulting use of the
Premises will be consistent with and fulfill the purposes of the Redevelopment Act and the reasons
for entering into this Agreement with Provider.
(3) Subleases of portions of the Premises are permitted if made in strict compliance
with explicit authorization to sublet described in Exhibit A. Any limitations, preconditions, or
conditions on the authority to sublet that are described in Exhibit A must be complied with at all
times.
5 Use of Property
(a) Description of the use to which the property can be put.
(b) Specific prohibitions of property use. A common prohibition is storage of hazardous
materials except where used in connection with permitted activities [maintenance work, for
instance] .
5
(c) Identification of limitations of conditional uses that may be made of the property.
Examples might be limitations on:
(1) signing
(2) storage of dangerous materials that do not fall into the hazardous category
(3) use that would alter character of the leased property or damage it so that it could
not be used by another similar provider
(4) use in strict compliance with use permit and any other permit o]
a state day care license) issued for the tenant program.
license (such as
(d) Licenses. If a license of any kind, including evidence of registration, is required of any
Provider, its employees, agents or subcontractors by federal or state law, including by way of
example and not by way of limitation, a license to operate a day care facility, a license to practice
one of the healing arts, or a license to operate a motor vehicle, to carry out an activity Provider
intends to undertake or is undertaking, Provider warrants that it has or will obtain the required
license before undertaking the activity for which the license is required and that it will keep the
license in good standing during all the time the license is required and that it will post and maintain
any applicable bond in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
6. Design, Development and Management Standards
(a) The Collaborative and the Provider have heretofore jointly prepared performance
standards governing the design, development and management (Design, Development and
Management Standards) for the Provider's program and have submitted them to the ARRA for its
approval with this Agreement.
(b) The Design, Development, and Management Standards include provisions covering all
of the following:
(1) All of the design, development, and management requirements included as a
condition of any government approval, permit, or license shall be included in or incorporated by
reference into the Design, Development, and Management Standards.
(2) To the extent not addressed in paragraph (b)(1) above, the Design, Development,
and Management Standards shall address each of the following:
(A) Standards of maintenance for the Premises, including but not limited to,
standards for maintaining landscaping, any outside storage, pavement and grounds, trash and
recycling containers, pest control program, plumbing, heating and other electrical systems, exterior
building appearance, and the roof of all structures that are a part of the Premises.
(B) A Management Plan for the program including provision for on -site staff
if appropriate, house rules, care of domestic pets, and other similar matters.
6
(3) A process for reviewing the adequacy and appropriateness of the Standards and
providing for revisions as changes in time and circumstances require. The process for revising the
Standards has been reviewed and approved by the ARRA upon consultation with HCD.
(4) The Design, Development and Management Standards have been approved by
the ARRA and are attached as Exhibit B to this Agreement.
(5) Dispute Resolution. If a dispute arises regarding the application or interpretation
of the Design, Development and Management Standards during the term of Provider's possession
and use of the Premises, the following procedure shall be followed:
(A) Initial Meeting of an ARRA Staff Member and a Representative of the
Provider. The staff member of the Provider designated by it to administer the program being
operated at the Premises shall request a meeting with the staff member who has been designated by
the ARRA as the contract administrator for this Agreement to discuss the dispute. If a resolution
to the dispute is reached as a result of this meeting, the resolution shall be reduced to writing and
shall be signed by both the ARRA staff member and the Provider's representative.
(B) Review of Written Statements of Unresolved Disputes. If resolution of
the dispute is not reached as a result of the meeting, described in subparagraph 6(b)(5)(A) above, the
ARRA staff member and the Provider's representative shall state in writing the nature of the dispute
as each understands it and shall submit the written statement to the Manager of HCD or such other
HCD staff member as has been designated to act on behalf of the M anager for purposes of this
process (hereinafter the HCD Manager) and the Housing Development Manager of the City of
Alameda or such other representative of the City as has been designated to act on its behalf for
purposes of this process (hereinafter the City Representative) within five (5) calendar days of the
meeting held pursuant to subparagraph 6(b)(5)(A).
(i) Resolution Reached Following Review of Written Statements. If
the HCD Manager and the City Representative agree on a resolution of the dispute, they shall
communicate the resolution in writing signed by both and provide the written resolution to the
and the Provider within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the written statements from the
ARRA staff member and the Provider representative.
(ii) No Resolution Reached Following Review of Written Statements.
If the HCD Manager and the City Representative do not agree on a resolution of the dispute, they
shall advise the ARRA and the Provider of that fact and of the need to have an additional meeting
as described below.
(C) Meeting with the HCD Manager and City Representative to Consider the
Dispute. If either the ARRA staff member or the Provider representative disagrees with the written
resolution reached by the HCD Manager and the City Representative under subparagraph 6(b)(5)(B),
or if the HCD Manager and the City Representative did not reach an agreed resolution of the dispute
under that provision, a meeting of the ARRA staff member and the Provider representative together
with the HCD Manager and the City Representative shall be held to further consider the dispute.
7
(i) Meeting Following Disagreement with a Resolution Reached by
the HCD Manager and the City Representative. If a meeting of the ARRA staff member, Provider
representative, HCD Manager, and City Representative is to be held following a resolution of the
dispute reached by the Manager and the City Representative because either the ARRA staff member
of the Provider representative disagrees with the resolution reached by the HCD Manager and the
City Representative, the request for such meeting shall be made within three (3) business days of
receiving notice of the result of the HCD Manager and City Representative's consideration of the
matter and the meeting shall occur within five (5) business days of receiving the request.
(ii) Meeting Following Failure of the HCD Manager and City
Representative to Reach a Resolution to the Dispute. If a meeting among the ARRA staff member,
Provider representative, HCD Manager, and City Representative is to be held because the HCD
Manager and City Representative failed to reach a joint resolution to the dispute, the HCD Manager
and City Representative shall schedule the further meeting to occur within five (5) business days of
their initial meeting to consider the matter and shall notify the ARRA staff member and the
Provider's representative of the date for the further meeting.
(iii) Parties to the Further Meeting; Participation of a Fifth Person
Trained in Dispute Resolution. The further meeting shall include a representative of the ARRA and
one of the Provider, who may but need not be the persons who attended the initial meeting, the HCD
Manager, the City Representative, and a neutral person trained and skilled in dispute resolution who
is selected by the HCD Manager and City Representative. Unless the ARRA and the Provider agree
to the contrary, the services of the neutral third person shall be provided without cost to either of
them.
(D) The HCD Manager, City Representative, and third person shall reach a
resolution of the dispute and shall communicate it in writing to the representatives of the ARRA and
the Provider who participated in the meeting with them within five (5) business days of the meeting.
(E) Written Resolution of a Dispute Shall Indicate Actions to be Taken and
Consequence for Failure to Do So. Any written resolution of a dispute reached pursuant to this
section, whether the resolution involves the participation only by ARRA staff and a representative
of the Provider or involves participation of others, shall state specifically what action shall be taken
and what action shall be refrained from being taken. If relevant, the written resolution shall
specifically identify who is to be involved in effecting the resolution, how it is to be accomplished,
and when particular actions are to be taken. In all cases the written resolution shall indicate the
consequences of a failure to comply with the written resolution. Notification of third parties,
including but not limited to lenders or other parties with a financial interest in the Premises, may be
included as a part of the resolution of a dispute. No resolution of a dispute reached under paragraph
6(b)(5) of this Agreement may alter, amend, or revise the terms of this Agreement.
(F) Dispute Resolution Process is Cumulative to Other Processes that Must
or May be Followed. The dispute resolution process described in subparagraphs 6(b)(5)(A) through
(F) of this section shall be cumulative and available in addition to any other process or procedure that
may or must be used to address the matter involved in the dispute.
8
(G) Consequence of Failure of Provider to Follow Dispute Resolution
Process. If Provider does not take advantage of the process set out in this section, does not provide
the documents or notices described, or does not participate in any meeting held pursuant to this
dispute resolution procedure, the position taken by the ARRA on the matter in dispute or at issue
shall prevail.
(1-1) Consequences of Failure of the ARRA to Follow Dispute Resolution
Process. If the ARRA does not take advantage of the process set out in this section, does not
provide the documents or notices described, or does not participate in any meeting held pursuant to
this dispute resolution procedure, the position taken by the Provider on the matter in dispute shall
prevail.
7. Provider - requested Improvements and Alterations
Provider may request permission from ARRA to make improvements or alternations to the
Premises at any time The ARRA may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the request.
8. Utilities
There may be special provisions needed to deal with contingencies presented at NAS by the
water, wastewater, gas and electric systems built while the property was used for military purposes.
Whether any special provisions are necessary and appropriate, such as a guarantee of service, will
be better known after a Utility Study that is now being undertaken is completed. Completion of the
study is scheduled to occur before any individual Provider will execute this Agreement but after the
Reuse Plan, to which this form of agreement will be an attachment, is submitted.
9. Special Security Protection
If the Provider wishes to provide private security as a part of the service it provides, it may
do so only after notifying the City of Alameda Police Department and complying with any
requirement the Department has for private security services in the City.
10. Termination by ARRA
(a) Before Program Operation
(1) As set forth in the Standards of Reasonableness, unless substantial rehabilitation
of the Premises is required, as described in more detail in paragraph 10(a)(2) below, the Provider
shall have one year from taking possession of the Premises to begin operating its program at the
property. If the Provider cannot operate within one year, this Agreement shall terminate and HCD
shall have six (6) months to identify an alternate Provider. Once identified, the alternate Provider
will have one year to begin operating its program and, as provided in the Standards of
Reasonableness, if the second Provider cannot perform, the Premises shall revert to the ARRA.
(2) If substantial rehabilitation to the Premises is required as described in subsection
2(b) and paragraph 2(c)(1), Provider will have up to one additional year to become operational, as
is set out in the Standards of Reasonableness. If in this case the Provider cannot operate within two
years, this Agreement will terminate and the HCD shall have six (6) months to identify an alternate
Provider. Once identified, the alternate Provider will have one year to begin operating and, if the
second Provider cannot perform, the Premises will revert to the ARRA.
9
(b) Termination after Program Operation Begins
(1) Automatic termination
(A) This Agreement shall terminate and Provider shall no longer be entitled
to possession, use, or occupancy of the Premises, and the Premises shall revert to the ARRA
immediately upon the use of the Premises for a purpose different from or in addition to the uses
described in Exhibit A to this Agreement. Any use that is in violation of the purposes set forth in
the Redevelopment Act shall be deemed a use that is different from or in addition to the uses
described in Exhibit A.
(B) Other defaults that would authorize immediate termination and eviction
will be described in this section. Examples might be use or storage of illegal hazardous materials.
This section will be drafted after the description ofpermissible uses for the Premises, which will be
included as a part of Exhibit A for each Provider, has been drafted.
(2) Termination following an opportunity to curer If Provider has been given an
opportunity to cure a default or to do or refrain from doing an act, whether as a result of the dispute
resolution process set out in section 6 or under some other provision of this Agreement, and Provider
has failed to do so, this Agreement shall immediately terminate, Provider shall no longer be entitled
to possession, use, or occupancy of the Premises, and the Premises shall revert to the ARRA.
(3) Termination by ARRA for other governmental purposes. The ARRA may
terminate this Agreement with the Provider if the ARRA determines it is necessary to do so to meet
some other governmental purposes, subject to compliance with any and all applicable relocation laws
and subject to payment to Provider to compensate Provider for all costs it will incur to comply with
all relation laws that are applicable to it. Any decision of the ARRA to terminate this Agreement
under this provision shall be made at a regularly scheduled public meeting for which notice has been
provided to Provider, HCD, and the Collaborative. In addition to the notice of the public meeting,
the ARRA staff shall give the Provider the earliest possible advice that termination under this
provision will be presented to the ARRA for its decision. Failure to provide this earlier advice shall
not affect the validity of any decision to terminate the Agreement under this section but shall be
considered by the ARRA in determining whether a continuation of the matter on its agenda should
be granted upon a request therefore from the Provider.
11. Termination by Provider. The Provider shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon
thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the ARRA in the event of damage to or destruction of all
of the improvements on the leased Premises or such a substantial portion thereof as to render the
Premises incapable of use for the purposes for which it is leased under this Agreement, provided:
(a) That the cost of the repair, rebuilding, or replacement of the damaged or destroyed
improvements is in excess of the amounts of insurance carried for such purpose by Provider pursuant
to section 13 of this Agreement; and -
(b) That such damage or destruction was not occasioned by the willful misconduct
or gross negligence of the Provider or any of its officers, agents, employees, tenants, subtenants,
licensees, or invitees, or by any failure or refusal on the part of the Provider to fully perform its
obligations under this Agreement.
10
If this Agreement is terminated by Provider pursuant to this section, the Premises shall revert to the
ARRA.
12. Indemnification and Insurance
(a) Indemnification by Provider of ARRA, and their officers, directors Provider shall
employees
harmless, indemnify, and defend the ARRA and
and representatives, from and against any suit, claim, demand, action, liability, judgment, cost,
expenses or other fee arising out of any claim for injury or damage (hereinafter Claim) that results
from or is in any manner based upon activities of the Provider on the Premises during the term of
this Agreement, except to the extent that such Claim arises from and is attributable to the willful
misconduct or negligence of the ARRA or HCD. Provider's liability shall extend to the performance
of work or the use of the Premises by any contractor, subcontractor, or subtenant of the Provider
under this Agreement.
(b) Insurance
(1) All Risk. Provider shall, except as expressly stated otherwise herein, bear all risk
of loss or damage to any structures, improvements, personal property, and equipment situated upon
the Premises, whether occupied or used by Provider or any of its officers, directors, agents,
employees, representatives, subtenants, or assigns to the extent arising from, or in any manner
connected with the occupation or use by Provider or its officers, directors, agents, employees,
representatives, subtenants, or assigns, or by a risk customarily covered by insurance in the locality
in which the Premises is situated, with the understanding that insurance coverage for earthquake loss
is not required under this Agreement unless the Risk Manager for the ARRA has determined that
such insurance is available for commercially reasonable rates and has notified Provider of the
availability and therefor the requirement to carry such insurance, and the further express
understanding and limitation that the obligations of Provider shall be limited to the amount or
amounts of insurance that Provider is obligated to maintain under this section.
(2), Provider's Insurance. On or before beginning any service or work called for by
any term of this Agreement, Provider, at its expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the
Agreement, and provide proof thereof that is acceptable to the Risk Manager of the ARRA the
insurance specified in subparagraphs 12(b)(2)(A) through (C) below with insurers licensed in the
State of California and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to the Risk Manager of
the ARRA. Endorsements naming. ARRA, HCD, and the Collaborative as additional insureds and
insurance certificates shall be provided to the Risk Manager of the ARRA prior to performing any
work on or taking possession of the Premises.
(A) All -risks Property Insurance. All -risks property insurance against the
risks described in paragraph 12(b)(1) above in an amount not less than the replacement value of the
Premises as set forth on Exhibit A.
(B) Commercial General and Automobile Liability. Provider, at its expense,
shall maintain commercial general liability insurance for the period of this Agreement in an amount
not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for
risks associated with the services to be provided under this Agreement. If a Commercial General
Liability Insurance form or the form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
11
aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the
general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall
include, but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and person injury
including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated
under this Agreement, including the use of owned and nonowned automobiles.
(C) Workers' Compensation. Provider shall carry statutory workers'
compensation and employer's liability insurance or undertake self - insurance in accordance with the
provisions of the California Labor Code for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by
Provider. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against the ARRA and HCD for loss
arising from work performed under this Agreement.
(3) Subcontractor's Insurance. Provider shall not allow any subcontractor to
commence work on any subcontract until all insurance required of the Provider has also been
obtained for the subcontractor. Notwithstanding the requirement set out in the preceding sentence,
the Risk Manager of the ARRA may provide written authorization for lower levels of insurance
coverage for work to be performed by a subcontractor. In order to be effective, such written
authority for lower levels of insurance coverage shall be filed with the Secretary of the ARRA.
(4) Review and Revision of Insurance Provisions. The parties to this Agreement
acknowledge the special significance that the potentially Iong term of this Agreement may have on
the adequacy, affordability, and appropriateness of the insurance required in this section. For this
reason, the parties agree that the Risk Manager for the ARRA shall be required to review the
insurance requirements provided in this section and revise those requirements as the Risk Manager
deems necessary and appropriate to provide reasonable and adequate protection to the ARRA, HCD,
and the Collaborative against the risks assumed by them'` by entering into this Agreement. The
decision of the Risk Manager to require different insurance coverages than those set forth in this
Agreement shall be final unless referred to the ARRA by a Provider within thirty (30) calendar days
after notice of the Risk Manager's decision. The ARRA shall consider the referral at a noticed
meeting and shall make a decision thereon within thirty (30) calendar days of the referral. The
decision of the ARRA shall be based upon the considerations set forth herein and shall be final.
13. Notices. Notices required by this Agreement shall be personally delivered, given by facsimile
or similar transmission so long as proof of successful delivery is provided by the transmission
device, or mailed, postage prepaid, as follows:
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Facsimile: 510-521-3764
12
To HCD:
To the Collaborative:
HCD Manager
Alameda County Housing & Community Development
224 W. Winton Ave., Room 108
Hayward, CA 94544 -
Facsimile: 510- 670 -6378
Base Conversion Homeless Coordinator
Alameda County Housing & Community Development
224 W. Winton Ave., Room 108
Hayward, CA 94544 -
Facsimile: 510- 670 -6378
To the City Representative: Housing Development Manager
? ? ?? Webster Street
Alameda, CA 94501 -
Facsimile: 510- 747 -4792
To the Provider:
Each party shall provide the other parties with telephone, facsimile, or electronic notice as
well as written notice of any change of address as soon as practicable.
14. Amendments to the Agreement. This Agreement is not subject to modification or amendment
except by a writing executed by the ARRA and the Provider unless the modification or amendment
affects HCD or the Collaborative or both in which case HCD or the Collaborative or both HCD and
the Collaborative must sign the modification or amendment for it to become effective. Any
modification or amendment to this Agreement shall expressly state that it is intended to amend the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. If a modification or amendment to this Agreement is
entered into by less than all of the parties to this Agreement, the ARRA shall provide copies of such
modification or amendment to each of the that is not a signatory to the modification or
amendment.
15. Waiver. The waiver by any party of a breach by any other party of any provision of this
Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either
the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
16. ' Nondiscriminatory Practices. Provider agrees and warrants that it will comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and procedures governing nondiscriminatory practices in the
performance of this Agreement.
17. Conflict of Interest.
(a) Provider warrants and covenants that neither it nor any of its directors, officers,
employees, consultants, or agents has any interest in, and shall not acquire any interest in, any matter
which will render the services described in this Agreement to be a violation of any applicable federal,
state, or local conflict -of- interest law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless
13
arise, Provider shall promptly notify the ARRA, HCD, and the Collaborative of the existence of such
conflict of interest so that they may determine what action, including terminating this Agreement,
should be taken.
(b) Without limiting the application of the provision in subsection (a) above, Provider
specifically warrants and covenants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Govt. Code
section 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement.
18. Other Legal Requirements. In addition to the laws referred to in sections, 16 and 17 above,
Provider certifies that it will carry out each activity in compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations. At the time this Agreement is being executed, some of the federal requirements
applicable to the activities to be undertaken by Provider include the regulations described in 24CFR,
Part 570, Sub -part K (570, 600 - 570 -612) and relate to (a) nondiscrimination, (b) fair housing, (c)
labor standards, (d) environmental standards, (e) National Flood Insurance Program, (f) relocation
and acquisition, (g) employment and contracting opportunity, (h) lead -based paint, (i) use of
debarred, suspended or ineligible contractors of sub - recipient, (j) Uniform Administrative
Requirements and Cost Principals, (k) conflict of interest, and (1) Displacement.
19. Quiet Possession and Disturbance
This section will be used to describe any need to disturb a Provider for realignment of
streets, construction easements for utilities, etc. This section of the Agreement can also be used to
set out the obligation of the ARRA to protect a Provider from inappropriate uses that may arise on
adjoining, vacant property. The terms of this section dealing with utilities will be drafted after the
current Utility Study is completed. Other terms concerning adjoining vacant property, if
appropriate, will be drafted when each individual Agreement is drafted.
20. Surrender of property at end of lease or termination. Provider shall surrender the Premises to
the ARRA at the expiration of its term or upon any earlier termination in the same condition,
reasonable wear and tear excepted, when Provider initially took possession.
21. Controlling Law., This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws
of the State of California.
22. Time is of the Essence. In the performance of this Agreement,_.time is of the essence.
23. Whole Agreement. This Agreement has sections appearing on pages excluding the
exhibits described on its last signature page and its signature pages. This Agreement constitutes the
entire understanding and agreement of the parties. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and
conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or previous
agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts but the parties agree that the
document on file in the office of the Secretary to the ARRA is the version of the Agreement that
shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the documents.
14
25. Successor Agencies Bound. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be an obligation
of any agency that succeeds to the legal rights and obligations of the ARRA, HCD, or the
Collaborative.
26. Severability. Should any part of this agreement be declared by a final decision or a court or
tribunal of competent jurisdiction, to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of such
party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this
Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the
intentions of the parties.
27. Disclosures Made. Provider warrants that it has received all disclosures required by law to have
been given to it.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, by and through representatives duty authorized to act,
have executed this agreement.
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its
Approved as to form:
By
Its:
ALAMEDA COUNTY HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
By
Its'
Approved as to form:
By:
. Its:
THE ALAMEDA COUNTY HOMELESS PROVIDERS BASE CONVERSION
COLLABORATIVE
By
Its
15
PROVIDER
By
Its
[Space Below This Line For Acknowledgment]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
On before me, , a Notary Public
in a for the State of California, personally appeared , personally known to
me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in
her/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity on behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
c: \wp \pbc \collab7.av
rev 12 -27 -95
16
EXHIBIT' A
Section 1.
- legal description of all property
- written description of personal property/equipment*
- diagram of real property
- picture /sketch/photo of personal property /equipment*
- jointly used property
legal description
diagram
Section 2.
- specifically authorized use of the premises (i.e., services to be provided)
Section 3.
- replacement value of premises
*may be detailed on a separate exhibit "if lengthy" and significant amount/value involved
EXHIBIT B
Design, development and management standards for each Provider
ansportation - Element `
NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
4.0 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The purpose of the Transportation Element is to address various transportation
impacts associated with the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda and to state
specific policies and plans to improve the operation of the City -wide transportation
facilities and services. The goals of the Transportation Element is to provide a safe,
efficient and serviceable framework to facilitate the movement of people and goods
within the City of Alameda and to enable residents of the island to access the regional
transportation network and adjacent communities.
The Transportation Element addresses existing, interim and final reuse conditions and
focuses on the morning and afternoon commute periods when most congestion occurs
on the transportation system. The following impacts pertaining to NAS Alameda and
the rest of the City of Alameda are discussed: traffic congestion at the Webster / Posey
Street Tubes, level of service operations at key intersections, parking deficiencies,
transit service and bicycle and pedestrian travel.
As Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda converts from military to civilian use, additional
trips will be generated both on and off the island by the planned new land uses. The
proposed redevelopment would provide about 5 new jobs for every employed worker
living on NAS Alameda. By providing more jobs on the island, the planned mix of
employment and residential development has a tremendous potential to reduce the
number of vehicle trips made by residents of Alameda that must leave the island to go
to work.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
New trips generated by the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda will affect the
island's street system as well as the major access route (Webster / Posey Street Tubes)
on and off of the island. Under the buildout of the land use projected in the
Community Reuse Plan, morning and afternoon peak hour traffic will continue to
strain the capacity of the existing roadway system. And because virtually every street
on the island is a residential street, traffic will continue to be a major issue. In
4 -1
Transportation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Street System
addition, the new land uses will also create an increased demand for transit services,
parking facilities, and non - motorized transportation systems. The following sections
summarizes the future transportation system.
The NAS Alameda street system includes major and minor arterials, as well as minor
collector and residential streets. As part of the Community Reuse Plan it is envisioned
that a new vehicle access to Oakland (bridge, tunnel or other vehicle connection) will
be established. The NAS Alameda primary street system is shown in Figure 4 -1. A
new access point between Alameda and the region is a major part of the new street
system. However, to best respond to the unknown factors presented by the design,
exact alignment, funding, and construction of a new access the analysis and modelling
of the street system was performed assuming no new access. This creates an analysis of
the "worst case" that would only improve with additional access.
The majority of the streets on NAS Alameda are in good condition and currently
operate at acceptable level of service conditions. There are no signalized intersection
on NAS Alameda and the existing roadway system can accommodate future traffic
levels. However, facility upgrades and new roadways will be required as development
occurs in each of the planning areas.
The street system on NAS Alameda will be constructed on a grid system, providing
efficient and equitable distribution of traffic on the roadway system. The principle
arterials of Atlantic Avenue, Tinker Avenue and Mitchell- Mosley Avenue will serve
to integrate NAS Alameda with the existing roadway system. Internally, a system of
minor arterials, collectors and local streets will be constructed to inter- connect each of
the planning areas.
Table 4-1 and 4 -2 provides trip generation information for NAS Alameda under each
phase of the reuse and redevelopment plan. Table 4 -1 shows that during the A.M.
peak hour, the Community Reuse Plan would generate about 900 more trips ( +37 %)
than NAS Alameda was generating in 1990. The substantial increase is largely due to
the unique peaking characteristics of the military installation, including earlier starting
4 -2
Transportation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
times and shift changes. Most of the traffic growth (770 vehicle trips) would occur in
the inbound direction, as workers who live both on and off the island commute to
NAS Alameda.
Table 4 -2 shows that during the P.M. peak hour, the Community Reuse Plan would
generate about 200 more trips ( +7 %) than in 1990. All of the traffic growth would
occur in the outbound direction, as workers leave NAS Alameda and commute to
their places of residence both on and off the island.
Table 4 -2
Table 4 -1
NAS Alameda Total Trip Generation Comparison - A.M. Peak Hour
Phase
Inbound
Percent of
1990 Total
Outbound
Percent of
1990 Total
Total
Percent of
1990 Total
1990
1,620
100%
860
100%
2,480
100%
Interim Reuse
880
55%
780
92%
1,660
67%
Final Reuse
2,390
148%
1,000
118%
3,390
137%
Table 4 -2
NAS Alameda Total Trip Generation Comparison - P.M Peak Hour
Phase
Inbound
Percent of
1990 Total
Outbound
Percent of
1990 Total
Total
Percent of
1990 Total
1990
1,200
100%
1,660
100%
2,860
100%
Interim Reuse
910
76%
980
59%
1,890
66%
Final Reuse
1,150
96%
1,910
115%
3,060
107%
The proposed Community Reuse land uses would follow traditional trip generation
peaks during the morning and afternoon peak hour. This would result in more vehicle
trips generated when traffic congestion at key intersections and the Webster / Posey
Street Tubes are the worst. An important element of the entire planning process will
be the development of TSM programs and policies designed to improve transportation
system performance by reducing traffic demand (vehicle trips) during the congested
peak travel periods. They would include programs designed to shift trips from
single- occupant automobiles to other travel modes (transit) or to less congested periods
(staggered work hours).
4 -4
Transportation?Ele
ent
NAS Alameda Community' Reuse Plan
Major Access Routes
The Webster / Posey Street Tubes serves as the major access route that links the City
of Alameda and NAS Alameda with the mainland and the regional roadway network.
The Webster Street / Posey Street Tubes operate as a one way couplet, with each tube
constructed with two lanes for vehicular traffic and a grade separated
pedestrian/bicycle walkway.
As shown in Table 4 -3 and 4 -4, under existing conditions, the Webster Street Tube and
Posey Street Tube are both operating above their originally designed capacity of 2,200
vehicles per hour. This has resulted in moderate delays and vehicle queues, as people
travel to and from the regional highway network. The combination of the planned
redevelopment of NAS Alameda and moderate growth on the island will result in the
Webster / Posey Street Tubes to operate at marginal conditions, resulting in increased
delays and congestion as people commute on and off the island.
Improvements can be made in the City of Alameda and Oakland to improve access to
and vehicle capacity of the Webster / Posey Street Tubes. The construction of Tinker
4 -5
Table 4 -3
NAS Alameda Major Access Route
Volume to Capacity Comparison - A.M. Peak Hour
Volume
Reserve Capacity
Percent of
1990 Total
Phase
Webster
Tube
Posey
Tube
Webster
Tube
Posey
Tube
Webster
Tube
Posey
Tube
1990
2,410
2,650
- 210
- 450
100%
100%
Interim Reuse
2,050
2,890
+ 150
- 690
85%
109%
Final Reuse
2,860
2,840
- 660
- 640
119%
107%
Note: Based on
a Capacity of 1,100 vphpl or 2,200 veh / hr for the Webster Street and Posey Street Tubes
Improvements can be made in the City of Alameda and Oakland to improve access to
and vehicle capacity of the Webster / Posey Street Tubes. The construction of Tinker
4 -5
Table 4 -4
NAS Alameda Major Access Route
Volume to Capacity Comparison - P.M. Peak Hour
Volume
Reserve Capacity
Percent of
1990 Total
Phase
Webster
Tube
Posey
Tube
Webster
Tube
Posey
Tube
Webster
Tube
Posey
Tube
1990
2,980
2,270
- 780
- 70
100%
100%
Interim Reuse
3,060
2,110
- 860
+ 90
103%
93%
Final Reuse
2,890
2,550
- 690
-350
97%
112%
Note: Based on
a Capacity of 1,100 vphpl or 2,200 veh / hr for the Webster Street and Posey Street Tubes
Improvements can be made in the City of Alameda and Oakland to improve access to
and vehicle capacity of the Webster / Posey Street Tubes. The construction of Tinker
4 -5
Naval Air Station
Alameda .y,
To Bay Bridge / Sacramento
•
•
Harbor
Southbound Posey Tube
Phase
Volume
Reserve
Capacity
Existing
2,410
-210
Interim Reuse
2,050
+150
Final Reuse
2,860
-660
Westbound Atlantic Avenue
Reserve
Phase Volume Capacity
Existing 2,215 -615
Interim Reuse 1,529 +71
Final Reuse 1,739 -139
Eastbound Atlantic Avenue
Reserve
Phase Volume Capacity
Existing 482 +1,118
Interim Reuse 474 +1,126
Final Reuse 511 +1,089 .'
terstate 580 / Hwy. 24
OAKLAND
1 Northbound Posey Tube
Phase
Volume
Reserve
Capacity
Existing
2,650
-450
Interim Reuse
2,890
-690
Final Reuse
2,840
-640
uar
Bay Farm
Island
Figure 4 -2
AM Peak Hour Volume to Capacity Comparison
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
O: \4s212 \Phase V \Figure
To San
Leandro
To
San
Jose
NAS Alameda
Community
Reuse Plan
To Bay Bridge / Sacramento
•
Naval Air Station
Alameda i ,a
To Interstate 580 / Hwy. 24
Southbound Posey Tube
Phase
Volume
e
Reserve '
Capacity i
Existing
2,980
-780
Interim Reuse
3,060
-860
Final Reuse
2,890
-690
Westbound Atlantic Avenue
Reserve
Phase Volume Capacity
Existing 598 +1,529
Interim Reuse 490 +1,110
Final Reuse 818 +782
Eastbound Atlantic Avenue
Reserve
Phase Volume Capacity
Existing 1,520 +80
Interim Reuse 1,017 +583
Final Reuse 1,714 -114
OAKLAND
Northbound Posey Tube
Phase
Volume
Reserve
Capacity
Existing
2,270
-70
Interim Reuse
2,110
+90
Final Reuse
2,550
-350
Guard
•
t'to "Scald
Figure 4 -3
PM Peak Hour Volume to Capacity Comparison
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
Bay Farm
Island
To San
Leandro
To
San
Jose
NAS Alameda
Community
Reuse Plan
Transportation Element �.,, : ', NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Avenue and Mosley Avenue will alleviate congestion at the intersection of Atlantic
Avenue / Webster Street and improve access and circulation through the western end
of the island. They will also distribute the demand on the Tubes equitably by
providing alternative travel routes to and from the primary access route linking NAS
Alameda to the regional roadway network.
In Oakland, improvements can be made to reduce overall congestion and vehicle
queues from extending into the Posey Street Tube. Intersection modifications at the
7th Street / Harrison Street intersection have been proposed to provide sufficient
capacity for the heavy northbound right -turn movement. In addition, the elimination
of the weaving section on I -880 would alleviate congestion in the Posey Tube. By
prohibiting vehicles entering I -880 from the Jackson Street on -ramp from weaving
across three lanes of traffic, the backup of traffic onto Jackson Street and the Posey
Street Tube would be significantly reduced.
There are many options for improving existing major access and creating a new vehicle
access to Oakland (bridge, tunnel or other vehicle connection). These options have
been studied in reports prepared for the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Commission (EBCRC). These studies examine existing configuration of Oakland
Alameda access and the constraints, design criteria, alternative alignments, and
preliminary cost estimates of a new access. The ARRA should work with the City of
Alameda, Alameda County, Caltrans and other regional organizations to develop plans
for design, funding and construction of a new access.
Transportation Systems Management
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and TDM programs and policies are
designed to improve transportation system performance by reducing traffic demand
(vehicle trips) during the congested peak travel periods. They include programs
designed to shift trips from single- occupant automobiles to other travel modes or to
less congested periods. Examples of TSM Actions include:
• Employer Based Rideshare Programs
• Public Transit Expansion
• Variable Work Hours
4 -8
Transportation: Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
•
•
•
•
Paratransit -Jitneys, Subscription Express Bus Service, and Shared Ride Taxi
Telecommuting
Signal Coordination and Intersection Modifications to Improve Traffic Flow
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Park - and -Ride Facilities
Municipal Parking Pricing Policies
Transportation Management Associations
Intersection Operations
This report defines intersection operations in terms of Level of Service (LOS).
Intersection LOS is a qualitative measure of the ability of the intersection to
accommodate traffic and is based the ratio of vehicle demand to intersection capacity
through a signalized intersection. Level of Service (LOS) Designations range from
"A ", indicating free flow, to "F ", indicating forced flow or over - saturated conditions.
The volume to capacity (V /C) ratio and resulting LOS is dependent upon the
peak -hour traffic, intersection geometries, signal phasing and traffic mix. Table 4 -5
presents LOS descriptions for signalized intersections.
Eleven key intersections were identified in the planning area. Tables 4-6 and 47
presents the A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service for the nine key intersections
in the City of Alameda and the two intersections in the City of Oakland for existing,
interim and cumulative conditions, respectively. The Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) Planning Methodology was used to determine the potential impacts of the
proposed land uses at NAS Alameda.
Under Interim Reuse Conditions, the reduced trip generation of NAS Alameda would
result in lower levels of congestion and delay on the Alameda street system and
improved levels of service at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue / Webster Street and
Atlantic Avenue / Main Street. Under Final Reuse Conditions, all of the signalized
intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D conditions or better .
Due to overall traffic growth on the island, the intersection of Central Avenue / 8th
Street, which would operate at LOS E conditions under P.M. peak hour conditions.
The intersection of Seventh Street / Harrison Street in Oakland experiences moderate
4 -9
Transportation Element �..,t.
� � NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan'>
to extensive delays due to queuing of vehicles accessing northbound and.southbound
I -880 during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. Vehicles travelling northbound on I -880,
must make three consecutive right -turn movements at closely spaced intersections in
order to access the Jackson Street on -ramp. In addition, the weaving section on
northbound I -880 causes traffic to backup onto the local street network. Vehicles
travelling southbound must also loop under the freeway in order to access the Fifth
Street on -ramp to southbound I -880. All of these factors combined, result in long
vehicle queues, congestion in the Posey Street Tube and marginal level of service
conditions at the intersection of Seventh St. /Harrison St. under Build -Out Conditions.
Table 4 -5
Level -Of- Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections
Level of
Service
Signalized Intersection
Range of Volume -to-
Capacity Ratio
A
Conditions are such that no approach phase is fully utilized
by traffic and no vehicle waits through more than one red
indication. (Very slight or no delay)
0.00 - 0.60
B
An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; vehicle
platoons are formed; this is suitable operation for rural
design purposes. (Slight delay)
0.61 - 0.70
C
Stable operation; occasionally, drivers may have to wait
through more than one indication; this is suitable operation
for urban design purposes. (Acceptable delay)
0.71 - 0.80
D
Approaching unstable operation; queues develop, but are
quickly cleared. (Tolerable delay)
0.81 - 0.90
E
Unstable operation; the intersection has reached ultimate
capacity; this condition is not uncommon in peak hours.
(Congestion and intolerable delay)
0.91 - 1.00
F
Forced flow; intersection operates below capacity.
(Jammed)
over 1.00
Parking Facilities
Implementation of the NAS Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Plan will result in
various impacts to existing parking facilities. Table 4 -8 summarizes the parking supply and
demand estimates by phase for the planned land uses and shows that a potential shortfall of
about 500 spaces would occur under the Community Reuse Plan. Under Interim Reuse, a
shortfall is not expected. New parking facilities will be provided as new development occurs
on NAS Alameda and their design and layout would be based on City of Alameda standards.
Transportation Element
NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Table 4 -6
NAS Alameda Intersection Operations - A.M. Peak Hour
Intersection
1990
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
i V/ C
LOS
V/ C
LOS
V/ C
LOS
City of Alameda
Atlantic Ave. / Webster St.
1.30
F
0.84
D
0.86
D
Lincoln Ave. / Webster St.
0.38
A
0.40
A
0.55
A
Central Ave. / Webster St.
- -
- -
0.68
B
0.78
C
Avenue C / Main St.
0.51
A
0.66
B
0.85
D
Atlantic Ave. / Main St.
0.91
E
0.80
C
0.87
D
Pacific Ave. / Main St.
- -
- -
0.39
A
0.42
A
Atlantic Ave. / Constitution Way
0.48
A
0.53
A
0.63
B
Lincoln Ave. / Constitution Way
0.56
A
0.59
A
0.62
B
Central Ave. / 8th Street
0.62
B
0.74
C
0.85
D
City of Oakland
7th Street / Harrison St.
0.73
C
0.79
C
0.83
D
7th Street / Webster St.
0.47
A
0.41
A
0.50
A
Table 4 -7
NAS Alameda Intersection Operations - P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection
1990
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
1 V / C
LOS
V / C
LOS
V / C
LOS
City of Alameda
Atlantic Ave. / Webster St.
0.85
D
0.78
C
0.85
D
Lincoln Ave. / Webster St.
0.62
B
0.57
A
0.78
C
Central Ave. / Webster St.
0.66
B
0.69
B
0.73
C
Avenue C / Main St.
0.76
C ,
0.75
C
0.88
D
Atlantic Ave. / Main St.
0.78
C
0.74
C
0.87
D
Pacific Ave. / Main St.
0.44
A
0.32
A
0.68
B
Atlantic Ave. / Constitution Way
0.63
B
0.67
B
0.76
C
Lincoln Ave. / Constitution Way
0.64
B
0.77
C
0.65
B
Central Ave. / 8th Street
0.99
E
0.89
D
0.94
E
City of Oakland
7th Street / Harrison St.
0.85
D
0.80
C
0.90
D
7th Street / Webster St.
0.58
A
0.59
A
0.54
A
To Bay Bridge / Sacramento
rem
•4,
Naval Air Station
Phase
Existin
To Intersta
Alameda s,P
#4.
Phase
Existing
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existin
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existin
;'. Interim Reuse
nterim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Final Reuse
Existin
Existin
Interim Reuse
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existin
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existing
Phase
LOS
Existing
A
Interim Reuse
A
Final Reuse
B
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existing
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existin
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Legend:
• Study Intersection
Bay Farm
Island
Figure 4 -4
AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
O: \4s212 \Phase V\ Figure
To San
Leandro
To
San
Jose
NAS Alameda
Community
Reuse Plan
To Interstat
Naval Air Station
Alameda
Phase LOS
Existing C
Interim Reuse C
Final Reuse D
Phase 1 LOS
Existin 1 A
Interim Reuse 1 A
Final Reuse
Phase 1 LOS
Existing D
Interim Reuse C
Final Reuse
Phase LOS ,
Existing D
l Interim Reuse C
Final Reuse D
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
;.1 Existin
•
Phase LOS
Existing B
Interim Reuse B
Final Reuse C
Phase LOS
Existing B
Interim Reuse C
Final Reuse _ B
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existing
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Phase
Existin
Interim Reuse
Final Reuse
Legend:
0 Study Intersection
To San
Leandro
To
San
Jose
Figure 4 -5
PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
NAS Alameda
Community
Reuse Plan
Transportation Element
NAS. Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Table 4 -8
Parking Impact Summary
Phase
Parking Demand
(No. of Spaces)
Parking Supply
(No. of Spaces)
Reserve Capacity
(No. of Spaces)
1990
4,400
9,400
5,000
Interim Reuse
3,200
9,400
6,200
Final Reuse
9,900
9,4001
( -500)
Note : 1 Assumes parking spaces lost to planned development will be replaced.
Street Systems Policies:
4 -1 In order to accommodate future traffic levels at acceptable standards, roadway
improvements are required to the NAS Alameda local roadway system.
As development occurs, the roadway system on NAS Alameda would be upgraded and
expanded to serve projected traffic volumes. Preliminary cost estimates were developed to
accommodate the development expected to occur in each planning area, while also
maintaining consistency with the ultimate transportation plan developed for the
Community Reuse Plan.
4 -2 Work with the City of Alameda, Alameda County, Caltrans and other regional
organizations to develop plans for design, funding and construction of a new vehicle
access to Oakland (bridge, tunnel or other vehicle connection).
4 -3 Minimize vehicle trips to and from NAS Alameda that must cross the Webster / Posey
Street Tubes by providing alternative travel modes and connections to the regional
transportation system.
The major constraint to the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda is the lack of a direct
access from the regional transportation system to the island, resulting in various levels of
congestion through the existing major access route of the Webster /Posey Street Tubes.
Given the significant constraints facing further improvements to the major access route to
NAS Alameda, options are limited for accommodating future vehicle travel demand
accessing the island. Vehicle trip reductions made by changes in travel mode,
non - motorized transportation and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts
will be important elements to the redevelopment of NAS Alameda.
4 -14
Transportation Element
NAS, Alameda Community Reuse Plan
4 -4 Plan for the construction of Tinker Avenue and Mosley Avenue to provide additional
access routes to NAS Alameda and the Naval Supply Center.
The construction of the Tinker Avenue and Mosley Avenue roadways will improve
vehicular access and circulation through the western end of the island. Atlantic Avenue
would experience reduced congestion and delays with the construction of parallel roadways
and additional access routes to NAS Alameda.
4 -5 Designate a system of collectors and arterials and minor local streets as a basis for
managing traffic to minimize intrusion in residential neighborhoods. (4.1.a)
Neighborhoods like Alameda NAS's Main Street Neighborhoods require special
consideration in designating streets to ensure effective vehicular access while maintaining a
family oriented residential neighborhood.
4 -6 Implement a grid pattern street system that smoothly transitions into larger Alameda's
street system.
4 -7 Encourage traffic within, to, and through NAS Alameda to use the system of major
streets by providing traffic control measures to ensure smooth flow.
Examples include provision of left -turn lanes, limiting left turns, and signal timing.
4 -8 Develop a program to restrict through- traffic on minor streets where it becomes a
problem for residents.
Techniques for restricting through traffic include stop signs, speed limitations and physical
alterations such as road narrowing and speed bumps.
TRANSIT SYSTEM
As NAS Alameda develops, demand for transit is projected to increase. The level of
demand, however, depends on the type and intensity of new land uses on NAS
4 -15
Transportation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Alameda. The planned employment centers and relatively high residential density
would make improved service and more transit trips (higher mode split) feasible.
Under the proposed phasing of the Community Reuse plan, new and expanded service
would be required on NAS Alameda.
A major constraint of the existing transit system is the limited accessibility of direct
service from NAS Alameda to BART and other alternative transit modes. Currently,
only one bus route (Route T) travels onto NAS Alameda. The limited availability of
transit and the additional time that is required to walk to the bus stops located at the
perimeter of the base are the primary reasons for the existing low usage of public
transit.
In addition, the Oakland and Alameda to San Francisco Ferry service is operating near
capacity and can accommodate only minor increases in patronage with the
Community Reuse of NAS Alameda. Any major increases in patronage may result in
the need for additional ferry service to serve the island and NAS Alameda.
Transit Systems Policies:
4 -9 De- emphasize the use of the single- occupant vehicle during peak periods by
encouraging AC Transit to improve the coverage and frequency of transit service to
NAS Alameda.
Improved transit service would play the greatest role in decreasing the total number of
vehicle trips generated by the Community Reuse Plan. Proposed new transit routes would
stop at transit nodes located in each of the planning areas and would operate on schedules
similar to existing A C Transit service for the island.
4 -10 Support ferry service as an effective commute alternative for people who live or work
on NAS Alameda.
Any major increases in patronage may result in the need for additional ferry service to serve
the island and NAS Alameda. Improved ferg service is expected to relieve congestion and
provide a viable alternative travel mode.
N:4s212:Phasc 5:0001umap
Transportation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
4 -11 Support the potential of direct service from NAS Alameda to BART and other
technologies capable of expanding alternative transit use.
Existing technology may include a light rail system to serve NAS Alameda and the rest of
the island. Innovative technologies may include an aerial tramway, a floating bridge and
waterway transportation.
4 -12 Strongly support the development of light rail transit on NAS Alameda that is
integrated into the City of Alameda system that is proposed in the 1991 General Plan.
Substantial residential development and new employment on NAS Alameda may make the
possibility of light rail transit operation attractive. It should be noted, however, that the
existing rail network is not a feasible alternative for the development of a light rail system.
4 -13 Support the development of transit centers on NAS Alameda that correspond with
proposed activity centers located throughout the former NAS site.
The proposed transit centers would also serve as multi -modal stations and would include bus
shelters and bicycle lockers. Residents would be encouraged to walk to the transit centers.
Multi -modal transit centers allow residents and employees to interchange between private
and public transportation modes and could be designed with transit- oriented streets that
favor mass transit over automobile traffic.
4 -14 Develop transit oriented streets where feasible and especially in conjunction with
major streets and activity centers. (4.3.d)
A transit - oriented street favors buses over automobile traffic by means including signal
priority, discouragement of through traffic, red zones prohibiting parking at bus stops, and
curb modification to bring the bus stop to the transit lane rather than requiring buses to
move in to the curb. Candidate transit streets include Atlantic Avenue, Main Street, Tinker
Avenue, and Pacific Avenue.
4 -15 Work with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to secure needed subsidies
for ferry service from Federal and State highway or transit funds. (4.3.g)
4 -18
Transportation Element
NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plant -r;=:'
4 -16 Work towards integrating NAS Alameda with a Citywide shuttle service, which
incorporates BART, AC Transit, Dial -A -Ride, and shopper needs. (4.3.h)
4 -17 Seek both technologies and service providers capable of expanding transit use in NAS
Alameda.
Technologies may range from light rail to electric vans or buses. Providers could be the City,
A C Transit or other operators stimulated by new demand or subsidies.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
With the re -use of NAS Alameda to civilian uses, bicyclists and pedestrians will need
adequate facilities to efficiently circulate between the different land uses on NAS
Alameda. Efforts to minimize automobile usage for internal circulation and external
trips will be improved with adequate sidewalks, bike lanes, bicycle routes and
pedestrian paths. Improvements to the existing roadway network on NAS Alameda
with sidewalks, bike lanes, basic safety and design standards of the City will be met
with the planned redevelopment.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Systems Policies:
4 -18 Provide a system of sidewalks, crosswalks, and paths connecting residential and
employment areas on the base.
Sidewalk and crosswalk improvements, including the provision of handicap- accessible
ramps should be made when the street system on NAS Alameda is upgraded and expanded.
4 -19 Provide a system of pedestrian and bicycle paths, bicycle lanes and bicycle routes to
encourage both commute and recreational bicycling.
Bicycling and walking are expected to be important travel modes for NAS Alameda
residents, employees and visitors. Ideally, residents would be able to walk or ride a bike to
work, school or for shopping purposes.
4 -20 Ensure that automobile circulation improvements do not degrade the pedestrian
4 -19
Transportation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
environment. (4.4.a)
Excessive widths, large medians, added turn lanes, wide driveways, and parking lots that do
not include designated pedestrian paths create tension for walkers. Addition of medians,
curb extensions to the edge of the travel lane at intersections, and similar amenities such as
landscaping would improve pedestrian safety and enjoyment, and decrease the amount of
time pedestrians must look out for cars. Comprehensive policies for pedestrian environment
are found in Section 3.0, Urban Design Framework.
4 -21 Establish separated bicycle paths on Main Street, Atlantic Avenue, Tinker Avenue,
and Mitchell Mosley.
4 -22 Provide space for pedestrian, wheelchair, and bicycle crossing on both sides, if feasible,
as part of any modification to construction of bridges providing access to and within
the Alameda. (4.4.b)
4 -23 Encourage transit systems located in NAS Alameda to provide bike transport for
commuter and recreational cyclists.(4.5.c)
4 -24 Consider providing public amenities for bicycle riders such as staging areas with
bicycle lockers at transit connections. (4.5.d)
4 -25 Require places of employment to provide ample, safe storage areas for bikes. (4.5.e)
4 -26 Prepare a bikeways implementation program for NAS Alameda that includes priorities
and a schedule. (4.5.f)
4 -27 Publish and distribute a map showing existing and proposed bikeways in NAS
Alameda. (4.5g)
MOVEMENT OF GOODS
The Community Reuse Plan contains a large amount of land designated for research &
development and flexible light industrial land uses. It is likely that industrial users in
4 -20
Transportation Element "f, NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
these areas would create demand for freight shipments by truck and / or. rail. Existing
truck access to NAS Alameda consists of the major arterials of Webster St.,
Constitution Way, Atlantic Ave., Central Ave., and Main Street. Most trucks utilize
the Webster /Posey Tubes to avoid congestion and extensive travel times through the
primarily residential city streets of Alameda.
The Alameda Belt Line Railroad, operated by the Southern Pacific Railroad, connects
Alameda to the mainland via a lift bridge located adjacent to the Fruitvale Avenue
Bridge. The Belt Line serves industrial customers along the Inner Harbor, running
on- street along Clement St. and extending to the Belt Line Yards near Constitution
Way and Atlantic Avenue. Historically, the tracks continued along Atlantic Ave. and
onto NAS Alameda, serving the docks, heating plant, power plant, and other
industrial and commercial areas. The railroad line was rerouted to avoid crossing
Constitution Way and Webster St. via a loop through the Navy Supply Center, along
Main St., and onto NAS Alameda through the East Gate. The trackage leading onto
NAS Alameda has been inactive since the early 1970's and in many cases has been
removed or covered during resurfacing of streets or construction of pedestrian
pathways. There are no railroad crossing protection devices or rail equipment at NAS
Alameda.
Freight and Rail Systems Policies:
4 -28 Develop truck routes and review possible requirements operating time restrictions for
truck traffic.
Existing truck routes to NAS Alameda follow the major access routes.
4 -29 Develop Rail Improvements Contingent on Market Feasibility
The primary constraint to rail access to NAS Alameda is the poor condition of the Existing
Belt Line trackage., tight horizontal curves and at -grade crossings which make access slow
and inecient. Development of plans for reuse of these facilities should be based on the
market feasibility, economic need and benefit to industrial and commercial development at
NAS Alameda.
Open Space and Conservation Element
NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
5.0 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Alameda enjoys a variety of open space resources unique to its island location. The
land, marshes, mudflats, tidelands, and Bay waters constitute an open space system that
fulfills multiple purposes supporting community health, safety, recreation and
preservation of wildlife, vegetation & natural resources. This section addresses such
diverse resources as wildlife, water conservation, water quality, air quality and historic
resources.
WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION
The existing vegetation and wildlife habitat at NAS Alameda consists of man -made
upland areas such as mowed grassland and landscaped areas, the old landfill area, the
waters of San Francisco Bay, permanent ponds and seasonal wetlands. Other features
such as the breakwaters and piers provide habitat for nesting and roosting birds,
herring spawning, and substrate for some marine organisms. A four - acre -area amid the
landing field runways provides a physically protected area for the largest known
nesting colony north of Santa Barbara of the California least tern, a federally
endangered species.
Mowed grass areas adjacent to the landing field runways provide soil cover and prevent
sand from blowing onto the runways. They also provide good foraging habitat for
raptors. Landscaped areas are interspersed throughout the developed portions of the
base around the buildings, housing and parks. Mostly urban wildlife including
blackbirds, sparrows, house finches and robins inhabit these landscaped areas.
The old landfill area occupies 56.5 acres in the southwest corner of the base. The
various land use activities that have occurred in this area over the years have resulted in
an irregular topography, development of linear open water features, and establishment
of brackish marsh vegetation in depressions formed on the surface. The marsh
vegetation established in this area provides foraging habitat for a number of wildlife
species and supports a nesting colony of Caspian terns.
5 -1
O: \NETWORK \4S212ALA \PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \500PEN.
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Two areas of wetlands have been identified on the land surface at NAS Alameda.
These wetland areas occur on the old landfill site, and on the southern edge of the
airstrip and west and landward of the Seaplane lagoon.
The fishery resources of the Bay water surrounding the Naval Air Station includes
anadromous fish, which migrate through the Bay during their life cycle to spawn;
native fish that spend their entire lives in the area; and crab, shrimp and shellfish.
Anadromous fish include striped bass, king salmon, sturgeon, steelhead trout, and
threadfin shad. Bait and forage fish include sardines, anchovies, herring, and smelt.
Other fish include sole, flounder, sharks, rays, croakers, and perch. Oysters live in
almost all of the waters of the Central and South Bays, clams are present in coarse sand
and gravel in the South Bay, and shrimp are found throughout the Bay.
The shallow Bay waters in the vicinity of the breakwaters of the NAS Alameda Inner
Harbor provide important foraging habitat for the California least tern as well as
herons and shorebirds. Eelgrass beds off the western shore of NAS Alameda are
important for waterfowl and as a nursery area for young fish. These beds are known
to support herring, smelt, anchovy
The separated breakwater area located at the edge of the NAS Alameda Inner Harbor
is an important roosting, nesting and feeding area for gulls and other water birds. The
breakwater area is composed of the long breakwater that is connected to the shore and
the breakwater island. The breakwater island is the only night roost for the California
brown pelican in the Bay. This area also contains the largest western gull nesting
colony in the greater Bay Area and provides a haul -out site for the harbor seal.
State- and Federally - Listed Species
California Least Tern: The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) is a
federally- and state - listed endangered species with limited distribution along the coast
from San Francisco to Baja. NAS Alameda supports the primary California least tern
colony north of Santa Barbara with about 130 pairs. The colony is located in a four-
acre fenced area within the airfield runways. This area has been provided with good
substrate consisting of shells, pebbles, and rocks for nesting; it is near the productive
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS\500PEN.
5-2
Open Space and Conservation Element r:=
NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
foraging waters of the Inner Harbor, and the open expanse of the runways adjacent to
this area provide protection from predators. Active management and monitoring of
the colony by the Navy has contributed greatly to its success and will need to continue
in order to maintain the colony. According to a study commissioned by the Navy
(1995), continued predator control is critical to the success of the colony. Nesting
season from mid April through mid August is an especially vulnerable period.
California Brown Pelican: The California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus) is a federally- and state - listed endangered species that maintains a large
roosting colony along the Island Breakwater at NAS Alameda. This area is also the
only known night roost for the brown pelican in the region. The brown pelican
roosts to rest, maintain its body temperature and as a social function. It requires a dry
location for roosting that is near food and is buffered from predators and humans.
The Island Breakwater provides suitable roosting habitat because it is isolated from
land access and boat traffic has been restricted in the vicinity to prevent disturbance of
the colony.
American Peregrine Falcon: The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is a
federally- and state - listed endangered species. It intermittently uses NAS Alameda to
forage for primarily avian prey, and nests offsite at the Bay Bridge.
Other Special Status Species
There are additional special status species utilizing the wetland portions of NAS
Alameda. Although the Caspian tern has no special status designation, it is a
migratory bird protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1985). The wetlands
in the West Landfill support the largest nesting colony of Caspian terns in California
(1,020 pairs in 1993). This colony is viewed as a valuable resource by CDFG. The
Northern harrier and the burrowing owl, both California Species of Special Concern,
are known to use habitats at NAS Alameda. The northern harrier has been observed
foraging in the mowed grasslands and wetlands near the southwestern portion of the
base and nesting in the old landfill area (Feeney pers. comm. 1994). The burrowing
owl has been observed foraging in the grassland areas of the runways. This species
nests in abandoned ground squirrel burrows and may nest in the grassland area-
O:\ NETWORK\ 45212ALAVHASE5 \ELEMENTS \500PEN.
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Wetlands
runways or in the landfill area.
The western snowy plover, a California Species of Special Concern and a federally
listed threatened species has been observed historically nesting within the California
least tern colony (Feeney, pers. comm. 1994). This species is typically found along
beaches above the high tide limit or on the shores of salt ponds and alkali or brackish
inland lakes.
A preliminary wetland delineation on NAS Alameda was prepared for the Navy in
October 1993. This study found permanent and seasonal wetlands in two areas; in the
vicinity of the old landfill or West Beach Landfill, and west of the Seaplane Lagoon in
an area referred to as the "Runway Wetland." A more recent investigation, conducted
by the Navy (1994), found no wetland areas other than those identified in 1993 that
would meet criteria as a wetland subject to Corps of Engineers jurisdiction.
Wildlife & Vegetation Policies:
5 -1 Support the establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge at NAS Alameda that
encompasses the four -acre California least tern colony, West Beach Landfill wetland,
Runway Wetland, Island Breakwater and the waters between the southern shore of the
runway area and the breakwater.
Including these areas at NAS Alameda into a Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will protect the special status species inhabiting the sites.
5 -2 Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing a management plan for the
refuge which addresses issues such as predator control, habitat improvements and
maintenance, public access (including trails, wildlife observation, etc.) and barriers for
protection and management of the refuge. The plan should also address management
activities on lands immediately adjacent to the refuge.
5 -3 Establish mechanisms within the Wildlife Refuge Management Plan that allow for the
reversion of portions of the refuge area to the ARRA in the event that the refuge in no
NETWORK \ 4S212ALA\PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \500PEN.
5 -4
Open. Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda. Community Reuse Plan
longer needed for endangered species habitat protection. Areas not including the
wetland areas, island breakwater, and shore feeding areas may be allowed greater
intensity of human use for recreation or other purposes subject to USFWS
determination that they are no longer needed to preserve endangered species.
5 -4 Encourage funding and implementation of the wildlife refuge management plan by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
5 -5 Establish development standards for lands adjacent to the wildlife refuge in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Standards should include, but
not be limited to, building heights and design, appropriate uses adjacent to the refuge,
Landscaping, predator management, lighting, etc.
5 -6 Maintain grassland foraging areas for raptors in the areas proximate to the least tern
nesting site.
Grasslands provide foraging for raptors such as kestrel, red- tailed hawk and peregrine
falcon; natural predators of the California least tern. Maintaining grassland foraging areas
for these species away from the least tern colony will help to protect the colony from
predators.
5 -7 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will prepare with ARRA and public input a Wildlife
Refuge Management Plan to determine the final size, ownership, management and land
use allowances associated with the wildlife refuge
•
Please refer to the discussion of the wildlife refuge in the Land Use Element (chapter 2 of this
document)
5 -8 To minimize potential impacts on natural resources, the design of any golf course
development in the Northwest Territories must be environment sensitive, control
pesticides, meet the goals of the predator management and other components
identified in the Wildlife Refuge Management Plan.
5-5
O: \NETWORK \4S212ALA\P HASE5\ELEMENTS\50OPEN.
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
5 -9 Development in all areas adjoining the wildlife refuge must adhere to the Wildlife
Management Plan's guidelines regarding pets, predator control and landscaping.
5 -10 .Establish continued ship access for the deep water channel to the NAS piers and
seaplane lagoon through the southern bay waters of the refuge through agreements
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
5 -11 Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal Damage Control to develop informational materials and an
educational program for occupants at NAS Alameda and Alameda County describing
the importance of animal control for protection of the least tern colony.
5 -12 Develop programs for controlling feral cat populations throughout NAS Alameda.
5 -13 Maintain the breakwater gap and isolation of the Island Breakwater.
The Island Breakwater is the only night roost for the California brown pelican in the San
Francisco Bay; it contains the largest western gull nesting colony in the greater Bay Area,
and provides a haul -out site for the harbor seal. The isolation of this island deters human
access and reduces disturbance of the wildlife.
5 -14 Protect open space /habitat areas, including sensitive submerged tidelands areas
(mudflats) and eelgrass beds, from intrusions by motorized recreational craft, including
jet skis and hovercraft (5.1.b). At NAS Alameda, this applies primarily to the shallow
bay waters south of the runway areas and around the Island Breakwater. These areas
are outside the deep water channel reserved for boats.
The shallow waters south of the runway area at NAS Alameda provide important foraging
habitat for the California least tern and other wildlife inhabiting the area. These waters are
particularly important for the least tern because there is not much foraging habitat for the
species in the Oakland Estuary. California brown pelicans are flushed from their roosting
site on the Island Breakwater when boats approach too close.
\NETWORK \4S2 32ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \500PEN.
5 -6
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
5 -15 Work with local recreation groups to disseminate information regarding the sensitivity
of open space /habitat areas to intrusions by motorized craft (5.1.1).
Encourage the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain buoys 200 feet around these areas.
5 -16 Post and maintain signs and buoys warning boaters and users of motorized craft that
they are approaching a wildlife area (5.1.m).
Encourage the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain patrols of the perimeters of the area.
5 -17 Prohibit filling of water - related habitat except in those limited cases in which a strong
public need clearly outweighs the habitat preservation need, and where approval is
granted by the appropriate agencies (5.1.c).
WATER QUALITY
San Francisco Bay water quality varies with site's proximity and exposure to point and
non -point sources of pollution. Despite the lack of a coordinated system of
measurement, it is known that since the 1950's water quality in the Bay has improved
markedly, due in large part to the upgrading of municipal sewage treatment
facilities.
Groundwater is encountered at shallow depths throughout the base and is in direct
hydraulic communication with the marine salt waters. Thus, groundwater quality is
adversely affected by mixing of saline and fresh water. In addition, the historic
industrial land use at NAS Alameda has resulted in numerous occurrences of discharge
of hazardous materials to the surface and subsurface. In some instances, these releases
have resulted in contamination of groundwater and runoff from the site. Residual
contamination in the soil presents a potential for continued release of contaminants to
surface and subsurface waters.
Numerous water supply wells are located on the island of Alameda, including wells
within NAS Alameda. These wells generally supply water for irrigation, and, to a
lesser extent for industrial uses. Most of the wells draw water from the ground. An
evaluation of groundwater resources of the East Bay Plain area by the Alameda
O:\ NETWORK \4S212ALA\P HASE5\ELEMENTS\50OPEN.
5 -7
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD, .1988)
concluded that although wells within shallow aquifers in the area, including the
Merritt sands, produce enough water for domestic use, the water from such wells
should only be used for non - potable uses. These groundwater resources should not be
considered as a source of drinking water because of susceptibility to contamination .
from sewer systems, street runoff, and other contaminant sources. The Oakland
Alameda Estuary has been preliminarily identified as a "toxic hot spot" by the
RWQCB under the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program on the basis of
significant contaminants detected in the water and sediments of the Harbor (State
Water Resources Control Board, 1993). Thus groundwater will not be considered a
resource for domestic or potable uses.
Water Quality Management & Permits
The responsibility and jurisdiction for management of water resources at and adjacent
to NAS Alameda is currently shared by several federal, state, regional, and local
regulatory agencies. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has delegated
primary water quality control and enforcement authority under the CWA to the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This authority is implemented in the area
including NAS Alameda by the San Francisco Bay Region Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). The SWRCB and RWQCB jurisdiction is extended to
implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
requirements for discharges from point (eg. wastewater industrial facilities) and non -
point (eg. runoff from agricultural and urban lands) sources of potential water quality
threats.
NAS Alameda currently complies with the Statewide General Permit for Industrial.
Storm Water Discharges through a Notice of Intent which covers the entire base as a
single industrial site. This permit will be transferred to the Alameda Public Works
Department. In the future, the site will be monitored under the City of Alameda's
Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program. This may include the
expansion of the City's stormwater monitoring.
In addition to the General Permit for Municipal Storm Water Discharges, specific.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS\500PEN.
5-8
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
industrial operations will be required to meet the requirements of the Statewide
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities.
These requirements require implementation of best management practices for control
of runoff and reduction of pollutant loads in runoff from industrial operation areas.
Water Quality Policies:
5 -18 Integrate the former NAS site into the City of Alameda's Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Program.
The City has adopted the Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program
(SWMDCP) Ordinance which commits the City to performance requirements set forth by
NPDES Permit issued by the R WQCB.
5 -19 Require all proposed reuse activity at NAS Alameda to be in compliance with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater recommendations.
Direct discharge of storm water to the Bay and Harbor do not currently receive treatment
which would reduce the pollutant load. The pollutant loads could be reduced through
implementation of "best management practice" for the control of runoff quality. This could
include the incorporation of environmental mitigation systems such as storm water runoff
ponds and environmental filtration. The R WQCB has published guidelines under which
new construction and redevelopment at NAS Alameda would be required to meet relatively
rigorous planning, structural, and operational storm water management practices.
5 -20 Require that projects adjacent to, surrounding, or containing the eastern wetlands be
subject to a site- specific analysis which will determine the appropriate size and
configuration of the buffer zone. (5.1p)
5 -21
5 -22
5 -23
Continue to participate in the Alameda County Non -Point Source Task Force. (5.1r)
Participate in the Non -Point Source Control Program(5.1s)
Implement City standards in addition to those adopted by the County, to deal with
5 -9
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5 \ELEMENTS\50OPEN.
Open =Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
non -point source water pollution problems such as sheet flow storm runoff and
sedimentation affecting sensitive water habitats. (5. it)
5 -24 Participate in the County Hazardous Waste program and /or consider establishment of
hazardous waste and /or oil disposal or transfer sites. (5.1u)
5 -25 Participate in the identification of agencies responsible for the cleanup of toxic
materials within the Oakland Estuary, and support them in their efforts. (5.1v)
5 -26 Require new marinas to provide easily accessible waste disposal facilities for sewage
and bilge and engine oil residues. (5.1w)
5 -27 Prevent migration of runoff off -site or into wetlands areas and water- related habitat by
requiring that proposed projects include design features ensuring detention of sediment
and contaminants. (5.1x)
WATER CONSERVATION
Water scarcity has become a fact of life in California. Water conservation principles
must be built into all future development. In addition to conservation measures
appropriate for individual buildings and households, such as the use of low -flow
showerheads, aerating faucets and smaller capacity toilets and urinals, the East Bay
Municipal Utility District ( EBMUD) recommends that existing and new landscaping
design incorporate EBMUD's water - conserving Landscape Requirements. In 1988, the
City of Alameda Ordinance 2389 added a chapter on Water Conservation to the
Municipal Code, specifying landscape design and practices.
Water Conservation Policies:
5 -28 Continue to support EBMUD in its efforts to promote and implement water
conservation measures. (5.1h)
5 -29 Encourage the use of drought- resistant landscaping. (5.1i)
O:\ NET WORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \5COPEN.
5 -10
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
5 -30 Explore the possibility of using reclaimed wastewater from EBMUD to irrigate the
golf course planned in the Northwest Territories at buildout.
5 -31 Require that reuse development and construction complies with EBMUD's water
conserving landscape requirements.
5 -32 Require that all new development at NAS Alameda should comply with City of
Alameda's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 2389).
5 -33 Review proposed development projects for both water and energy efficiency, and
integrate plans for the use of reclaimed wastewater for landscaping as a condition of
approval. (5.laa)
URBAN HABITAT
"Urban Habitat" refers to those areas of the City which provide a land -based living
and feeding environment for birds and mammals. This might include Alameda's parks,
street trees, parkway and median-strip landscaping, yard trees, golf courses, and vacant
lots. With its park trees and yard trees, the City is set within and framed by an urban
forest. The leafy green canopy provides food and shelter for many creatures, and
contributes towards a verdant community. Lower - growing shrubs and grasses —both
those planted intentionally, and accidental introductions - -also provide habitat.
A state -wide California Urban Forest Survey done in 1989 calculated an existing street
tree per urban resident ration of 1:4. The 1990 Alameda ratio is approximately 1:6.
NAS Alameda's urban habitat is characterized by extensive lawns and dispersed trees
especially within the Civic Core and residential areas. With redevelopment of the
Naval Air Station it is envisioned that an urban habitat will be retained and an
extensive urban habitat system similar to the existing City system will develop.
5 -11
O:\ NET WORK \4S212ALA\P HASE5\ELEMENTS\SOOPEN.
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Urban Habitat Policies :
5 -34 Incorporate into reuse development activities provisions for creating a similar level of
intense landscaping and foliage throughout the former NAS site, with an emphasis
in residential areas, transit nodes, and activity centers.
5 -35 Use the City of Alameda Street Tree Management Plan as the guiding reference when
considering action which would affect the trees contained in the urban forest. (5.1j)
5 -36 Pursue an aggressive tree planting program at the former NAS site to bring the base up
to par with Alameda wide forestation levels /standards.
5 -37 Limit the height and type of trees in areas adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge.
OPEN SPACE FOR THE MANAGED REPRODUCTION OF RESOURCES
This section of the open space element is required to address the commercial value and
use of open space lands. The NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, in compliance
with the General Plan, does not designate any land as Open Space for the Managed
Production of Resources, but does recognize the function of Bay waters and Bay
vegetation as fish nurseries, some of which may be of value to commercial fishing
production. A discussion of the more common fish, shrimp, and crab species is found
in Section 5.1.
Managed Reproduction of Resources Policies:
5 -38 Protect and Preserve Bay waters and vegetation as nurseries and spawning grounds for
fish and other aquatic species, both as a part of habitat preservation and to encourage
continued use of the Bay for commercial fishing production.
Implementing policies ensuring protection and preservation of bay waters and vegetation
may be found in Section 5.1.
5 -39 Explore interest in public and privately owned sites available for community gardens
at the former NAS site.
O: W ET WORKVS212A LAMPHASE5\ELEMENTS\500PEN.
5 -12
Open Space and Conservation Element , NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
The reuse of NAS Alameda provides significant opportunity for maintaining and
expanding the City's inventory of parks and recreation facilities. Text and policies
reviewing the proposed open space for outdoor recreation at buildout are found in
section 6.0, Parks and Recreation, Shoreline access and Development, Schools and
Cultural Facilities Element.
OPEN SPACE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
The proximity of Metropolitan Oakland International Airport requires the
establishment of safety zones for landing aircraft. Policies specifying the preservation
of unbuilt areas within flood plains subject to the 100 -year flood are listed in the
Health & Safety Element, within Section 7.
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
The constant flow of relatively clean air through the Golden Gate results in good air
quality compared with other parts of the Bay Area. There is no air quality
measurement instrumentation in Alameda, however, and the closest sampling stations
are in Oakland and San Leandro. These stations, both of which measure ozone and
one of which (Oakland) measures carbon monoxide levels, indicate few days exceeding
State or federal air quality standards in recent years.
In a 1991 study by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, the Oakland Airport
was judged to possess marginal pollution potential for the vicinity, and Naval Air
Station activity was anticipated to lead to occasional episodes of increased pollutant
levels. The closure and reuse of NAS Alameda removes former impacts of NAS airport
activity on air quality while replacing them with reuse impacts. Analysis of the
buildout traffic projections of this reuse land use plan indicates an increase of up to 37
percent additional total trips in the peak periods, leading to additional air quality
pollution due to total vehicle emissions and greater congestion. Factors determining
0:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \500PEN.
5 -13
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
air quality will include future tenants, type and scope of industries, residential influx
schedule, and success in creating a transit oriented community at buildout.
Air Quality Permits
The existing activities at NAS Alameda require permitting for the emissions caused by
industrial base activities. Reuse activities at NAS Alameda may require local air
pollution control or air quality management district permits. Other mitigation of
emissions may be required to implement reuse plans. These permits are one of the
major opportunities available in the reuse process. The permits may be available for
transfer to reuse tenants or available to the ARRA as a revenue source through local
Air District emissions banking programs.
Air quality at NAS Alameda is regulated by permits that are issued for existing
operating equipment. The primary agency for the enforcement of air quality
regulations governing Alameda County is the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD). Air quality permits are required by state law for the following:
- new equipment that may cause air pollution,
- before modifying existing equipment that may cause air pollution,
- when a business changes ownership, or
- when equipment is transferred from one location to another.
Currently, the Navy has 243 permitted sources and 262 exempt sources, for a total of
505 sources. All required operating permits for NAS Alameda operations are on file
with the Navy and the ARRA. Compliance is demonstrated by a Yearly Emission
Inventory, which tracks the potential hazardous sources of air pollutants at NAS
Alameda.
The air quality program compliance activities will continue at NAS Alameda as long as
the Permits to Operate for the current sources are not canceled or surrendered. To
date, there are no plans to cancel any of those permits. Therefore, the maintenance of
the current permits will continue until a decision of ownership is reached.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S2I2ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \50OPEN.
5 -14
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
The Federal Clean Air Act general conformity rule exempts certain federal actions
from some air quality requirements. If a base closure involves only sale of property,
and the military is no longer maintaining authority over the base, a conformity
determination is not required. However, if the military leases the base and sets
conditions regarding the future use of the base, then a conformity determination is
required.
A detailed inventory of the emission sources on the base will not be completed until
January 1996. The intent is to prepare the more detailed basic information necessary
to comply with Title 5 of the Federal Clean Air Act, and to form the basis for
application to the Air District for permits in accordance with Title 5.
Air District Policy Related to Military Base Closures
The BAAQMD adopted a regulation in July 1994 that addresses military base closures.
It requires that the District establish a banking account for each military facility or
base subject to termination of military operations. The Air Pollution Control Officer
(APCO) will bank the emission reduction credits for each military facility or base.
The designated local reuse authority is entitled to the use of the banked emission
reduction credits for projects within the jurisdiction of the local reuse authority.
Air Quality Policies:
5 -40 For all new uses for the former NAS site, strive to meet all Federal and State standards
for ambient air quality. (5.5.a)
In reviewing reuse proposals for the former NAS site, require compliance with all Federal
and State standards for ambient air quality and emissions.
5 -41 Support continued monitoring efforts by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. (5.5.b)
5 -42 Encourage use of public transit for all types of trips. (5.5.c)
Buildout plans for NAS Alameda are organized around primary themes that promote 1) De-
5 -15
0:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS\500PEN.
Open Space 'and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
emphasis of the automobile 2) Transit Oriented Character and 3) Sustainable. Development
and Design. Implementation of these themes will result in a cleaner air environment
NAS Alameda and the Island of Alameda as a whole.
5 -43 Encourage development and implementation of Transportation System Management
(TSM) Programs as described in the City of Alameda General Plan. (5.5.d)
Transportation System Management legislation was modified in 1995 so that employer trip
reduction programs are no longer be mandatory.
5 -44 Minimize commuting by balancing jobs and nearby housing opportunities.
Buildout of NAS Alameda will emphasize job creation minimizing out - commuting, and
thereby reducing congestion and improving air quality.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
None of the buildings at the NAS Alameda are individually eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. However, 38 buildings in the central core and an
additional 47 buildings in the officer housing precinct contribute to an identified
historic district eligible for listing. The integrity of the district is high with few non-
contributing structures in contrast to the rest of the base, which has changed
considerably since World War II. Buildings contributing to the historic district were
designed in a simplified version of the early Modern style, which featured cubistic
forms and minimal detail to accentuate the forms.
Conveyance of NAS Alameda from the Navy to the City will require many of the
contributing buildings to be upgraded to meet life /safety standards and seismic hazards
in order to permit existing uses to continue or new uses to be established. As part of
rehabilitation, these buildings will be modified to bring them up to safe levels of
occupancy consistent with current building codes. Development of NAS Alameda to
modern standards may also require demolition of certain, contributing buildings and
adding newer facilities.
O: \ NET WORK \4S212ALA\PHASE5\E LEM ENTS \500PEN.
5 -16
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Most actions for historic buildings, including interim leasing and rehabilitation, will
initiate a review process to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA). The compliance review process is designed to ensure that
historic properties are considered during project planning and execution. The review
process is administered by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in
coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). This process
involves identification and evaluation of historic properties, assessment of effects, and
consultation and agreement on ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects.
The Navy will coordinate historic review with the environmental review process. It
will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report
on the Reuse Plan prior to closure. Historical review responsibility may be delegated
to the City. While the NHPA provides various opportunities for local government
participation in historic review, no city in California has yet been authorized to
assume the State's responsibilities for historic review under Section 106.
Section 106 review typically involves submitting reports to SHPO for each proposed
lease or construction project, which requires from two weeks to several months for
review for each structure. Therefore, providing a mechanism for timely and expedient
reviews to ensure that buildings are not left vacant, yet are managed in compliance
with all applicable historic regulations, is a major reuse planning concern. The
ultimate approach to historical review taken by the City must be carefully reviewed
with regard to processing time, staff expertise required, and administrative costs. These
costs may be born by the development applicant as part of a processing fee.
To preserve the historic sense -of -place of the district, uses will need to be encouraged
that would, to the extent feasible, minimize impacts on the architectural integrity of
the district. Every reasonable effort must be made to incorporate compatible adaptive
uses or uses for which the buildings were originally designed. However, given current
market conditions, utility constraints and environmental contamination, adaptive
reuse of certain buildings in the historic district may be impractical.
Impacts related to rehabilitation of historic buildings must be addressed when
5 -17
O:\NET W ORK \4S212ALA \PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \50OPEN.
Open Space and Conservation Element
NAS Alameda Co ntnunity Reuse Plan
proposals are submitted and tenants are selected. In addition, methods will need to be
identified to eliminate hazardous materials (such as asbestos and lead paint), secure and
protect vacant buildings, provide for fire detection and suppression, and correct
deficiencies in access for people with disabilities with minimal impacts on the buildings
if economically feasible.
Historic Resource Policies:
5 -45 Provide a mechanism for timely and expedient reviews to ensure that contributing
buildings in the historic district are not left vacant, yet are managed in compliance
with all applicable regulations.
The ultimate approach to historical review and preservation taken by the City must be
carefully reviewed with regard to processing time, staff expertise required, and
administrative costs.
5 -46 Preserve the historic sense -of -place of the historic district by preserving the historic
pattern of streets open spaces in the area.
5 -47 Minimize impacts on the architectural integrity of individual contributing buildings
and structures.
Every reasonable effort must be made to incorporate compatible adaptive uses or uses for
which the buildings were originally designed. Impacts related to rehabilitation of historic
buildings must be addressed when proposals are submitted and tenants are selected. In
addition, methods will need to be identified to eliminate hazardous materials (such as
asbestos and lead paint, secure and protect vacant buildings, provide for fire detection and
suppression, and correct deficiencies in access for people with disabilities with minimal
impact on the buildings if economically feasible.
5 -48 The ARRA, with the assistance and advice of the Navy /National Park Service, should
prepare a historic plan for the NAS Alameda historic district.
5 -49 Provide design guidelines and specifications for new construction within and adjacent
O:\ NETWORK \4S212A LA\PHASES\ELEMENTS \500PEN.
5 -18
Open Space and Conservation Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
to the historic district that will ensure compatibility of new construction with the
character of the historic district.
5 -50 Provide design guidelines and specifications for maintaining the character defining
elements of the district.
5 -51 Define a procedure to be employed by the City to ensure historic preservation
considerations are balanced with those of the community in deciding issues that may
alter the character of the buildings and structures because of their contribution to the
historic district.
O:\NET WORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \50OPEN.
5 -19
000
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
7.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT
The safety element outlines policies which will help protect the community from both
natural and human induced disasters. This Health and Safety Element considers
seismic, geologic, and soils hazards, fire hazards, flooding, hazardous materials,
magnetic fields, and emergency management. Due to the City's relatively flat
topography, its built up character, and its location, slope failure, wildlands fires, and
dam failure are not considered threats in Alameda.
Integration of NAS Alameda into Alameda as a whole requires an assessment of the
kinds of Health and Safety concerns that are particular to the base and the actions
needed to address them as the NAS Alameda moves towards reuse.
SEISMIC, GEOLOGIC, AND SOILS HAZARDS
The surficial geology of Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) and the surrounding area
reflects the Late Quaternary geologic history and massive artificial filling. The
defining process which controlled the geologic history of the area was the formation of
San Francisco Bay and periodic fluctuations in global and local sea level. The
subsurface at NAS consists of three general geotechnical units: Merritt sands, young
Bay Muds, and artificial fill. The young bay mud deposits are poorly consolidated and
upon loading undergo consolidation which can lead to substantial settlement. The
consolidation process and associated settlement occur at a slow rate but can result in
significant damage to structures that have not been properly designed and constructed.
The stability of the artificial fill is extremely variable and areas of the fill may contain
unstable sediments.
The San Francisco Bay area, which includes NAS, is located within a seismically active
region. The seismicity of the region is related to the San Andreas fault system, a zone
of shearing caused by the relative motions of the North American and Pacific plates.
The result of this crustal movement is the formation of several significant active
regional strike -slip fault zones, including the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras,
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \7OHEALTH
7 -1
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Greenville, Rodgers Creek, and Sea Cove -San Gregario fault zones. Although part of a
regional system, each of these fault zones represent individual seismic sources capable
of generating moderate to large magnitude earthquakes.
As true in all of Alameda, the probability of a large earthquake of magnitude 7 or
greater occurring within the San Francisco Bay area within the next 30 years is
estimated to be approximately 67 percent. Expected strong to violent ground shaking
could result in seismically- induced ground failure in portions of NAS. The majority of
the site is underlain by hydraulically- placed sandy fill which could be subject to
liquefaction.
The geologic and seismic conditions at NAS indicate that specific precautions should
be taken during design, construction, rehabilitation, and operation of facilities
developed during the reuse period. The following guiding and implementation policies
shall be adopted to minimize potential injuries and property damage related to geologic
and seismic conditions:
Seismic, Geologic, and Soils Hazards Policies:
7 -1 A soils and geologic report will be submitted if required by the Director of Public
Works prior to the issue all grading and building permits and submission of final maps,
in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, to evaluate the potential for lateral
spreading, liquefaction, differential settlement, and other types of ground failures
(8.1.a).
Portions of NAS Alameda have experienced significant ground surface settlement and
related damage to structures and utilities) caused by consolidation of sediment under the
load of fill and structures. The consolidation process and associated settlement occur at a
slow rate but can result in significant damage to structures that have not been properly
designed and constructed. The most severe settlement has been documented in the historic
housing of the northeastern portion of the project site. This area and other areas of the
northern and central portion of NAS which are susceptible to settlement are underlain by
relatively thick deposits of young Bay Mud.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \7OHEALTH
7 -2
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Expected strong to violent ground shaking could result in seismically- induced ground failure
in portions of NAS Alameda. The majority of the site is underlain by hydraulically placed
sandy fill, which could be subject to liquefaction.
7 -2 Require design of new buildings to resist the lateral effects and other potential forces of
a large earthquake on any of the nearby faults, as required by the latest edition of the
California Building Code (8.1.b).
Though no fault traces run through Alameda or the base, the site is very close to major
earthquake fault zones. The San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and San Gregorio faults are
of primary concern in the evaluation of seismic activity that affects the San Francisco Bay
Area and Alameda. Any of these four faults are capable of producing large, destructive
earthquakes that could affect the entire region. NAS Alameda will be adversely affected by
strong to violent ground motion generated by expected earthquakes by several regional
active fault zones. Liquefaction causing runway pavement failure and differential
settlement of some buildings occurred at NAS Alameda as a result of the 7.1 magnitude
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake on the San Andreas fault. The effect of this level of
groundshaking on existing and future structures would be variable and dependent on the
proximity of the causative fault, the magnitude and other characteristics (including
duration) of the earthquake, characteristics of the underlying geologic materials, and the type
and quality of building design and construction.
7 -3 Require building design to incorporate recommendations contained in the soils and
geologic report (8.1.c).
7-4 Require all structures of three or more stories to be supported on pile foundations that
penetrate Bay Mud deposits to firm, non - compressible materials, unless geotechnical
findings indicate a more appropriate design (8.1.d).
Larger buildings, heavy structures or equipment, and multistory commercial or industrial
buildings would require pile foundations to minimize settlement of these structures. Piles
should be designed to be founded on a suitably strong bearing unit (possibly old Bay Mud or
Merritt sands) to have adequate skin friction, and to account for "downdrag" on piles
O:\NETWORK\ 45212ALMPHASE5 \ELEMENTS \70HEALTH
7 -3
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
related to consolidation of underlying young Bay Muds, if present.
7 -5 Design underground utilities to minimize the effect of differential ground displacement
(8.1.e).
The potential for variable differential settlement at NAS between buildings supported on
pile and unsupported utilities could result in rupture or damage to the utilities. The
potential damage to utilities should be addressed by designing flexible connections for the
utilities. The gradient of utility alignments should be designed to tolerate differential
settlement along the alignments as determined by site- specific investigations. Specific utility
design criteria should be included in the required site - specific geologic report for
development projects.
7 -6 Continue to provide for the identification and evaluation of existing structural
hazards, and abate those hazards to acceptable levels of risk (8.1.f).
Although a few small unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings currently exist at NAS, none
of the buildings have been identified as structures with valuable reuse potential. These
structures would be demolished during the reuse period. Current building code standards do
not allow construction of unreinforced buildings and, therefore, occupation of URM
buildings is unlikely.
7 -7 The placement of artificial fill for development during the reuse period should be
limited to reduce the potential for increased loading and associated settlement in areas
underlain by thick young Bay Muds.
The placement of artificial fill should be limited to reduce the potential for increased loading
and associated settlement in these areas of NAS. Reconditioning (compaction) of existing
subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill. Development projects proposing
the construction of structural fills should be required to present site - specific geotechnical
reports which provide analysis of consolidation potential. Lightweight and low plasticity
fill materials should be specified.
O:\ NETWORK \4S212ALA\PHASES\ELEMENTSV OHEALTH
7 -4
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
7 -8 Design building entrances, exits, and other vital features to accommodate.expected
settlement (8.1.h).
Buildings should be sited so entrances, exits, and other vital structures continue to be
accessible as settling occurs. Mat or slab foundations constructed in areas of expected areal
settlement should be designed to minimize the potential for soil erosion under the perimeter
of the foundation.
7 -9 Require owners of shoreline properties to inspect, maintain, and repair the perimeter
slopes according to City standards as settlement occurs due to the consolidation of
underlying Bay Mud and wave erosion (8.1.h).
Bay Mud (a silty clay rich in organic materials) and Merritt Sand (a loose, well - sorted fine -
to medium - grained sand with silt) are the two base soils underlying Alameda. Development
along the edges of the Main Island, including at NAS, and on all of Bay Farm Island rests on
fill overlying Bay Mud. Bay Mud is prone to consolidation, leading to surface settlement,
and potentially increasing perimeter erosion.
Minor slope failures in unprotected shoreline areas at NAS could occur as the consequence of
undermining by wave erosion. The unprotected shoreline could also fail in the event of
seismically- induced liquefaction.
7 -10 Develop a comprehensive public information program that provides information on
seismic hazards, including structural and nonstructural hazards, and areas most
susceptible to damage.
Current (1990) public information programs are fragmented, and different types and depths
of information are handled by different o ices, such as the City Manager's Office and the
Fire Department.
The Fire Department's emphasis is on teaching earthquake preparedness and citizen self-help.
Homeowners are encouraged to perform cost - effective seismic upgrades to their homes, such
as bolting house frames to the foundation, sheathing cripple walls, strapping water heaters to
7 -5
O:\ NETWORK \4 S212ALA\PHASE5\ELEM ENTS \70HEALTH
Health: And Safety. Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
studs, inspecting and repairing masonry chimneys and developing neighborhood -level
preparedness.
7 -11 Amend the local Uniform Building Code, when appropriate, to incorporate standards
for new and modified construction pertaining to development on areas of fill or
underlain by Bay Mud or Merritt Sand (8.1.j).
7 -12 Conduct periodic earthquake and emergency fire drills; coordinate these drills on a
regional basis in cooperation with involved jurisdictions and affected community
organizations (8.1.k).
This policy, from the 1976 Safety Element for Alameda, continues to have relevance and
important public health and safety benefits. Multijurisdictional disaster planning is
essential given the contiguous boundaries of cities within the Bay Area.
7 -13 Consult with the East Bay Regional Park District on beach erosion abatement
programs for the shores of the former NAS Alameda. (8.1.1)
FIRE HAZARDS
Major fires are most likely to occur in large apartment complexes or industrial areas.
Fires resulting from the rupture of local gas or electric lines during an earthquake
could be severely compounded by water failures. The policies in this section are aimed
at 1) mitigating factors and conditions at NAS Alameda that are conducive to fire
hazards and 2) identifying effective means of dealing with fire disasters should they
occur. A preventative and prescriptive approach is intended to reduce the risk of fire
hazards on base.
Fire Hazards Policies:
7 -14 Maintain and expand the City's fire prevention and fire - fighting capability into the
former NAS site by establishing a station with two fire companies to service the
emergency needs of all residents and businesses of the area.
O:\ NETWORK \4S2I2 A LA\P HASE5\ELEM ENTS V OHE A LTH
7 -6
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
7 -15 Extend Alameda's current level of emergency medical service into the former NAS site
as reuse activities and residential buildout proceeds.
7 -16 Identify "critical facilities" in the NAS Alameda area and add them to the City's list,
integrating them into the City's emergency provision plan.
Alameda's 1976 Safety Element contained a listing of 49 "critical facilities" in Alameda,
"whose presence and continued functioning constitutes a vital role in a potential emergency,
or whose failure might prove catastrophic." These facilities included the hospital, fire and
police station, City Hall, schools, auditoriums, and ambulance services. As reuse activities
unfold, it is important to identify strategically situated structures that will act as "critical
facilities "for the residents of NAS Alameda and Alameda as a whole, in the event of an
emergency.
7 -17 Assure the compliance of new structures with the City's current Fire, Seismic, and
Sprinkler Codes. Existing structures shall be required by the City to comply with the
intent of the Codes in a cost effective manner.
Fire and Sprinkler Codes are currently enforced by the City's Fire Department. Seismic
codes are under the jurisdiction of the City's Building Codes and Permit office.
7 -18 Identify structures on NAS Alameda that present safety hazards and formulate a plan
for either bring the structures to a safe, functional level, or demolishing them.
7 -19 Require new development to plan underground utilities so disruption by earthshaking
or other natural disasters is diminished. Require improvements to existing utilities
infrastructure occur in compliance with seismic and natural disaster considerations.
FLOODING AND HYDROLOGY
Hydrology
Groundwater occurs at shallow depths throughout NAS Alameda. In general, all
subsurface materials (including fill, young Bay Muds, and Merritt sands) which
7 -7
OANET W ORK \4S2 12ALA\PHASE5 \ELEMENTSV OHEALTH
Health And Safety Element' NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
underlie NAS Alameda are saturated at depths greater than ten feet below the ground
surface. The shallow groundwater, particularly when occurring in highly permeable
zones, is in hydraulic communication with the saline waters of the Bay and Oakland
Harbor, resulting in poor, brackish groundwater quality. The quality of shallow
groundwater has also been degraded by urban runoff, leakage from sewer systems, and
releases of hazardous materials to the subsurface at numerous locations at NAS.
Hydrology Policies:
7 -20 Prevent the installation of water supply wells in the uppermost aquifer at NAS to
reduce the potential use or migration of groundwater affected by the release of
hazardous materials.
The quality of large volumes of the uppermost groundwater underlying NAS are known to
be affected by the release of hazardous materials; other areas of groundwater contamination
may be identified in the future. Pumping of large volumes of shallow groundwater could
affect the evaluation and remediation of groundwater contamination plumes. The quality
of water drawn from wells pumping the uppermost aquifer may pose human and
environmental health hazards.
7 -21 Support development of a water quality testing program for all existing water supply
wells at NAS to determine the safe uses or appropriate discharge of pumped water.
Flooding
NAS Alameda is vulnerable to flooding as it is a water bound community surrounded
on three sides by open waters, with San Francisco Bay to the south and west and
Oakland Alameda Estuary to the north. The site occupies relatively flat topography,
the majority of which is filled lands. Although seawalls surrounding the margins of
the base provide flood protection, the level of protection has not been documented.
Some of these areas are below the elevation of expected high water and tsunami runup
heights.
The potential for flooding at NAS Alameda is primarily related to the coastal setting of
the site. The ground surface elevations throughout the majority of the site are less than
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \70HEALTH
7-8
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
ten feet above mean sea level relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD). Although NAS Alameda is not currently covered by the Flood Insurance
Rates Map program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
portions of NAS Alameda may be below the coastal base flood elevations determined
for the Oakland Alameda Estuary and could be subject to flooding by storm waves.
Following are brief descriptions of conditions and instances that may result in flooding
at NAS Alameda.
100 Year Flood
Areas contiguous to NAS Alameda that are subject to inundation during a 100 -year
flooding event include Main Street from its terminus with the Oakland Alameda
Estuary to approximately 0.3 miles upstream (southward). The estimated stillwater
elevation during the 100 -year flood in this area is estimated to be 6.6 feet NGVD
(FEMA, 1991). Flooding on Main Street occurs during heavy rains at high tide
conditions and is due in part to failure in the flood gates of the stormwater system.
Although protected by seawalls, portions of the base are below this stillwater elevation
and could be subject to inundation by water seepage through the walls or overtopping
of low points on the walls.
Tsunamis, Seiche, and Storm Waves
Lower portions of NAS Alameda could be subject to inundation by tsunamis and
seiche. Earthquakes may generate large oscillation, or seiche, in a closed water body
such as San Francisco Bay. At least nineteen tsunamis were recorded in San Francisco
Bay during the period from 1868 to 1968 (Wiegel, 1970). The largest tsunami wave
height recorded at the Presidio during that period was caused by the 1964 Alaskan
earthquake and was measured to be 7.5 feet. Estimated runup heights for the
probabilistic 100 -year tsunami ranges from elevation 4.7 to 5.5 feet around the
perimeter of the base; the 500 -year tsunamis runup ranges from 7.5 to 9.5 feet (Garcia
and Houston, 1975). Another analysis of the 100 -year tsunami runup height (Ritter
and Dupre, 1972) indicates that the northern, western, and southern margins of NAS
Alameda may be inundated by such an event.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \70HEALTH
7 -9
Health And Safety Ele
ent
NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Sea Level Rise
Historic tide gauge data indicates that sea level has risen in San Francisco Bay (at the
Presidio) at a rate of 0.0039 feet /year (BCDC, 1987) during the period 1854 to 1985.
The impact of global sea level rise can be increased if the affected land mass is
subsiding. The local relative sea level change rate accounts for the local land level
change (subsidence.or uplift) and global sea level change related to global warming. At
Alameda the estimated local relative sea level change is 0.0053 feet /year. A projection
of sea level rise indicates that by 2006 sea level will rise from 0.36 to 0.53 feet (NGVD)
and by 2036 to 0.79 feet (NGVD). When the highest estimated tide (6.7 feet; NGVD)
is superimposed on the projected rise in sea level, the estimated future extreme storm
wave at Alameda would increase from 6.7 feet (NGVD) at present to 7.1 feet (NGVD)
in 2036. These estimates do not include a compounded increase caused by the low
probability event of a tsunami occurring simultaneously with the highest estimated
tide.
Flooding Policies:
7 -22 Support preparation of a Flood Insurance Study by FEMA to cover NAS Alameda.
The City of Alameda is a participating community in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Although a preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) has been performed for the
City and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) have been prepared, NAS, as a federal facility,
was not included in the FIS evaluation. In order for the area of NAS to be included in the
NFIP, a FIS must be prepared that evaluates flooding hazards at NAS.
7 -23 Ensure that structures proposed for sites located on flood plains subject to the 100 -year
flood are provided adequate protection from floods (8.3.b).
Following completion of an FIS which includes NAS, the City should enforce all existing
flood protection policies and ordinance requirements to provide protection against flooding
at NAS and remain in compliance with the requirements of the NFIP.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \7OHEALTH
7-10
Health And Safety Element ` NAS rAlameda Community Reuse Plan
7 -24 Monitor EPA reports on sea level rise in order to anticipate impacts if sea level rise
accelerates; coordinate with BCDC to design an appropriate response (8.3.c).
Accelerated rates of rise would require an aggressive response on a regional basis. Estimates
for future rates of sea level rise vary widely, from 4.32 inches over the next 50 years to
estimates of up to 10 feet over the next 100 years. The elevation of NAS and proximity to
San Francisco Bay present conditions which may be affected by increased flooding hazards
associated with expected sea level rise.
7 -25 Support national and international efforts to protect the Earth's ozone layer, including
policy to minimize or prevent the release of chlorofluorocarbons and similar gases
(8.3.d).
The City's efforts to prevent the release of gases which contribute to the "Greenhouse Effect"
would have an incremental impact on the global condition. However, international
concern over this issue may lead to stricter controls of these gases over the next two decades
on national, State, and local levels.
7 -26 Support a multi -use concept of waterways, including, where appropriate, uses for flood
control, open space, nature study, habitat, pedestrian circulation, and outdoor sports
and recreation (8.e).
7 -27 Coordinate incorporation of NAS into the City of Alameda Urban Runoff Program
to reduce potential water quality degradation related to urban runoff.
The existing stormwater drainage network at NAS discharges directly to the San Francisco
Bay and Oakland Harbor. The known occurrence of and potential for, use, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials related to past, current, and future land uses at the base
(including operation of heavy industries) presents the potential for these materials to
adversely affect the quality of runoff. The City's Urban Runoff Program does not currently
cover the area of NAS. In order to remain in compliance with the Alameda County Urban
Runoff - Clean Water Program, the City program would need to be amended to include
NAS.
O:\NET W ORK \4S2 f 2ALA\PHASE5\ELEMENTSV OHEALTH
7 -11
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
7 -28 Continue to implement improvement programs to address periodic Main Street
flooding.
The flooding along Main Street occurs when storm water runoff occurs coincidentally with
high tides. The affected area is drained by a ditch which flows northward and discharges
near the ferry terminal. The discharge pipe is fitted with a `flap gate" valve. The valve is
designed to close during high tides and prevent tide waters from inundating the low -lying
area north of Singelton Avenue and east Main Street. When the valve is closed, this area
can be flooded by runoff flowing toward the Harbor. Flooding of this area can result in
inundation and closure of Main Street several times a year. Closure of the roadway prevents
access to the main gate of NAS Alameda and into the NAS Family Housing Annex. The
City has developed an improvements program to correct the flooding problem in this area.
The first phase of the program, which would raise the elevation of the road surface above the
flood level, has been designed. The second phase of the program would include the
installation of a pump station to pump runoff into the Harbor. The City has applied for a
grant from the Economic Development Agency (EDA) to implement the program.
However, matching funds required by EDA are not currently available.
7 -29 Require the maintenance of easements along those drainage ways necessary for
adequate drainage of normal or increased surface runoff due to storms (8.3.g).
In particular, flood improvements are necessary for portions of Main Street north of
Singleton Avenue at the perimeter of NAS. Easements for this area should be maintained or
enlarged to accommodate flood improvements.
7 -30 Require new drainage facilities to be designed to minimize the effects of settlement
(8.3.h).
Areas of the NAS underlain by Bay Mud are especially susceptible to settlement and
disruption of drainage and other underground facilities, because of the soft, compressible
nature of the Bay Mud.
7 -31 Reduce the effects of surface runoff by the use of extensive landscaping, minimizing
O:\NET W ORK \4S212ALA\P HASE5\ELEMENTS \7OHEALTH
7 -12
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
impervious surface and drainage easements (8.3.i).
7 -32 Establish an assessment mechanism to provide for capital costs for construction,
maintenance, and operation of urban runoff Best Management Practices and costs
associated with inspection, monitoring, and reporting that could be incurred by the
City in incorporation of the NAS into the Urban Runoff Program.
7 -33 Use all possible means of reducing the potential for flood damage in Alameda. These
may include the requirement of flood - proofing, flood forecast and warning or
evacuation programs, and stringent groundwater management programs to prevent
subsidence (8.3.f).
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
The two primary documents addressing environmental cleanup at NAS Alameda are
the Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) and the BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP). The
coordination of the BCP and the Reuse Plans is critical to the success of ARRA's
program. The final Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) and the BRAC Cleanup Plan
(BCP) including the Parcel Evaluation Plans (PEP's), will be used to develop parcel
specific EBS' to support Findings of Suitability to Lease (FOSLs) and eventually
Findings of Suitability to Transfer (FOSTs). In addition, a base wide risk assessment
commenced in November 1994. Results of the risk assessment will be used to identify
and set priorities for risk management decisions to meet the objectives of the reuse and
redevelopment plan. Meetings between the Navy and Cal -EPA to achieve agreement
on details of the risk assessment are in progress. Communication of risk assessment
methodology, purpose and results to the public and special interest groups is critical to
gaining acceptance by these entities. The Reuse Advisort Board (RAB) is a citizen
advisory panel for the Navy's Cleanup effort that acts as the primary means of public
involvement and input to the cleanup process.
There are a total of 23 Installation Restoration (IR) sites identified to date that will
require remedial activity. There are four main areas at NAS that will require
significant time and cost to complete remediation prior to transfer and redevelopment.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \7OHEALTH
7 -13
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
These sites are identified as: 1) Building 5, 2) the southeast area of NAS centering
around Building 530, 3) the landfills located at the west end of NAS, and 4) the
Seaplane Lagoon.
The Record of Decision (ROD)will include compilation of remedial action plans for
each IR site. The remedial action plans will be based on the remedial investigation and
risk assessments. Additionally, the ROD will define the clean-up levels, the estimated
costs and time to remediation, and costs. The clean-up of NAS is mandated by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) following the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300 to 399) which is
the guidance document for the preparation of the ROD. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) is the designated lead regulatory agency for oversight and
enforcement of the implementation of the National Contingency Plan. The nine
criteria used to evaluate the effort and clean-up levels stated in the National
Contingency Plan are as follows:
•
•
•
•
Overall protection of human health and environment
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR) under Federal and State law
Long term effectiveness and performance
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
Short term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
The remedial investigations for each Installation Restoration (IR) site were completed
in July 1995. The remedial investigation report is anticipated to be completed in Fall
1996. The preliminary status of these investigations indicate that no additional IR sites
have been identified. Additionally, the preliminary investigations for the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities as part of the environmental
Baseline Survey at NAS are still in progress. The field work is anticipated to be
completed in January 1996, and the report is anticipated by March 1996. This report
O:\ NET WORK \4 S212ALA\PHASE5\ELEMENTS VOHEALTH
7 -14
Health: And, Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
may identify additional IR sites and could potentially identify clean sites for transfer.
The clean up levels defined in the ROD will reflect the reuse of the land area specific
to the IR site. The Navy is coordinating this effort in cooperation with the ARRA.
The risk assessment workplan has not been completed (December 1995). The risk
assessment will aid in determining the clean-up criteria for the IR sites relative to the
proposed reuse.
The type of the environmental contamination (i.e. the media impacted- soil and /or
groundwater) within the each IR site will affect the interim reuse and time to complete
remediation which will determine the transfer date and may affect the phased
redevelopment of NAS and the ultimate reuse of that individual IR site. The time
necessary to achieve remediation of soil for any IR site upon the issuance of the ROD
could be one to three years.
Where impacted groundwater is the issue at an IR site, the time to achieve remediation
could range from 5 to 30 years; however, in the interim, use and redevelopment of the
land can occur with restrictions. The land uses could be restricted to less risk adverse
uses such as industrial development. Residential development may be an acceptable
use alternative but may be restricted to a multi- tenant type development with no
openland public -use areas. The land within the area of contaminated groundwater will
also have certain deed restrictions that are undefined at this point. The restrictions
would be designed to restrict land use or tenant operations that could come into
contact with groundwater or affect the groundwater remediation systems. Most
importantly, prior to transfer of a land within the area of contaminated groundwater,
the groundwater remediation system must be functioning and remediating as it was
designed. The time necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of a groundwater
remediation system could be one to two years upon start-up of the system.
During the phased redevelopment of the base the IR sites currently under remediation
may require additional costs and engineering efforts to ensure that remediation
processes are not affected by reuse and human health is protected. For example: If a
utility trench had to intersect an IR site, certain restrictions would apply. It would be
necessary for the contractor performing the work to have proper certification to work
in the contaminated media. Any impacted material removed from the trench would
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS\70HEALTH
7 -15
Health And Safety Element . NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
have to be handled as such and disposed and /or treated (remediated) properly.
Additional engineering efforts would have to be implemented to ensure the
uninterruption of the remediation system (if one is installed) or to prevent further
migration of the contamination.
Of the four main areas of NAS that will require significant time and cost to implement
remediation, two will have significant impacts on the chosen alternative; 1) Seaplane
Lagoon and 2) the southeast area of NAS centering around Building 530.
The chosen alternative for reuse of NAS indicates that the Seaplane Lagoon is to be
redeveloped as a Marina. The DTSC is aware of the intended reuse and is in
communication with the ARRA regarding the reuse /remediation issues. The time
sensitivity (immediate redevelopment vs non - immediate redevelopment) of marina
redevelopment will have an impact on the remedial method.
The groundwater of the southeast portion of NAS - the Inner Harbor and the area
around Building 530 in particular - is impacted with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The extent of the contamination has not yet been defined. The strategy of
the Navy, in regards to remedial activity in this area, is to define the beneficial use of
the groundwater as non - potable to reduce the remedial effort. In addition, if the Navy
succeeds in obtaining a non - potable status, ARRA would have to demonstrate that
potable water supply wells would be restricted in this area and demonstrate that a
sufficient potable water supply is available from another source through existing
domestic water distribution systems. Remedial efforts for this area would be site
specific in order to reduce the potential for VOCs to move from the groundwater and
into structures.
Environmental Clean -up Policies:
7 -34 Coordinate the Base Cleanup Plan with the ARRA's schedule for reuse.
Close coordination is required to achieve timely transfer of property for both short term
reuse and longer term redevelopment. The ability to achieve ARRA's reuse and
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212A1A \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \70HEALTH
7 -16
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
redevelopment schedule is dependent on the Navy's ability to identify environmental
concerns and /or impact on parcels of high interest in a timely manner. The impact on
individual parcels, as well as the potential impact from neighboring parcels and the
remedial actions required have to be defined.
7 -35 Prioritize and develop parcel specific Environmental Baseline Surveys (EBS) to
expedite lease /transfer of the base.
Because the EBS is not organized for parcel specificity, additional work will be required to
identify the remedial action required to support a FOSL or FOST. Parcel specific study will
provide a vehicle for identifying the presence or absence of environmental contamination at
specific parcels including, but not limited to, Asbestos Containing Material (ACM)
investigation, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) inventory, lead based paint investigation,
video and sampling survey of the sewer system and utility trenches. Transformers and other
dielectric fluid (PCB) containing devices on the base have been identified and tested. Those
devices containing PCBs are being scheduled for removal. The challenge is to prioritized the .
parcels based on potential for lease /transfer, and to implement the plans expeditiously.
7 -36 Resolve issues related to the disposition of asbestos containing materials (ACM).
These issues are being addressed by the Navy Public Works Center and are currently not
coordinated with any other program schedule. The ARRA should communicate with the
Navy Public Works Center regarding the status of asbestos removal, for the purpose of
coordinating actvities with building reuse priorities.
7 -37 Develop clean -up procedures and agreements with the Navy that can accommodate
clean-up while maintaining business activity.
Coordinating interim leasing on the base prior to or during clean -up activity on any given
parcel is one of the major challenges for successful reuse . It is anticipated that remediation
activities will be on -going at the base for an indeterminate time. Agreements could range
from no interruption or requiring access to the property, and depending on the remediation
technology, to requiring the lessee to vacate the property for an indeterminate amount of
time.
O: \NETWORK \4S212ALA \PHASES \ELEMENTS \7OHEALTH
7 -17
Health And Safety Element - NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
7 -38 Work with the Navy to establish acceptable rsik based clean -up levels necessary for
succesful reuse.
Regulations allow the level of clean -up on individual parcels to vary in part according to
parcel specific planned future use. A base wide risk assessment commenced in November
1994. The results of the risk assessment will be used to identify priorities for risk
management decisions so that ARRA 's reuse and redevelopment goals can be achieved. It is
imperative that the Navy, its contractors, and the agencies agree on the methodology to be
used, the data required and existing data gaps, as well as the end use of the parcels.
Groundwater issues such as classifying areas that are potential sources of drinking water,
need to be addressed. Communication of the process to the community as well as special
interest groups is key to acceptance and implemenation of the concept.
7 -39 Coordinate cooperation among and within the agencies responsible for clean -up
planning and approvals.
Cooperation among responsible clean up agencies will be critical to successful interim reuse
and beginning long term reuse. These agencies, including Cal -EPA, RWQCB, AQMD and
DTSC, can significantly affect the schedule and feasibility of clean -up efforts.
DTSC has been appointed the lead agency for Cal -EPA for base reuse and restoration
programs. There has been a history of key agencies, namely DTSC, RWQCB, and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), operating autonomously. A key
concern is coordinating agencies to work cooperatively in the base reuse effort.
7-40 Work to assure that adequate and predictable funding must be available to accomplish
the BCP on a schedule which supports reuse initiatives.
Funding is at the discretion of Congress on an annual basis and is uncertain. The Navy
allocates funds to the various restoration programs based on projected needs of each
program. Unfortunately, the BRA C Cleanup Plan performance is judged on contract
commitments rather than work actually completed which could put any one of the
O:\ NETWORK \4S2I2ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS V OHEALTH
7 -18
Health And Safety Element ,Alameda Comm unity Reuse Plan
restoration programs at risk for additional funding.
7 -41 Monitor the progress of the Navy's clean -up schedule so that efforts are coordinated
throughout and impact on the overall restoration program is minimal.
Navy CLEAN I, a $130 million, one -year contract with 9 option years awarded in 1988,
has been expended in about six years. Engineering Field Activity WEST has decided to open
CLEAN II for bid. While proposals have been received, an announcement of the successful
bidder has not been made. It is very important that the program proceeds with a minimum
of revisiting past work.
MAGNETIC FIELDS
Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are present wherever electricity flows from
transmission lines to household appliances. After several years of analysis the EPA has
concluded that a growing body of data suggests a causal link between cancer and
EMFs. A number of research studies are now under way to determine if magnetic
fields do indeed pose any health risk. Congressional bills that would boost Federal
funds for research into the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, including
electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines in residential areas are under
consideration. As a result of a 1993 decision by the California Public Utilities
Commission, an EMF research and information program, managed by the California
Department of Health Services, has been established.
Magnetic Fields Policies:
7 -42 Monitor current information about the results of research on the health effects of
magnetic fields generated by power transmission lines and other sources and take
appropriate action if warranted.(8.5.a)
The Alameda Bureau of Electricity monitors the popular press and industry- related news,
attends indutry conferences, and will keep the citizenry informed in the event of any
7 -19
O:\NETWORK \4S212ALA \P HASE5 \ELEMENTS \70HEALTH
Health And Safety Element NAS, Alameda Community Reuse Plan
conclusive information.
7-43 Compile information about potential areas of concern at NAS Alameda with regard to
electromagnetic fields and reuse of the existing electrical system. New electrical lines
and other utilities should be sited and designed with attention to reducing potential
impacts from electromagnetic fields.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
The Emergency Operations Management Program in Alameda, currently under the
jurisdiction of the Fire Department, is intended to coordinate response to potential
disasters such as hazardous materials spills or clouds, nuclear accidents, and hazards due
to earthquakes, fire, or aircraft crash. Specific policies for each of these hazards are
listed under Seismic Hazards, Fire, Flooding, and Hazardous Materials. This section
refers to the overall management and responsibility for controlling or reducing the
consequences of any of these hazards if they are realized. The Emergency Operations
Plan is still in its infancy, departmental responsibilities are being developed, with
completed annexes available for fire and rescue, personnel, and management
departments. Disaster exercises are planned and carried out on a periodic basis.
Provisions for Emergency Management at NAS Alameda must be integrated into this
Plan.
Emergency Management Policy:
7-44 Adopt the recommendations and standards to be established in the City of Alameda's
Emergency Operations Plan as the guide for disaster planning at NAS Alameda. (8.6.a)
7 -45 Create and integrate provisions for Emergency Management at NAS Alameda into the
City of Alameda's Emergency Operations Plan.
7-46 Designate staff and assign time for creating and implementing procedures for
Emergency Operations at NAS Alameda. (8.6.b)
The proximity of Alameda to two major earthquake faults, the large percentage of the base
O :\NETWORK \4S212ALA \PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \7OHEALTH
7 -20
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community: Reuse Plan
built on unstable soils, and potential isolation of the Main Island all constitute major
reasons to make the creation and implementation of such procedures are a high priority.
7 -47 Establish community programs to train volunteers to assist police, fire, and civil
defense personnel during and after a major earthquake, fire, or flood. Extend these
programs to the former NAS site. (8.6.c)
The City can encourage this training by publicizing courses available to the public and
standard CPR and First Aid, as well as disaster- oriented training. The Emergency
Operations Plan should specify locations to which volunteers can report during an
emergency, and should include listings of appropriate jobs for volunteers. The City
Personnel Department and the Alameda Red Cross should coordinate their efforts for
emergency programs.
7 -48 Identify "critical facilities" in the NAS Alameda area and add them to the City's list,
integrating them into the City's emergency provision plan.
Alameda's 1976 Safety Element contained a listing of 49 "critical facilities" in Alameda,
"whose presence and continued functioning constitutes a vital role in a potential emergency,
or whose failure might prove catastrophic." These facilities included the hospital, fire and
police station, City Hall, schools, auditoriums, and ambulance services. As reuse activities
unfold, it is important to identify strategically situated structures that will act as "critical
facilities" for the residents of NAS Alameda and Alameda as a whole, in the event of an
emergency.
7 -49 Coordinate emergency operations at the former NAS site with City wide activities to
promote City -level self - sufficiency in emergency response. (8.6.d)
7 -50 Establish a priority system of evacuation routes for the region and for NAS Alameda
that works in conjunction with that of the Island as a whole. (8.6.e)
Alamedans are limited to several "exits " from the City during an evacuation. Emergency
personnel are reluctant to designate evacuation routes until a disaster occurs, since the
details of a particular emergency (location and exten) will aid in determining evacuation
O: \NET WORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \70HEALTH
7 -21
Health And Safety Element NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
pathways. Primary routes are Doolittle Drive, Posey Tube, and Park Street bridge.
At buildout, the primary evacuation route for NAS Alameda will be Posey Tube.
7 -51 Designate emergency operations staging areas at the former NAS site. Sites could
potentially include the former runway, the open space, the NAS piers, the planned
golf course in Northwest Territories, the Civic Core central open space promenade,
and the new Regional Park. (8.6.f)
O: \NETWORK \4S212A LA\PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \70HEA LTH
7 -22
-s go
&:t—g
g
tn
Implementation Strategy NAS "Alameda Community Reuse Plan
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan is intended to be a policy document to
guide reuse and land use decisions. This document has been designed specifically to fit
into this existing planning and policy framework of the City of Alameda. Chapter 2
through 7 follow the guide of the City's General Plan and the State's General Plan
guidelines. Chapter 8, the Property Disposal Strategy is intended to specifically
respond to BRAC procedures for the disposal of property.
This chapter is intended to address issues that deal directly with the process of reuse
and redevelopment of NAS Alameda to civilian use. This implementation strategy
includes discussion of interim reuse, infrastructure, financing & fiscal implications of
the plan, equipment & personal property disposition, as well as action items for the
policy areas discussed in previous chapters. Each of these sections address issues crucial
for the implementation of the Community Reuse Plan.
EQUIPMENT AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
A wide range of personal property and equipment could potentially remain on base
after the Navy has departed. This equipment and personal property represents an
opportunity for attracting businesses to the base. In some cases, it will increase the
marketability of individual buildings located on base, as specialized industries seek to
relocate or expand into former base property. It should be noted that through
equipment does not have to be used in its current location or configuration, according
to Navy regulations, reuse of equipment must occur on -site at NAS Alameda.
Industrial Equipment
The equipment that presents the greatest opportunity are not individual tools or
machines, but groups of tools and machines that create a shop or lab. This equipment
is generally associated with specific buildings. Constraints on personal property reuse
and marketability exist as much of the equipment is outdated or requires major
reconfiguration.
An assessment of personal property was performed as part of an overall facility
marketability survey. The assessment focused on the industrial equipment and the
usefulness of the equipment "in place ". Forty four buildings were surveyed and only
O:\ NETWORK\# S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 1
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
those buildings with equipment having market enhancement impact potential were
addressed.
The assessment identified one building (Building 7, the Materials Engineering
Laboratory) which, if it were to retain all of its present equipment, would have
enhanced market value for drawing interim and long term private users. The
equipment in this building is functional - listed as overall good condition to very good
condition, modern, and suitable for uses beyond the highly specialized military uses.
Two buildings are deemed to have some limited enhanced marketability due to their
personal property and equipment. These are: Building 32, the Plating Facility, and
Building 24, the Aircraft Painting and Finishing Facility. These buildings are modern
facilities but their marketability to civilian users is unknown. Building 25, the
Corrosion Control Facility, is a modern, highly specialized facility that has little tO no
reuse potential due to its design and the specialized nature of its equipment.
Building 9, the Aircraft Store House, and Building 62, the Computer and Data
Communications Center, also have equipment that was deemed to have some value
but the buildings and equipment as currently used and configured greatly limited the
marketability. Some of the constraints for reuse of personal property for these
buildings include configuration, operational problems, and uncertainty as to status of
equipment.
No other industrial equipment was estimated to contribute to building marketability.
Reasons disqualifying additional buildings and their properties from enhanced
marketability are due to equipment included abandonment, transfer of property to
other locales, highly specialized equipment, malfunctioning equipment, non-
functioning equipment, dated equipment, and sundry ill- suited collection of
equipment.
In addition to enhancing marketability of NAS facilities through "in place" reuse,
existing industrial equipment could be moved and reconfigured for reuse elsewhere on
the Base. This possibility should be considered an a case -by -case basis responding to
interest from potential reusers in available buildings and equipment.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 2
Implementation Strategy: NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Business Equipment
Leases and sales of business equipment currently in the NAS Alameda inventory at
less than fair market value would provide a strong incentive for new businesses to
locate at NAS Alameda. Office Furnishings and Equipment currently on the base
could be used by private and public enterprises. This includes the types of furniture
normally found in an office environment and office equipment includes personal
computers (preferably 80486 class or newer), facsimile machines, telephones,
typewriters, calculators, reproduction equipment, audio - visual aides and similar items.
Warehouse Equipment and Supplies including shelves, racks, conveyors and material
handling equipment such as fork lifts and pickers.
Public Service Uses
The following general types of equipment would be required to properly maintain
both real and personal property throughout NAS Alameda.
Public Safety and Security: Examples of this property include fire fighting,
hazardous material response and ambulance equipment, security systems and law
enforcement items.
Ground Maintenance Equipment: This category includes mowers and other
similar types of equipment used to maintain public areas, parks, and recreation
fields.
Utility Maintenance Systems and Documentation: This includes equipment,
drawings, technical manuals, maintenance histories and other documentation
that supports facilities or the base utility systems. This category will be critical
for upgrading and maintaining the Base infrastructure.
Community Use
The Community Reuse Plan sets aside numerous areas of the property for local
community use, including the marina, open areas, athletic fields, gymnasiums and
swimming pools. The Navy's Morale, Welfare, Recreation (MWR) activities own most
recreation buildings, including the bowling alley, woodshop, and the North Housing
recreational center (Buildings 542, 607, and 522 respectively) and the related
O:\NETWORK \4S212ALA\PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. W PD
9- 3
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
equipment. MWR is funded through donations and payments from Navy personnel
and therefore is not subject to BRAC closure property disposal guidelines. Reuse of
these structures and equipment would be subject to negotiation of transfer /sale
between the ARRA and MWR. The plan also envisions a maritime museum to
preserve the history of NAS Alameda. Finally, various agencies have expressed interest
in NAS under the Homeless Assistance Act Screening Process. To accomplish these
reuse goals, the following types of personal property will be required:
• Sports and Recreational Equipment: This includes any property used to maintain
and operate the existing sports /recreational facilities at NAS Alameda.
Historic Resources: This includes any historic personal property that is part of
or documents the long and cordial relationship between the local community
and the Navy.
• Household Goods: This includes furnishings and other items normally found in a
residential facility including barracks. This personal property would be used to
house homeless people.
• Food Service Equipment and Supplies: This category includes the types equipment
and supplies typically found in a commercial kitchen or restaurant. Homeless
Assistance Act providers will use this personal property to both feed homeless
people and train them for jobs in the food service industry.
Child Care Equipment: This includes equipment normally found in a day care
center for children. The AUSD providers intend to continue to operate the day
care facility.
INFRASTRUCTURE
This section discusses the infrastructure and related costs necessary to implement the
Community Reuse Plan. The critical infrastructure systems have been analyzed and
preliminary programs to repair and reuse existing systems and provide new systems
where necessary have been outlined. The analysis is based on the complete systems
O:\ iNETWORK\4 S212ALAVHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 4
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
and their total costs to serve the NAS site. Not all of the costs documented below will
be borne by the ARRA. The Navy, service providers, developers, and potential other
public agencies will be responsible for portions of the systems cost. It is the intent of
this section to outline the total cost of plan implementation and identify which of
these costs represent near term and long term costs. Three categories have been
tracked: 1) improvements and related costs representing near term expenditures that
are necessary to repair the existing systems or allow for civilian reuse /operation of the
system; 2) improvements that can be made through cyclic replacement programs with
costs and actions occurring over a 10 to 15 year period; and 3) improvements related
to redevelopment of specific sub -areas of the Base that would require new
infrastructure and incur costs to enable the development to occur. Discussion of the
water, stormwater, wastewater, natural gas, electrical, and roadway systems and related
costs are discussed below.
Potable Water and Fire Protection Sprinkler Systems
The estimated average daily water consumptive use at build out conditions is estimated
to be 2.89 MGD (million gallons per day). Previous studies prepared by the Navy
indicates that the base was consuming 2.8 MGD as an average daily demand for
potable water. On a comparative basis, the envisioned land uses do not appear to
require any significant improvements to the offsite water infrastructure. However,
informal discussions with EBMUD have indicated that offsite water transmission
system improvements would improve water flow capacity to the NAS base. By
improving water transmission capabilities, it may be feasible to phase out the existing
onsite water storage facilities (two elevated welded steel tanks and two pumped storage
facilities).
The existing on -site water distribution system was modeled utilizing computer
simulations to ensure the reliability of the system. Based on this analysis, it is
concluded that the existing potable distribution system can support the envisioned
land uses.
The exception of the proposed new industrial area in the northwest quadrant of the
base. A new 19,100 LF (linear foot) 14 -inch water line loop would need to be
constructed in order to properly serve this area. The cost for this improvement is
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 5
co co co co M kr,
O co . h '0 '0 ■0 • O . •at
t--- Oh O
00 M 00 M n
C' h .444 cei M 00 V' N 00 -. h
O
69 641 Ni 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
h cn
U n 00 o 0000 o Q
O o0 CO
rat a>
> C21 41 ^ h ^
4,
16, 487, 064 $
0,
0
C
0
00
0
0
to
O
.II
T
C° E
r 69 O
ca y
0
ai 0 'U O V1 M ut M-5, 7 .0
U d^. O h Oi o0 a\ O� a O
p" y 'tea' an co 0 00 M b 0000 b
4.
-b N M 1 vj �D nj
O O N M n vi
a g
69 o 00
0 CD CD 0 Pt. 0
O O 0 O
E Ca o 0 o c CD
c 0
y N kn 0 c v� 4 a)
y .G "7 M M N w 0 co
0
3 ate..
.0 0
VI w
cn. N
co c) O O ° CD O°° Q p CD O h CD C0 0
CC � °o vNi v o z CT c
C
M h N rt 00 .' b '11. E cn
0
a�
O N 00
en 0
6
Q
CD 0 0 CD CD
0000¢o° c 0
0 CD O.
z c o 00
E ( 0 O rt O N 00 0
y ^ N M .-. N .-. 0 N g O.
�n o N -�
0 .o
�
00 0 cei
a
0
ve, w 0
O O O O O O O O ° p O O O N E
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `� >
Rv °o° 10 C.-- a^',' 0 0 �3 0
V 7 L .0 '0 tr.!, O h '0- 00 ry 'U v, O fl+
V 00 U. 0 N N n O 00 - t�
4.41 '6 aj O N g cJ O
Potable Water
Stormwater
Alameda Public
174 fJ) C W 0
.) w
iE
69
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O
O y
o E o v, O v O tl' CV .. O v CO Cs. 'O
M h co N ON.„ �-• �Y' n al 'OO C
U v, W ... .-. ...»
C% p O N _ N -r ~ G
c� 'c3
O 69 . >
O O
M L O 0 G.
v.,
Pc
Assumed Service Provider (4)
>
•8
,
,n E 8 n c e 0 g o n
>
0 0 .0 03 v 3 0
N
U d o o os N o 0
v u .0 o 'o U , o o
113 E o Q° 2 m °fi' G 7 A
U 2 '2" a` C ate; o v
_ o ° w��
E C U x in ca 3 w c v� c`d v
E
°' GY+ = •� o .E 'C o m ° C7 U
2m1 Z z 3 -
u >-. o Tat
Z U U h F z
& Nichol, Harris & Associates, and Feer & Peers
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
estimated to be $3.5 million. For cost estimating purposes, including planning,
engineering, administration, construction, and contingencies, a cost of $180 per foot
was used for 14 -inch pipe.
For the purpose of revenue generation, water meters have to be installed at each
building. The estimated cost for installing water meters is $400,000 for all existing
buildings.
Due to the age of these pipes and corrosion problems, the existing water mains should
be replaced through a priority Main Replacement Program which will include the
replacement of existing asbestos cement, steel, ductile and cast -iron water mains. The
cost of this replacement is estimated to be $4.5 million for the potable water system.
This program would also include combining the fire protection sprinkler system with
the potable water system at the cost of $250,000. This cost includes new fire service
connections and will reduce capital costs, operational and maintenance costs associated
with maintaining two separate systems.
Stormwater System
To implement the preferred land use plan, the stormwater collection system will
require improvements to correct existing problem areas in addition to upgrading the
system to provide adequate capacity for development. Improvements and upgrades
will include costs incurred in the near term to maintain an operational system, cyclic
replacement costs and the costs related to the development in existing undeveloped
areas. Some of these costs will be incurred by private developers as is standard in the
development process. See Exhibit 9 -1 for a summary of costs.
Costs in the near term to maintain the system would include the following items:
1. There are areas of local flooding that occur due to a combination of high tides
and storms (As identified in the Conditions and Trends Report - Phase II).
Inspection of all outlets and maintenance of the outlet flap gates should be
conducted to correct any flooding due to non - functioning flap gates. Installation
of collection pipes in areas where flooding is known to occur will provide
detention of storm water during high tide and eliminate flooding. Cost for this
work is estimated to be $600,000 to $700,000.
O: \NETWORK \4S212ALA \PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 7
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
2. As part of the initial improvements, detailed television (TV) and video inspection
of the collector lines should be conducted to evaluate the condition of the pipes.
Results of the inspection will dictate the program for cyclic replacement. Cost
for detailed inspection and evaluation is estimated to be $300,000 to $350,000.
As part of the environmental cleanup effort the Navy is performing inspection
of the stormwater system. This effort may limit the cost of this analysis.
The improvements to the stormwater collection system to comply with City
requirements could be implemented in a cyclic replacement program. Most of the
existing collection lines are located within existing roadways. If the locations of the
proposed roadway system coincides with the existing, the collection lines could be
replaced under a long -term cyclic replacement program. In areas where the new
roadway grid system is significantly different from the existing, collection lines should
be constructed together with the development of the new roadways, locating the new
collection lines within proposed roadway. The extent of pipe replacement will depend
on the phasing of the development areas.
The time frame for a cyclic replacement program will need to consider the remaining
life of the existing pipes in the system. Preliminary estimates for completion of a
cyclic replacement program is between 10 to 15 years, subject to the results of the
detailed evaluation and TV /video inspection of the system. Other considerations for
the cyclic replacement program include the potential damage to pipelines due to land
settlement causing lines to become non - functional. The development phasing for the
land use subareas should also be considered in the cyclic replacement program.
Improvements to the system to meet capacity needs for the development plan could be
accomplished in phase with the development of the land use subareas. Replacement
of pipes and construction of new collection lines for new development should provide
a functional and operational system, preceding actual development projects.
Wastewater System
The preferred land use plan will require system upgrade and improvements to meet
capacity needs. Improvements and upgrades will include costs incurred in the near
term to maintain an operational system, cyclic replacement costs and the costs related
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 8
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
to the development in existing undeveloped areas. Some of these costs will be incurred
by private developers as is standard in the development process. See Exhibit 9 -1 for a
summary of costs.
The current wastewater collection system is functional (As identified in the Conditions
and Trends Report - Phase II). However, the system does have some wet weather
inflow and infiltration problems. The force main that crosses the Oakland Alameda
Estuary is currently be replaced as part of the dredging of the Oakland Inner Harbor
channel.
As a part of the initial improvements for maintaining an operational system, an
inspection using television and video equipment is recommended in order to evaluate
the conditions of the collection trunklines. Results of the inspection will dictate the
cyclic replacement program. The inspection will also assist in identifying repairs that
may be required immediately in order to provide an operational system. Cost for the
detailed evaluation and inspection is estimated to be $300,000 to $350,000.
The improvements to the wastewater collection system to comply with City
requirements could be implemented in a cyclic replacement program. Most of the
existing collection lines are located within existing roadway. If locations of the
proposed roadways coincides with the existing system, the collection lines could be
replaced under a long -term cyclic replacement program. In areas where the new
roadway grid system is significantly different from the existing, collection lines should
be constructed together with the development of the roadway system, locating the
new collection lines within proposed roadway. The extent of pipe replacement will
depend on the phasing of the development areas.
Time frame for a cyclic replacement program will need to consider the remaining life
of the existing pipes in the system. Preliminary estimate for completion of a cyclic
replacement program is between 10 to 15 years, subject to the results of the detailed
evaluation and TV /video inspection of the system. Other considerations for the cyclic
replacement program include the potential damage to pipelines due to land settlement
causing lines to become non - functional. The development phasing for the land use
subareas should also be considered in the cyclic replacement program
O:\ NETWORK \4S212ALA\P HASE5\ELEM ENTS \90IM PSTR. W P D
9- 9
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Improvements to the system to meet capacity needs for the preferred land use plan
could be accomplished in phase with the development of the subareas. In addition to
review of the trunkline capacities for each phase, capacities of lift stations and pump
station should be investigated to determine if upgrade requirements are necessary for
the specific development phase. Replacement of pipes, construction of trunklines and
necessary improvements to lift stations for new development should provide -a
functional and operational system, preceding actual development projects.
Natural Gas System
The gas system for the preferred land use plan will require improvement to the
existing natural gas system currently in place. Improvements and upgrades will include
costs incurred in the near term to maintain an operational system, cyclic replacement
costs and the costs related to the development in existing undeveloped areas. Some of
these costs will be incurred by private developers or service providers as is standard in
the development process. See Exhibit 9 -1 for a summary of costs. Currently, Pacific
Gas & Electric (PG &E) does not want to assume responsibility for the natural gas
system after the Navy departs. For purposes of this analysis we have assumed that a
comparable alternative service providers is located or that issues regarding transfer of
the gas system are resolved with PG &E. Alternative service providers could be a
public utility comparable to the Alameda Bureau of Electricity or a private contractor
that operates the natural gas system under comparable service agreements as PG &E.
The costs incurred in the near term to maintain operational system include a Utility
Technical Study (UTS) of the existing natural gas system. The UTS will provide a
detailed evaluation and analysis in order to determine the conditions of the natural gas
piping system. The inspection will assist in identifying repairs and replacements that
may be required immediately in order to provide an operational system. Approximate
cost for the detailed evaluation and inspection is estimated to be $300,000 to $350,000.
This cost however, depends on the extent of the study.
The cyclic replacement program will be based on the results of the Utility Technical
Study of the system. Time frame for a cyclic replacement program will need to
consider the remaining life of the existing pipes in the system. Preliminary estimate for
the completion of the cyclic program is between 10 to 15 years. The installation of the
gas piping system should be considered in conjunction with the roadway construction
to minimize the cost of installation of the gas pipes and manifolds.
O:\NET WORK\ } S212ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \901MPSTRAVPD
9- 10
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
The gas piping system within NAS Alameda was in substandard condition according
to PG &E's preliminary assessment of its condition. However, the improvements to
the gas piping system to comply to State code standards could be implemented in a
cyclic replacement program.
Improvements to the system to meet capacity needs for the development plan could be
accomplished in phase with the development of the land use subareas. Replacement of
pipes and construction of new gas lines for new development should provide a
functional and operational system, preceding actual development projects.
Electrical System
The electrical system for the preferred land use plan will require improvement to the
existing electrical system currently in place. Improvements and upgrades will include
costs incurred in the near term to maintain an operational system, cyclic replacement
costs and the costs related to the development in existing undeveloped areas. Some of
these costs will be incurred by private developers or service providers as is standard in
the development process. See Exhibit 9 -1 for a summary of costs.
The costs incurred in the near term to maintain operational system include a Utility
Technical Study (UTS) of the existing electrical system. The UTS will provide a
detailed evaluation and analysis in order to determine the conditions of the electrical
system. The inspection will assist in identifying repairs and replacements that may be
required immediately in order to provide an operational system. Approximate cost for
the detailed evaluation and inspection is estimated to be $300,000 to $350,000. Again,
this cost depends on the extent of the study.
The cyclic replacement program will be based on the results of the Utility Technical
Study of the system. Time frame for a cyclic replacement program will need to
consider the remaining life of the existing cables in the system. Preliminary estimate
for the completion of the cyclic program is between 10 to 15 years. The installation of
the electrical system should be considered in conjunction with the roadway
construction to minimize the cost of installation of the underground lines.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 11
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
The electrical system within NAS Alameda was in substandard condition according to
City of Alameda Bureau of Electricity's preliminary assessment of its condition.
However, the improvements to the electrical distribution system to comply to State
code standards could be implemented in a cyclic replacement program.
Improvements to the system to meet capacity needs for the development plan could be
accomplished in phase with the development of the land use subareas. Replacement of
underground lines and construction of new underground lines for new development
should provide a functional and operational system, preceding actual development
projects.
Roadway Systems
Preliminary costs estimates were prepared for the roadway improvements identified as
necessary to implement the Community Reuse Plan. Exhibit 9 -1 summarizes the total
cost estimates for the required transportation improvements for each of the planning
areas of NAS Alameda.
The existing street and parking system at NAS Alameda is usable by civilians for
Interim Reuse. While no major roadway or intersection improvements are necessary
for interim reuse of NAS Alameda, the existing roadway network and parking
facilities will need to be upgraded over time to meet City of Alameda standards.
Costs that would be incurred in the very near term would be required to provide
minimal rehabilitation to upgrade streets, signing, striping, lighting, and pavement
condition. The overall internal street system provides a coherent network and access
to all buildings and land use. However, some of the existing streets and parking areas
located on NAS Alameda are located on large concrete aprons and lack good
definition, therefore requiring striping and signing.
As development occurs, the street system on NAS Alameda would be upgraded tO
meet new development patterns. Facility upgrades and new roadways will be required
as development occurs in each of the planning areas. Exhibit 9 -1 summarizes the total
cost estimates for the required transportation improvements for each of the planning
areas of NAS Alameda. The costs are related to each of the planning areas and would
include roadway construction, intersection improvements, and pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
O:\ NET WORK \4S212ALA\PHASES\E LEMENTS \90IMP5TR. W PD
9- 12
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
FINANCING
Funding for transportation improvements will most likely come from a combination
of developers, tenants, the City of Alameda, Regional, State and Federal Government
Agencies. Most of the proposed transportation improvements are required to bring
NAS Alameda (U.S. Navy) facilities up to acceptable standards for civilian use. This
includes, for example, signing, striping, sidewalks and adequate lighting for the local
roadway network. Some of these improvements may be funded by the U.S. Navy or
Department of Defense as part of the base transfer process from military to civilian
use.
All proposed improvements will have to be incorporated into the City of Alameda's
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), with those projects to be funded wholly or partially
by outside funding sources being submitted to the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (CMA) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
for prioritization in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP).
Roadway projects to be funded by outside sources generally must be of a regional
significance. For example, local roadways would probably be funded by the
developer, City of Alameda or both. While improved vehicular access to and from the
island to the regional roadway network has the potential of being funded by outside
sources.
Other projects do not need to be of regional significance, but would simply fit under
one of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA) programs such
as the construction of multi -modal transit centers, bikeway systems and alternative
travel modes. The likelihood of obtaining some funding for these types of
improvements are good if (a) the facilities are adequately planned and documented
according to ISTEA and MTC guidelines, (b) the improvements are adopted into the
CIP and RTIP, and (c) there is local matching funding sources available.
This section of the Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda presents the financing
policies address funding for the capital improvements necessary to support future
development at the Base as well as policies that outline the financing mechanisms to be
used in funding ongoing public service costs. A detailed summary of the capital
improvement costs including improvements to the water distribution system, the
O:\NET W ORK \4S212ALA\PHASES \ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR.WPD
9- 13
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
roadway system, and other related improvements that need to be financed are
identified in the Infrastructure and Transportation sections of the Implementation
Strategy. A preliminary cost estimate (shown in Exhibit 9 -1) shows that the total cost
for infrastructure improvements necessary to support future development at the Base
could be as much as $184 million including the road, wastewater, stormwater,
electrical, natural gas and water system. These costs do not however, include
improvements to the telecommunications system on the Base. The costs of
improvements to the electric, natural gas systems, and water systems are typically
assumed to be covered by the local utility companies (including EBMUD, PG &E, and
the Alameda Bureau of Electricity) through their rate structure.
Phasing of Capital Improvements
To the extent possible, infrastructure improvements will be phased over time to allow
for a better "fit" between the time when capital costs are incurred and the availability
of revenues to pay for them. However, since there is limited information regarding
likely market conditions and absorption rates for development projected beyond 2000,
it is difficult to provide a detailed projection of when costs would be incurred and
what specific revenues would be available to finance these costs. Furthermore,
infrastructure costs identified during the Community Reuse Plan process were
developed at a conceptual level and are considered to be very preliminary.
Some capital costs will need to be incurred up front to enable development, such as
new trunk lines for sewers. Other costs can be incurred over time with cyclic
replacement of existing systems. The extent to which costs are incurred up front will
also need to be addressed in more detailed studies. From a financing perspective, it
would be preferable to incur the costs over time through cyclic replacements.
There are a number of mechanisms that can be used to finance improvements and
ongoing maintenance costs at the Base. Because no single method for financing capital
improvements will provide sufficient revenues to finance all of the required
infrastructure costs at the Base, the policies presented below are based on an overall
strategy that seeks to combine a number of financing mechanisms. All financing
mechanisms to be used will be predicated on identifying equity sources as well as
ensuring that all users pay a fair share of costs, so as not to create adverse fiscal impact
O:\NET W ORK\ 4S2I2ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 14
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
to the City of Alameda. These policies address the potential to establish a one -time
site -wide assessment fee and the potential for the formation of a Redevelopment
Project Area that could be used to support tax increment financing. Creation of a
distribution or assessment fee that is levied against future development will also need
to be devised as part of the financing strategy which should occur in the
implementation phase of the base reuse planning process.
Exhibit 9 -2 summarizes the capital costs developed in the Infrastructure sections above.
These costs are arrayed over three phases with estimates on when the costs would be
incurred. The interim period (1996 -2000) represents the period when the focus will be
on leasing existing buildings and conversion of the base to civilian use. The near term
(2001 -2010) is assumed to be the period were some of the early opportunity sites will
be developed and costs related to the development will be incurred. The period
beyond 2010 to buildout will see the completion of the development program of the
Community Reuse Plan.
Costs related to infrastructure systems investigation and repair are assumed to be
incurred in the interim period. Costs related to infrastructure upgrades and
compliance with existing city codes are assumed to be incurred through a 15 year
cyclic replacement program. These costs are spread over the three phase assuming
equal costs over each of the 15 years after base closure (1997). Costs related to
development are incurred when it is estimated that redevelopment will occur. It
should be noted that these represent the total costs of development, and are above the
capital improvement costs that will be paid by the ARRA. Exhibit 9 -2 also arrays
financing mechanisms appropriate for financing the cost incurred in each phase. The
mechanisms that have been recommended are appropriate for the type of projects they
fund and the stage of reuse of NAS Alameda.
If the Base is designated as a Redevelopment Project Area, a portion of the increases in
property tax revenues (beyond a predetermined base year) generated by new real estate
activity at the Base will go to the designated redevelopment agency. Such a project
area could be formed under several different legislative authorities. During the
implementation phase of the base reuse process, a determination will be made as to
which legislative authority will be used to create the project area. One of the key
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. W PD
9- 15
N
ON
E
•
U
C
G
(ir
0
bD
0
0
VI
C
O
E
O
O
R
0.
R
4. 0
Y
0
0
Y
w
C
O o co kc vo w v ry
co co co co M in s.O b
co O h er W ..O O d.
ON d O O et O1 co en
4n, h[ a 00 M 00 M ry in F. EA
V. i M E6 ever EA r <h
EA EA EA ER 1....,
Interim Reuse
O
O O
0
co" �
U
0
a
2
U
0
0 U
0
kr) en • • 00 N
00. • N M
M len
O M .kM.
d• r-
0
0
U
Inner Harbor
Main Street Neighborhoods
slso3
ivauTdoianapaJ
aman.nsa.iJui
ny
h
00
00
EA)
0
ti
nti
a
00
6g
f oral ay rnase
Financing Mechanisms
O
b
O
O
Interim Reuse
Tax Allocation Bonds
- Tax Allocation Bonds
- Lease Revenue Bond
Lease Revenue Bonds
- Lease Revenue Bonds
- Revenue Anticipation Notes
- Special Assessment Bonds Special Assessment Bonds
- Assest Sales
- Federal & State Grants
0
0.
0
O
0
0
E
a)
0
O.
2
- Federal & State Grants
- Federal & State Grants
a)
.0
2
.a 3 0
o v 0
00 0 y a
U 00
,n 00 ,6. 0
O >
o a. ¢ o
0
O 0 1-15 • 3)
0 01
G. .
cV O U z m cn
■
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
criteria for determining how the project area will be established will be whether or not
the legislative authority will allow the City of Alameda to retain some of the tax
increment to pay for ongoing municipal services. The City must obtain the ability to
utilize tax increment in this manner in order to ensure that its General Fund will not
be unduly burdened by creation of a redevelopment project area. This will create for a
true "win win" situation for the community because it will allow for the use of tax
increment financing without adversely impacting the City's General Fund. Tax
increment financing is one of the few locally based financing mechanism available to
pay for long -term capital improvements on the Base.
Financing Mechanisms
Financing public infrastructure and other capital improvements at NAS Alameda can
be accomplished using either cash (e.g. from asset sales) or debt financing. Debt
financing could include borrowing from conventional lenders such as banks or
through the public capital markets by issuing net bonds or other debt instruments.
Three types of revenue bonds that can be issued by the ARRA for NAS Alameda are
reviewed below, along with a discussion of asset sales. General obligation bonds are an
alternative to revenue bonds, however, because of the two - thirds voter approval
requirement are a difficult form of financing to secure. The financing mechanisms
that should be considered in the course of developing specific financing plans for
elements of the Community Reuse Plan include:
Tax Allocation Bonds: Redevelopment agencies traditionally issue tax allocation
bonds to finance public infrastructure for redevelopment purposes within their
jurisdiction. This approach involves pledging the increase in property taxes from new
taxable assessed valuation occurring after the establishment of a redevelopment project
area to secure the tax allocation bond issue. This revenue is commonly called "tax
increment ". A debt service coverage ratio of 1.25 or higher is usually required,
meaning tax increment revenues in the year of issuance must be at least 1.25 times the
largest annual debt service payment. To attract investors in these types of bonds, at
least three years of tax increment revenue history is required before an investment -
grade rating from Moody's or Standard & Poor's can be obtained.
Tax allocation bonds will probably be of value to the ARRA to implement the
O:\ NETWORK \4S2I2ALA\P HASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 17
Implementation Strategy INS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Community Reuse Plan in the future, but not for at least five to seven years (e.g. the
year 2000 or later). This is due to the timing of the Navy's departure, the lengthy
environmental clean -up process and the subsequent uncertainties regarding the timing
of property transfer onto the private tax rolls which is necessary to generate the
property tax increases used to create tax increment.
Although certain kinds of taxes or fees may be collectable from private users in the
interim, credit analysis applied during the bond issuance process tends to heavily
discount or disregard public revenues based on unsecured assessed valuation on leased
public land, possessory interest taxes, or in -lieu payments.
Mello- Roos /Special Assessment Bonds: Either a city or a redevelopment agency can
issue Mello -Roos or special assessment bonds to finance public infrastructure. These
types of bonds are secured by special taxes or assessments on privately -owned land and
improvements that directly benefit from the public improvements to be financed, and
such payments are a lien on the property second only to property taxes. Defaulted
payments can cause a foreclosure of the property, which is why landowner consent is
required to issue these bonds.
The municipal market requires a value -to -lien ratio of at least 4:1 for these typically
unrated bonds to be acceptable to potential buyers, which means that the appraised
value of the properties must be at least four times the par value of the bonds to be
issued. The strongest and most credible lien would be on property that is fully owned
by private parties. This financing technique may be not available if land and buildings
remain in public ownership.
Lease Revenue Bonds: Redevelopment agencies have broad authority to issue
revenue bonds secured by sources other than tax increment, such as tenant leases on
publicly -owned facilities. Such an issue would be subject to more stringent credit
scrutiny than a tax allocation bond issue, because tenant lease revenue would be much
more volatile and uncertain than tax increment.
To be considered for an investment -grade rating, a lease revenue bond issue secured by
tenant leases should have the following characteristics:
O:\NET W ORK \4S212ALA\PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \901b1PSTR. WPD
9- 18
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Debt coverage ratio of at least 1.5 to 2.0 or more;
Final debt maturity limited to the length of the expected tenant lease revenue
stream (e.g. if lease terms were restricted to five years due to expected future
demolition and redevelopment, then the maximum term of the lease revenue
issue would be five years), with a shorter term meaning less leverage and a
smaller amount of net proceeds;
Toxic remediation issues clearly resolved upfront, or at least bounded in a way
that will not jeopardize the revenue stream pledged to pay debt service on the
bonds or allow for litigation to threaten the stability of the revenue stream;
and
Either as diverse a revenue stream as possible, to reduce the risk of default or
delinquency by some tenants in their lease payments, or if a single tenant, then
as secure and stable a revenue stream as possible.
Tax - exempt lease revenue bonds carry interest rates about 2 percent lower than
comparably -rated taxable bonds. To be tax - exempt, tenants would have to be non-
profit organizations with a 501(c)(3) tax exemption and /or non - federal public agencies.
Bonds secured by private or federal tenant leases where bond proceeds were used for
improvements to be used by those tenants would be taxable; if such proceeds were
used for public infrastructure not directly related to the tenants paying debt service,
then characterizing those bonds as tax- exempt may be possible.
Credit enhancement by the federal government for any bond issue makes it taxable;
state or private credit enhancement (such as bond insurance or a commercial bank
letter of credit) allows for an issue to remain tax - exempt if it satisfies the other criteria
discussed above. Private credit enhancers look at the same credit issues as the rating
agencies, only with stricter standards. It is highly unlikely that private credit
enhancement would be available for this type of issue without some level of public
credit support, such as a pledge of tax increment.
For the interim period at NAS Alameda, lease revenue bonds are the most feasible of
O:\ NETWORK \4S2I2ALA\P HASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 19
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
the three debt financing techniques discussed above; however, even this financing
mechanism will pose certain issues requiring resolution. For lease revenue bonds to
receive an investment -grade rating or otherwise be considered marketable to the
municipal bond market, multiple -year fixed -term leases would have to first be signed
with credit - worthy tenants at NAS Alameda. Secondly, the likely nature of the
marketplace seeking space at NAS Alameda means that the lease terms will be short -
term (i.e., five years or less), meaning that the lease revenue bonds secured by these
leases will also be short term, limiting the amount of funding that can be raised
(because the calculation of the bond repayment is partially driven by the length of the
repayment period). Another practical issue affecting the net bond proceeds to the
ARRA will be the size of the bond issue; the minimum practical size for a stand -alone
bond financing is usually about $3 million because of the fixed costs of issuance.
However, it is possible to issue a smaller amount through a pool such as currently
offered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
General Obligation Bonds: The City of Alameda can pledge a portion of its
discretionary (General Fund) revenues to repay bonds issued to finance construction of
public facilities. These types of bonds are known as General Obligation bonds and are
not always feasible, first because of the need to commit revenues to bond repayment
that might otherwise be needed to support public services, and also because they
require a two - thirds voter approval. When successful, General Obligation bonds are a
good mechanism to use to spread the burden of paying for new public improvements
among the entire community, since they use revenues that come from a number of
different sources.
Revenue Anticipation Notes: This mechanism is an unrated short term funding
instrument which raises funds through the public capital markets. The notes are used
to finance capital costs in expectation of increased future lease revenues. The capacity
of an agency to issue notes is a function of the specific market conditions at the time of
issuance and a function of expected future revenues that could be used to take -out the
note. Note instruments have varying maturity rates between 1 and 5 years. If
projected revenues are not achieved at time of maturity, notes can be rolled over by
either finding a new buyer or renegotiating the terms with the original buyer.
O: \NETWORK\ 4S212ALA\PHASES \ELEMENTS \901MPSTR. WPD
9- 20
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Asset Sales: If a redevelopment agency or city acquires assets through other activities,
it is often most cost - effective to sell those assets (i.e., land and /or improvements that
are easily marketed such as single family housing units) to private owners rather than
collect rent revenues and utilize public debt instruments. This approach has the
advantage of raising funds upfront during the lease -up period, when debt financing
techniques may not available. The ability to sell assets such as single family units to
raise funds for tenant improvements on industrial buildings in the first year of
operations could generate early replacement jobs that may be critical to the success of
the entire reuse strategy. The most difficult aspect of the Interim Reuse Strategy to
finance will be the first year's financing needs, short of borrowing from another public
entity or obtaining grants from the federal government. The concept of selling certain
assets to private owners may be the best short-term "jump- start" option available to the
ARRA, especially since certain non - residential building tenants will be limited revenue
generators. It is not anticipated that there will be significant amount of land or other
assets available in the interim period with a finding of suitability to Transfer (FOST).
Since a FOST would necessary to sell property, It is unlikely that asset sale will be a
viable option for most of the interim period.
User Financing of Specific Improvements: An often overlooked source of
infrastructure financing is direct user financing where a property owner needs to make
infrastructure improvements to operate their venture but the improvement may have
added benefits to surrounding properties. For example, a specific user may be willing
to make roadway improvements to gain access to their own site which would also
provide access to adjacent yet otherwise inaccessible sites. Priority could be given to
users or projects that would be willing to pay for significant infrastructure
improvements that are specifically necessary for their own -use of the site. The
willingness of individual users to pay for specific public improvements could have the
added benefit of lowering the cost burden to other developments or of creating
opportunities for development at adjacent sites.
Federal and State Grants: There have been a number of Federal grants available for
financing infrastructure improvements on closing military facilities. The Economic
Development Administration (EDA) of the Federal government has typically been the
primary source of these grants. Although there are likely to be continuing changes in
O:\NET W ORK \4S212ALA\PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \901MPSTR. WPD
9-21
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
funding to Federal agencies such as the EDA, it is likely that other funding sources
could become available through the State government via some form of block grants
from the Federal government.
Federal Loan and /or Loan Guarantee Programs (speculative): There has recently
been discussion about creating new sources of funding for capital improvements on
closed military facilities in the form of a federal loan pool and /or loan guarantees.
Loans or guarantees could be made available directly from the federal level to the local
reuse authorities. Although this concept is still speculative, it would enable the ARRA
to start the conversion process for the interim period with the capability to borrow
money, and repay it when lease revenue bonds or other forms of public debt financing
became viable. A loan guarantee, which would a less dramatic financial benefit, is still
a critical component of the lease revenue bond issuance process; this approach would
be well- suited to mitigating concerns regarding bond risk and marketability to
investors requiring less Federal government investment than a direct loan pool.
Depending upon the nature of the subleases to be signed at NAS Alameda in the near -
term, a federal loan guarantee that serves as the equivalent of bond insurance may be
the only option for selling lease revenue debt. Finally, the combination of a direct
federal loan program /loan guarantee program could serve as a short-term source of
construction financing, to be taken out by the issuance of revenue bonds that carry a
federal guarantee (note: these would have to be taxable securities, unless Congress
authorized a special tax- exemption provision).
State Revolving Loan or Infrastructure Bank Program (speculative): This
mechanism would be similar to the loan program considered at the Federal level in
that it would establish a revolving loan fund for financing capital improvements at
closing military facilities. Individual local reuse authorities would be able to borrow
funds to finance infrastructure improvements or to provide a guarantee for other
funding sources. Although this mechanism does not yet exist, it is expected that it
could become a viable source of funding subject to a statewide bond initiative process.
Caretaker Agreement with Navy: Another potential source of funding for necessary
public improvements at NAS Alameda is the Navy itself. Title to property on military
bases, such as NAS Alameda, will remain in Federal ownership until cleanup is
OA NETWORKV S212ALA \PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \90IMPSTRAVPD
9- 22
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
completed and the property can be conveyed to the ARRA or other entity. At some
closing military facilities, the military department and the local reuse authority have
negotiated "caretaker" agreements to compensate the reuse authority for managing the
facility during the period between closure and conveyance. This period of time
depends in large part on the pace of the environmental clean-up activities and the
federal government's ability to fund those activities. Caretaker agreements can involve
payments to the reuse authority for on -going operating and maintenance costs as well
as infrastructure costs.
The Navy and the ARRA will need to negotiate a caretaker agreement to establish the
terms and conditions under which the ARRA will become responsible for operations
and subleasing of property on the base in the time period between military closure and
conveyance. One of the terms of the agreement could include that the Navy would
provide up front funding for infrastructure improvements that could then be repaid by
future revenues from the property.
In addition, following the Defense Authorization Act of 1994, the Department of
Defense was authorized to convey property to local reuse authorities at or below fair
market value for purposes of economic development; this conveyance mechanism is
know as an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC). The terms of the EDC,
proposed in an application to the Navy and then negotiated as part of the conveyance
process, could include payments or other contributions from the Navy to the ARRA
for infrastructure improvements. These Navy contributions could be structured so
that eventual proceeds from property sales to private parties are used to repay earlier
Navy investment in NAS Alameda. The ARRA should explore this option during its
EDC application process.
Financing Policies:
9 -1 All financing mechanisms will be implemented to match the phasing of capital improvements.
To the extent possible, these costs will be spread out over time, rather than incurred in the
early years following the Base's closure.
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \901MPSTR. WPD
9- 23
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
9 -2 To the extent possible, the ARRA will seek federal and state grants to pay for infrastructure
improvements required in the near term. This will both decrease the total cost burden to
future development, and allow for early reuse activities which will not yet be of sufficient size
or volume to generate enough revenues to finance any significant infrastructure
improvements.
9 -3 Specific properties should be identified for early sale or long -term ground leases to private
developers. The revenue generated by these sales and leases can be used to stimulate economic
development.
9 -4 Encourage early development projects that will create opportunities to leverage additional
development such as:
a. The project will provide ongoing lease revenues for a term long enough to create
bonding capacity where the bond proceeds can be used to pay for other infrastructure
improvements.
b. The project would pay for significant infrastructure improvements that could create
development opportunities at adjacent sites; e.g. a project sponsor might be willing to
make roadway improvements to gain access to their site which would also provide
access to adjacent yet otherwise inaccessible sites.
c. The project user would be willing to incur the cost of certain extraordinary operating
and maintenance costs; e.g. the user would pay for the cost to dredge the channel
leading to the deep water piers, thus ensuring that other large boats can use the marina
facilities.
d. The project would pay for the total cost of specific public improvements, thus
lowering the cost burden to other development; e.g. a tenant /property owner could
pay for the total cost to the build a new fire station or school on the Base to serve
future development.
9 -5 All future development, regardless of whether the tenant /property owner is a private entity, a
non - profit organization, or a public agency, should pay a fair share of the costs in a manner
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 24
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
consistent with applicable laws, or payment consistent with legal impact fees, to make
the infrastructure improvements necessary to support future development at the Base.
9 -6 The ARRA should create a mechanism for assessing future development at the Base to ensure
that each development is responsible for its fair share of infrastructure improvement costs.
Such a mechanism can be a one -time impact fee paid at the time that development occurs; or,
it could be an ongoing assessment used to pay back costs over time as is typically created with
a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District. Any entity that administers the Project Area
should have full capability and legal authority to issue debt that is secured by the types of
revenues that could be secured by tax increment, lease revenues, assessments, and /or special
taxes.
9 -7 The ARRA may create a Redevelopment Project Area that is co- terminus with the boundaries
of the Base to enable collection of tax increment that will be generated by future taxable
development. The tax increment base year should be established at the earliest possible date to
take advantage of the increased revenues from tax increment financing.
Ongoing Costs
Financing policies presented in this section address the ongoing costs to provide local
municipal services including but not limited to police, fire, parks and recreation
activities, and road maintenance necessary to support existing and projected
development at the Base. These policies address financing mechanisms to be used both
prior to and following retrocession of jurisdiction (the Navy ceding responsibility to
other agencies for public services and utilities).
In the interim period the city will not be able to collect enough revenue to pay for
police, fire and other essential services. There will be a shortfall resulting from costs
for service that are incurred before revenue from supported uses develops. Some users
will be difficult to assess fees to support these services. The City of Alameda may have
to reduce levels of service citywide to provide essential services at NAS Alameda.
Fiscal Analysis
The net fiscal impacts of the land use plan were analyzed, based on the City of
Alameda's current cost and revenue structure, and based on current economic
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S2I2ALA \PHASES\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. W PD
9- 25
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the City of Alameda
could afford to provide public services for the proposed development based on
currently available information about public service costs and revenue sources. This
analysis examines the build out of the land use plan, once all proposed development is
in place and occupied. To the extent that fiscal conditions and overall economic
conditions change between the present and the date at which the plan reaches build
out, the net fiscal balance can be expected to vary- from that estimated.
Cost and revenue estimates focus on the City of Alameda General Fund, to which the
City's primary discretionary revenues accrue. In turn, the City uses General Fund
revenues to support basic public services. All costs and revenues are expressed in 1994-
1995 dollars. Appendix A contains complete text and tables showing the detailed cost
and revenue calculations for this fiscal analysis. This analysis considers the following
revenue sources: property tax, property transfer tax, sales tax, business license tax,
utility use tax, franchise fees, ambulance fees, and state subventions. costs considered in
this analysis include fire protection, police protection, roadway maintenance, park
maintenance, planning, and general government. Appendix A also considers the need
for increased General Fund transfers to support the Alameda Free Library.
Exhibit 9 -3 summarizes the net fiscal balance for the land use plan and indicates the
general categories of the revenue and expenses. This analysis shows that using current
assumptions about service costs and revenues that could be generated by the
Community Reuse Plan, the City of Alameda could provide basic services to the land
use plan at buildout without incurring significant fiscal hardship. Because of the
potential for changing fiscal conditions over the time it would take for the plan to
reach buildout, the City of Alameda should establish policies regarding steps it will
take to remedy fiscal deficits that could occur in the future, such as establishing
assessment districts, reducing service standards, and /or increasing fees for services. In
particular, the near balances projected the plan emphasize the need for the City of
Alameda to adopt fiscal contingency policies. The fiscal analysis takes into account the
establishment of special fees that could be used to ensure that all tenants, including
non - profit organizations, pay an in -lieu fee to cover costs of operations. In the interim
period between base closure and buildout there will be a shortfall in revenue available
to pay for essential services.
OANET W ORM4S212ALA\PHASES\ELEM ENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 26
General Fund Revenues
d• v) d• ■O O 0• kn d•
,-+ M N f-+ 01 ‹O M O
P-• VO 00 l � M t n 00 O
t� 0C) N 0C) ■O 00 VO
\O '-+ tn Cr) '-+ CO N N
00 M d' 01 N '-+ d'
N
4-
a
H H
O 0 0
Business Licenses
Utility Use Taxes
Franchise Fees
Ambulance Fees
State Subvention Revenues
00
00
Ate
'f)
69
N O O C O ■.O
f31 O O '-+ N O 01
00 O N Cr) 00 d' M
'-+ O O 00 O M
O O M CT
General Government
N �--
Fire Protection
Law Enforcement
Revenues vs. Expenditures
rn
E
0
U
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Another consideration is the potential for short-term fiscal deficits during the buildout
period. For example, the maximum Fire Department costs can be expected as soon as
the Navy ceases its Fire Department operations at NAS, but there is potential for
considerable "lag time" before the area reaches buildout and generates maximum
revenues to offset costs. To a lesser extent, the same is possible with roadway
maintenance costs, while costs for other services can likely be phased in incrementally
over time as the area develops. To protect against excessive short-term fiscal deficits,
the City should review and approve development phasing plans in close consultation
with representatives of affected City departments. In this way, the City can anticipate
increased service demands, identify strategies to expand service delivery most
efficiently and, if necessary, develop appropriate mitigation measures.
Fiscal Policies
9 -8 Prior to retrocession of jurisdiction, the ARRA will negotiate a caretaker agreement with the
Navy that will pay for any public service costs incurred by the City of Alameda
9 -9 Following retrocession, property taxes, including possessory interest tax, will provide revenues
to help pay for public service costs incurred by the City of Alameda
9 -10 To the extent that they are legally permitted to do so, all non - profits and other community
organizations will make service payments in lieu of property taxes to help to support an
appropriate level of municipal services.
9 -11 The ARRA will work with Federal tenants on a case by case basis to seek ways to provide
some funding to support services provided to these users.
INTERIM REUSE STRATEGY
It is critical to the local community that actions be taken as soon as possible to achieve
economic and public benefit reuse of facilities at the installation. The Interim Reuse
Strategy focuses on preparing the foundation for immediate /near -term action. The
Interim Reuse Strategy was prepared in early 1995 and adopted by the ARRA
governing board on April 5, 1995. It reviews a specific set of expectations, actions and
recommendations necessary to achieve the earliest feasible reuse of facilities.
O:\NET WORK \4S212ALA\PHASE5 \ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 28
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Immediate /near -term steps are necessary to replace jobs and economic activity
lost due to the Navy's departure - -to help moderate the significant social and
economic impacts on the City of Alameda and surrounding communities which
are being caused by the closing of NAS. The Interim Reuse Strategy is an integral
part of this Community Reuse Plan and all implementation actions have been
incorporated into the implementation action plan. Please refer to the phase 3
document for the full details of this plan.
BUILDING DEMOLITION
The Navy and Interim Reuse Strategy designates a number of buildings for demolition.
Those designated as such in the Interim Reuse Strategy are considered to be without
reuse potential given their condition and market potential. Costs incurred in the
demolition of structures, including full environmental mitigation, should be borne by
the Navy. The Navy should bear the cost and responsibility for structures currently
on their demolition list, and all structures proposed for demolition by the ARRA.
The demolition of these structures should be scheduled and integrated into the Navy's
overall demolition plan for the entire base. The buildings proposed for demolition in
the Interim Reuse Strategy represent buildings with: 1) serious structural flaws that
would present the ARRA with large capital upgrade costs to use in the interim period
or beyond; 2) little market potential as judged by commercial brokers and knowledge
of the Bay Area real estate market; and 3) no known interest either from potential
private tenants or public conveyance requests. These buildings, if not demolished by
the Navy, will use up scarce resources in the interim and long term reuse of the base
through increased care and custody costs borne by the Navy or ARRA or demolition
at a later date by the ARRA and decrease the reuse potential for the entire Base.
Regardless of who bears responsibility, demolition will be one of the highest costs in
reusing NAS Alameda. Because of the expense, it is critical that an agreement is
reached between the Navy and ARRA regarding the schedule and responsibility
related to demolitions. In addition to the financial implications, the scheduling of
building demolition activities could affect the interim reuse of structures such as
Building 13 where only a portion of the building is recommended for demolition. The
ARRA and Navy should include discussions regarding building demolition in
O:\ NETWORK\ 4S212ALA \PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IMPSTR. WPD
9- 29
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
negotiations of care and custody procedures and responsibilities and as part of the
Economic Development Conveyance process of determining the value of Base. It is
also possible that demolition of structures could be included as part of the
environmental clean-up process.
O:\ NET WORK \4S212ALA\PHASE5\ELEMENTS \90IM PSTR. WPD
9- 30
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ELEMENT
The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994
(Redevelopment Act) mandates that the needs of the homeless must be addressed as
part of the base closure process. This law, which supersedes Title V of the Stewart B.
McKinney Act (McKinney Act), emphasizes the importance of providing
opportunities for the homeless as part of the base closure process, but recognizes that
these opportunities must be balanced against other community priorities. Unlike the
Mckinney Act, the Redevelopment Act requires the community, through its local
reuse authority (LRA) rather than the federal government, determine exactly how the
homeless will be accommodated as part of a base closure plan, and how homeless needs
will be balanced against the broader community objectives.
To comply with the Redevelopment Act, each community must complete a
"Homeless Submission," which is.transmitted to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) along with the Community Reuse Plan. This component
of the Plan documents the process used to incorporate homeless needs in the Reuse
Plan and indicates how homeless needs have been balanced against other community
interests. This element of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan provides the
narrative discussion that HUD requires in the Homeless Submission. The additional
documentation required by HUD is referred to in this narrative as the technical
appendix that will be incorporated into the Homeless Submission, but are not a
necessary component of the Reuse Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Typically, when a closing military base is entirely within a single community, that
community takes sole responsibility for the reuse planning effort. In such a case, the
LRA would be composed only of local representatives. However, in the case of NAS
9- 31
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Alameda, the City policy makers recognized that the Base is a regional resource and
that both its closure and its reuse have significant implications beyond the City's
borders.
The Redevelopment Act requires HUD to review and determine whether the
Community Reuse Plan, with respect to the expressed interest and requests of
representatives of the homeless, takes into consideration the size and nature of the
homeless population in the communities in the vicinity of the installation, the
availability of existing services in such communities to meet the needs of the homeless;
and the suitability of the buildings and property covered by the Plan for the use and
needs of the homeless in such communities. Per the Redevelopment Act
implementing rules, communities in the vicinity of the installation are defined as the
political jurisdictions that comprise the redevelopment authority for the installation.
For the ARRA, this includes the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, City of San
Leandro, and the County of Alameda.
It is very difficult to achieve a precise estimate of the number of homeless people in
Alameda County. This is due to the transient nature of the homeless population and
the difficulty of identifying all locations where homeless persons find shelter.
However, according to a July 1995 study entitled "Homelessness in Alameda County -
A report on homeless needs, available resources and service gaps for the development
of a county -wide continuum of care," there are estimated to be approximately 9,000-
15,000 homeless people in the County at any given time; and between 27,000 and
60,000 annually.
The homeless population is diverse and includes families and individuals of all ages and
of many ethnic groups. Homelessness is concentrated in the northern part of the
County, and is disproportionately high among African Americans. National estimates
identify families with children as comprising 43 percent of the homeless population.
9- 32
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Local estimates place the percentage of homeless families at between 30 and 49 percent
of the total homeless population. It appears that children are a significant and
increasing portion of the homeless population in Alameda County.
Extreme poverty is the single shared characteristic among virtually all homeless
individual and families. In addition, many homeless people have life issues that make
them even more vulnerable including victims of domestic violence, substance abuse,
HIV /AIDS, and mental illness.
As homelessness has emerged and grown in Alameda County over the last 15 years, a
service delivery system has evolved to address this increasing need. Initially the
County's response to homelessness was very crisis oriented, with the focus on interim
emergency services. In addition, the services tended to be very fragmented, and poorly
coordinated. Today, the goal in Alameda County is to transform the current array of
loosely connected programs into a coordinated and comprehensive "continuum of
care" system of housing and support services to prevent and reduce homelessness.
Increases in emergency shelter, transitional housing with services, and permanent
housing including housing with supportive services are all needed to fill existing gaps
in this continuum. In addition, supportive services such as job training, child care,
substance abuse, health, and mental health services need to be increased and made
available within the continuum to stabilize those' who are currently homeless, and to
prevent future homelessness.
Further documentation of the homeless needs in Alameda County can be found in the
technical appendix.
HOMELESS PROVIDER INTEREST
One critical requirement of the Redevelopment Act is that all homeless providers
9- 33
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
within the area served by the LRA have a fair and equal chance to gain access to
opportunities at the closing military base under consideration. This section of the
Homeless Element provides documentation on the process used to include homeless
providers in the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, and the potential impacts that
this accommodation could have on the community.
Homeless Process Overview
Homeless providers in Alameda County began to organize around the base closure
issue in late 1993. These efforts were initially facilitated by the East Bay Conversion
and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC), one of four national pilot projects
established to explore options and opportunities for a regional response to base
closures. The EBCRC hired a consultant, HomeBase, that both conducted
background research on the appropriate role the homeless providers should take in the
base closure process, and began organizing local providers into a loose coalition. At
the start of the McKinney Act Screening process, HomeBase helped homeless
providers review the various buildings available at NAS Alameda and prepare a
preliminary list of which buildings providers might be interested in acquiring.
By August 1994, members of the informal homeless coalition had formalized itself into
Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative (Homeless
Collaborative), with a five - member Steering Committee. Under the auspicious of
Congressman Dellums' Office, the Steering Committee began working with ARRA
staff and members of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), the local citizens
advisory committee working with the Alameda City Council, to establish a process for
incorporating homeless needs in the reuse planning process. At this time, the
providers were working under a deadline to submit their request for property to the
Department of Housing and Human Services (HHS) under the old McKinney Act
Title V requirements. However, in discussions with ARRA staff and representatives
9- 34
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
from the Congressional Office, members of the Homeless Collaborative agreed to
write a letter to HHS and DoD requesting that the McKinney Act screening process be
delayed so that the homeless needs could be incorporated into, rather than treated
separately from, the overall reuse planning process (a copy of this letter is included in
the technical appendix).
In September 1994, two important decisions were made by the ARRA and the
Homeless Collaborative. The first was to agree that the homeless accommodation to
be made at NAS Alameda would be directly linked to homeless needs in Alameda
County. It is important to note that although this decision predated passage of the
Redevelopment Act, this approach is consistent with the Act's implementing rules.
These rules require that the Community Reuse Plan meet the needs of the homeless in
the vicinity of the installation. In the ARRA's case, this includes all of Alameda
County. To support this approach, the Alameda County Department of Housing and
Community agreed to complete a homeless needs assessment which could also form
the basis of a comprehensive continuum of care plan for the entire County.
The second decision was to establish a quantitative level of accommodation that should
be made for the homeless, that was not directly tied to specific buildings or housing
units. This led to development of the Standards of Reasonableness which are discussed
in more detail below. When the Redevelopment Act passed Congress in October
1994, the ARRA and the Homeless Collaborative were well positioned to begin the
process envisioned by the new law for incorporating homeless need into the reuse
planning process, rather than have the homeless providers taking precedent over other
local needs.
Standards of Reasonableness. When the Redevelopment Act received congressional
approval, all parties agreed to move forward under the new law instead of continuing
with the Title V screening process. ARRA staff, the Homeless Collaborative,
9- 35
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
representatives from the BRAG, the Congressional Offices, the EBCRC, and the
County then began detailed negotiations on two issues. First was the overall process
that would be followed to incorporate the homeless needs in the Community Reuse
Plan. Since the reuse planning process was already underway, this additional effort
had to fit into the overall timeframe for plan completion. There was concern that a
delay in the planning process might prevent the ARRA from moving forward with its
reuse strategy in a timely manner.
Second, the involved parties agreed to create the "Standards of Reasonableness." These
standards would be the objective and quantifiable benchmark against which the final
Community Reuse Plan could be measured to determine whether a reasonable
accommodation for the homeless had been made. Further discussion of the Standards
of Reasonableness (SOR) is included in the next section.
By January 1995 a draft of the Homeless Needs Assessment for Alameda County was
completed. Work on negotiating the overall process for incorporating homeless needs
in the Plan was completed by early February, and a draft of the SOR was completed
by April. Also, in February 1995, the ARRA recognized the Homeless Collaborative
as the official representative of the homeless providers in Alameda County, and, as
required by the Redevelopment Act, established a three month screening period
whereby homeless providers could express interest in receiving property at NAS
Alameda.
Although the official property screening process did not begin until April 14, 1995, the
ARRA staff and the Homeless Collaborative agreed that all homeless requests for
property would be submitted through the Collaborative, and that requests would be
made for generic types of property rather than for specific buildings or housing units.
The only exception to this was in the case of requests for specialized facilities.
However, the number of special facilities that could be requested was clearly delineated
9- 36
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
in the SOR. This approach to the screening process allowed the ARRA to maintain
maximum flexibility in meeting both the needs of the Homeless, but also reserving the
right to accommodate these needs in a manner that would be consistent with the
overall Community Reuse Plan.
The SOR were officially adopted by the ARRA on May 3, 1995. This action was
proceeded by a combined meeting of two BRAG subcommittees, where the
subcommittee members present voted unanimously to adopt the Standards, and a full
BRAG meeting where the vote was also to recommend that the ARRA adopt the
Standards of Reasonableness.
Property Screening. Once the SOR had been adopted and the screening process was
officially open, the Homeless Collaborative conducted its own outreach effort. Over
300 groups who might potentially be interested in occupying property at NAS
Alameda, were contacted and informed about the homeless screening process. By July
1995, the Homeless Collaborative had approximately 29 members who attended
monthly meetings to track the screening process and provide input on other homeless
issues related to the Community Reuse Plan process.
According to the Redevelopment Act, the ARRA and DoD also had specific
responsibility for conducting outreach to homeless providers. On March 1, 1995 the
Secretary of the Navy published information in the Federal Register indicating that the
ARRA was the official LRA for NAS Alameda and specifying which buildings would
be available during the screening process. From April 4 through April 7, 1995, the
Secretary of the Navy published this same information in local newspapers. The
ARRA published notices announcing the dates of the homeless screening process in
the Alameda Times Star on April 10 and 14, 1995, and in the Oakland Tribune on
April 9 and 16, 1995 (copies of these notices and a letter to DoD from the ARRA
announcing the screening period are in included in the technical appendix).
9- 37
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Prior to the screening process start date, the ARRA provided the Homeless
Collaborative with building information tours of the Base (see the technical appendix
for letter dated March 22, 1995). During the screening process, the ARRA conducted
numerous building tours for homeless providers and provided all available information
on specific buildings as requested. On June 7, 1995 the ARRA held an official briefing
for the homeless providers. Topics covered included environmental issues, structural
information about various buildings and building types, development constraints
imposed by the State Tidelands Trust provisions, and utility /infrastructure issues (see
the technical appendix for meeting notice and sign -up sheet).
The general public also had several opportunities to hear about the process for
accommodating the Homeless as part of the Reuse Plan. On March 25, 1995 the
BRAG conducted a public workshop on interim reuse activities at the Base. This
workshop included a panel of speakers representing various users who might locate on
the Base either prior to or immediately following operational closure. A member of
the Homeless Collaborative was a panel participant, explaining both the draft SOR
and the homeless screening process (see the technical appendix for the meeting notice).
On July 13, 1995, the BRAG conducted another public workshop focusing specifically
on groups requesting public benefit conveyances and the homeless screening process.
This meeting also included a panel discussion and an opportunity for public questions.
During the two weeks prior to this meeting, the local newspaper carried a series of
four articles written by BRAG members explaining various aspects of the public
benefit conveyance and homeless screening processes. (The articles and meeting notice
are included in the technical appendix.)
During the three month screening process, the Homeless Collaborative issued its own
request for expressions of interest and qualifications regarding property at NAS
Alameda. As of May 26, 1995, the Collaborative had received 31 responses to this
request (see the technical appendix for copies of the Request for Expressions of Interest
9- 38
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
and Qualifications and a list of provider responses). The Collaborative then reviewed
these responses and determined which groups would be included in the formal Notice
of Interest submitted by the Collaborative to the ARRA. At the close of the ARRA
screening process, the Collaborative submitted a single document including 19 requests
for property from 19 provider groups. The requests totaled the exact amount of space
included in the SOR.
Disposal Strategy. During July and August 1995, the BRAG and the ARRA were
preparing the Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Community Reuse Plan. Once
this Alternative was adopted in early September, ARRA staff met with the homeless
providers representing the 19 property requests (in some cases a single provider made
more than one request) to discuss which specific buildings would meet each provider's
program needs, and to identify issues that should be included in the Legally Binding
Agreement with the provider.
In October 1995 an agreement had been reached around 18 of the 19 building requests.
This agreement was incorporated into the Property Disposal Strategy Element of the
Community Reuse Plan. The BRAG held a public hearing on the entire disposal
strategy on October 25, 1995. After considerable discussion, including public
comment, the BRAG fully endorsed the Collaborative's building requests. The ARRA
held a similar public hearing on November 1 1995and approved the disposal strategy,
including the homeless requests. (Notices and minutes for both meetings are included
in the technical appendix.)
Legally Binding Agreement. Following adoption of the Disposal Strategy, the ARRA
and the Collaborative began drafting a Legally Binding Agreement, as specified by the
Redevelopment Act. This agreement is the lease document which specifies the terms
and conditions under which the homeless providers may occupy property at NAS
Alameda. Public review of this document will occur as part of the Reuse Plan
9- 39
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Adoption process. Public comment on the Homeless Element, including the Legally
Binding Agreement will occur on January 3, 1995. (The legally Binding Agreement is
includede in the technical appendix.)
Standards of Reasonableness
The previous discussion provides the context for the Standards of Reasonableness
within the context of the overall planning process. This discussion includes a more
detailed explanation of the multiple purposes fulfilled by the SOR (see Ehibit 9 -3 for a
summary of the SOR and the technical appendix for the complete document). First, as
was discussed above, these standards represented an agreement between the Homeless
Collaborative and the ARRA regarding the maximum amount of space that should be
set aside to meet the needs of the homeless at NAS Alameda. By reaching such an
agreement prior to conducting the screening process mandated by the Redevelopment
Act, the ARRA and the Collaborative established specific and measurable criteria for
determining what types of homeless requests should be accommodated within the
Reuse Planning process. During the homeless screening process, the Homeless
Collaborative submitted property requests for only the amount of property agreed
upon in the SOR.
Although the Standards do not specify what types of programs and services should be
accommodated at the Base, they do include an agreement that no emergency shelters,
overnight programs, drop -in programs, or programs that offer only food or free meals
would be operated at the Base. This reflects the fact that NAS Alameda is an Island
and is not particularly well served by public transportation. Therefore, activities like
overnight shelters and other crisis support programs which should be centrally located
for easy access are not appropriate for Alameda. In addition, the community expressed
strong concern throughout the process of negotiating the SOR that no activity be
encouraged on the Base that would increase the likelihood that homeless people with
9- 40
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
no additional support would become a burden to the community.
Second, the SOR establish a commitment to seeking opportunities for employing
homeless individual in activities that may locate on the Base after closure. This
includes a homeless hiring goal for private employers; goals for the ARRA itself to
employ homeless; a process for establishing a one stop homeless hiring center; methods
for non- profits and public agencies to create homeless hiring opportunities; and a
process for monitoring homeless hiring activities on an ongoing basis. These
commitments indicate Alameda's understanding that the Redevelopment Act mandates
more than just a physical accommodation of homeless needs. The Act indicates that
economic development opportunities created by base reuse should also be considered a
resource for homeless providers, and should be part of an integrated approach to
addressing the continuum of care needs of homeless people, not just for shelter, but for
developing the capacity to move up and out of homelessness as self - reliant and
contributing members of the community.
Third, the Standards address principals regarding building occupancy and capitt.l
improvements. These principals begin to define some of the key issues to be addressed
in the Legally Binding Agreements regarding providers' responsibilities for building
improvements and maintenance. In addition, these principals indicate under what
circumstances property set aside for homeless use would revert back to the ARRA.
Finally, the Standards outline expectations around financing building improvements
and commitments from the homeless providers to pay their fair share of local public
service costs.
Notices of Interest
The homeless screening process at NAS Alameda incorporated two stages. The first
9- 41
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
stage was conducted by the Homeless Collaborative, which solicited Expressions of
Interest and Qualifications from its membership. Based on its outreach efforts, the
Collaborative received 31 expressions of interest. By negotiating the in SOR which set
the maximum number of units available for homeless use in advance of the screening
process, the Collaborative probably received fewer property requests than would have
been the case if the SOR were not in place.
These expressions were screened by the Collaborative's Steering Committee using
several criteria including: responsiveness of the program to the needs of the specific
subpopulations of homeless described in the Collaborative's Request for proposals;
management capacity; match between the proposed program and the facilities available
at NAS Alameda; and, willingness to take on the financial obligations associated with
occupying property at the Base. The Steering Committee then recommended to the
full Collaborative which requests should be forwarded on to the ARRA; these
recommendations were endorsed by a vote of the full Collaborative membership.
Based on its internal screening process, the Steering Committee selected 19 providers
or "provider teams" to receive the right to occupy property at NAS Alameda. In most
cases, service providers were teamed up with non - profit development organizations so
that each group to receive property would have the capacity to both develop the
property as necessary, and operate the intended programs. Each provider team was
allocated space according to need and within the limits of the SOR.
During the second stage of the overall screening process the Homeless Collaborative
submitted a single document to the ARRA which included the 19 property requests.
Because these requests were pre- screened, there were no overlaps or conflicts; and the
amount of property requested matched the amount allocated in the SOR. By
conducting the pre- screening, the Homeless Collaborative was able to select the
strongest providers and those programs that best met the needs of the homeless in
9- 42
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Alameda County, and protected the ARRA from the claims of maverick homeless
providers. Also, this process made the Homeless Collaborative responsible for
screening and limiting the homeless requests at NAS consistant with the SOR.
Exhibit 9 -4 shows a summary of the property requests included in the Collaborative's
Submission to the ARRA. Exhibit 9 -5 shows how each request was accommodated
through the Reuse Plan's property disposal strategy. In all cases except one, the
ARRA has been able to provide appropriate accommodations which were consistent
with the SOR.
Unresolved Accommodations. The only property request that has not been satisfied to
date is the OCHI /Operation Dignity request for 125 units of barracks housing. The
provider has stated a strong preference for Building 17, the Bachelor Offices Quarters
(BOQ). However, most the existing barracks buildings on the Base have also been
requested through the public benefit conveyance process by Pan Pacific University
(PPU), a private non - profit university that will focus on curriculum related to
international business and Pacific Rim trade issues. The remaining barracks buildings
will be utilized by another homeless provider.
Although the ARRA is recommending that PPU receive this property through and
economic development conveyance, rather than an public benefit conveyance, this
user is considered a very important component of the overall Reuse Plan because of
the implications for economic development. Not only will PPU employ people who
could also eventually live in Base housing, but it will bring students into the area who
will shop in Alameda stores, rent housing in Alameda, and buy services from local
Alameda businesses. The University has also made a commitment to conduct major
rehabilitation of many of the buildings in the Base's historic district. Without this
type of user, these buildings would likely be considered obsolete, and therefore
unmarketable except for very marginal users. Over the long term, there might be
9- 43
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
considerable pressure to demolish these buildings, rather than preserve them,
regardless of their historic significance. In addition, PPU is developing an ongoing
relationship with several Pacific Rim companies who have expressed an interest in
possibly locating facilities at NAS Alameda adjacent to the PPU campus.
Given these considerations, the ARRA has chosen to give PPU first priority in its
building requests over the OCHI /Operation Dignity request. As a result, the ARRA,
the Collaborative, and OCHI /Operation Dignity have been exploring various options
for providing 125 units of barracks housing. Five options are currently being explored
to meet this request:
1. If PPU withdraws its request for Building 17, this building would be
given to OCHI /Operation Dignity. This option is unlikely to occur since PPU is
meeting its fundraising requirements, and appears to be in a strong position to move
forward.
2. The ARRA could provide funding to assist OCHI /Operation Dignity
with purchasing existing comparable units elsewhere in the community. Funding for
this option has not been identified, however the most likely source would be HUD
discretionary funds.
3. Give the OCHI /Operation Dignity request priority over the PPU
request for Buildings 2 or 4, which are also barracks housing. While this solution
would technically comply with the requirements of the SOR, this option is
problematic. First, it precludes at least some of the economic development
opportunity PPU could bring to the NAS conversion process; and second, these
buildings are not as desirable to OCHI /Operation Dignity given their program
requirements.
9- 44
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
4. Assign OCHI /Operation Dignity to family housing units. This
option would be inconsistent with the SOR and any change in the Standards would
have to be negotiated with the Homeless Collaborative.
5. Assign OCHI /Operation Dignity to a non - residential building on the
Base that could be converted to residential use. This would also be inconsistent with
the SOR and would have to be negotiated with the Collaborative.
Negotiations toward making a reasonable accommodation of the OCHI /Operation
Dignity request will continue. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the
ARRA has made a good faith effort to accommodat this request per the
Redevelopment Act, while accommodating all other homeless requests.
Community Impacts
Because all of the homeless providers who will be receiving family and barracks
housing at NAS Alameda will be operating transitional or even permanent rental
housing for homeless families, these programs are not likely to have a significant
adverse impact on existing residential neighborhoods in Alameda. These programs
will be an asset to Alameda because the residents will also be receiving social services,
and will be part of a group that wants to be a "good neighbor." In addition, the
homeless providers want to place their clients in stable residential neighborhoods to
ensure that the investment they are making in the buildings is protected.
The Alameda Unified School District has been supportive of the homeless proposals
for family housing at NAS Alameda. This District will be severely impacted by the
Base Closure, and is looking for ways to quickly bring students into the schools to
replace the students lost when the Navy families leave. In addition, one provider
receiving property through the homeless screening process is a day care center which is
9- 45
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
specifically targeted to serve the homeless families who will be living in Base housing
and /or receiving job training in one of the job training programs.
All of the homeless providers receiving housing will have social service programs to
support their tenants. The presence of these additional homeless families are not
expected to create a significant impact on existing social services currently available in
Alameda.
Transportation systems in Alameda should not be impacted in any significant way by
having the homeless programs at the Base. Residents will be either working at jobs or
attending training programs on the Base, or will commute to jobs in other locations,
the transportation system will be utilized by these future tenants in much the same
way as it is by the current Navy families who occupy the same housing.
The Legally Binding Agreement addresses infrastructure issues for the homeless
providers. These tenants will have the same right as all other tenants on the Base to
receive infrastructure services. There will be no preference given to commercial
tenants or other users in terms of upgrading services and facilities. However, all
tenants, including the homeless, will be expected to equally share in the cost of
upgrading the Base's infrastructure systems.
Building Assignments. Within the limitations of the existing land use pattern, the
ARRA assigned individual homeless providers to specific housing units based on
several criteria. First, each provider wanted their units clustered together so that
clients could form a community. Second, units were grouped according to
programmatic objectives. For example, families with children were grouped together,
while a group home for teenagers was located away from three units assigned to a drug
rehabilitation program. In addition, to the extent possible, homeless providers were
placed in housing units that would be within walking distance of other facilities and
9- 46
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
services targeted to homeless households.
Third, to the extent possible, the homeless units were distributed among various
housing areas to minimize the "over- concentration" of homeless units. However, the
problems typically associated with over - concentrations of poverty, including high
crime rates are not expected to be an issue at NAS Alameda. All of the homeless
providers who will utilize property at the Base have a strong commitment to provide
both housing and social service programs to ensure that their clients will become
functioning members of a broader community.
Fourth, homeless providers were allocated buildings consistent with the Community's
Long Range Plan. For example, homeless housing units were located only in locations
that are identified as housing areas in the land use element of the Community Reuse
Plan. Similarly, industrial property requested should not be located in exiting facilities
that are planned for demolition or conversion to another use in the Reuse Plan. This
strategy eliminates the need for relocating homeless programs in the future.
Fifth, homeless providers were not placed in facilities that had near -term private
market lease potential, and planned for redevelopment over the long -term. Many of
the existing industrial warehouses provide opportunities for short -term lease and reuse,
but are ultimately within areas planned for demolition and major redevelopment for a
different and higher intensity use.
Sixth, homeless providers were grouped in areas that make redevelopment of
surrounding parcels logical and more viable. Homeless facilities were carefully located
to not block the redevelopment potential of the surrounding sites and make assembly
of larger sized and logically shaped parcels for redevelopment more viable.
LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT
9- 47
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
The Redevelopment Act requires that the LRA enter into a Legally Binding
Agreement with the homeless providers who will occupy property on the Base. This
agreement is intended to spell out the specific terms and conditions for use of the
property, and to address such contingencies as: property reversion if a program fails;
alternative methods for accommodation if the property assigned to the provider is
found to have found to be environmentally unsuitable; or, what will happen if a
provider is unable to take possession of the property to which they were assigned.
In addition, the Legally Binding Agreement includes provisions for management
standards and dispute resolution. This clearly demonstrates the ARRA's expectation
that the homeless providers will manage their property, and their tenants in a manner
that will be acceptable to any adjacent residents. Should any problems arise, the
Legally Binding Agreement also includes various remedies, the most drastic of which
would be to revoke a lease agreement with any provider who is not managing their
property, or their tenants, in an appropriate manner.
Typically, non - profit entities, like homeless providers, do not pay property taxes in
California. However, because such a large portion of NAS Alameda is likely to be
occupied by non - profit organizations, the lack of tax revenues could severely impair
the City of Alameda's ability to provide basic municipal services, including police and
fire protection. Therefore, to the extent allowed by law, all non - profit entities who
will occupy space at the Base have agreed to pay an ongoing public assessment in lieu
of property taxes.
All major infrastructure systems on the Base, including sewer, water, gas, electricity,
roads, telephones, and storm drains must be upgraded to support future development.
The Community Reuse Plan includes a number of mechanisms for financing these
improvements, and to the extent necessary, all tenants /property owners, including the
9- 48
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Homeless providers, will be required to pay a fair share of the cost associated with
these infrastructure improvements. In this situation, the Homeless Providers are being
treated like all other tenants /property owners on the Base; therefore, in exchange for
contributing their fair share of the costs, they can expect to receive full utility services
as needed.
BALANCE
One key goal of the Redevelopment Act is to provide the local community with the
opportunity to balance between homeless needs and broader objectives, including
economic development and redevelopment of the Base property. The homeless
screening process established based on the SOR has allowed this to happen relatively
easily at NAS Alameda. All of the discussions with the Homeless Collaborative
leading up to and including development of the SOR acknowledged that the ARRA's
ability to balance between homeless needs and economic development was of
paramount importance. Therefore, the Homeless Collaborative agreed to submit
property requests that described the type of property being requested and the program
needs to be served without identifying specific buildings being requested.
The intent of this approach was to allow the ARRA flexibility in deciding where and
how the homeless property requests would be accommodated in a manner that was
also consistent with the overall objectives of the Reuse Plan. A few of the property
requests did indicate an interest in specific facilities, with the understanding that the
ARRA could reject these requests if they were inconsistent with the Plan.
There were three specific instances in which economic development considerations
took preference over the homeless requests. In two cases, the homeless providers
could be accommodated elsewhere on the Base. The first case was Rubicon Inc.'s
request for the auto hobby shop (Building 608). Rubicon Inc. wanted to use this
9- 49
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
facility for both job training, and to run an economic development enterprise.
However, the Reuse Plan called for the area around Building 608 to be developed as a
regional park. Development of the auto hobby shop within a regional park would be
an incompatible use. Therefore, Rubicon agreed to accept Building 607, which
includes a wood working shop. The wood working shop could just as easily be used to
conduct job training activities, and Rubicon Inc. has already begun to explore the
possibility of establishing a cabinet making business, rather than an auto repair shop.
The second instance where economic development interests prevailed over homeless
property requests was in the case of the Alameda County Community Food Bank.
This provider did an extensive review of buildings on the Base and had indicated a
preference for either Building 168, 169, 170, or 117. However, the ARRA's Interim
Reuse Strategy indicates that Buildings 168, 169, and 170 have good early reuse
potential since they are basic warehouse buildings which require relatively few
improvements. In addition, Building 117 is in an area that the Final Community
Reuse Plan designates for redevelopment as a housing area. To preserve the ability to
lease Buildings 168, 169, and 170 to market rate tenants in the interim, and to ensure
that the Food Bank would not be blocking redevelopment opportunities around
Building 117, this provider was assigned to Building 92. While Building 92 is
physically similar to the other buildings requested, its location on the Base is less
desirable to the Food Bank, but it is in an area where this use would be compatible
with the long -term development pattern.
In these first two cases, it was relatively easy to accommodate both the homeless needs
and economic development objectives by merely moving the homeless provider to an
alternate location. The third case has yet to be resolved. This is the OCHI /Operation
Dignity request for 125 units of barracks housing units. As was discussed above, all of
the barracks units on the Base have been requested by PPU, a use which will generate
considerable economic development activity. Even in this case, the ARRA is
9- 50
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
continuing to make a good faith effort to work with the providers to try and identify
an appropriate alternative for accommodating this request.
An additional mechanism employed by the ARRA and agreed to by the Homeless
Collaberative to permit the long -range balancing between economic development and
homeless needs is the actual property disposal mechanism to be used to acquire
property to be occupied by the homeless. The ARRA, rather than individual
providers, will take title to all of the property allocated for homeless use. If in the
future any of this property becomes desirable for other uses, the ARRA has retained
the right to relocate the homeless provider and take back control of the property.
However, all relocation costs would be borne by the ARRA. This same mechanism
will allow the ARRA to retain property control if any of the homeless providers were
to default or otherwise cease operating.
The SOR also provides an important tool for helping the homeless providers meet
their economic development needs. Almost 100,000 square feet of space have been
assigned to homeless providers for economic development related activities, including
job training programs. In addition, the Standards include a 15 percent homeless hiring
goal for private employers and the ARRA, establish a one stop hiring center,
encourage joint ventures between homeless providers and other entities, and provide a
mechanism for monitoring compliance with the hiring goals.
Another important objective of the Redevelopment Act is that it supports existing
community plans for addressing homeless issues, including consistency with the HUD
Consolidated Plan. The Alameda County Consolidated Plan indicates that there are
existing gaps in the continuum of care that include "...emergency shelter, transitional
housing with services, and permanent housing, including housing with supportive
services..." (Consolidated Plan - FY1995- FY1996 City of Alameda, page 7). Although
no emergency shelter will be created at NAS Alameda, all of the housing that will be
9- 51
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
created will be service enriched transitional or permanent housing. In addition, the
homeless providers will operate programs targeted to those subpopulations identified
in the County's needs assessment as being most in need including veterans, families
with children (particularity women and children), unaccompanied youth, persons with
AIDS, and residential recovery.
Emergency shelters have not been included at the Base specifically because the
Homeless Collaborative determined that there are other more appropriate locations in
the County for such facilities. In addition, the Base offers a very unique opportunity
to provide transitional and permanent housing for homeless people. According to the
Collaborative, it is much more difficult to development these types of facilities than it
is to develop emergency shelters.
OUTREACH
The ARRA which includes representation from the City of Alameda, Alameda
County, City of Oakland, City of San Leandro, and the Office of Congressman Ron
Dellums, has conducted extensive outreach efforts to ensure that homeless providers
have had adequate opportunity to participate in the base reuse planning process.
Descriptions of the actual outreach efforts to homeless providers and workshops
conducted during the planning process are described in the previous section above
which addresses the entire Homeless Element Planning process. Copies of newspaper
advertisements soliciting participation in the process and a list of providers consulted
during the application process are included in the technical appendix.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
An overview of the citizen participation process undertaken in preparing the
Homeless Element is included in the process discussion above. Public comments on
9- 52
Implementation Strategy NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
the various aspects of the Homeless Element are included in the technical appendix.
Exhibit 9-3: Summary of the Standards of Reasonableness (buildings only)
Use /Activity Level of Accommodation
Housing
Family Housing
Barracks Housing
186 Units
200 Units
Economic Development
Office/Classroom 25,000 sq. ft.
Special Purpose Industr. 2 opportunities
Institutional 2 opportunities
Recreation/Retail 2 opportunities
Warehouse/ General 150,000 sq. ft. if the Alameda County
Purpose industrial Community Food Bank is included; 75,000 sq ft without the Food
Bank
Note: An "opportunity" is defined as a facility designed for a specific type of use.
Exhibit 9-5: Homeless Accommodation by Building
Provider
Family Housing Requests
Program Request Building Assignment
Catholic 87 units of limey housing for 67 wits of East
Charitios permanent housing for Housing
homeless families
UA Housing
RCD
Dignity West
30 faultily housing units
15 Units of CPO housing
2 acres for garden
20 family housing unka
12 CPO units
30 family housing units
United Indian 8 multi- farniy units
Nation 3 CPO units
1 single family house
Bameks Housing
30 units of East Housing
15 CPO Units
2 acres adjacent to housing
to be determined
20 units of west housing
12 CPO units
30 units of west housing
8 muIFfartsly units
3 CPO units
1 single family house
Rubicon/ 75 units of barracks houelfg Buildings 531, 532, 533
San Leandro for battered woman and (Navy Lodge)
Women's Sleeper children
OyerationiDignity/ 125 units of barracks housing To Be Determined
OCHI for homeless veterans and
seniors
Non - Housing Requests
Rubicon Woodshop for economic Building 807
development and lob training (woodshep)
Rubicon Marina/Snack Bar for To Be Determined
economic develaprnoM and
job training
UA Housing 2 acres for compost operation 2 aaea adjacent to housing
to be determined
Alameda County 100,000 sq ft of warehouse Building 92
Community Food
Bank
PRTC 30.000 aq n of manufacturing Building 91
space for economic
development and joh training
Davis Street Child Care Canter Building 613
(Ave Inc. 5,000 aq ft of warehouse Building 101
Operation 5,000 aq ft of warehouse Building 101
Dignity
Alameda Red 2.000 aq n of warehouse BUitding 101
Cross
ESN 750 sq ft of office Building 101
Rubicon 15,700 sq R of warehouse Building 101
and class rooms
United Indian 3,500 sq ft of office Building 101
Nation
34 0
ay
w
>, 3
.1.3.u0
m -4 -4
a)ca)
0 0 .[3
tT).)
a14m
04 al
6Q.m
- 04.1
a3
> o).0
-a 00
43 da 0
rd E
ma
a <a-
a) 4)
>
>
i-► 0 --I '
to U al 0
C S4
.0 O .0w
«7 m a3
> 0 4
V00 U E
U .0 N
Qa) 13 r+•,
-1 m
ca in }.I a) a)
O —I A 11
V > r0 a3
0
a) 34 O .4
to a m
RS a) ai •
cQ m a
.a) w
a)0y
o
zs "C"�
-44 S-4 e
1 0. Uca r�C
m a) al
a) a I)
te m
a) 34'0
a) E
r1 45
y
-P }.)
4-4 C b
O O IT
o uma
-1-)
0 0
t0 E
b 34
a) a► •-)
RI bR�
--4 -a
4 3. >caa •
m ,nw w
Z A
m v.,
m (0 0
r-3 •C7
.0 m m
r0
e..1.)
>,
.•1 0 ••I
04 g
C
-I .,-, kD )+ +
CO W
›� CO
.-I u v
0, CI) )4
aoa+u
c
i4 0 0
3..
as .61
OPPORTUNITY
67 Units of Family
Housing
30 Units
of Family Housing
20 Units of Family
Housing for Victims of
Domestic Violence, and
12 Units of Family
1 Housing for Persons with
AIDS
45 Units of Family
Housing
Women
4 Units of Multi-Family
Housing for 8-10 Persons
in_Residential)tecovery
6 Multi-Family Units for
Veterans and their
families to serve 12-15
persons
SUPPORT
SERVICES
a,
.Q
tr •a
a s
m H
Case Management
Broad Range of
Services for
both
Populations
Supportive
Services,
Job Creat ion,
Economic
Development
-1 a)
O0 4
CA
c
.a m
.i >,
'0 >
a s
a00 0 a)
.4 U
c0
zUUn�
SUBPOPULAT ION TO
BE SERVED
Families
A
c
0
O
>,+
>�
0 .0
.-i
-4 a)
m a
Homeless Survivors
of Domestic
Violence, and
Permanent Housing
for Persons with
AIDS
Families,
(Particularly Women
and children)
S.1
m
1:1
ea
,d .-4
$4 .-4
.auE
> w
.0
0
>a.
u
>
0
W
a
0
--4
0
0 ta
a
Catholic Charities of
the East Bay
(Possibly Fred Finch)
Catholic Charities
HIV/AIDS Services
A Safe Place
BOSS
FRESH START
AUSD
ACCFB
.0
0
w
C
O
A
a3 14
.4 4.)
xU
m
Q 0
-4-
m 19
't7 -4
00 S400
Ga4
'0
-•1
--4
U
0 sa
N U
fa 0
0 3.3
d
WILY UOUS1104
LEAD AGENCY
Catholic Charities
Housing Development
Corp.
Dignity Housing West
Resources for Community
Development
CT C
...I
w
O
x
m
0
O
-4
0
2
0
0
0
H
N
-4 •
0 A
p H
i
In
0
r{
xw
0
m
-i 7
44 44
b 0
14 1)
0
at0
to
o
U 43
N
m a)
H d
-r4 1.1
�
ro0
MI L4 00
v
r-4 e0 C
O -4 0
-.4
U
O
.0
m .0 u
-4
tu
A
O .0
C..) -7
0)
• CO m
O 01 m E
Util ge
e!' .a.)
1 'i3 W n1
cN
0a 0
JAI 04 ro o
r1 13 O
Cz] C) w x
• ri
b'.a
} ��
4) m
7 r
O -..r
• w C
O 0
Z9 1• �i4
a) as N
Cw
a m';
m
-4 0 44
m -1
m C
4-404
A •N
ro C
4.) >,C
4) -4
tra -.a
7 0
.V
°om
w 0 b
z .0
H 44 .A
.0
U •4)
0
ra
7 .0
CO --4
w
O o
a
m
4)
X VI 0
C4 0
m
as
byp
m r7
U >i
1+ W
N Z
t0
ca m
w y
0
43 0.0
- a-4
p -4 m
d O
rx -
m 0i W
om0+ o0,Qi
0 W O W 0 0 0
ro to h CJ Cs) CS 63
▪ m • C '0
�
3.1 U 111
4 S.1 0 -4
� 0C_C
ro N-.4 U
Single Women
m
v
3-4+ of
1.4
C A 0 b
0 .0
0 0
-4 C
A 3U
CRS HOUSING
Operation Dignity
H 0'
m
m Wei W
44 14= 1.1x1tQ
to . 0) 44 = 14 CZ 0)
'U > W > m 00,
t0 1a 14 14 a .0
401 44m .ua�+dmC
. 0 0444 00 44 A *4
co 0 0: A raC �
coc U
C C C
al A •-4
X00
m
tT -
c
.-a
CO C
144 0
m N
44 le ti)
..1 mN
O U •+
• 14 = 0 lk
1.11 Q 4.) QI
r4 z -4 CO
y
c •a
m C
0
0
1.., 0 U •
t0 1.4 a7 4.13
m al 14
)..1 *7 .441
Cm -a >A
40 ..0 (0m
to to C3 0 U
m
U )4
700
x P. F-4
m
0' A
0 y
•.d
I71 0
w 0 01
0 x m rn
43 0 m 0
?C
.4 0 0 01 as
'4 A 111
° = -. � z
•
0
0
Exhibit 9-4
Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative
0
--1
010) A)
C > R!
-4 -.4 0) a
C 4.4 > 4
--4 10 ••1 0
(47 41J
G omm
as 4.0
u 41 0 iJ
••1
m
•-1 4▪ 0 14
4.4 0.-I 0
•.1 0 -1 '
0
+aU m
01t 01
U 1! a 4.1
40 -4
04 0 E-4 01
rn y
4.1
01 0 • 0
U a 4
-1 >v 0) -•1
4.1 0) 13
'44 > G 0)
O R a t)
O 0 k
4+ U a
O a
(1)001
• .0 --1 .0
4.4 >
0.4 C 4 2y
O a .+
•.acs'
01.u) 0
• 40 -4 3
U.I.)
O 0 ••I •-1
o•-a 00
+10 104
In m
N a m 01
O 0)
to W .-4 •.1
13 04 0) 27
•-+w E -4
40 40
C 4
-••1 4.4 0
0114 0
C
-4 4) C r-
4) --4 0 .•1 Cc
m lJ --1 1#b - ^1
0)m.0
O G 0 Cr
011-1 0) C
a 4 ••1
4•-+U'0
10 ••1
10 C a ••1
•-1 0 .0
.+
4.4 m
> a 4 Oi
*4 1.1 b 144 0
m a In
4 tT
O m C
A +1 -•4 .0
40 -.1 'G .6J
- •▪ 0 41.4
O 0 0 0
O 40
a
m . W 0
m
C0ZTy
010.••+0
G 0 m 0+
0
Ta4103
01 C •
01 7 w •-1 14
O 0 C
4.1 .0 ••i 13
CD W (0 C
▪ 14 0 $ 01
1) b 00 a
M L
a >. a
O w a a
01 0 > .G •-4
a C 1J >
4 • 0 101
4.4 013 a
.ww IO m
40 a.4 1
• •.cy. -1
--1 011J sJ
1+4 m 10 -4
0001 >G
13 0 7 a
•-I 0 0 ••1 '0
u
.-4
(00 .0 W 4+
RC 1J1 43 .a 0
creating the multi-service center.
Below are some the organizations who wish to participate
SPACE NEEDS
•
m
o
o
O
•
N
O
0
to
'-1
•
.0
w
01
m
0
N
5,000 sq. ft of
storage space
15,000-20,000 eq. ft.
for wood
shop, classroom
training, business
enterprises
5,000 sq. ft. of
warehouse space
3,500 sq. ft. of
warehouse, classroom
and office space
SUPPORT SERVICES
Case Management,
Food, Counseling,
Transportation, etc.
coordination and
Training
,Opportunities
Furniture and
Supplies for those
re-accessing private
[housing market
Centralized
Vocational Program
Job Training and
Placement
Healthcare Outreach,
Family Counseling,
Education, Employment
Services
SUBPOPULATIONS TO
BE SERVED
Alameda Homeless
•
.4
.4
Q'i
Transitional and
Permanent Housing
Those Persons in Job
Training & Placement
m
C
m
14
a
.1J
a
>
•
Homeless Native
Americans
ADDITIONAL
AGENCIES
Alameda Services
Collaborative
ESN Member Agencies
Berkeley Oakland
Support Services
AGENCY
Alameda Red Cross
Emergency Services
Network
Love, Inc.
(.1
G
H
0
0
U
-I
A
0
T
1 Operation Dignity
m 04 04
43 to to
o-+
or o m
.c o C
•• o
it, - 4
irNlt
W O
C W -.a
t.3
01
act tN
et m .00 m
Aw
ymca
m m
U o O .a
L)
u1.1
o 040
1 Oto
Co m
U G uoi N
S.1 -4 0
Nora
3�
ft$ -..t to
CG m O -a
w C'o
CD
01 t
co
r
CV
sx
m
.0 w
E. O
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 27, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval, in Concept, of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Request to the Office
of Economic Adjustment,
Background:
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) staff has submitted to the Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA) the following draft budget outline for the next ARRA fiscal year
(February 1996 thru January 1997). During the month of January, the ARRA staff will work with
OEA to secure budget approval for these items. The completed budget will be submitted to the ARRA
at its meeting on January 31, 1996.
Discussion/Analysis:
In January 1996, the ARRA will complete the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) Community Reuse
Plan for submission to the Navy. Last year the ARRA took on the added responsibility of a second
closing military base, the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), in addition to Alameda NAS
and the tenant command Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP). Early reuse planning for Alameda FISC
began during the last quarter of the previous fiscal year, and should be completed early in the next
fiscal year.
The closing of a second and separate military facility—FISC—has added significantly to the ARRA's
workload. Now the ARRA must deal with an entirely separate cast of base closure personnel for FISC.
EFA West has appointed a separate Base Closure Manager and the FISC has set up a separate Base
Closure Office with its own environmental and base closure personnel. This means the ARRA has to
learn different procedures and sometimes even different philosophies regarding tours, leasing,
environmental studies and cleanup, etc. Dealing and meeting with two separate bureaucracies for two
separate closing military facilities is extraordinarily time - consuming.
Next, the ARRA must begin detailed planning for implementation of the NAS Community Reuse Plan,
and preparation of the economic development conveyance and port conveyance applications for both
the NAS facility and the FISC facility. It is our intent to do these activities concurrently as much as
possible. However, that may be difficult given different screening and closure time lines.
T: $ Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the
December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
The ARRA must have adequate resources necessary for the added responsibility of another closing
base. Therefore, the ARRA is requesting an additional staff person to assist the ARRA's Facilities
Manager with both NAS and FISC. It will be the responsibility of that individual to become as
familiar with the FISC properties and their drawdown and cleanup schedules as we have become with
the NAS property.
The following budget requests were submitted to OEA in concept:
ARRA PERSONNEL
Current staff and a new Assistant Facilities Manager position.
• OFFICE EXPENSES
• TRAVEL
• ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Accounting, Insurance, ARRA Legal Counsel
• ARRA MEETING EXPENSE
• OUTSIDE LEGAL
• FISC
Reuse planning for FISC began in the Fall of 1995. OEA provided funding for the
Reconnaissance Phase, Conditions and Trends Report, Development of an Interim Reuse
Strategy, and Alternative Analysis. The ARRA requests funding to complete the final phase
of the reuse planning for FISC and preparation of a final plan document which meets the State
of California General Plan guidelines.
• MARKET ANALYSIS FOR NAS AND FISC
A market analysis is needed to include the following potential NAS/FISC markets: light
industrial, research and development, warehouse /distribution, water - oriented specialty retail
and residential (single- and multi - family, lease vs. ownership, market -rate, and affordable),
commercial /retail uses connected to marina/port uses, offices, etc. The market analysis will
focus on both short- and long -term uses. The scope of work of the study will include, but not
be limited to:
1) Defining the market area.
2) Competitive supply, demand, and vacancy rates in the market area.
3) Current rental and sales prices.
4) Absorption rates (current demand estimates).
5) Typical user types, special needs, and space requirements.
6) Price sensitivity (rents, energy incentives, free equipment).
7) Typical assessments, taxes, and CAM charges.
8) Public sector incentives (if any).
9) Special advantages and disadvantages of specific sites and uses.
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
10) Marketability for particular uses.
11) Demand forecast by use types.
12) Current recommended lease rates.
• DETAILED PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR NAS AND FISC
The Detailed Development Plans provide for more detailed and specific site planning and
design of selected areas identified as early opportunities for redevelopment in the NAS
Alameda Community Reuse Plan's implementation program. The development plans are the
next level of detail for specific areas. The Community Land Use Plan identifies five major sites
for early reuse and redevelopment: the Inner Harbor, the Northwest Territories, two sites in
the Northern Waterfront, and a portion of the Central Core. Early redevelopment of these sites
is necessary to help pay for the infrastructure improvements, building demolition, and
redevelopment efforts in other locations on the base.
• HOUSING REVITALIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Community Reuse Plan specifies what housing will be conveyed to the homeless and the
Coast Guard, and generally outlines where the community envisions housing at NAS Alameda.
The Community Reuse Plan does not make a recommendation or study in great detail the
future use of existing NAS housing. Therefore, the ARRA requests funding to retain a
consultant for a housing market and management study specific to the existing NAS Alameda
housing. The study will look at the 341 units within the main gate area, the 590 units in East
Housing, and the 582 units presently requested by the Coast Guard, should their request fail
to materialize. The study will also consider the cost of upgrading existing housing versus
demolition; advantages of rental vs. sale; and options for property management.
• BUILDING UPGRADE AND DEMOLITION STUDY
The ARRA requires a detailed survey of leasable buildings to determine shell upgrade
requirements and costs in advance of entering into interim leasing negotiations. Our recent
experiences with AEG and CALSTART proved that substantial upgrades were required for
both tenants' facilities. These upgrades are the responsibility of the building owner. ARRA's
approach was to require that the cost of these upgrades be advanced by the tenant and
reimbursed through rental rebates. Precise information regarding the extent of these upgrades
would be very useful to have prior to entering into interim leasing negotiations. This work
effort will provide such information for all leasable properties. Detailed information is also
required on the scope of work and projected cost to demolish buildings that will not be
incorporated in the interim leasing effort. Scope of work information is essential to the
preparation of RFPs for the demolition of these buildings. Accurate cost projections are
needed to analyze the feasibility of redeveloping these sites following demolition.
• TECHNICAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, BUSINESS PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE FOR NAS AND FISC
An Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) is one of several methods established by the
Interim Final Rule required by Section 2903 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 to transfer property on closing military bases. The ARRA intends to apply
for an EDC. The disposition strategy component of the Reuse Plan outlines the acreage and
specific parcels which we intend to apply for under the EDC.
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4
• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS /BUSINESS PLAN FOR PORT CONVEYANCE
Not much is known yet about how this type of conveyance will work or how it needs to be
documented. However, since the ARRA has elected to pursue this avenue of conveyance, staff
has estimated the cost for a port conveyance assuming an economic analysis and business plan
are necessary for the ARRA staff to prepare the port conveyance application.
• APPRAISAL FOR PUBLIC TRUST
The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over Public Trust property, and 85 percent of
NAS falls within Public Trust jurisdiction. The ARRA cannot use the base land for any use
not consistent with Public Trust Law, and some proposed uses in the Community Reuse Plan
are inconsistent with Public Trust Law. The ARRA has decided to identify lands at NAS to
trade out of Public Trust for base lands now in Public Trust. The State has its technical staff,
attorneys, and consultants to help the State in its negotiations with the ARRA on this issue.
However, Public Trust Law allows that the acreage in the swap need not be commensurate, but
the value must be commensurate. The State Lands Commission has informed ARRA staff that
it is the ARRA's responsibility to pay for an appraisal on the lands proposed to be traded out
of the trust as well as the property to be placed into the trust. This is not a State mandate, but
something the ARRA must do to protect its interest in negotiations with State Lands.
• REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FORMATION
Conversion of NAS Alameda represents an enormous challenge with regard to financing the
management, operations, public services and capital improvements required to implement the
Community Reuse Plan. Successful reuse depends on significant capital investment in the
early years after closure when the tax base is small and public revenues low. No matter what
the cost of the infrastructure at NAS Alameda, it is a virtual certainty that there will not be
enough money from either private or public sources to do everything that is needed as soon as
everyone would like.
Since the timing and feasibility of reuse options will be impacted by the ability to finance
operations and infrastructure /capital improvements, there are significant legal and
programmatic reasons for the ARRA to form a redevelopment project area for NAS Alameda
utilizing California Community Redevelopment Law or special legislation as many California
bases have done. Probably the most powerful reason for forming a redevelopment project area
is the potential of tax increments as a source of funds for infrastructure and development
financing. The Reuse Plan recommends the formation of a Redevelopment Area.
• DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED LONG -TERM MARKETING PLAN / MATERIALS
Implementation of the long -term reuse and redevelopment plan for NAS and FISC requires
development of a detailed marketing strategy and supporting materials. In particular, creative
approaches must be formulated to attract private sector real estate developers to participate in
redeveloping the major project areas identified in the Reuse Plan. These include the Inner
Harbor R &D- oriented business park, the marina - oriented redevelopment around the Seaplane
Lagoon, the light - industrial project area on the north end of the runways, and the office/R &D
development planned for the FISC property. Separate strategies and supporting materials need
to be developed to market each of these areas. These materials will focus on the specific
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5
opportunities available in developing each project area and provide essential background
information. The material will need to be designed and packaged for brochure, video, and
trade show presentations. The design and format will need to be of a quality that will attract
the attention and interest of sophisticated private sector developers. Customized packets may
also be developed for target user groups.
• WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
To protect the California Least Tern, an endangered species that nests on approximately four
acres at NAS Alameda three months of the year, the Reuse Plan dictates that a significant
portion of the NAS airfield must be set aside for a Least Tern refuge. By Spring 1996, Fish and
Wildlife will develop a Wildlife Management Plan to be used as additional support for the
EIRIEIS and Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation and Non jeopardy decision. The
ARRA and the community want to ensure that the Management Plan and the commitment of
federal funding is sufficient to make the wildlife refuge a success as well as create an attractive
amenity to the community in support of the base reuse effort.
Portions of the Wildlife Refuge such as the trail system will be managed by the local Parks and
Recreation Department and the East Bay Regional Park District. In addition, the plan
envisions a cooperative agreement for the planning, design, and construction of appropriate
barriers for the Least Tern nesting habitat that includes an environmental lagoon filtration
system and moat to be used for storm water retention, storm water runoff filtration, and as a
habitat barrier to predators.
The ARRA needs to be involved in the preparation of the Management Plan and requests
funding from OEA to pay for a part of the cost of the Management Plan's preparation. Fish and
Wildlife would pay for the other half, but the ARRA proposes to share control over the Plan's
components and direction. Working with Fish and Wildlife, the ARRA will develop a Request
for Proposal and scope of work to go out to bid for the proposed work.
• SECTION 7 CONSULTATION
This is a continuation of the ARRA's contract with Zander and Associates. Section 7 of the
federal Endangered Species Act requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
any project that could result in harm to a federally- listed endangered species. Here at NAS
Alameda, the Least Tern is listed as an endangered species. This process involves the review
of all projects, biological assessments, and negotiations on ways to eliminate or minimize
effects on the listed species. This process culminates in the Fish and Wildlife Service issuing
a Biological Opinion based on the design of the project ( "Non jeopardy Opinion ") needed to
proceed with the proposed project at NAS. The ARRA consultant is retained on a time and
materials basis to attend meetings with representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Department of the Navy, and other special interest groups. The goal of this task is to assist the
Navy, the ARRA, and Fish and Wildlife Service to produce a biological assessment and craft
a Non jeopardy Opinion that adequately considers future reuse without imposing an unrealistic
burden on economic redevelopment of NAS Alameda.
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 6
• PROPERTY ENGINEERING SURVEY
The ARRA must have a survey of NAS property boundaries for the entire site. This is
essential to identify the exact size and location of property for legal descriptions and,
ultimately, property transfer. This information is required to complete the EDC; therefore, it
must be completed as soon as possible. The ARRA will develop a Request for Proposal and
scope of work to go out to bid for the proposed work.
• PARCEL AND STREET RIGHT OF WAY (R. O. W) SURVEY
As the future property owner, the ARRA will be responsible for providing a legal description
of street right -of -ways, easements, and parcels within the site for property transfers through
sale and/or lease. This subdivision parcel map and legal descriptions of parcels will also be
necessary for all conveyance transfers, including federal transfers, public benefit conveyances,
and homeless conveyances. To complete the transfer of parcels, a site survey and subdivision
map of properties will be prepared, including a subdivision map of parcels, street rights -of-
way, easements, and a legal description of parcels for recording with the Alameda County
Recorders Office. Parcel boundaries and descriptions will be completed for property
conveyance transfers and other larger parcels for future redevelopment. The ARRA will
develop a Request for Proposal and scope of work to go out to bid for the proposed work.
The ARRA's work plan for the activities outlined above is attached to this report.
Fiscal ImpactBudget Consideration:
As with previous grants, the ARRA would have to provide the local 25 percent OEA matching
requirement. The ARRA staff will apply for $100,000 to the California Defense Adjustment Matching
Grant program; however, competition for the State Matching Grant program is much greater with the
addition of the 1995 base closures. Unfortunately, the State guidelines have been changed to favor
recent base closures versus reuse authorities in their second or third year of reuse planning.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA endorse, in concept, the ARRA budget request to OEA.
Sincerely,
711,.021to
Kay Miller
ARRA Executive Director
Attachment: ARRA Work Plan
0.
�
g
LL
11 ill 1 11 1 III 11
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IA
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I NI
G (\
2
o f = \ \\
2 = cn
co 0 \ \ E a. \
_ o \
J \ k 0 \ E
R g °® n; = 0 5 4
e >c
1—
- ®\ '° \ - > o-
f 7 G \ j \ ® \
m® S E m=) 2 G
E 0 } f / § \
\ j ] o \ 0 ± m
w w w¥ 3d ( R a a
\
Lotus1234 /docs/wk1996.wk4
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 29, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Direct Staff to
Prepare Initial Background Reports Necessary to Initiate the Formation of a
Redevelopment Project Area for NAS Alameda and to Prepare Special Legislation
Necessary to Establish the Project Area.
Background:
The Financing Element of the Community Reuse Plan identifies several mechanisms which the
ARRA can employ to assist with financing the major infrastructure, demolition, and site
improvements necessary to support future redevelopment of the Base. One such mechanism is tax
increment financing, which can only be used if the Base is designated as a Redevelopment Project
Area under California Redevelopment Law. Virtually every other closing military base in California
has been established as a Redevelopment Project Area because this is one of the few tools local
government can use to finance capital construction projects. While Redevelopment Project Areas
divert revenues away from cities' general funds, the ability to leverage these funds to facilitate new
development, which generates other types of revenues, typically balances out the revenue equation.
There are several different legislative authorities that could be used to establish the Project Area.
Each of these options offers different advantages and disadvantages to both the ARRA and the City
of Alameda. However, the initial steps in this process will be the same. It is imperative that the
ARRA move forward with these initial steps as quickly as possible to be ready to establish a "Base
Year Assessed Valuation (AV)" for the NAS property.
Once the Base Year has been established, any increase in assessed value above this base amount
would go to the appropriate redevelopment agency. Although no property taxes, including
possessory interest taxes, will be forthcoming until retrocession of jurisdiction has occurred, if the
Base Year AV is already in place, then all incremental increases in property values that occur after
retrocession can be captured as tax increment. Again, this tax increment can be used for
infrastructure financing, demolition, and other capital improvements needed to make the property
feasible for redevelopment. Having a revenue stream from tax increment financing will make bond
financing of these improvements an alternative.
IF • Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the December 29, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Discussion:
A reuse authority wishing to establish a Redevelopment Project Area for a closed military base has
four options:
1. Adopt a redevelopment plan under standard Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). While
this process may allow a project area to be established, many provisions of standard CRL
frequently are not useful when applied to military bases (e.g., the definition of blight limits
vacant land to 20 percent of the project area).
2. Adopt a redevelopment plan under the provisions of the new Chapter 4.5 of the CRL (i.e.,
Military Base Redevelopment Law). This legislation has never been used by any entity to
establish a redevelopment area because its requirements are even more burdensome than
standard CRL. Among other provisions, it requires the redevelopment agency to negotiate with
a fiscal review.
3. Enact special legislation with provisions that reduce the more onerous requirements under
standard CRL. Communities that have obtained special legislation have secured provisions for
easing the definition of blight, increasing the portion of vacant land allowed, deferring low and
moderate income (LMI) housing set - asides, modifying payments to other taxing entities, and
deferring adoption of an EIR until 18 months following creation of the redevelopment area.
4. Support the passage of pending legislation (AB 1648) that makes significant revisions to
existing Military Base Redevelopment Law such as changing the definition of blight to apply
to all military base closures, providing limited exemptions from CEQA requirements, and
allowing set - asides for LMI housing to be deferred. While this legislation may apply to some
issues facing NAS, it does not cover all the special requirements that would be needed.
It now appears likely that AB 1648, the generic bill intended to allow for creation of a
Redevelopment Project Area at all closing military bases, will not be adopted in by the legislature
or will be amended in such a way as to render it unusable. Also, the California Assembly has
expressed a preference for having communities come in with specific legislation.
A team of consultants, including an attorney specializing in redevelopment law, an expert in
redevelopment financing, and the economics consultant for the Community Reuse Plan, along with
City and ARRA staff have reviewed these four options. These experts have concluded that, at this
time, the ARRA should simultaneously pursue three of the four options for establishing a
Redevelopment Project Area. The provisions of Chapter 4.5 of the CRL (Military Base
Redevelopment Law) have been eliminated because this law will not allow the ARRA to effectively
accomplish its objectives with respect to creating a Redevelopment Project Area.
Honorable Members of the December 29, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
While all three of the remaining options have certain advantages and disadvantages, creating special
legislation specifically for NAS Alameda offers the greatest number of benefits. Such legislation
would allow the ARRA to establish conditions for implementing Redevelopment that would be both
flexible and responsive to local conditions. Some of the key points that could be addressed in this
legislation include:
• Create revised blight standards specific to the conditions at NAS Alameda.
• Allow for a portion of tax increment proceeds to be used to pay for essential fire and police
services.
• Provide a waiver or deferral of the 20 percent LMI set aside.
• Allow homeless housing provisions of the reuse plan to meet the 15 percent inclusionary
housing requirements.
• Permit deferral of CEQA review for the Redevelopment Plan.
The other two options offer acceptable conditions under which to create a Redevelopment Project
Area, however, they would not be as favorable to the reuse of NAS Alameda. Regardless of which
option the ARRA ultimately selects to establish the Project Area, all of the initial procedural steps
will be the same.
Although there are numerous decisions that must still be made regarding which mechanism should
ultimately be used to establish a Redevelopment Project Area at NAS Alameda, the process can
continue to move forward without committing the ARRA to a single approach. In fact, to delay the
process could be much more detrimental. The sooner the Project Area is formed, and a Base Year
Assessed Valuation is established, the greater the opportunity to capitalize on early leasing and
development activity. If the Base Year is not established until after retrocession of jurisdiction has
occurred, the value of these leases will go into the Base Year, rather than count as tax increment.
The ARRA direction to staff to begin the process would give us a head start in initiating steps of
surveying a project area and data gathering.
Fiscal Impact:
Formation of a Redevelopment Project Area at NAS Alameda could have significant fiscal
implications for the City of Alameda, the Alameda Unified School District, Alameda County, and
any other taxing entities that share in property revenues. Each of these parties must be engaged in
a dialogue as part of the process for establishing the Project Area. The ARRA staff has requested
money in their OEA budget request to fund additional staff and consultant work to commence with
the process of establishing the Project Area.
Honorable Members of the December 29, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4
Environmental Review:
ARRA direction to the staff on Redevelopment Agency formation does not constitute a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The ARRA's direction to the staff is part of the
ongoing feasibility and planning study for the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda for possible
future actions and is, therefore, "statutorily exempt" under CEQA Guidelines (Article 18, Section
15262).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority direct ARRA staff to work
with City staff to begin the initial steps required to form a Redevelopment Project Area at NAS
Alameda and to take the efforts necessary to create Redevelopment special legislation for the Base.
By approving this recommendation, the ARRA governing Body will not be committing to the
establishment of a Redevelopment Project Area. Decisions regarding this action will be considered
at a future meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
V�ti I.I.Qi'L__2
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM:mee
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
10.0 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN
The reuse planning process has identified numerous actions that must be taken to
solidify agreements with the Navy and other agencies, better understand the
conditions of the facilities at NAS and prepare NAS Alameda for civilian reuse. The
implementation action plan is a compilation of all the implementation measures that
have been developed through the Community Reuse planning process. The
organization of the action plan mirrors that of the Community Reuse Plan, with
action items delineated for each of the nine chapters of the Final Plan. The action plan
is summarized in a matrix that includes all actions noted below and actions developed
as part of the Interim Reuse Strategy. The mat: ,x notes the responsible parties and
approximate timing for all actions. The timing is broken into four periods: 1) actions
that should occur before closure of NAS Alameda (denoted 1996 on the matrix); 2)
actions that should occur as part of operation closure (1997); 3) actions that should
occur in the interim period (1998- 2000); and 4) actions that should occur after the
interim as part of the transition to buildout of the long term land use plan (beyond
2000).
10- 1
Recommendations and Implementation Actions
Timeframe
,c
C =
0 C
7.1 0
a (-4
ok,
0, =
. 7-7
-
a
•
•
•
•
•
as
—
zi,
. a
3
0
•
•
•
sc
—
•
•c
•
•
•
•
III
•
1
•
I
•
ammo
Responsibility for Implementation
Other
(Specify)*
,
=
USFWS
USFWS
BAAQMD
c%
z
•
•
•
II
•
•
Development
Applicants/
Tenants
•
City /ARRA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
111
•
•
III
•
•
•
•
•
Tei
a • - a
x.
P t.)
f...)
'a a E.,.. ,42
- -
:"...)
cop
0
=
F...4.-.
.,73 0 co...,
E , c
0
0 '0
C? ■••■,' < .0 > 0_ a
E x 3 <
3
• -a
, ..,..- ....,
1. • a .;.- ,9 z --. _
.=
,..7., ,
s. s_
L.5.
E
...
_, .... c
c..f,
3 co a_ ...., ,. co • .—
1:
_..„.a F. 7--. .-./.• - E e.)
et • 0 E c.., c .--.. . - 8
..x.: .
,, -F0 a. " . -7a -c 3 . N - cg,1 "., = zc' ,.- -- .• • -7 ,a `.5 .= t,i- ': .'E0 t C
EP a
. Glca e
to C7 • 0 0 a 0 cc,- c -
V) I-
< = C..) ■■■•■ o:p C...) L.:. ..-4 < ..t. V C.'.
S3 CI
O "0
"i' ..—. eg ..• ..... ..._, „..c.)., ......
/—••
Cr.: ,..; Cr. ..0 •'7.')
....... ..-.
4.0 Transportation
Crossing Capacity
S -S
Develop Rail facility Improvements Continge
C,..) .
C • "••• cr
^.0
• C" 7.)
CI) • "0 U-
O 0 0
j."
• • ••• 0 0
`•••:.;
cr <
• =
= • CC
rg
til) 0 .0
Sr:
1MPTAB3.Xl. S
lidllVII i%CLIVIIS
z evummeilus iiutas s1IIQ iJ " =4)1
1 Timeframe
1 Lc
>1 C.
co
0
....-
•
II
•
(on- going) I
ON C0
0, C'
... ni
•
•
•
•
•
1-..
..,
c
....-
•
•
(ongoing)
--.
aw
o
g
o
•
,.-.,
at°
0
to
-
(ongoing) f
•
•
•
Other
(Specify)*
CY
,-,
L)
<
RWQCB'
L)
t'—
ce
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 Responsibility for I
Development
Applicants/
Tenants
•
•
•
City /ARRA
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
Actions and Programs
Adoption of Programmatic Agreement
Maintenance of Historic District
Preparation of Historic Preservation Plan
7.0 Health & Safety
2
•-•
C.)
:a.
I..
• i".•
a. 0
Q
E _v) c
E cc 0
cc o.
ct to.
.,).
e..) c..)
C. v. c...)
tn. C
›, 4.- • .c.: — L)
.0 >,
r.., t: . ....
P P
...... >, C
c ez E > t)
0 a
a--)
..c 0
— .= ....., a
s- 0
-C t)
0 rs
- CZ .) ,...)
L... ...sad
0 cr,
. —
, C..• '-a• • •tx, .
V • '1 < 0 ::::r 0 t—
s. Z Z 2 c ,-
es c
-•
a
0 o
......,. • - c..)
I.)
cc .c? IQ OS CZ 75 0
rt 1-
.0 -Fr. C...) • —
C • 0
..T ,•••
0
0 a. 0 7:e
z 00
•.,
.-
t) u ce <
>, -- a
OD E
a 0
4::, o ......
...... ...... "--
1.. c...) r'. "c7f, h.
.= ...... ...... ......,
>
... ..„.:"
...
...... ....
>. e
0
c.)
0
Interagency Cooperation
0
0
• _
ca)
EL)
.0 >
c t-
'6 >, •E•
oii ri
-0
0 •-•,
n CS *-•
• C.- +n C6)
c..,
0 0 0 -r,
. 0
0 ..0 0. >
_-- c j
= F =
-0 cs
cz f...
7 to)
0 ■-• P
.t) 0 •P ...-•
P P LA L.
g
. .,
0- L_
< ..,
.... , .
C6) C.) C.)
,...) 2
. 0. .
P C P .C1 1"3 2
c 0.
`ft>
C2.!
Of"
6
IMPTAB3.XLS
Recommendations and Implementation Actions
Timeframe
C =
C C
=
(ongoing) I
111
CT =
,... n0
!(ongoing)
g
...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r.:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c
o
-.01
tes
g
a
o.
E
5
4.,
,..
=
71
0
C.
a.1
Cg
C.
",` ce;
ADS()
APRD I
2
SWRCB
Pac Bell
p..
z
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development
Applicants/
Tenants
<
=
=
<
-..;
C.7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
v;
a a E
cc a
.....
> >
C c 2
0 0
z
...
= C .0
C CZ
el, = • =
MS
>
,..., C.
. .e.,. ,..=
cA a , L. ..--
= c , a.) CI
''' •r-- • C. c c. t,
, c.. 0. >, o P
6 -
E rz et cr.
L. 0.) C.) 1) C1. • .5
L. =
0
—
o.., 0 >,
c ,-, •-•
GO VI
0.
....., ......., .....
9.0
Potable Neater and Fire Protection
co
5 a
a 0
rr: —
>-. c
z
z -E.
4= E
L) 0)
.
L. ,..)
C13
C.) C..
L- =
01 ,.... 01
'4 E
5 5 o a
a 5
E a E a a .... f...)
s..) -. 5
5 0.
. -
01
c c c c
'5' < . .t7, < -0 .
..-z ..1 0...) 01 ....
Y.
co .-
.-
CZ
C.) • r... .... 7
a .
:7 ,
co t, ,.. 0 a
- 5,.) E C.) c..)
c. CZ ''') "7 E 0 ,-.
A
a - 5 es c
cc ,.... .,...
GC ,-
c..) P
5 L...., c..
u oo
•?. a z a .cz .,, c.) – 8.) 023 1...) c
C C c
C C V) C; C..., i* . E
0c9 ) 77- t4j ,. -. =
.. = 77
0 Fa
= .
.7 5 cz -
2 a E 3 0
o to Ir. ar) co ‘, TA a t.- a cii
)2 5. t) c) '...6 .z' >, 74 e.• •
_) 0.0 --- a c a .., 0.0
.- ,,, .... ::...
E
,..-4 — 0
CUC. .7.0.)0.
L.) 2 — C.)
G 6 ,..D t, .... t::
.--
:..." 1".: -....
,..._
..... :... I-) .:
G G ----
c.) ',I' 'E ..... „....
-a a C.: c '7,', 2 r - - • -. -. ‘. . : 2
...... ...... .....
Cable TV System
z o
o
sc ".:• ;,,
o
c s?...' o. o
et o c x
>, c z o
-o .- o s....
- z c '•,7s; .cs o z
P 0
... a
... .r... F. — 0 •—
—
-ci
-= 12 • L.) .-• > c
Tr: o
7., t.) v... — C.) >, ) %.3
-.J C.
, o
t
a es = E s••• • OD • — .• ) • — 0..
c/
F-
O C
.•:„
.„) -0 0 2 !,—
C.)
)
..... , cc 0
a es Cr E
. > '0 s...• '-' 1) riLs L.- := •—
o cs o 0) cr. c.. ...) .0 o
01) " 0
. <
0, >
• 0. C
" fr < E •E -o
..... 0 to V ." • **0 •••=
Vs ....0 5 ,t E L.) •L:2 c '7. ,te), -E E E 0
O t) 0 c E E — 2 e .. .5 2 0
> o >
,..4 ..,. 'E' c. o o
• ...4
C.
7 0 " C.) • to
<
c..)
O '`• ..- sis > • sct Lg . ., ., -0 , .:. . .8
E c f,z, -0 CM ae • o 0
• 04 0
es >c vs ▪ -0
>
... .—
O vc. 34 ...'". i >,0- c.. t..,
0,)
,0
-
,...>, t, vc,
,., >
0. L..)
•
-
-
....
z
>, ,
,. -
c
• .0
- 0 2 0 z c
• .— -... .0 sle C..)
CZ LI) TA r" 6.
• V • GS t.) ..-• 0 L..) 2 cf., -1:5. c ''''' .• 0 "-•
7, 0
E g
'.- :•• t.) -C • 0. :-. L) t) ... • crs 13 r C.) L• E e..) o o.... .„ — c
• z c a o z o C: 7:
L.c. .c o ..,,.. TA .):,- • = t., r; .3 c • " • " . . . . E a -5 < CZ .0 .7j. e-
7 .....t)
e• ..) e cc.) c c4 = E •2 E .„..— ^":„., 8 c-.) e+ ...'"' c'
Lt
. :.., ...., ....< =, . ,..
!..,...
,.. es r) • cc IS
,.), ..... 0 > ,..2x ...j>, e 0.. ...... .... ,..,...., ..... ,z). es u, ,• .--,
. tr, a. _, ....... ......
rr, > ... 1: 0 cz ...: ,...., :—...,
,...., .....- ....... — s, ,....... ,......- — ....,
c..
o."
IMPTAB3.XLS
0 C
0 0
Cr r,I
ros
a)
cz
.4 s„
5"N
1
E
1
III
1
1111111
1
E
.
....
I
1:1
.2111
1
11
5:
•
I
Fall
•
•
,..,,..,
..
..
I
(ongoing)
,;,.,,
•
1
•
:
•
11
Development
Applicants / Other
Tenants Navy (Specify)* 1996
1
lIlIlIlIlIlIl
1
1111
I
.11
I
:la
•
3:11
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIII
Ile'
11:•
1
1
1
1
1 Responsibility for Implementation
I
c2
-t.'
..-
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1111
1
•
•
z o
o
sc ".:• ;,,
o
c s?...' o. o
et o c x
>, c z o
-o .- o s....
- z c '•,7s; .cs o z
P 0
... a
... .r... F. — 0 •—
—
-ci
-= 12 • L.) .-• > c
Tr: o
7., t.) v... — C.) >, ) %.3
-.J C.
, o
t
a es = E s••• • OD • — .• ) • — 0..
c/
F-
O C
.•:„
.„) -0 0 2 !,—
C.)
)
..... , cc 0
a es Cr E
. > '0 s...• '-' 1) riLs L.- := •—
o cs o 0) cr. c.. ...) .0 o
01) " 0
. <
0, >
• 0. C
" fr < E •E -o
..... 0 to V ." • **0 •••=
Vs ....0 5 ,t E L.) •L:2 c '7. ,te), -E E E 0
O t) 0 c E E — 2 e .. .5 2 0
> o >
,..4 ..,. 'E' c. o o
• ...4
C.
7 0 " C.) • to
<
c..)
O '`• ..- sis > • sct Lg . ., ., -0 , .:. . .8
E c f,z, -0 CM ae • o 0
• 04 0
es >c vs ▪ -0
>
... .—
O vc. 34 ...'". i >,0- c.. t..,
0,)
,0
-
,...>, t, vc,
,., >
0. L..)
•
-
-
....
z
>, ,
,. -
c
• .0
- 0 2 0 z c
• .— -... .0 sle C..)
CZ LI) TA r" 6.
• V • GS t.) ..-• 0 L..) 2 cf., -1:5. c ''''' .• 0 "-•
7, 0
E g
'.- :•• t.) -C • 0. :-. L) t) ... • crs 13 r C.) L• E e..) o o.... .„ — c
• z c a o z o C: 7:
L.c. .c o ..,,.. TA .):,- • = t., r; .3 c • " • " . . . . E a -5 < CZ .0 .7j. e-
7 .....t)
e• ..) e cc.) c c4 = E •2 E .„..— ^":„., 8 c-.) e+ ...'"' c'
Lt
. :.., ...., ....< =, . ,..
!..,...
,.. es r) • cc IS
,.), ..... 0 > ,..2x ...j>, e 0.. ...... .... ,..,...., ..... ,z). es u, ,• .--,
. tr, a. _, ....... ......
rr, > ... 1: 0 cz ...: ,...., :—...,
,...., .....- ....... — s, ,....... ,......- — ....,
c..
o."
IMPTAB3.XLS
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1(a)
Compliance with Goals & Objectives: All actions taken to further the reuse of NAS
Alameda should comply with the adopted goals & objectives of the Community Reuse
Plan. A finding for all actions and reuse and redevelopment decisions taken by the
ARRA governing board should be reviewed for compliance.
2.0 LAND USE
2(a)
2(b)
2(c)
Environmental Review: Upon acceptance of the Community Reuse Plan by the
ARRA, the Navy begins the preparation of the environmental document for the
closure and reuse of NAS Alameda. The Navy is required to complete the
environmental review process within one year of receipt of the Community Reuse
Plan from the ARRA. The document will be a joint Environmental Impact Statement
/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS / EIR), and will satisfy the requirements of both
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The EIS / EIR is scheduled to be considered by the ARRA by
January 1997, and, if certified, this document will be used by the ARRA for
subsequent capital improvement and land use decisions.
Update General Plan: Every city in California is required to have a general plan to
guide the physical development of the community by expressing the goals and policies
for the distribution and intensity of future land use. Mandatory elements of a general
plan include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
The scope of the plan is to include the area within the city's boundaries, and all
development should be consistent with the plan before it can be approved by the city.
While NAS Alameda is within Alameda's city limits, it has only briefly been
acknowledged in the General Plan because of its status as a federal facility which is
exempt from local land use control. It is currently designated as "Federal Facilities" on
the General Plan Diagram. Therefore, the City must amend its General Plan to
include NAS Alameda in more detail following the certification of the EIS / EIR. The
amendment will be based on the goals and policies of the Community Reuse Plan
while maintaining consistency with the intent of the current goals, policies, and land
use designations contained within the City's General Plan. The intent of the
Community Reuse Plan is to provide documentation as consistent as possible with the
existing General Plan to aid in the integration of these two documents.
Create zoning For NAS Alameda: The Alameda Development Regulations creates a
zoning plan for the City of Alameda. The Zoning Plan for the City of Alameda is
intended to assist to guide, control, and regulate the future development in the City
and NAS Alameda. It is the enabling ordinance that protects and elevates character of
the City's fabric and assures orderly and beneficial development. NAS Alameda is
currently zoned as a G, Special Government Combing District an overlay applied to
all lands in the ownership of the U.S. Government. This classification states that prior
to the use of these lands by users other than the federal government, rezoning
procedures shall be completed removing the G classifications and considering further
appropriate zoning changes. For successful reuse a method for zoning NAS Alameda
must be determined. There are three major approaches that can be taken
Master /Specific Plans, Planned Developments, and traditional zoning districting.
10- 8
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
2(d)
These methods are discussed below. The exact methods for zoning should be
determined at a latter date and will probably consist of some combination of these
three approaches.
Sub -area Specific Plans: A specific plan is a tool to implement a general plan. Its
contents include at a minimum the following elements: the distribution, location, and
extent of land uses; distribution, location, extent, and intensity of the infrastructure
required to support the land uses; development and conservation standards; and an
implementation program to carry out the plan. It also describes the relationship with
the general plan. Because of their broad scope Specific Plans can be used in place of
zoning districting. The ARRA should consider using the elements of the Community
Reuse Plan as a basis to develop Specific Plans for the sub -areas delineated in the land
use element to meet zoning requirements.
Planned Development Approach: The City's Zoning Ordinance includes zoning
district with a type of land use process known as "MX, Mixed -Use Planned
Development" District . Section 30 -4.20 of the Ordinance states:
"The purpose of the Mixed -Use District is to encourage the development of a
compatible mixture of land uses which may include residential, retail, offices,
recreational, entertainment, research - oriented light industrial, water oriented or other
related uses. The compatibility and interaction between mixed uses is to insured
through adoption of Master Plan and development plan site plans, which indicate
proper orientation, desirable design character and compatible land uses to provide for:
1) A more pedestrian- oriented non - automotive environment and flexibility in the
design of land uses and structures than are provided by single purpose zoning districts,
including but not limited to shared parking; 2) The enhancement and preservation of
property and structures with historical or architectural merit, unique topographic,
landscape, or water areas, or other features requiring special treatment or protection;
3) Recreation areas that are more accessible to both the MX District's inhabitants and
other City residents; and 4) Environments that are more conducive to mutual
interdependence in terms of living, working, shopping, entertainment and recreation."
The City may use the Planned Development approach for the developed areas and
future development areas of NAS Alameda and create zoning standards and regulations
unique to NAS Alameda based upon the elements of the Community Reuse Plan.
Planned Development requires detailed development plans that would serve as the
"Master Plan" guiding future development actions. Projects will then be developed
using the development and conservation standards included in the Master Plan.
Traditional Zoning District Approach: The City may consider using a traditional
zoning district approach particularly for the conservation areas, such as the wildlife
refuge and the regional park. The classification is "0, Open Space District ", and it is
intended to preserve lands and tidelands suitable for recreational and aesthetic
resources.
Finalize agreement with the State Lands Commission Public Trust jurisdiction:
Much of the Base is potentially subject to state tideland trust jurisdiction. The ARRA
should actively pursue the public trust issues with the State Lands Commission to
maximize the public trust values at the NAS site and by shifting public trust
10- 9
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
designation from the core of the site to other non -trust lands that better fulfill the
intent of the tidelands trust through "trades ". This will allow for the best preservation
of public trust values and free less desirable portions of the base from State Lands
jurisdiction. An agreement should be reached before operational closure of the Base to
assure that any details related to Navy ownership and transfer can be resolved
smoothly.
2(e) Assure compliance between the Community Reuse Plan and the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) Regional Seaport Plan: All of NAS
Alameda is currently designated as port priority land uses in the San Francisco Bay
Area Seaport Plan. A recent plan update developed by BCDC and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) has recommended all port priority designation be
lifted except for 220 acres in the Northwest airfield adjacent to the Oakland Alameda
Estuary. The implication of this designation is that these lands are restricted to port
uses. The development of the Community Reuse Plan has demonstrated that port uses
are not feasible; nor are they desirable to the community. The ARRA will work with
BCDC to remove the port priority designation from the Northwest runway area.
2(J) Implement Master Use permitting process: The ARRA should process a "Master Use
Permit" and accompanying California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
requirements with the City of Alameda for interim uses. The Master Use Permit
would allow a number of similar uses (same in intensity and types of uses to existing
Navy Usage) to occur in the buildings designated for reuse in the Interim Reuse
Strategy.
3.0 CITY DESIGN
3(a) Develop Design Guidelines: The ARRA and City of Alameda should develop and
implement design guidelines for public spaces and private development based on the
goals and objectives of the Community Reuse Plan, the City Design Element, and
existing City Design guidelines.
4.0 TRANSPORTATION
4(a) Code Compliance (City of Alameda): The Engineering and Design Division should
review proposed modifications to roadways and intersections to ensure compliance
with design codes, including curb and gutter, lane widths, sidewalks, and wheelchair
access at intersections. The Engineering and Design Division will be responsible for
enforcement.
4(b)
Evaluation of the Need and Cost Effectiveness of Expanded Vehicular Crossing
Capacity (City of Alameda, Caltrans, Federal Govt): The City of Alameda and
Caltrans should further evaluate the need and the feasibility of a new bridge or tunnel
crossing from Oakland connecting NAS Alameda directly to I -880. One of the most
critical issues with regards to the successful reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda
will be the ability of the current infrastructure to support redevelopment of the base.
In addition, over time as Alameda generates significantly higher auto and truck traffic
volumes, a more direct access route would be a great benefit to the region, both in
terms of the increased redevelopment potential of NAS Alameda and reduced impacts
to the City of Oakland's street circulation system.
10 -10
Implementation Action Plan `; °NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
4(c)
Evaluation of the Need for Expanded Transit Service (AC Transit, Alarn rda Ferry):
The ARRA working in conjunction with AC Transit should evaluate the need for
expanded local and regional bus service directly from NAS Alameda. In addition,
expanded ferry service from the Alameda Gateway Ferry Terminal to San Francisco
should be evaluated. Public transit has the potential of reducing the dependance on
private automobiles and the need for expanded crossing capacity.
4(d) Develop Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Plan (City of Alameda): The City of
Alameda should develop a comprehensive circulation plan for NAS Alameda for a
system of bicycle and pedestrian paths that encourages both commute and recreational
activities. The circulation plan will help reduce the number of vehicle trips that are
made internally at NAS Alameda by providing individuals an efficient system of
bikeways and pedestrian path for internal circulation and access.
4(e) Develop Rail Facility Improvements Contingent on Market Feasibility: The rail
facilities leading up to and into NAS Alameda could be rehabilitated to serviceable
condition with some level of investment. Development of plans for reuse of these
facilities should be based on the market feasibility of civilian reuse and the economic
need and benefit of the proposed reuse. Implementation studies should be performed
by the ARRA for rail facilities improvement and upgrade if reuse is deemed feasible
and appropriate. ARRA should prepare a market and development feasibility study to
determine the need for future rail services.
5.0 OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION
Wildlife and Vegetation
5(a) Participate in the Preparation of the Wildlife Refuge Management Plan: The U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) will prepare a Refuge Management Plan in order to
establish the refuge and develop guidelines for management, design, predator control,
maintenance, adjoining land uses and other issues necessary to assure a successful
refuge. USFWS is responsible for preparation of the plan and the ARRA should
participate in the production of the plan.
Actively Participate in Preparation of Biological Assessment and EIR /EIS: The
ARRA should collaborate with the Navy on preparation of the Biological Assessment
and Biological Resources component of the draft EIR/EIS. Both documents will be
used in the Section 7 Consultation process with USFWS.
5(b)
5(c)
Actively Participate in the Section 7 Consultation Process: The ARRA should be
represented in all discussions and formal consultations the Navy initiates with USFWS
for the Section 7 consultation process. The discussions will address issue of take,
appropriate mitigation, management activities, responsibility and funding.
Air Quality
5(d) Equipment Tracking: The ARRA should develop with the Navy a process for
keeping track of equipment that may be shut down as part of the closure process in
order to utilize the opportunity to apply for credits.
5(e) Identify Needs for Air Credits and Planning Offsets: The ARRA should identify
their needs and military needs for air credits and planning offsets. The reuse group
10 -11
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
5(t)
5(g)
should begin quantification of their needs for credits and planning offsets, using the
same methods as the base. The reuse group should also identify sources that need
direct permit transfer.
BAAQMD Consultation: The ARRA should be involved in meetings with the Air
District to discuss: quantification results; needs for permits, credits, and /or planning
offsets; and Air District mechanisms for transfer of permits and application for credits.
Prepare Allocation Program: The ARRA should include an allocation program for
air quality permits that would: apply for Emission Reduction Credits; arrange permit
transfers; and document planning offsets for conformity determinations.
Historic Resources
5(12) Participation in the Historical Review Process: The City of Alameda should consider
a request to participate in the historic review process in lieu of participation by the
SHPO. The advantage of this process would be reduced processing time for
applicants. The disadvantage would be administrative costs to the City. It would not
be possible for the Planning Department to assume this responsibility without
additional resources. Cost could be assessed as part of the development application
fees.
5(i) Adoption of Programmatic Agreement: The City, ARRA, Navy, SHPO, and the
ACHP should negotiate a Programmatic Agreement for taking into account the effect
of the closure and disposal of property at NAS Alameda in the NAS Alameda Historic
District. This agreement would facilitate and expedite the Section 106 compliance
review process.
5(j) Maintenance of Historic District: Until the NAS Alameda property is conveyed to
the ARRA, the Navy should continue to follow the terms of the unratified
Programmatic Agreement among the Navy, the SHPO and ACHP regarding routine
maintenance of the NAS Alameda Historic District.
5(k)
Preparation of Historic Preservation Plan: The City, with the assistance and advice
of the Navy /National Park Service, should prepare a historic plan for the NAS
Alameda Historic District. Using the results of the structural analysis and the Historic
Architectural Resources Inventory for NAS Alameda, the plan should at a minimum:
• provide design guidelines and specifications for new construction within and
adjacent to the historic district that will ensure compatibility of new
construction with the character of the historic district;
• provide design guidelines and specifications for maintaining the character
defining elements of the historic district, including buildings, styles, street
patterns, open spaces, structures and grounds;
• define a procedure to be employed by the City to ensure historic preservation
considerations are balanced with those of the community in deciding issues that
10- 12
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
may alter the character of the district.
6.0 PARKS, RECREATION, SCHOOLS, CULTURAL FACILITIES
6(a) Develop detailed park plans: The ARRA should assist the City of Alameda Parks and
Recreation Department (APRD) in development of detailed park plans for new local
serving facilities at NAS Alameda. This should include plans for assuring shoreline
access and providing cultural and recreational facilities for the City.
6(h) Develop trail and regional park plans: The ARRA should assist East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD) in developing park plans and trail creation and management
plans. Plans should detail the development land uses, facilities, activities and access for
regional parks in the Inner Harbor and at Point Alameda. Maintenance, access, and
design of trails should be addressed. The plans should be approved by the ARRA
prior to approval of EBRPD leases of land from the ARRA or APRD.
6(c)
Work with the Alameda Unified School District to provide school sites and other
facilities: The ARRA should assist the AUSD in finding building space and school
sites to meet the demand created by development at NAS Alameda.
7.0 HEALTH & SAFETY
Seismic, Geologic, and Soils Hazards
7(a) Limitation of Fill Placement: The placement of artificial fill should be limited to
reduce the potential for increased loading and associated settlement in areas underlain
by thick young Bay Muds. Increased areal settlement of NAS Alameda could have
implications on flooding potential as well as foundation design. Reconditioning
(compaction) of existing subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill.
Development projects proposing the construction of structural fills should be required
to present site - specific geotechnical reports which provide analysis of consolidation
potential. Lightweight and low plasticity fill materials should be specified. The
reports should be presented to the City Department of Public Works for approval.
It is possible that remediation alternatives for hazardous materials sites at the base may
include the placement of clay covers to minimize infiltration and reduce potential
exposure to residual levels of contaminants in soil and groundwater. If caps are
proposed, synthetic liner /cover designs should be considered to minimize the load of
the caps.
7(h)
Utility Design to Accommodate Settlement: The potential for variable differential
settlement between buildings supported on pile and unsupported utilities could result
in rupture or damage to the utilities. The potential damage to utilities should be
addressed by designing flexible connections for the utilities. The gradient of utility
alignments should be designed to tolerate differential settlement along the alignments
as determined by site - specific investigations. Separation of mat foundation and
exterior pavements or other structures placed directly against the perimeter of the
10- 13
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
7(c)
7(d)
foundation to mitigate the potential damage related to differential settlement of the
foundation and surrounding soils.
Subsurface Waterproofing for Foundations: Shallow groundwater conditions
throughout most of NAS Alameda present moisture control problems for building
foundations, particularly slab -on -grade designs. Subsurface drainage control should be
required for most areas of the base. Thin granular fill blankets (capillary breaks) and
impervious membranes should be incorporated into the foundation design for slab -on-
grade designs. All subgrade structures should be waterproofed in accordance with the
recommendations of a site - specific geotechnical report. If permanent dewatering
systems are proposed, the potential impacts of dewatering on structural settlement
should be specifically addressed.
Erosion Protection for Slab Foundations: Mat or slab foundations constructed in areas
of expected areal settlement (i.e., areas underlain by thick young Bay Muds) should be
designed to minimize the potential for soil erosion under the perimeter of the
foundation. The perimeter of the slabs could be thickened and established sufficiently
below existing grade to minimize the potential for exposure of the bottom of the
foundation. Alternatively, other forms of erosion protection could be recommended
by site - specific geotechnical reports.
Hydrology & Flooding
7(e) Preparation of a Flood Insurance Study: The City of Alameda should consider
requesting that a Flood Insurance Study which covers NAS Alameda be conducted by
FEMA. The resulting Flood Insurance Rate Maps would provide a more refined
planning tool and would allow for FEMA involvement in flood zone planning and
management. The FIS should consider the potential combined effect of continued
subsidence and projected sea level rise on the potential for flooding at NAS Alameda.
7(1) Incorporation of the NAS Alameda Area into the City Urban Runoff Program: The
City Urban Runoff Program should coordinate with NAS Alameda Environmental
and the RWQCB to develop the conditions for inclusion of the base in the City's
participation in the ACURCWP.
Establish Groundwater Use & Monitoring Program: The quality of large volumes of
the uppermost groundwater underlying the base are known to be affected by the
release of hazardous materials. Other areas of groundwater contamination may be
identified in the future. The City and Alameda County Water Conservation and
Flood Control District should consider placing restrictions on the installation of water
supply wells within the uppermost aquifer within the limits of the base. Pumping of
large volumes of shallow groundwater could affect the evaluation and remediation of
groundwater contamination plumes. Pumped groundwater containing contaminants
cannot be discharged to the storm drainage system or sanitary sewer system without
meeting discharge requirements set by the RWQCB and /or EBMUD. A water quality
testing program for all existing water supply wells should be considered to determine if
unacceptable discharges are occurring.
7(g)
Environmental Clean -up
7(12) Coordination of the Base Cleanup Plan and Community Reuse Plan's Priorities: The
Base Cleanup Plan and Community Reuse Plan's Priorities should be coordinated to
10- 14
Imp 'ementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
achieve timely transfer of property for both short term reuse and longer term
redevelopment. Close coordination of BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP) with ARRA's
Interim and Final Reuse Plans will ensure that there is a common priority on parcels
and attendant environmental issues. Efforts should be made to close the gap between
the issuance of the interim reuse and redevelopment plan and the issuance of the BCP
to assure that the BCP addresses the needs of ARRA.
Parcel Specific Environmental Baseline Surveys (EBS) should be developed to support
Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) and to obtain California Environmental
Protection Agency's (Cal -EPA) approval on a schedule that supports short term reuse.
Parcel Evaluation Plans (PEP) should be implemented for the 10 priority parcels
identified by ARRA as having the highest potential for lease or the parcels with the
highest probability of short term reuse. The results will provide information to
determine whether or not further investigation and /or remediation is required, or if
the parcel is suitable for lease. Based on this information, the required parcel specific
EBS can be prepared in support of FOSL's.
7(i) Resolution of Non Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Issues: Non
CERCLA and RCRA issues primarily Asbestos- Containing Material (ACM),
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB), and possibly lead based paint, should be resolved in a
timely manner and prior to FOSL. Data and information from the Navy's program to
confirm the presence /absence of friable asbestos containing materials in buildings
located on base will be available. A schedule for removal of PCB containing
equipment is being developed for implementation. It is critical that these programs
proceed on schedule to meet ARRA's goals on short term reuse.
70) Remediation of Parcels by Lessee: Businesses should be able to lease parcels without
interrupting business activities and simultaneously accomplish the required
remediation of the parcels. The Navy and its contractor should seek opportunities to
implement both established and innovative in -situ treatment /remediation technologies
to eliminate or minimize disruption to lessees business activities. It is important that
the RAB and the community at large as well as the regulatory agencies be kept
apprised of the intent to use and accept the use of these technologies. Where in -situ
technology /methodology is inappropriate, the remediation plan should be developed
to limit disruption to and access from the lessee.
7(k) Acceptance of Risk Management Concepts: Risk based clean -up levels should be
supported in order to meet the BCP and ARRA schedule. Communication of risk
assessment process and results by the Navy and ARRA to the RAB, community and
special interest groups with agency support is key to gaining acceptance of risk
assessment concepts, and to gaining acceptance of risk management concepts by the
community.
7(1)
Ground Water Remediation: Application of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board's (RWQCB) non - attainment policy for the remediation of groundwater should
be based on risk assessment as well as other regulatory policies that have the potential
to streamline the remediation process.
7(m) Interagency Cooperation: The regulatory agencies, including Cal -EPA and DTSC,
should cooperate to streamline the process and avoid bottlenecks. Continued
10- 15
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
involvement of the DTSC representative on the RAB, and the involvement of the
DTSC point contact in charge of base reuse and redevelopment, should enhance the
process. For example, Cal -EPA worked closely with the City of Sacramento and
approved a FOSL for the Sacramento Army Base to permit a large industrial business
to relocate. This was accomplished by making the Cal -EPA an integral part of the
process.
7(n) Adequate and Predictable Funding: ARRA should seek adequate and predictable
funding to accomplish the BCP on a schedule to satisfy the Community Reuse Plan.
The Navy plans to address this issue through command channels.
7(o) Provision for a Transition Period: The Navy should minimize impacts of changing
Navy CLEAN contractors on the overall restoration program schedule. The Navy
should make provision for a transition period to effect a smooth, seamless transition
from the incumbent to the new contract team, if either of the current contractor or its
subcontractors are not awarded the new CLEAN II contract. Continuity is a key to a
successful program. The Navy has, however, made arrangements to have the current
contractor complete IRP sites through the ROD regardless of the outcome of CLEAN
II contracting.
8.0 PROPERTY DISPOSAL /DISPOSITION
8(a) Work with Navy to integrate the Property Disposal Strategy into the Record of
Decision: The ARRA should work with the Navy to assure that the property disposal
plan approved by the community and ARRA governing board is accepted by the
Navy and is the basis for the ROD, BRAC EIR/EIS, and all other base closure
procedures.
8(b) Prepare a Economic Development Conveyance application: The Economic
Development Conveyance (EDC) application will enable the ARRA to obtain
property from the Navy to be used for economic development purposes.
8(c) Assist the AUSD in preparing Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) application for
schools: The ARRA should assist the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) in
preparing a PBC request to the Navy and U.S. Department of Education for the
parcels and facilities outlined in the Property Disposal Strategy.
8(d) Assist the APRD in preparing Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) application for
parks: The ARRA should assist the Alameda Parks & Recreation Department
(APRD) in preparing a PBC request to the Navy and U.S. Department of Interior for
the parcels and facilities outlined in the Property Disposal Strategy.
8(e) Prepare a Port Conveyance application for the Marina District: The ARRA should
prepare Port Conveyance request to the Navy and the U.S. Department of
Transportation's National Maritime Administration (MARAD) for the Marina
District and Seaplane Lagoon. The Port Conveyance mechanism was recently enacted
by Congress for property used as a port, marina, or related maritime activity and there
are no transfers to date. Due to this uncertainty the Marina District should be
considered in preparing the EDC as well.
10- 16
Implementation Action Plain NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
9.0 IMPLEMEN "I ATION ELEMENT
EQUIPMENT AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
9(a)
Monitor Navy Equipment and Request Equipment That Will Aid the ARRA or
Potential Tenants or Service Providers: The Navy currently compiles a list of all
equipment it intends to move out of NAS Alameda as part of its drawdown disposal
and relocation. The ARRA reviews the list and requests the property it deems to be
useful of necessary to the reuse process. This process should continue, the ARRA
acting as a coordinator, monitoring the Navy's disposal of personal property and
fielding requests from service providers and public entities. The ARRA should also
request items that are of interest to potential tenants/ private reusers of NAS Alameda
or equipment the ARRA believes has the potential to attract reuse activity.
INFRASTRUCTURE
9(b)
9(c)
Perform Utility Technical Study for all critical systems: Detailed evaluation,
inspection and analysis for the existing water, wastewater, stormwater, natural gas, and
electrical systems. These studies will identify immediate repairs needed and aid in
preparing 10 -15 cyclic replacement programs.
Implement Cyclic Replacement Programs for all critical systems: All infrastructures
systems at NAS Alameda are aging and often in non - compliance with existing City
standards. Each system should have cyclic replacement program designed to alleviate
these deficiencies over a 10 -15 year period responding to the conditions of the system.
Replacement programs should be coordinated with roadway
construction /maintenance and one another to maximize the efficiency of the
programs.
Potable Water and Fire Protection Sprinkler Systems
9(d) Combine potable water and fire protection systems: Currently fire protection and
drinking water are maintained as two separate systems. Combining the systems will
bring it in line with current civilian practices and reduce capital and operational costs.
Determination of guidelines for accepting existing systems ( EBMUD): EBMUD will
either establish new guidelines or retain the existing guidelines for the allowable pipe
sizes, materials, and appurtenances and pump station equipment.
9(f) Delivery of all applicable reference materials (Navy): All available materials
applicable to the existing system will be delivered to ARRA. This information is still
being compiled by PWCSFB. The ARRA reserves the possibility that it may need to
request additional information in the future.
9(e)
Sanitary Wastewater
9(g) Determination of guidelines for acceptable existing systems (City): The City should
either establish new guidelines or retain the existing guidelines for the allowable pipe
sizes, materials, and slopes and pump station capacities.
9(h)
Delivery of all applicable reference materials (Navy): All available materials
10- 17
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Pla
applicable to the existing system will be delivered to ARRA. This information is still
being compiled by PWCSFB. The ARRA reserves the possibility that it may need to
request additional information in the future.
Storm Drainage
9(i) Repair non functional flap gates: The flooding in the north end of Main Street is
caused, in part, by defects in the flap gates the stop Estuary inflow into the stormwater
systems. Repair of the flap gates and installation of collection pipes should greatly
alleviate the flooding.
9(i) Determination of guidelines for acceptable existing systems (City): The City will
either establish new guidelines or retain the existing guidelines for the allowable pipe
sizes, materials, and slopes and pump station equipment and capacities.
Delivery of all applicable reference materials (Navy): All available materials
applicable to the existing system will be delivered to ARRA. This information is still
being compiled by PWCSFB. The ARRA reserves the possibility that it may need to
request additional information in the future.
Transfer of the NPDES Permit (City): Before closing the base, the Navy will submit a
Notice of Termination, and the City will submit a Notice of Intent for a NPDES
Permit with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). As part of this
permit, the City must establish a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to
the satisfaction of the SWRCB. The City and Navy will negotiate the responsibility
for the system upgrades and monitoring requirements necessary to comply with the
provisions of the NPDES permit.
9(k)
9(7)
Electrical Utilities
9(m) Modify electrical system to accommodate the Alameda Bureau of Electricity's
Systems: As buildings, land, and /or equipment are setup for reuse, the electrical system
should be modified to accommodate the Alameda Bureau of Electricity's long term
plan. This long term plan consists of eliminating all redundant cable systems and all
switchgear and transformers in the existing distribution system. As the curbs and
gutters are upgraded to the City's standards, the street lighting system should also be
upgraded to the City's standards.
Natural Gas
9(n) Coordinate with PG &E or alternate service provider to facilitate gas system transfer:
The Navy and ARRA should continue to coordinate with PG &E or alternate service
provider to ensure mutual understanding of the transfer procedure and agreements.
The service provider should determine and provide to the Navy and the ARRA
guidelines (minimum acceptable equipment condition /standards) for accepting the
existing gas systems.
Telephone System
9(o) Factor the cost of telephone equipment replacement in long range fiscal planning:
Considering the long -term plan, the switch will require replacement in fifteen or
twenty years, at significant cost, and this replacement cost should be amortized and
included in any feasibility cost studies.
10 -18
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Cable TV System
TCI CableVision of Alameda should continue to provide cable service: The
ownership, operation, and maintenance of the Cable TV system on NAS Alameda is
by TCI Cable Vision of Alameda and it is recommended that TCI or the current
contractor with the City continue as the owner and operator.
9(p)
Steam System
9(q) Provide alternate heat source for buildings served by Building 10 plant (City, et.al):
The City, in conjunction with the future utility providers, will determine the best
alternative heat source for those buildings affected by the shutdown of Building 10 and
system for piers. The solution does not rule out the possibility of maintaining
operation of the existing steam system.
9(r) Interview potential new occupants that have an industrial use for steam (City):
Continuing the operation and maintenance of the existing steam system may be
economically feasible only if new businesses that have an industrial use for steam move
onto the base.
Compressed Air System
9(s) Interview potential new occupants that have an industrial use for compressed air
(City): Continuing the operation and maintenance of the existing compressed air
system may be economically feasible only if new businesses that have an industrial use
for compressed air move onto the base.
FINANCING
9(t) Finalize caretaker agreements with the Navy: The ARRA should negotiate an
agreement with the Navy that equitably establishes responsibility for building &
grounds maintenance, utilities, building demolition, contributions to the City of
Alameda for public safety (following retrosession), and other caretaker costs.
9(u) Establish a Redevelopment Project Area: A Redevelopment Project Area would
allow the ARRA to receive a portion of the increases in property tax revenues (beyond
a predetermined base year) generated by new real estate activity at the Base. A
determination must be made as to which legislative authority will be used to create the
project area. A key criteria for selecting the appropriate legislative mechanism should
be the ability to reimburse the City of Alameda for provision of municipal services.
9(v) Explore property early sale opportunities: Early sales of parcels may be one of the
best sources of up front capital to fund needed infrastructure improvements. Sale or
other mechanisms that provide monies to fund "pump priming" infrastructure projects
should be pursued.
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
9(w)
Work with the Navy and HUD to gain approval of the Homeless Assistance Element:
The ARRA should work with the Navy and the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to assure approval of the Homeless Assistance Element.
Acceptance of the plan will enable the rest the Community Reuse Plan to proceed.
9(x) Continue to seeks ways to accommodate OCHI /Operation Dignity: There are still a
10- 19
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
9(y)
number of options available to provide barracks housing requested by
OCHI /Operation Dignity.
Execute Legally Binding Agreement with Homeless Collaborative and homeless
providers: The Legally Binding Agreement is the equivalent of a lease for the
homeless providers activities. This document is structured as a master agreement with
the Homeless Collaborative and is necessary to finalized the Homeless Assistance Act
requirements
INTERIM REUSE STRATEGY
The Interim Reuse Strategy is an integral part of this Community Reuse Plan and all
implementation actions have been incorporated into this implementation action plan.
Please refer to the phase 3 document for the full details of this plan. All action items
from the Interim Reuse Strategy are included in the Implementation Matrix.
BUILDING DEMOLITION
9(z)
Include building demolition disscusions in all negotiations with the Navy: The
ARRA and Navy should include discussions regarding building demolition in
negotiations of care and custody procedures and responsibilities and as part of the
Economic Development Conveyance process of determining the value of Base. It is
also possible that demolition of structures could be included as part of the
environmental clean -up process.
SHORT & LONG TERM MARKETING STRATEGY
The following strategies outline an approach to marketing NAS Alameda during the
interim reuse period and beyond. These strategies are targeted towards finding tenants
who expect to lease buildings and pay rent. Virtually all of these activities should
occur in each of the first five years of the interim period. Depending on market
conditions, the ability to obtain findings of suitability to transfer (FOST), the
availability of financing for infrastructure improvements, etc, this marketing program
will also be appropriate for long term economic development of the Community
Reuse Plan.
(a)
All of these strategies must be executed in a coordinated manner and must be closely
supervised by ARRA staff, although ARRA staff may not have primary responsibility
for executing each individual strategy. In addition, it is critical that these tasks be
addressed simultaneously. For the marketing strategy to be successful, the ARRA
must move forward in many directions at once, rather than viewing this as a sequential
process where one task is completed before another is undertaken.
Execute Lease Agreement With the Navy: No proactive marketing of buildings at
NAS Alameda can occur until the ARRA has legal control of the property and can
execute a lease agreement with its tenants. Therefore, the ARRA must complete a
lease agreement with the Navy immediately so that tenant solicitation can begin.
However, it should be clear in both the lease with the Navy, as well as the leases with
subtenants to the ARRA, that these activities will be on an interim basis. Depending
on the land use plan included in the final Community Reuse Plan, there could be a
significant difference between interim uses and the final reuse of the Base.
10- 20
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
There are several alternatives for the ARRA in terms of how an interim lease is
structured with the Navy. One is to lease the entire property, with the Navy making
payments to the ARRA for the basic maintenance of buildings that would be
unoccupied and thus in caretaker status. The second alternative is for the ARRA to
only lease specific parcels which include buildings and associated outdoor areas for
parking and /or activities. The ARRA should continue to negotiate an interim lease
with the Navy. This lease should be for individual parcels associated with specific
buildings, rather than for the base as a whole.
Develop Organizational Capacity to Market Buildings At NAS: The ARRA should
designate an individual who will be the on -site point of contact for marketing
buildings at the Base. This person should have extensive experience marketing real
estate comparable to the buildings available at NAS; knowledge of leasing
opportunities at NAS compare with leasing opportunities in the private market place,
including tax implications, utilities, transportation issues, building improvements,
overall cost structures, etc.; and should have a complete understanding of brokerage
law, custom, and practice. This person's responsibilities will include: compiling basic
information for the buildings under consideration; developing marketing information
materials for individual buildings; soliciting interest in the buildings, answering
informational inquiries, conducting building tours, arranging for other professional
services on an as needed basis to develop additional information regarding building
condition, and represent the ARRA in lease negotiations. It is also critical that this
person be authorized to make decisions, and /or that the ARRA establish a rapid
decision making process so that lease negotiations can be executed quickly and
efficiently.
The marketing function could be carried out in two ways. One would be for the
ARRA to hire an additional staff member with the appropriate qualifications to
perform this job; much the same way that many property owners hire on -site leasing
staff. This individual would likely be paid a salary, rather than commissions based on
leasing activity. The alternative would be to hire a brokerage firm to represent the
property. This firm would be responsible for assigning staff to the marketing
activities, and would function in the same way that a broker does for any private
property owner.
Depending on whether the ARRA chooses to hire an individual, or work with a
brokerage firm, the marketing person can be selected through a standard personnel
hiring procedure, or through a request for proposal (RFP) process. An RFP to the
brokerage firms should include the following information: background on the closure
process and the Interim Reuse Strategy; a list of buildings to be marketed with some
basic information; a description of key issues at NAS Alameda that could affect leasing,
such as lack of funding for building improvements; a description of the services and
responsibilities the firm is to carry out; a description of the timeframe for marketing
the buildings; a discussion of compensation; and, a sample contract between the
ARRA and the brokerage firm.
Respondents should be asked to provide their firm qualifications as well as the
qualifications of individuals who will be representing the property; a description of
recently completed transactions for buildings comparable to those at NAS Alameda; a
description of their approach to marketing the buildings; a discussion of how to
address some of the problem issues such as a potential lack of money for tenant
10 -21
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
(c)
(d)
improvements; a response as to how the other components of the overall marketing
strategy listed below could be executed; a proposed timeframe for marketing the
buildings; and a budget or proposed compensation package.
The ARRA can take advantage of this RFP process as a way to refine its own approach
to the marketing strategy, and to ensure that all of the issues that should be addressed
will be addressed. One way to do this is to review all of the initial responses to the
RFP, and, based on the responses, issue a follow -up letter asking for additional
information from the respondents on specific items that may not have been included
in the original RFP, but may have been raised in the proposals. This gives the ARRA
an additional opportunity to learn more about how certain problems can be solved, as
well as developing better insight into the understanding that various respondents have
of the situation. Once the second round of written responses have been reviewed, the
ARRA could then hold interviews with the top three candidates and make a final
selection.
The ARRA should issue an RFP to hire a brokerage firm to market the property
targeted for interim reuse. There is one major advantage to using a brokerage firm
over an individual. Brokerage firms can provide extensive resources to support their
brokers, including technical expertise related to other aspects of the real estate field
such as property management, finance, etc. By using a brokerage firm the ARRA
could greatly enhance the capacity of its own staff quickly, and with a minimum
financial outlay.
One constraint to using a brokerage firm is the Federal Government's concern
regarding paying commissions for real estate transactions. However, brokerage firms
should be presented with the specifics of what the government will and will not allow
in terms of compensation as part of the Request for Proposals process, and asked to
present alternative solutions to this issue.
Identify Opportunities for Shared -Use of Existing Buildings Prior to the Base's
Closure: Prior to closure there are opportunities for civilian firms to operate in
buildings that are still accommodating Navy functions. These joint use arrangements
have several advantages in that they can ensure a smooth transition from Navy to
civilian use of buildings, and they can create opportunities for displaced workers to be
reemployed at jobs very similar to the ones they held for the Navy.
The options for shared -use are not mutually exclusive. One option is for civilian
companies to begin contracting with the federal government to perform the activities
related to the military mission that were previously performed by people employed
directly by the military. An additional option would be to sublease portions of
buildings which could be vacated by the Navy to civilian businesses. The ARRA
should structure its lease with the Navy to support shared -use opportunities. In
addition, the ARRA should structure its marketing program for the remaining time
period prior to the Base closing to include joint -use opportunities.
Develop the Organizational Capacity to Manage the Buildings and Other Property
at NAS Alameda: Part of a successful marketing program must include a clear
strategy regarding ongoing building and grounds maintenance for the Base. Buildings
that remain under the Navy's care and custody are part of this maintenance issue, but
the ARRA must also develop and effective plan for maintaining the buildings under its
10- 22
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
(e)
control, as well as for ensuring that the grounds around these buildings and at the Base
entrance are properly maintained.
The ARRA can carry out ongoing maintenance operations in one of two ways. One
way would be to hire an "in- house" property management staff. This staff would
include an on -site manager and a crew of employees who would complete general
ongoing maintenance activities. Any specialized work could be contracted out on an
as needed basis.
The second option would be to hire a third- party asset management firm. Under
either option, ongoing management duties would include but not be limited to:
collecting rents, paying bills, overseeing tenant improvements to buildings (to the
extent that the ARRA would be responsible for making these improvements), ensuring
that ongoing grounds maintenance is complete, ensuring that buildings are maintained
in safe condition, acting as a liaison with tenants, acting as a liaison with the city
related to permitting issues, and providing a full accounting of ongoing operations to
the ARRA. Given the difficulty of managing a large number of older buildings, the
ARRA should consider hiring a third party management firm to perform the property
management function. This function could be linked to the marketing /brokerage
function so that both activities are managed by one entity.
Develop Marketing Materials: There are two levels of marketing materials that must
be developed for NAS Alameda. First information sheets for individual buildings
should be prepared so that they can be easily inserted into a folder or a simple
brochure. One sheet should be developed for each building and include, at a
minimum, the following: building type, size, configuration, condition, divisibility,
access, clearance, floor plans, power, environmental conditions, amenities, code
compliance, parking, lot size, location, and rent /cost to occupy.
The second level of marketing materials are oriented to communicating more general
concepts about the Community Reuse Plan, the long term future for the Base, and the
vision of the community. These materials should include a clear current map of the
Base showing building locations; a future land use map showing how the Base will
evolve over time; a brochure articulating the vision for NAS Alameda that
communicates what type of place it will become; how the community intends to
implement this vision; and a specific description of the leasing process. Other
information about federal, state, and local programs to provide financial or other types
of assistance to businesses located at the Base should also be available. These materials
should all be visually appealing as well as containing clear and informative narrative
text.
The general marketing materials can be developed by a marketing firm under direction
of the ARRA, or they can be developed under direction from the brokerage firm hired
to market the buildings. The point of contact marketing person should be responsible
for developing marketing materials for the individual general purpose buildings. This
person will also need a sample lease to show prospective tenants. However, the sample
lease should be developed by an attorney. The ARRA should work together with the
brokerage firm to select and direct the work of a marketing /graphic design firms to
generate the general marketing materials.
(fl Execute A Marketing Program For the General Purpose Buildings: The general
10- 23
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
(g)
purpose buildings on the base, defined as buildings that can be used by a wide range of
potential industrial users, are most likely going to draw the majority of tenants from
the local and regional market place. A marketing program should be designed to
maximize the buildings' exposure in this arena and will rely upon establishing and
maintaining a strong link to the existing real estate brokerage community. The
following activities comprise the basic components of a marketing program:
1. Establish Marketing Priorities. Although every building on the Base will be
available for lease, assuming it has been vacated by the Navy, to be effective the
marketing program should concentrate on a particular set of buildings. The five
year absorption schedule shown in Chapter 2 indicates which buildings should
be the focus of a marketing effort on an annual basis. This list can change
depending on market conditions, tenant interest, etc.
2. Inquiry Follow -up. Many firms have already contacted the ARRA regarding the
opportunity to lease space and /or reuse existing facilities at the Base. These
inquires represent a critical resource in terms of identifying prospective tenants
for the Base. Every inquiry, no matter how tentative, should be recorded for
future follow -up as well as to provide an indication of the types of businesses
that are interested in what NAS Alameda has to offer. A coordinated effort
must be made to follow -up on these inquires, establish which ones have the best
potential, and follow through with any necessary assistance to help make it
possible for businesses to locate at the Base.
3. Direct Solicitation. A direct outreach campaign targeted to similar or logical
tenants in the area must be initiated. This outreach can include both telephone
and mail contact. Each contact should be followed up routinely, and this
outreach effort should be carried out on an ongoing basis.
4. Brokerage Outreach. The existing real estate brokerage community will also
provide an important source of prospective tenants for the base. Brokers should
be contacted on an ongoing basis to keep them informed about buildings that
remain available. This can be done through a series of activities including tours,
presentations to weekly broker meetings, direct mailings, etc.
S. Building Signage. Buildings that are currently available should have large signs
on their exterior announcing their availability and providing a contact person's
name and phone number.
The ARRA should select a brokerage firm that has a comprehensive approach to
marketing the buildings at the Base.
Execute a Marketing Program for the Special Purpose Buildings: The special purpose
industrial buildings at NAS Alameda, defined as those buildings containing specialized
equipment and /or designed for a single particular purpose, are likely to have a high
value to only a very narrow pool of prospective tenants. This requires a special
marketing effort, but also implies that there may be a low probability of actually
securing a tenant who can utilize the full range of opportunities available. However,
the specialized marketing program should be executed for a predetermined time period
ranging from twelve to thirty six months. If no tenants have been identified after this
time period, the buildings should no longer be considered special purpose facilities and
10 -24
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
(h)
should be re- evaluated to determine their potential for general purpose use. If these
buildings can not be easily converted to general purpose use, they should be evaluated
for their salvage potential, and considered for demolition.
A marketing program for the special purpose buildings should include all of the
elements included in the general marketing program outlined above with three
additional steps as follows:
1. Develop Specialized Marketing Materials. These buildings will require marketing
materials that include more information than the basic materials developed for
the general purpose buildings. A brochure should be developed for each
building including equipment photographs and specifications, labor availability,
training programs, incentives, etc. The brochure should also address all of the
same information included in the basic marketing materials developed for the
general purpose buildings. Other types of marketing materials, e.g. video tapes,
are not necessary unless there is a lot of interest in them expressed by prospective
tenants.
2. Identify National Target Business List. There are only a limited number of actual
businesses in the entire country who are likely to be able to utilize these
buildings. These businesses should be identified and contacted directly to
determine their potential interest in the building as well as their suggestion of
other possible tenants. While initial contacts with these tenants can be
conducted by phone and mail, the marketing person may need to meet face -to-
face with prospective tenants as their interest in the facility develops.
3. Identify International Target Business List. This task should focus on identifying
businesses located outside of the U.S. that could utilize these facilities. As in the
task above, these businesses should be contacted directly to ascertain interest and
expand the list of other businesses that could potentially be interested in the
facility.
The ARRA should select a brokerage firm that has a comprehensive approach to
marketing the special purpose buildings at the Base and who will execute the task with
a comparable level of effort as will be directed at the general purpose buildings.
Consider Options for Creating Financial Incentives to Attract Tenants to NAS
Alameda: One of the most important objectives of the Community Reuse Plan is to
use the existing real estate asset base to create new jobs. One way to encourage
businesses to locate at the Base, and thus create jobs, is to offer financial incentives to
make this a more attractive location than alternative locations available elsewhere.
However, any financial incentives that would decrease the revenue stream to either the
ARRA or the City could have negative financial and /or fiscal implications.
There are number of options for creating incentives that are not mutually exclusive.
These could include but are not limited to: below market rate rents, lower utility costs,
low- or no -cost tenant improvements, access to equipment at no cost, tax incentives,
etc. The ARRA needs to develop a clear policy position on incentives that address the
financial and fiscal implications for the Authority itself as well as the City. Any
incentives created to attract tenants should not create a negative financial impact on
either entity. However, other types of incentives, including designation of the Base as
10- 25
Implementation Action Plan NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
(i)
a state enterprise zone, which would make businesses locating there eligible for tax
incentives and other programs offered by the state, should be considered.
Formulate a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy: In conjunction with
the marketing effort there also needs to be a comprehensive economic development
strategy that seeks to proactively support the creation or expansion of businesses that
could occupy space at NAS Alameda. The highest priority of this effort should be to
focus on businesses that can reuse the special purpose industrial facilities at the Base;
and at the same time re- employ displaced workers.
Particular attention should be given to worker groups who are attempting to form
new businesses to utilize the specialized industrial facilities including the Paint Shop.
These worker groups will need assistance with developing business and marketing
plans, raising capital, and creating appropriate management structures.
Once the Reuse Plan is adopted, the ARRA will likely submit an Economic
Development Conveyance request to the Department of the Navy for transfer of
property to the ARRA for economic development purposes. The application process
should include formulation of a broad economic development strategy targeted at
supporting business development, rather than having a narrow focus on real estate
development issues only.
(1) Coordinate Outreach Efforts with Federal, State of California, City of Alameda, and
Alameda County Economic Development Activities: The marketing of NAS
Alameda must occur within the broader context of an economic development strategy
for the City of Alameda. Reuse activities at the Base must compliment, rather than
compete with other sites in the City that also have development potential. City staff
can take an active role in helping to position NAS Alameda, vis a vis other locations in
the City. In addition, City staff can act as the representative for the Base, in
conjunction with other sites, as part of its ongoing economic development efforts.
This could include attending trade shows, preparing marketing materials for the entire
City, and directing inquiries from interested parties to the marketing person at the
Base.
The ARRA, the City of Alameda, and Alameda County should continue their ongoing
efforts to coordinate outreach efforts. As the ARRA begins to implement the Interim
Reuse Strategy, these other entities should be kept informed of its activities, and should be
called upon to provide technical support as necessary.
10- 26
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
December 27, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
SUBJ: Recommendation from the BRAG .Modifying Language to Chapter 1.0 (Introduction)
and the Goals and Objectives (Goal B2: Enhance Employment Opportunities and
CI: Housing Opportunities).
In response to a request from the ARRA Governing Body, the following page contains specific
language for modifications requested by the BRAG to the Introduction and Goals and Objectives.
c:wp \arra \staff -re. pts\marad.nas
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BRAG MODIFYING LANGUAGE TO
CHAPTER 1.0 (INTRODUCTION) AND THE
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (GOAL B2: ENHANCE
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND Cl: HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES)
I. Page Two - Reuse Process
"In addition, the Plan is based on the principle that there will be a broad range of opportunities for
all people, including persons of low income, people of color, those who are physically and
mentally challenged, and women."
II. Page Ten - Goal B2: Enhance Reemployment Opportunities
"Seek a variety of means for providing jobs, training, retraining, housing and .educational
opportunities for all people including those of low income, people of color, those who are
physically and mentally challenged and women."
M. Page Ten - Goal C1: Objectives
"Provide diversity in housing opportunities to meet the needs of people of all income including
those physically and mentally challenged, persons of all ethnic origins, and women in the
community."
Revised 12/27/95
AIRFIELD ISSUES
4 -J
Item 3
Threshold Issue: Is the option of an airfield OK with Fish & Wildlife? (We need a deadline
for determination on the airfield from Fish & Wildlife.)
Other Issues:
1. Can a restricted airport operate without a control tower?
2. How long does the runway need to be, full- length of present North -South runway or less?
3. How limited is limited? What is the proposed frequency of use and purpose? What type of
planes would be allowed?
4. Noise issues?
5. Will it result in greater revenues from hangars? Will it provide the opportunity for new
jobs?
6. Compatibility with BCDC / port priority designation?
7. Compatibility with the Port of Oakland? (The Navy has granted an encroachment into the
avigation easement.)
8. Is this considered a "reliever" to Oakland and San Francisco airports or would we be
competing for business?
9. The additional cost of fire protection: how much and who pays?
10. Fueling issues: will there have to be fueling facilities?
11. Is this a commercial opportunity for someone?
12. Consultant should review and evaluate our present proposal from Joe Davis for Nimitz Field
and advise whether this is a solid proposal or whether we should put out an RFP for an
operator.
13. Is the airfield compatible with the Public Trust?
Consultant Studies Work Schedule 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redeveloment Authority
Planning Study
State Base Closure Grant
Housing Feasiblity Study
Appraisal for Public Trust Lands
EDA Base Closure Grant
Street Improvement Plan
Demolition Study
Building Improvement Study
Tota
Total
OEA 1995/96 BUDGET
Redevelopment Area Formation
Market Anlaysis NAS /FISC
Detailed Development Studies
Economic Development Conveyance Application
Transfer ULI Budget for EDC Analysis
Port Development Conveyance Application
FISC Background Report
FISC Reuse Plan
FISC Detailed Development Plans
Section 7 Consultation (EIS /EIR)
Section 7 Predator Management Plan
Total
OEA 94/95 Budget Amendment
Interim Marketing Plan and Materials
Utility Study (Total = $600,000)
Science Center Feasibility Study
Total
TOTAL ALL GRANTS
c:\123r4\doc\sch96.wk4
Budget
Start Date
$45,000 June 1, 1996
$55,000 Sept 1, 1996
$100,000
$310,000
$140,000
$150,000
$30,000
$50,000
$50,000
$42,000
$35,000
$100,000
$60,000
June 1, 1996
June 1, 1996
June 1, 1996
$450,000
June 1, 1996
May 15, 1996
May 15, 1996
Oct 1, 1996
June 1, 1996
Oct 1, 1996
January 1, 1996
June 1, 1996
June 1, 1996
$15,000 November 1995
$30,000 June 1, 1996
$562,000
$50,000
$200,000
$250,000
$500,000
$1,612,000
BRAG /ARRA
Update
July 1996
March 1997
July 1996
July 1996
July 1996
July 1996
July 1996
July 1996
November 1996
July 1996
November 1996
July 1996
July 1996
July 1996
October 1996
July 1996
Completion Date
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Jan 1, 1997
Sept 30, 1996
Jan 1, 1997
June 15, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
Sept 30, 1996
April 1997
November 1996
Correspondence
Pete Wilson
Governor
Julie Meier Wright
Secretary
801 K Street
Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA
95814-3520
CALIFORNIA TRADE ANDRcSAIHERCE AGENCY
MAY 1 4 1996
916- 324 -9777
916- 322 -3524 FAX
BASE CONVERSION OFFICE
CITY OF ALAMEDA
May 8, 1996
Ms. Kaye Miller
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Re: California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant
Dear Ms. Miller:
I am pleased to announce that the application submitted by the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority for the Spring, 1996 solicitation of the California
Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program will be awarded funding in the amount
of $100,000 by the California Trade and Commerce Agency.
This fielding is contingent upon meeting the terms and conditions of the program
regulations.
Mr. Tom White, the Program Manager, will contact you to outline any additional
information needed to develop the grant contract. Please do not hesitate to contact
him at (916) 322 -3507 for any additional information or assistance you may require.
The California Trade and Commerce Agency welcomes the opportunity to help
your organization respond to its defense adjustment challenges and will continue to
use every resource at its disposal to support your future efforts in this area.
Sincerely,
CHRISTO R S. HOLBEN
Deputy Secretary
Office of Economic Development
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda (510) 263 -2870
Postal Directory, Building 90 Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandras R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
Ronald V. Dellums
9th Congressional District
Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Wilma Chan
Supervisor, District 3
Leda County Board
upervisors
Henry Chang, Jr.
Oakland Councilmember
serving for
Elihu Harris
Mayor, City of Oakland
Ellen M. Corbett
Mayor
City of San Leandro
Albert H. DeWitt
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Karin Lucas
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Charles M. Mannix
Vice -Mayor
City of Alameda
Kay Miller
Executive Director
® Recycled paper
May 7, 1 996
The Honorable Philip Hawkins, Chair
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
State Capitol, Room 2003
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 3129 - Support; Response to Comments from Western Center on Law and
Poverty
Dear Chairman Hawkins:
The Western Center on Law and Poverty has expressed its opposition to two
provisions in AB 3129 (Lee). The Center objects to the 10 -year deferral of deposits
into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (L &MIHF), preferring instead a
5 -year deferral with annual findings of housing availability. The Center also objects
to language that it characterizes as "double counting" language. The Center argues
that the parallel provisions of the general base closure redevelopment bill, AB 2736
(Weggeland), should apply to redevelopment at NAS Alameda. We believe that the
facts specific to NAS Alameda require both of these special provisions that we have
included in AB 3129 and that it is essential to retain them in the bill.
The 10 -Year Deferral. AB 2736 (Weggeland) is intended as a general statute and
by definition is drafted to address unknown situations throughout California. AB
3129 (Lee) was crafted specifically to address the situation at Alameda. The
infrastructure needs at NAS Alameda are estimated to exceed $180,000,000.
Effective reuse of the base is dependent upon attracting and retaining a large number
of private - sector tenants. These tenants will not locate at the base unless the
infrastructure of streets, sewers, water, etc. will serve the tenants' activities. It is
essential that massive infrastructure projects be undertaken at the earliest possible
date. An essential tool for funding these projects is tax - increment financing.
Deferring the 20 percent set -aside to the L &MII-HF for 10 years will permit the base
to issue substantially more tax - increment bonds at an earlier date. This is critical
to successful use of tax - increment financing at the base.
An important segment of the housing community in the City of Alameda is the
Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative, a consortium
of homeless assistance providers in the East Bay. The Collaborative was a part of
the team that developed the Homeless Assistance Plan for the base. Eighteen
members of the Collaborative will be located on the base after it is closed, providing
186 family housing units and other support services to the community. The
Collaborative is supportive of the 10 -year deferral in AB 3129 because they share
the goal of assuring that tax- increment financing is available in as great an amount
The Honorable Philip Hawkins, Chair
May 7, 1 996
Page 2
as possible at the earliest possible time. While the funds in the L &MIHF will not be available for
expenditure during the 10 -year deferral period, we have reached an agreement with them that the
deferred funds, plus interest, will be available to reimburse them for certain capital expenses
incur when the 10 -year deferral period has ended. they
Eliminatin • the Disincentive for Earl Establishment of Homeless Housin_. The Center also objects
to a section of AB 3129 that will facilitate use of property at the base for homeless service providers
at the earliest possible date. We believe the Center's objection to this provision is ill-founded.
NAS Alameda has . completed its Homeless Assistance Plan and is preparing to implement it.
Current state Iaw, however, provides a disincentive to establishing housing on a closing military
before formation of a redevelopment project area. This is because, while it is clear that the home eese
ss
housing to be developed by the Collaborative members on the base would be included in determining compliance with the 15- percent inclusionary housing requirements if the housing is developed after
a project area is formed at the base, CRL is not silent about what happens if the housing is provided
before a project area has been formed. The provision of AB 3129 that the Center objects t would
assure that the homeless housing would be treated the same under CRL whether it is first made
available to serve the homeless before a project area has is formed as well as if it is first provided
after a project area is formed. Contrary to the Center's characterization, there is no "double
counting." Instead, there is assurance that the housing will be available at the earliest ossible time.
ime.
Very truly yours,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/AV /mee
cc: The Honorable Barbara Lee
Christine Minnehan, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Marcus Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Paul Deiro, Chief Consultant, Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee
Steve Holloway, Consultant to Vice Chair, Assemblymember Bob Campbell
The Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Margaret Ensley
ARRA Secretary
DATE: May 28, 1996
SUBJECT: ARRA Homeless Assistance Process Used as a National Model
For your information, attached are pages from the Guidebook on Military Base Reuse and Homeless
Assistance distributed to closing bases all over the U.S. by HUD. On page 29, in response to the
question "What planning process may serve as a model for balancing community needs ?" this guide
states:
The reuse planning process used at the Naval Air Station Alameda in Alameda,
California, is a model for how a community goes about the process of balancing the
economic redevelopment, other development, and homeless assistance needs of the
community in the vicinity of the installation.
The HUD publication then goes on to outline the homeless assistance process followed at NAS
Alameda.
&}Recycled paper
APR 1 1
usiness Park/Jobs"
Recrealian
Educational Campus ,"
omelessAssistance
Market Rate Housing
unity,Serulr
s
E
c
T
0
N
Model Base Reuse Plans
his section describes several model reuse plans
that an LRA may follow for balancing the
needs of the homeless with other needs in the
community.
What planning process
may serve as a model
for balancing community
needs?
The reuse planning process used at the Naval Air
Station Alameda in Alameda, California, is a model
for how a community goes about the process of bal-
ancing the economic redevelopment, other develop-
ment, and homeless assistance needs of the commu-
nity in the vicinity of the installation.
In November 1994, representatives of the following
groups collaborated to create a cooperative process
for identifying and selecting homeless uses related to
the Naval Air Station Alameda:
•
• Members of the Alameda County Homeless
Collaborative.
• Staff from the City of Alameda Community
Development Department, the LRA (Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, or ARRA),
and ARRA's homeless assistance consultant (Bay
Area Economics).
• A representative from the Alameda Base Reuse
Advisory Group.
• Staff from the Alameda County Housing and
Community Development Program.
• Staff from Congressman Ronald Dellums'
office.
• Staff from the East Bay Conversion and
Reinvestment Commission.
The Alameda County Homeless Providers Base
Conversion Collaborative, a consortium of homeless
assistance providers in Northern California's East
Bay, agreed to support the development of immedi-
ate and long -term reuse strategies to make the
regional economy healthier and environmentally sta-
ble, while involving diverse communities in the plan-
ning process and improving the local quality of life.
Recognizing both the importance of the homeless
component of the Community Reuse Plan and the
need to include the numerous key players, ARRA
undertook a coordinated planning effort. To carry out
this vision, the key players developed and negotiated
"standards of reasonableness" to delineate reasonable
standards of homeless uses with respect to housing,
jobs, economic development activity, occupancy, and
capital improvements. The standards of reasonableness
that were developed for this installation prior to the
awarding of any building or properties to homeless
assistance providers can be summarized as follows:
• An agreed upon percentage of the base family
housing units will be made available for reuse or
an equivalent number of similar units in the
community will be made available to homeless
assistance providers for permanent and transi-
tional housing.
• Two hundred dormitory rooms of service -
enriched transitional or permanent housing
will be made available for homeless assistance
providers. None of this space will be used for
overnight emergency shelters that operate only
limited hours.
• ARRA's goal was to award an agreed upon per-
centage of the dollar value of any general con-
tracts for janitorial services, grounds mainte-
nance, and light general contracting to qualified
agencies that will employ homeless workers to
execute the necessary work, and to hire the
same percentage of any grounds workers or
building maintenance workers from the ranks of
homeless individuals.
0
Model Base Reuse Plans
• Agreements between ARRA and individual
private employers will include a goal to fill a
specific percentage of newly created jobs by
hiring homeless individuals. Employers will be
asked to submit yearly reports to ARRA on their
efforts to hire homeless workers.
• A "one-stop" hiring center established and
operated by homeless assistance providers will
be designed to refer homeless applicants to
employers seeking to hire new employees.
The center will ensure that all applicants are
eligible, that they have appropriate skills and /or
are eligible for appropriate training relative to
job openings, and that they are "job ready."
• Homeless assistance providers using buildings
for economic development purposes (office,
recreation, warehouse, and classroom space)
will not pay rent for their use, but will be
responsible for the improvements necessary to
make these buildings habitable and for ongoing
building maintenance and operating 'costs.
• ARRA will work with homeless assistance
providers to jointly seek funding opportunities
to assist the providers in operating programs at
Naval Air Station Alameda on an ongoing basis.
• Tax exempt homeless assistance providers will.
make "payments in lieu of taxes" for basic
municipal services such as fire, police, and
public works.
Why was the Alameda
effort successful?
The standards of reasonableness were the keys to
success. ARRA and the Homeless Collaborative came
to consensus on the standards early in the reuse
planning process. This consensus was predicated on
several important principles:
• Economic development is the most important
overall goal for the base conversion process.
• The needs of some of the homeless persons
in the community for housing, job training,
30
and other social services can be addressed
as part of the goal for promoting economic
development. The assumption of this group
was that the public interest lies in meeting
the needs of all members of the community.
• Current base workers must have priority for
base reuse, and nothing under the standards of
reasonableness agreement is intended to conflict
with collective bargaining agreements. Moreover,
these standards were developed with the under-
standing that all activity must be in compliance
with local, State, and Federal law.
• More than 20 homeless assistance providers
agreed to speak through "one voice." The
individual service providers agreed to apply to
the Homeless Collaborative through a formal
proposal process. Members of-the collaborative
were committed to working through this
process; they did not "end run" by attempting to
deal directly with ARRA. The Homeless
Collaborative also represents the homeless inter-
ests in negotiations with the LRA for the Naval
Hospital in Oakland and the Oakland Army
Base.
The Alameda model supports the Continuum of Care
approach to serving homeless persons and families.
This approach creates a central focus in the collabora-
tive in which service providers, service needs, and
available base resources can be designed creatively to
form a meaningful program of services. The Alameda
model demonstrates that focusing all stakeholders on
the need to determine the public interest is the key to
developing sustainable and viable communities.
Alameda County officials estimate that 9,000 to
15,000 people are homeless within the county each
day. Although the homeless assistance agreement at
the Naval Air Station can serve only a portion of the
need in Alameda County, this property is now
viewed as an important resource for jobs, services,
and a portion of the housing and jobs that are need-
ed by the homeless population.
For further information on the planning process con -
ducted at the Naval Air Station Alameda, contact:
0
0
1
Nelson's Marine
Carstar
(Vehicle Painting)
Giannotti (Ship Parts
Repair)
Rysher
Entertainment (Film
Studio)
Quality Assured
Products (Valve
Mfr.)
ACET (Envir. Tech.
Incubator)
Military Storage
Units
Cummins Diesel
Real Estate
Development Co.
Richard
Miller(Photography)
Tower Aviation
(Avionics)
(STS) Plating Company
Bay Ship & Yacht
(Ship Repair)
MARAD
ATS (HVAC
Ducting Mfgr.)
Very Probable Leases
INTERIM LEASING STATUS REPORT
BUILDING
167 &
Finger Piers
Portions of
24 & 25
Portions of
24
12
(1/2 of bldg)
Mini -
Storage
Units near
Bldg. 530
166
360
621
530
292 & 612
Piers 1, 2, 3
168
AREA (SQ.
FT.)
55,450
34,250
13,150
20,000
for 6 months
66,000
55,000
±750 units
55,000
180,000
5,770
82,250
56,640
2,700
1 17,000
66,000
BUILDING
VACANCY
DATE
6/96
Now
Now
Now
10/96
Now
Now
1 /97
Now
Now
Now
2/97
1/97
Now
PROJECTED
FOSL
COMPLETION
DATE
9/96
4/96
4/96
Now
9/96
Complete
9/96
9/96
9/96
9/96
Complete
Complete
9/96
9/96
Complete
BUILDING
VACANCY
DATE
PROJECTED
FOSL
COMPLETION
DATE
Kaiser Aeros • ace
Portions of
24 &25
Vcry Probable Leases
C; \WPDOCSNEDAPROBLEAS.530