1996-03-06 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, California
Wednesday, March 6, 1996
5:30 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon recognition by the
Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of
pertinent points presented verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings.
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of January 31, 1996.
2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Revised 1996 Budget Request to the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA).
2 -C. Report and Recommendation from the Executive Director Designating a Portion of the Parks
and Recreation Public Benefit Conveyance Lands at NAS Alameda for a Dog Exercise Area.
2 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Selection of
Consultant Team to Prepare a Marketing Plan and Graphic Materials to Support the ARRA's
Interim Leasing Effort and Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute the Contract.
2 -E. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company For its Generous
Contribution of $25,000 For Use in the ARRA's Lease Marketing Program and for its
Continuing Support of the Base Conversion Process.
ARRA Agenda - March 6, 1996
Page 2
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of Pre - Applications to the
Economic Development Administration (EDA) for a Technical Assistance Planning Grant,
Construction Application for the Main Street/Storm Water Improvement Project, and Building
Improvement Construction Application for Building to be Leased to the Alameda Center for
Environmental Technologies (ACET).
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -G. Progress Report on Pan- Pacific University from Peter Sun, Ph.D.
4 -H. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) on Reorganization of
the Public Participation Process.
4 -I. Oral Report from the Facilities Manager Updating the ARRA on Interim Lease Status.
4 -J. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on
1. Suggestions/Nominations of Alameda Businesses to Join ACET Board of Directors
2. Status of Fish & Wildlife Section 7 Consultation
3. Status of Military Request for Housing
4. Date for Financing Workshop
5. EIR/EIS Scoping Meeting March 13, 7 -9 p.m.
6. Change of Date for April ARRA Meeting
7. Miscellaneous Issues.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the
Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
7. 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.
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 31, 1996
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
I. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair Sandra Swanson, 9th
Congressional District (replaced by Alternate Roberta Brooks at 7:45 p.m.); Alternate
Folrath- Johnson for Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Councilmember
Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda
(replaced by Alternate Tony Daysog at 7:45 p.m.); 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; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base
Reuse Advisory. Group (BRAG); Alternate Anna Elefant for Ex- officio Member
Barbara Rasmussen, Alameda Unified School District.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Appezzato announced that the following item was pulled for public discussion: 2 -C. [Report
from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Budget Request to the Office of Economic Adjustment].
Member Arnerich made a correction to the minutes for the January 3, 1996 meeting, page 3, Open
Space and Conservation Element, to reflect that the vote was Ayes: 7. Noes: 2 —DeWitt and
Arnerich. Member Alves pointed out that on the December 6 meeting minutes, it was requested that
housing in the Marina area be limited to the "eastern portion" rather than "eastern shore." While that
change had been made, policy 2 -46 on the following page still read "eastern and northeastern shores"
and the word "shores" needed to be changed to "portion." He further pointed out that it had been
agreed that the park should be included in the western shore and while the map reflected that,
Alternate Alves also wanted that reflected in writing in the Plan. Alternate Alves asked whether
action needed to be taken and Chair Appezzato replied that action had already been taken and these
were just matters of consistency through the Plan. Paul Tuttle, ARRA Planner, said they were
oversights that would be corrected. Chair Appezzato further stated that the motion on the Consent
Calendar will confirm the changes.
Vice Chair Swanson moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Member DeWitt seconded the
motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote — 9.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
*2 -A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 3, 1996. Approved.
its $ Printed on recycled paper
*2 -B. Additions to Minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 1, 1995 and December 6, 1995.
Approved.
*2 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Selection of Moffatt & Nichol
Engineers to Prepare a Detailed Condition Survey and Master Plan for the NAS Utility Systems and
Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Contract. Accepted.
*2 -E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to
Represent the ARRA and Apply for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. Adopted.
2 -C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Budget Request to the Office of Economic Adjustment.
Executive Director Kay Miller relayed the response from the OEA to ARRA's request for funding.
While ARRA requested just over $2 million, only $920,000 had been approved, to date. She then
detailed the funded, partially funded, and unfunded budget items. She recommended that ARRA
adopt the budget from OEA to provide operating funds with the understanding that ARRA staff will
appeal some of the budget items with OEA and look for other ways to fund any unfunded items.
Vice -Chair Swanson stressed the need to word the motion to reflect that while ARRA accepts the
funding approved to date by OEA, negotiations are to continue to pursue unfunded/unresolved
budget items.
Speakers:
Tony Daysog, Alameda resident and alternate for Member Arnerich, stated that with less in OEA
funds, it was essential that ARRA prioritize and eliminate City grants for reuse. He felt the City's
in -kind grant match for OEA funds should be, instead, an in -kind loan to be repaid promptly by
ARRA.
Arthur Feinstein, Program Coordinator for the Golden Gate Audubon Society, referred to page 6
of the staff report recommending endorsement of the budget regarding the $10,000 request for
consultant services during the Section 7 consultation. He stated that it was unfortunate that there was
no mention of using the funds to aid in the recovery of the species, but instead, to avoid an
unrealistic burden on the economic redevelopment of Alameda. He also felt it unfortunate that there
was still an assumption that the refuge would be an economic burden, despite their attempts to
convince ARRA the refuge would provide economic benefits to the City by (1) avoiding
infrastructure costs for development and (2) bringing in millions of tourist dollars.
Chair Appezzato requested that Mr. Mark Braly of OEA address questions on the budget request.
Mr. Braly stated that ARRA's proposal had been well - presented and justified. However, OEA's
mission is to fund planning and they felt many budget items went into the implementation stage. He
further stated that OEA's funding of consulting support will be "very `iffy' from here on out"
because ARRA is passing out of the planning phase.
2
Vice -Chair Swanson then queried Mr. Braly on individual budget items and ascertained the
following: (1) Amounts in the Recommended column were definitely approved; (2) Most of the
funds on the items with question marks [office expense and redevelopment area planning] will be
approved; (3) Travel: if more details are provided that justify the travel expenses, OEA will
reconsider; (4) Legal: the amount is firm and consistent with policy but there are guidelines as to
what the money can be spent on and there were questions on whether some of the expenditures
proposed by ARRA staff were allowable; (5) Market Analysis for NAS /FISC: OEA feels this item
gets into implementation and the funding allotted by OEA is reasonable; (6) Detailed Plan
Development for NAS/FISC: while the committee is always open to further discussion, they are firm
on the $50,000 figure; (7) Housing Revitalization Feasibility Study: as a matter of policy OEA does
not fund a fine [detailed] level of planning but they are open to further information; (8) Building
Upgrade and Demolition Study: this crucial item can be reconsidered but OEA maintains it gets into
implementation; (9) Technical Support for EDC Application: staff is expected to prepare the
application and the amount funded is considered adequate for special technical support; (10)
Economic Analysis/BP for Port Conveyance: as information on cost is developed more specifically,
it will be reconsidered; (11) Appraisal for Public Trust: as the need becomes apparent to staff and
the Governing Body agrees, OEA will reconsider; (12) Redevelopment Area Planning: the number
will not be far off from the requested amount; (13) Detailed Long -term Market Planning/Materials:
this is not a "no" and will be reconsidered at the appropriate time; (14) Wildlife Management
Plan/Section 7 Consultation: OEA is cutting back on consulting fees; (15) Parcel and Street ROW
Survey: this level of detail in planning is considered outside of OEA's mission to fund and while
the line can always be pushed, Mr. Braly felt the decision was firm —Vice Chair Swanson stated an
essential item like this is a study area not an implementation area and asked that the Board direct
staff to provide the rationale to challenge that gray line; (16) Support for School District: it is outside
OEA's mission to fund.
Vice -Chair Swanson asked Mr. Braly if the ARRA Governing Body could approve, without
prejudice, the minimum amounts subject to ongoing negotiations and with the assurance that OEA
will entertain ARRA's specific appeals. Mr. Braly agreed.
Vice -Chair Swanson made a motion to endorse the minimum funding proposed by OEA with the
understanding that ARRA is not prejudiced by the recommended amounts and that OEA understands
that ARRA will negotiate those items that are clearly marked for negotiation and provide additional
rationale to appeal those items. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt.
Member Arnerich asked Mr. Braly if many items marked with a zero should actually have been
question marks. Mr. Braly answered that in areas where there were amounts indicated, it would be
"uphill" to get them changed but where question marks appeared, there was some question to be
resolved. Member Arnerich said that, upon first reading, he had taken the zeros to mean that nothing
would be given but Mr. Braly's earlier answers indicated that those issues were still open for
negotiation. Mr. Braly answered affirmatively. Member DeWitt stated that Long -term Marketing
Planning was the next phase and how well we are able to market the Base will determine our
success._ Mr. Braly agreed but asserted that was implementation and OEA would only fund the
planning aspects of the marketing. He further stated that OEA can fund a marketing strategy that
could include prototype marketing materials but not actual marketing materials and that, as agreed
with Vice -Chair Swanson, this item would be revisited later.
3
Speakers:
Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, commented on appropriations.
The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote – 9. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin stated
that the staff report also requested that the Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to
execute any grants that might be presented by OEA. Vice -Chair Swanson requested an
amendment to his motion to add the statement that the Governing Body authorize the
Executive Director to execute any grants that might be presented by OEA. The amendment
was seconded by Member DeWitt and carried by a unanimous voice vote – 9.
ACTION ITEMS
At the request of Will Travis, Executive Director of BCDC, item 3 -G was moved to the top of the
action items because it impacts on the discussion of item 3 -F.
3 -G. Presentation by Will Travis, Executive Director of BCDC and Report from the Executive
Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Bay
Conservation Development Commission Port Priority Designation on the 220 -Acre Northern
Runway Area of NAS Alameda.
Mr. Will Travis made a thorough presentation on the background and justification for BCDC's Port
Priority Designation on the 220 -acre northern runway area. He made the following points: The
entire base was designated for Port Priority Designation but after study, it was recommended that
all but 200 acres in the northern runway area be released from port priority use in the Plan. This
Plan —the Federal Coastal Management Act—was approved by the federal government. He further
stated that "there is a wonderful, unusual provision in there that federal agencies have to comply with
state plans." Therefore, "unless the designation is removed f r o m the Alameda Naval Air Station .. .
BCDC must, by law, object to the Reuse Plan, thus preventing the Defense Department from
transferring any property. In order to amend the Bay Plan, it takes a vote of two - thirds of the
Commissioners, or 18 votes from representatives throughout the bay region who represent local
governments, the governor, the legislature, state, and federal agencies. Mr. Braly further stated that
if ARRA presents a Plan that "does not either reserve that 220 acres or allow some way for us to
work with your staff to resolve this problem, I fear that it will be difficult to get 18 votes to do
anything. And we will then be at a point where everything is stopped." Mr. Travis requested that
ARRA staff work with BCDC to craft a proposal to request that the port priority use be removed
from the 200 acres while agreeing that if the request is denied, ARRA will "go along with it" [Port
Priority Designation] under certain conditions to be agreed upon by BCDC and ARRA staff.
Mr. Travis asked that, in taking their action, ARRA remember the following seven things: (1) Most
of Alameda is fill, created out of San Francisco Bay and Alameda should take a stand that will
protect an Francisco Bay from future Bay filling. (2) Alameda is not an island, it is part of the
greater Ray Area and ports drive the Bay Area's economy. (3) Port designation does not preclude
all use of this area, particularly immediate uses such as AAFES or dredge material disposal from the
Port of Oakland dredging. (4) This area may not be needed for 20 years and 20 -year interim uses
could be developed that would not preclude port use in the future. He further stated that, if ARRA
4
puts half the work into making a port work as they have in resisting it, one could have been
developed by now. (5) A port designation is not forever; the trend is that there is more cargo moving
more quickly through less space. The Seaport Advisory Committee will monitor cargo movement
so that if the trend continues, in a couple or three years they may lift the designation. (6) A port
designation is consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine. (7) The ARRA Governing Body should
take into account the fact that BCDC staff has tried to be very accommodating in removing the port
designation from the bulk of Alameda NAS, worked with ARRA staff to see if there were other areas
such as where the carriers are now berthed, discussed interim uses, and offered to be advocates for
some of the development. In summary, Mr. Travis cautioned that inflexibility could lead to an
impasse that would not be in anyone's long -term interest or short-term desires. He urged ARRA to
direct staff to work with BCDC to try to get the designation lifted while providing a "fall -back
position" so that the process can move ahead and BCDC can approve the Defense Department's plan
and the rest of the area can be released quickly for redevelopment.
Chair Appezzato stated that the plan that designated the entire base as a seaport was made when it
was a Naval Air Station with ships and aircraft. Now that the Navy is leaving and the federal
reservation will be no more, it can be argued that the plan is no longer valid. The Chair stressed that
ARRA's success to date lies in the fact that it is a regional entity created for regional purposes to
make regional decisions. Wanting the designation removed from the 220 acres does not mean that
ARRA is not acting or thinking regionally. The Chair further stated that he did not believe that the
Port of Oakland would emphatically support five container berths in Alameda. There is no bridge
or tunnel and it takes millions of dollars to provide one. Also, removing the port designation does
not prevent port use at a later date.
Member Chang stated that, as a former Port Commissioner for Oakland and having served on
BCDC, he feels that the Bay Area is the future shipping center for the western United States.
However, the Port of Oakland is successful because of train and other transportation access.
However, he feels strongly that designating Alameda for port use is a mistake because there is no
feasible transportation system.
Member Arnerich registered his strong opposition to 220 prime acres being land banked for future
use when a port is not economically feasible due to lack of transportation. Member Chan asked if
the ARRA Governing Body takes action tonight and BCDC votes to retain the seaport designation,
what will happen? Executive Director Miller responded that if the designation is not removed and
it threatens to impact how the Navy conveys the land, staff will come back to the ARRA governing
body with a fall back plan for restricting the use of those lands. Then, the ARRA will return to
BCDC yearly to try to get the designation removed.
ARRA Planner Paul Tuttle stated that the Community Reuse Plan is a recommendation to the Navy
on their actions. The Navy will conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Plan. In that EIR/EIS, one of the alternatives the Navy
will be looking at is a port designation. Once the EIR/EIS is completed, there will be a clearer
understanding of what the impacts will be. At that time, if there are additional modifications
necessary to the Plan, it will come back to ARRA for approval of the changes. Both the ARRA
recommendation and BCDC recommendation will be considered in the Navy's Record of Decision
(ROD). Member Chan, also the Alameda County representative to BCDC, stated that the County
5
is very interested in the economic development of NAS Alameda because of its regional
implications. Member Chan stated that she was supporting removal of the seaport designation from
the 220 -acres because the regional issue of the base conversion is key to the long -term future of
Alameda County. Further, she felt Mr. Travis had not presented a compelling case of the necessity
for or the feasibility of a port development in Alameda. She further asserted that the full BCDC
Commission had not yet heard this issue.
Member DeWitt asked Mr. Travis how BCDC planned to solve the transportation issues. Mr. Travis
suggested the possibility of $150 million cranes that would allow ships to berth on the Oakland side,
span the estuary, and off -load their cargo on the Alameda side. He also suggested the use of barge
ferries and bringing the containers through the Posey Tube. He stressed that BCDC is looking far
out to possible space needs in 2020.
Paul Tuttle stated that ARRA's consultant on market demand for port/marina uses is reviewing
market demand and "through -put" calculations. Mr. Travis suggested that ARRA not spend money
on that study as BCDC has used conservative estimates.
Member Corbett stated that while ARRA has a duty to balance all the various interests involved,
there is a finite amount of land to work with. ARRA has to balance open space, shoreline
preservation, and habitat needs. While the dialogue can continue, a decision must be made now and
a port does not seem feasible.
Helen Sause, BRAG Vice - Chair, stated that it is the BRAG's stance that BCDC proposes to "land -
bank" precious land that is the easiest to clean up and which presents the earliest possibility for
development.
Vice -Chair Swanson queried Mr. Travis on his comment that if ARRA does not leave open the 220
acres, the recommendation on lifting the seaport designation from the remainder of the base might
not be lifted. Mr. Travis replied, "When you are trying to count up to 18 votes of a Commission
which can operate with a quorum of 14, it is hard to get the necessary votes if we have ... a strong
division, it is not inconceivable that we will have our Commission equally divided and that we will
end up with a 12 -12 or 13 -13 split And with that kind of vote, they don't do anything." Vice -Chair
Swanson answered that the earlier comment was perceived as a threat and a very political statement
that BCDC would "risk impairing the economic development of this island to preserve for two
decades, 220 acres for a purpose yet undetermined based on analysis yet unformed." He further
stated that ARRA, the Alameda City Council, and the people of Oakland supported the regional
dredging project that was essential to expanding the Port of Oakland's capabilities. He added that
the port expansion into FISC and potential consideration for Army base property are all regional
issues supported by the people who have been working jointly on this issue, yet those activities were
being treated as if they were not relevant to this decision. "In fact," Vice -Chair Swanson continued,
"this region has made a tremendous statement about its consideration of the port and port activities
contributing to the economic viability of the area and for BCDC to take the position that this is not
enough is not acceptable."
Member Arnerich asked when the question would become, "What's good for the City of Alameda ?"
Vice -Chair Swanson offered a closing comment that BCDC "cannot expect the people of this region
6
to continue to cooperate with the expansion at the Port of Oakland while BCDC challenges them on
the Alameda shore —it just will not be accepted." In response to a question from Alternate Folrath-
Johnson if it is BCDC's position that Alameda is perfectly suited for a port, Mr. Travis answered that
the Commission had not yet taken a position and that this is the position of the professional staff
based on the analysis that has been done and the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee, which had
voted 11 -2 to retain the seaport designation on 220 acres.
Speakers:
Tony Daysog, alternate for Member Arnerich, stated that Alameda was an island surrounded by
regulatory sharks who need to "get off our backs" and let Alameda go about its way.
Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, talked at length about various issues.
Member Corbett moved to accept the staff recommendation to oppose BCDC Port Priority
Designation on the 220 -acre northern runway area of NAS Alameda. Chair Appezzato asked if the
motion could be amended to allow the ARRA Chair to sign any correspondence that needs to be sent
to BCDC Commissioners prior to their vote. Member Corbett so amended the motion. Alternate
Alves seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote — 9.
3 -F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption by Resolution of the NAS
Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner, presented an overview of the written Summary of Changes, Corrections
and Additions provided at the meeting. On the first outstanding land use of the Fish and Wildlife
Refuge, Mr. Tuttle requested that Assistant General Counsel Heather McLaughlin address a letter
dated January 26, 1996 from the Law Offices of Alan C. Waltner on behalf of the Golden Gate
Audubon Society. The letter demanded that the entire wildlife refuge site proposed in September
1994 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be set aside for habitat preservation purposes. Ms.
McLaughlin stated there were two main issues raised in the letter: CEQA compliance and the Fish
and Wildlife request. Regarding the CEQA, Asst. General Counsel McLaughlin advised that CEQA
guidelines provide an exemption for feasibility and planning studies that allows ARRA to go forward
with the Community Reuse Plan without getting into environmental review. That issue will be
addressed in the EIR/EIS process that the Navy will conduct. As for the Fish and Wildlife request,
the issue is premature because the negotiation process is ongoing and an exact acreage number has
not been arrived at. When the acreage numbers are finalized it will be appropriate to address their
comments if they are still valid.
Mr. Tuttle briefly reviewed the outstanding issue of the Wildlife Refuge. Essentially, the Regional
Director for Fish and Wildlife Service on the West Coast has communicated his recommendation
that the Community Reuse Plan designate a Wildlife Refuge area of no less than 390 acres and no
more 526 acres. The exact size and boundary of the refuge will be determined upon further scientific
investigation and development of an acceptable predator management program over the coming year.
The other issues that ARRA staff has asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to address are funding of
the refuge`, ownership of the property, and how it should be transferred. Staff recommendation, based
on the Fish and Wildlife request, is to adopt the requested language as part of the Plan and send it
7
forward. Staff will then work with Fish and Wildlife over the next months to finalize the size and
all the conditions of the Wildlife Refuge. The Predator Management Plan will provide input into
the management plan and will provide input into the Section 7 Consultation which must be done in
conjunction with the EIR/EIS.
The second outstanding land use issue is the BCDC Port Designation on 220 acres of the Northwest
Territories. This issue was discussed and voted on in item 3 -G.
Under Substantive Comments and Recommended Changes, Mr. Tuttle stated that the BRAG
recommended policy for Wildlife Refuge disposition was that a certain portion of NAS Alameda,
particularly the wetlands areas and the areas around them, be transferred to Fish and Wildlife with
the remainder of the portions in the middle of the airfield being transferred to the City and managed
by Fish and Wildlife. Because of the Fish and Wildlife Service request to ARRA, staff recommends
that this issue be deferred pending future discussions with Fish and Wildlife.
The BRAG's second recommendation was that the fiscal policy of the Plan be amended to reflect
a goal of maintaining a 10 percent balance in revenues rather than the 4.3 percent presently projected.
On the BRAG's third issue, Vice -Chair Helen Sause stated that the recommendation regarding
housing in the Northwest Territories was a misunderstanding. While the BRAG urged ARRA to
aggressively pursue removing the limitations on the land, they did not intend to do anything contrary
to the Public Trust. She further stated that the Public Trust has things that can be done and satisfied
so that ARRA is free to use the Northwest Territories for all uses, including residential. Therefore,
the recommendation was not to remove the Trust but to say that the Trust can be removed if ARRA
meets Trust needs and if Trust needs can be met, ARRA should aggressively pursue trying to do so.
Paul Tuttle then reviewed the suggested changes and additions received from the Alameda County
Waste Management Authority, the Alameda Unified School District, and ARRA staff regarding
Operation Dignity's request for veterans housing and additions to the homeless process identifying
dates of ARRA actions. Dena Belzer, ARRA's consultant on homeless issues, detailed ongoing
developments with Operation Dignity. Operation Dignity has requested funds to build new family
housing for homeless vets and their families on land they already own rather than receiving an
accommodation at NAS Alameda. In a recent meeting between Chair Appezzato, Ms. Belzer, and
HUD representatives in Washington, D.C., HUD officials were very encouraging. The
recommendation to ARRA is that the language in the Plan be changed so that this is the first option
for accommodating Operation Dignity. Chair Appezzato stated the Ms. Belzer had been flown at
the expense of the mayor of Boise, Idaho to address the Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C.
While there, Ms. Belzer met with Chair Appezzato and HUD officials at no cost to ARRA. Chair
Appezzato added that Ms. Belzer is very well thought of across the United States and while in
Washington, D.C., she spent some time with Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development.
Mr. Tuttle outlined the recommended changes to the Plan from the State Lands Commission to
clarify policy language on the Commission and Public Trust issues. The AUSD had submitted
editorial changes that ARRA staff is recommending be adopted. The AUSD had also requested
additional language be added to clearly state the limits of fees not paid for by school district. This
request is not recommended by ARRA staff, as language already exists on page 9 -19, policy 9 -5 that
8
covers this issue. Upon reviewing policy 9 -5, the school district's representative indicated agreement
to the Chair.
Speakers:
Arthur Feinstein, Program Coordinator for the Golden Gate Audubon Society, expressed their
appreciation that the Wildlife Refuge had been included in the Community Reuse Plan. However,
Mr. Feinstein then made the following remarks. He advised that scientists indicated that a minimum
refuge size that would ensure the preservation of the Least Tem was 525 acres. Mr. Feinstein quoted
from a letter he indicated was written by the seven preeminent Least Tem scientists in the world that
this colony is one of the most successful and that the continued success of the colony is crucial to
the continued recovery of the Least Tern. They contend that any significant change to the current
configuration of the airfield and adjacent open areas may irrevocably affect the success and
perpetuation of the Least Tern.
Regarding the letter sent to ARRA from the Audubon Society's lawyer, Mr. Feinstein then stated
that they are still flexible; they are not saying that if they do not get 595 acres they will sue that was
not the intent of that letter. He asserted that from the very beginning they have said they would live
with what the scientists say. "If the scientists say 390 acres, we go with 390 acres." He continued
that the scientists haven't said that Fish and Wildlife Service said 525 acres but BRAG put it down
to 390 acres, not based on science but because they wanted it to be 390 acres ... and that is
something that the Audubon Society cannot agree to. Mr. Feinstein stated, "There is no reason to
create a refuge when you know it is not going to work. Our fear, of course, is because you do want
to preserve this land for the City of Alameda, that perhaps there are some who don't want it to work
... making it intentionally small so that in ten years you'll be able to do something else on that land.
That's our concern. When the scientists say 525 acres, we'll go for it 150 acres, we'll go for
it -595 acres, we'll go for it. We are resting our position on science, not on our desires, not on your
desires." Mr Feinstein then added that the Golden Gate Audubon Society was willing to help the
refuge be a success by providing docents, getting the word out to the birding community, and helping
place advertising into birding magazines to attract birding enthusiasts to the refuge.
Alternate Daysog requested clarification, asking if Mr. Feinstein had said that 450 acres was
acceptable. Mr. Feinstein said that when the scientists agree to a number that is scientifically
justified, they will not argue with that number. Member Corbett asked if the Audubon Society would
accept the Fish and Wildlife Service determination. Mr. Feinstein answered that the Fish and
Wildlife Service was not immune from political pressure. "If the Fish and Wildlife Service says 390
acres is fine and the Audubon Society has seven Least Tern scientists saying it is not fine, then it is
not fine." The Audubon Society would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with scientists to
arrive at a acreage figure that has the support of the scientific community. Mr. Feinstein further
stated that he anticipated that the Fish and Wildlife Service will come out with a figure that they will
agree on. Chair Appezzato asked if the Audubon Society would not agree to accept Fish and
Wildlife's determination, why should ARRA? Mr. Feinstein repeated that when a majority of
scientists agree to a number, the Audubon Society will go along.
Alternate Brooks stated that she felt the letter from the lawyer was extremely inappropriate and in
very bad faith because Congressman Dellums' office and ARRA have been working diligently to
9
try to bring people together and keep the process going. When a lawyer enters the picture with
demands, it changes the tone and the basis upon which people are working in good faith. She further
stated that Fish and Wildlife are making the decision, and they are not there to make a political
decision but one based on predator control issues. She added that it would be very reassuring to hear
that the Audubon Society and other groups that have been working toward a consensus on this issue
would actually state that they will accept Fish and Wildlife's decision. Mr. Feinstein replied that
they worked with the BRAG Fish and Wildlife group for months in trust and good faith and signed
a compromise document with a lower acreage figure (which came from the Fish and Wildlife
Service) and it was rejected by the BRAG, which then came up with a figure of 390 acres. Mr.
Feinstein stated that they [the Golden Gate Audubon Society] were cementing their position so they
can say they have exhausted their remedies if they have to go to litigation, which, he added, he
sincerely hopes they do not have to do.
Alternate Brooks stated that it is not clear what their position is. Mr. Feinstein replied that their
cemented position is "when the scientists come out with their conclusions of what the refuge needs,
that's what we will support." Alternate Brooks asked if those were the Fish and Wildlife scientists.
Mr. Feinstein replied, "In all likelihood. I will not commit and say absolutely now Fish and Wildlife
Service. ...You're asking me to be very blunt and I will do so so that you know our position. We
believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service will come out with an answer we can support." Alternate
Daysog asked for a copy of the letter from seven scientists that Mr. Feinstein referred to. Mr.
Feinstein gave a copy of the letter to the ARRA Secretary to disseminate to the ARRA Board.
Tim Little, ARC Ecology and the Environmental Network, thanked ARRA staff for their
professionalism. Mr. Little then made the following comments regarding the preferred alternative
Community Reuse Plan. It will need substantial modification and mitigation to get through the
CEPA/NEQA process. The refuge, as proposed, violates federal property transfer laws —the Navy
is obligated to a direct, no -cost transfer to Fish and Wildlife. The Plan speculates about a new
estuary crossing without specifying details, making it impossible to project air quality and traffic
impacts; CEQA prohibits this kind of piece - mealing. The toxic cleanup section is incomplete.
Public trust issues exist. The position of ARC Ecology and the Environmental Network is that they
accept the submission of this Plan to the Navy to fulfill the Prior Act Amendments and encourage
ARRA to go to the head of the line for whatever inadequate funding is available. It is insufficient
as a preferred alternative for CEQA purposes. Written comments were provided to the ARRA
Secretary for the Governing Body.
In response to a question by Alternate Daysog on what type of EIR we are doing (a Program EIR or
a Master EIR), Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin answered that it would be a Master EIR. Tim
Little asked if it would be a joint EIR/EIS and Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin answered that
they were working on that now.
Nancy Wakeman, representing the Public Trust Working Group, provided written comments
regarding the preferred Plan's consistency with the Public Trust. She discussed the public interest
at NAS Alameda as it relates to ARRA and the City of Alameda's activities, problems of consistency
of the document with the Public Trust, and their recommendations.
10
Thomas Okey, Conservation Science' Institute, restated the results of his survey, which advocated
a large portion (700 acres) for open space uses at NAS Alameda. He stated that the present map is
not consistent with the results of his survey. His second point was that the position of the BRAG
is in direct contradiction to the results of his survey. Chair Appezzato pointed out that almost 44
percent of the Naval Air Station will remain in open spaces with almost 25 percent of the land in a
wildlife refuge. Alternate Alves stated that most of the people he knows who answered the survey
would not have agreed to leave it as open space if they knew it was going to remain in cement.
Alternate Brooks stated that this Plan is exciting because it expresses tremendous cooperation and
consensus building, negotiation and compromise. She expressed the opinion that this very complex
community and regional process cannot be summed up by the opinions of 4,600 local respondents.
Member Corbett expressed the opinion that the CSI survey left other communities out of the pool.
Richard Nevelyn, displaced base worker and BRAG Reuse Committee member, stated that he was
pleased with the wording regarding displaced base workers in the Plan. He reminded ARRA that
cleanup levels in areas designated for housing are stricter than for other types of uses.
Dave Ryan, EFA West, stated that the Navy NEPA process is a public process that will begin in
March. He asked that as many people participate as possible.
Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, discussed contamination and environmental cleanup.
Upon receiving no further discussion, the Chair asked for a motion on Outstanding Land Use Issues.
I. Outstanding Land Use Issues
A. Fish and Wildlife Refuge — There was a motion from Alternate Brooks to approve the staff
recommendation on the Fish and Wildlife Refuge. The motion was seconded by Member Chang.
Alternate Alves asked if the staff recommendation was no less than 390 acres no more than 525
acres. He stated that 525 acres is too much land and asked that ARRA go with the 390 -acre figure.
Alternate Brooks stated that the staff recommended language is necessary to move the Plan on to the
EIS/EIR; if the figure is set at 390 acres, Fish and Wildlife would have a problem. Alternate Alves
answered that was OK. Alternate Brooks stated that it was not OK. Alternate Alves rejoined that
he was ready to "do litigation or whatever it takes because this is a long -term issue." Alternate
Brooks stated that the EIS/EIR is going to take a year and we cannot wait for the Section 7 process
to be resolved. She added that if Fish and Wildlife decides the refuge is going to be 525 acres, the
refuge is going to be 525 acres. Alternate Alves stated that ARRA should not commit to anything
over 390 acres. Alternate Daysog offered a friendly amendment: "No less than 390 acres and no
more than 526 acres, emphasizing with the exact size and boundary of the refuge to be determined
by further scientific studies." The amendment died for lack of a second.
The motion to approve the staff recommendation on Fish and Wildlife passed with the following
voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2- Alternate Alves and Alternate Daysog.
11
B. BCDC Port Priority Designation — A motion was made by Member Chang to accept the staff
recommendation to oppose BCDC Port Priority Designation. The motion was seconded by Member
Corbett and passed unanimously — 9.
II. Editorial Changes and Corrections and Clarifications
A motion was made by Member DeWitt to approve the editorial changes and corrections and
clarifications recommended by ARRA staff. The motion was seconded by Member Corbett.
Alternate Alves asked that on page 2 -7 the definition of "commercial" be changed to add
"conference /convention facilities." Chair Appezzato asked if that was a difficulty for the staff. Paul
Tuttle stated that this language reflected the existing city definition for commercial uses. Alternate
Alves said that he had added the word "hotels" previously. Alternate Alves made a motion to 'add
the words "conference /convention facilities." The motion was seconded by Alternate Daysog and
passed by a unanimous voice vote — 9.
Alternate Alves then made a motion that the words "conference facilities" be deleted from the Parks
& Recreation recreational facility definition in the recommendation on page 9 of the staff report.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Alternate Daysog asked when the RV Park was going to be discussed and voted on. Executive
Director Miller advised him that the RV Park had been voted on previously in Chapter 2, the Land
Use section and in Chapter 6, the Parks and Recreation Cultural Facilities.
On receiving no further discussion regarding the editorial changes and corrections and clarifications,
the motion passed unanimously — 9.
III. Substantive Comments and Recommended Changes
A. BRAG Recommendations
A.1 - Member Corbett made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to defer disposition of the
Wildlife refuge pending results of discussions with Fish and Wildlife. The motion was seconded
by Alternate Folrath- Johnson and passed with the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1— Alternate
Alves.
A.2 - Member DeWitt made a motion to accept the BRAG recommendation to add an additional
financial policy to pursue a goal of a 10 percent net positive fiscal balance for the City of Alameda.
The motion was seconded by Member Chang and passed unanimously — 9.
A.3 - Previously found to be a non- issue.
B. Alameda County Waste Management Authority
B.1 - Alternate Brooks made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to add goals and a policy
on recycling of demolished buildings. The motion was seconded by Member Corbett and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Abstain: 1— Alternate Daysog.
12
C. AUSD (Letter)
C.1 - A motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Member Chang to approve the
editorial changes suggested by the Alameda Unified School District. The motion passed
unanimously — 9.
C.2 - The school district agreed this is not at issue.
D. ARRA Staff Recommended Changes
D.1 - Alternate Brooks made a motion that the staff recommendation be adopted for the Operation
Dignity veterans' housing request. The motion was seconded by Alternate Alves and passed
unanimously — 9.
D.2 - Member Corbett made a motion to approve the staff recommendation on additions to the
homeless process identifying dates of ARRA actions. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 9. Abstain: 1— Daysog.
IV. Late Comments
A. State Land Commission Changes (Letter) — A motion was made by Alternate Chang to approve
the clarifying policy language on State Land Commission and Public Trust issues. The motion was
seconded by Alternate Alves and passed by a unanimous voice vote — 9.
B. Audubon Society (Letter) — No vote required.
Chair Appezzato asked for a motion to adopt the Plan. Member DeWitt moved acceptance of the
Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The motion was seconded by Member Corbett.
Alternate Daysog asked to make an amendment to the motion to strike the words "RV Park"
everywhere it appears in the Community Reuse Plan. The Executive Director recommended against
the change, as the RV Park is an integral part of the Plan to finance the parks and trail system. The
amendment was seconded by Alternate Alves. Alternate Daysog stated that while the RV Park might
be an integral part of the reuse of the base, he felt it would be a disaster to his neighborhood, which
is one block from the proposed site. The amendment failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:
2— Daysog and Alves. Noes: 7.
Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin pointed out that ARRA needed to act on the Resolution to
Adopt the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
Member DeWitt rescinded his original motion and made a motion to adopt the Resolution Approving
the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The motion was seconded by Alternate
Alves. Chair Appezzato stated that he hoped the Commission would vote unanimously to support
the Community Reuse Plan. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes:
1— Daysog.
Chair Appezzato complimented the staff, the BRAG, and the entire community for all work done
over the past couple of years to get to this point. Alternate Alves thanked the staff and BRAG for
13
listening to his "nitpicking." Alternate Brooks said that she hoped everyone had something in the
Plan they did not agree with because "that is what this remarkable process has been about." She
congratulated the community and the BRAG for the enormous amount of work accomplished and
stated that it has been an honor to be a part of this process.
ORAL REPORTS:
4 -H. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating ARRA on
BRAG Activities.
BRAG Chair Lee Perez stated that it is impossible for 100% of the people to be 100% satisfied with
this Plan because this a heterogeneous community. Now the first phase is done, the BRAG feels that
it still has a role to play and they are currently meeting to discuss what that role might be. While
OEA has decided not to fund the BRAG, Mr. Perez stated he feels that it is essential to find a way
to maintain a viable presence in the process to come. Helen Sause, BRAG Co- Chair, acknowledged
the ARRA Board for the confidence they placed in the BRAG and the support that was given to the
BRAG's efforts. Member DeWitt inquired if there was any way to find funding for the BRAG.
Executive Director Miller answered that OEA had always been firm that they would not fund the
BRAG after the Community Reuse Plan was adopted; however, the BRAG was going to submit a
budget to the City.
4 -I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating ARRA. Executive Director Miller thanked
ARRA staff, the consultants, and the City of Alameda staff for their extraordinary team effort. The
staff is actively moving forward to work out details of special legislation involved in forming a
redevelopment project area with Barbara Lee's staff. The City is moving forward by taking the first
step toward designation of a redevelopment survey area on February 6. On interim lease activity,
she reported that staff is getting very close on several interim leases. Staff is also currently working
on Member Chan's request to work with the County to set up a financing strategy workshop. Ms.
Miller thanked Oakland Councilmember Henry Chang for his support in moving the City of Oakland
forward to provide matching funds for a ULI Workshop. Finally, she mentioned that the EIS
Scoping Meeting is a community meeting scheduled for March 16 from 7:00 -9:00 p.m. in the
Historic AHS Cafeteria.
Chair Appezzato thanked the U.S. Navy, CAPT Jim Dodge, EFAC, and EFA West for their efforts
in helping make the conversion a success. He asked Alice Garvin, Diane Lichtenstein, Doug
DeHaan, Pattianne Parker, and other members of the BRAG present to stand up and be recognized.
He mentioned that during the Conference of Mayors, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and the Bob
Isaacs from Colorado Springs spoke very highly of the job that Kay Miller had done at Lowry.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Fremont, stated that ARRA meetings should be televised and the base
conversion should be on the Internet.
14
Daniel J. Corcoran, Alameda, stated that there is no mention of disability access in the Plan and that
the base has to be in compliance with the ADA.
Curt Pederson, Alameda, agreed that the meetings should be televised and stated that he was
discouraged that an endangered species has more rights to land than people. He also felt that the fact
that the Plan lacked a hotel but approved an RV Park was a travesty. Alternate Alves informed Mr.
Pederson that there was a provision for a hotel in the Marina area.
John Thayer Fee, Alameda, voiced his support for a bridge, factories, industries, and the Hornet, and
offered ideas for developing the base.
Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, spoke to various issues including the U.S. Hornet, MARAD
ships, and home pages on the Internet.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Member Corbett requested that staff research OEA's mission and jurisdiction, their definition of
planning vs. implementation, and comparative information from other base reuse projects regarding
what does and does not get funded.
Alternate Daysog requested that his "No "vote on the Resolution Adopting the Naval Air Station
Alameda Community Reuse Plan be changed to "Yes" for several reasons: Out of respect for the
Mayor of Alameda, who has recently appointed him to the Economic Development Commission;
because he felt that is what Member Arnerich (for whom he acts as Alternate) would like; that
sometimes extremism in the name of defending the neighborhood is not a vice (and there will be
continued challenges with regard to maintaining neighborhood preservation); and, he felt it was
important that the vote be unanimous. Chair Appezzato stated that the motion to adopt the
Resolution Adopting the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan passed unanimously
— 9.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
15
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 28, 1996
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Revised 1996 Budget Request to the Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA)
Background:
At the January 31, 1996 meeting, the ARRA was informed by OEA that they would fund
approximately $1.1 million from the $1,982,492 budget request. OEA has prepared grant documents
to fund the ARRA at the level of $1,060,010, which includes $150,000 for a redevelopment area
planning study. The grant reduces the 1996 office budget (postage, copy paper, supplies, etc.) to
$50,031 — $10,000 less than the 1995 funding level of $60,031 (see attached).
Discussion/Analysis:
The OEA regional office recommends that ARRA accept the reduced grant award in order to
expedite the funding of the approved budget items. The ARRA would then work with OEA over the
next few months to resolve those items that the ARRA requests be reconsidered.
The remaining unfunded items that the ARRA staff considers critical include:
• outside legal counsel and what is allowable for outside legal expenses;
• adequate funding for market analysis;
• housing revitalization study;
• preparation of port conveyance;
• appraisal to trade land out of public trust;
• detailed long -term marketing plan with collateral marketing materials; and
• support for school district.
Fiscal Impact:
The local match required for OEA's $1,060,010 is $353,337. As with previous grants, the ARRA
would meet the match through a combination of cash, in -kind City staff time, and ARRA Board time.
Honorable Members of the February 28, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA accept the $1,060,010 grant from OEA; however, the ARRA staff
will continue to work with OEA to reach further accommodation on the critical items that were not
funded. Furthermore, the staff will submit a budget amendment to OEA on critical items after further
negotiations with OEA and clarification of OEA's policies.
Sincerely,
(Ut &
Kay Miller
Executive Director - -
Attachment
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 26, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
2 -C.
SUBJ: Report and Recommendation from the Executive Director Designating a Portion of the
Parks and Recreation Public Benefit Conveyance Lands at NAS Alameda for a Dog
Exercise Area.
Background:
Over the past two years the City of Alameda (City) and the East Bay Regional Parks District
(EBPRD) have been negotiating on the location and development of a dog exercise area (also known
as a dog run park). On January. 16, 1996, the EBRPD Board of Directors adopted guidelines for
processing a City of Alameda request for a temporary dog exercise area at Crown Memorial State
Beach. The adopted guidelines establish a number of conditions that must be met prior to the City's
being able to lease space for a dog run park. A major condition for the lease is that before finalizing
an agreement between the EBPRD and the City for the temporary site at Crown Memorial State
Beach, a permanent site must be designated at NAS Alameda and approved by the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, the City of Alameda, and the East Bay Regional Parks District.
At its meeting of January 31, 1996, the Alameda City Council endorsed, in concept: (1) the
development of a temporary dog exercise area at Crown Memorial State Beach; (2) the concept of
designating a permanent site for a dog exercise area at NAS Alameda; and, (3) authorization to City
staff to develop an agreement with the Alameda Dog Park Committee for capital and maintenance
costs for the dog park.
Discussion:
The process of locating a permanent dog run park in Alameda has been an evolving, phased
development project. ARRA staff has been working with the City and EBRPD to find an appropriate
temporary site and a future permanent dog run park at NAS Alameda. ARRA staff has suggested
a number of alternative locations, including the open space corridors along Main Street or Atlantic
Boulevard, a portion of the proposed new Regional Park at the breakwater lagoon, or the Shoreline
Park along the Alameda Estuary. The dog run park should be located within the approved Parks &
Recreation Public Benefit Conveyance lands at NAS Alameda.
The most appropriate location for a temporary dog exercise area would be a 3 -4 acre portion of the
proposed Shoreline Park along the Oakland - Alameda Estuary next to the existing Oakland - Alameda
Ferry service building along Main Street. This site is presently used as an overflow gravel parking
lot for the Navy's 0' Club on Main Street. The site is available for interim lease and can be made
ready in the near future. This area is designated as a park site in the NAS Alameda Community
Reuse Plan. The site also provides the least disturbance to adjoining neighbors, residential uses,
other park uses, and wildlife habitat areas and it is functionally appropriate— clear, the correct size,
relatively accessible, and has excellent parking. No other site at NAS Alameda has better location
and function attributes for a dog exercise facility.
Honorable Members of the February 28, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
The BRAG reviewed the proposal for a dog exercise area at NAS Alameda and recommended that
the ARRA approve the use, in concept, and a location should be guaranteed at NAS Alameda; that
the specific location for the long -term use for a dog run park should not yet be determined.
The City of Alameda will be responsible for CEQA compliance, securing all required permits, lease
arrangement with the Navy and ARRA, and other approvals, and Alameda Parks and Recreation will
be responsible for the development, maintenance, and upkeep of the dog run park facility. Parks and
Recreation uses, including a dog exercise area, are consistent with the approved NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan.
CEQA Compliance:
ARRA's findings that the dog run park use is consistent with the NAS Alameda Community Reuse
Plan does not constitute a project under CEQA guidelines. A full EIR/EIS on designation of this site
as a park is now being prepared by the Navy in conjunction with the City of Alameda. An interim
lease or lease in further of conveyance and construction of landscape amenities at this site would be
exempt under CEQA guidelines or a negative declaration will be certified by the City of Alameda.
Financial Impact:
The cost to create a dog exercise area is the responsibility of the City of Alameda. The costs will
vary depending on its size and the park amenities created consistent with the Bayside Park Concept
(turf, trails, sprinklers, fencing, pedestrian amenities, lighting, etc.). Costs for the development of
the dog exercise area could be supported in part by the Alameda Dog Park Committee. The annual
costs to the City of Alameda for the utility services at the new park location have not been
determined. The annual maintenance cost will depend on the type of sprinkler system installed and
ground keeping staff time. Additional costs would be incurred for landscape improvement plans for
the site, including the location of trails and paths.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the ARRA adopt a motion approving the location of a dog run exercise area
within the Parks and Recreation Public Benefit Conveyance areas at NAS. Alameda and that portions
of the Shoreline Park along the Oakland - Alameda Estuary provide a suitable interim use for a dog
exercise area; that a dog exercise area is compatible with the Parks and Recreation land use
designation in NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan; and, that development of a dog exercise area,
applicable permits, and maintenance costs are the responsibility of the City of Alameda.
Respectfully submitted,
ect,t4 Vv.i U�Pit.
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 28, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
2-D.
SUBJECT: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Selection
of Consultant Team to Prepare a Marketing Plan and Graphic Materials to Support
the ARRA's Interim Leasing Effort and Authorization for the Executive Director to
Execute a Contract.
Background
The development of a marketing plan and supporting graphic materials is needed to enhance the
ARRA's ongoing interim leasing program. The marketing plan will include a review of existing
leasable properties at NAS; analysis of the ARRA's current leasing process; evaluation of market
conditions, constraints, and opportunities; and formulation of a focused marketing strategy. Special
attention will be given to developing strategies to market special purpose buildings such as the
Avionics Building ( #400), the Plating Shop ( #32), the Automated Warehouse ( #9), and the Materials
Lab ( #7). The marketing materials will include a presentation package with information on the base
facilities, leasing criteria, and procedures with specific information on each leasable building.
The package will be designed to allow for the insertion of sheets regarding the specific buildings;
available machinery, tools, and equipment; utility service; lease provisions; and other salient
information. The material will be delivered camera -ready for printing but will not be printed under
this contract. It is anticipated that the printing costs for this material will be covered by the $25,000
grant from PG &E. The marketing materials will also include preparation of a camera -ready
advertisement and direct -mail piece. The project budget is $50,000 and the product delivery date is
90 days following project startup.
In response to the ARRA's newspaper advertisements and direct contacts with potential consultants,
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were issued to more than twenty firms. Proposals were received from
six teams, of which five were selected for interviews. The interview panel included the ARRA' s
Executive Director and Facilities Manager and the Chairperson of BRAG's Reuse Subcommittee.
The panel selected the consultant team led by Guilltone Properties and including Muhlhauser &
Young and Bay Area Economics (BAE). Guilltone Properties is a highly respected real estate
consulting firm based in Oakland and led by Mr. John Guillory. Muhlhauser & Young is an award -
winning marketing communications and graphic design firm based in San Francisco. BAE
previously provided services for the ARRA in the areas of market and financing analysis as a
subconsultant to EDAW. Guilltone is a minority -owned business and both Muhlhauser & Young
and BAE are woman-owned business enterprises.
Honorable Members of the February 28, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Budget Considerations/Fiscal Impact
This project will be funded by a grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA). OEA grants
require a 25 percent local match.
Recommendation
It is recommended that ARRA endorse the selection of the BAE team and authorize the Executive
Director to execute a contract with BAE to proceed with this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/EL /jcb /mee
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 12
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
FOR ITS GENEROUS CONTRIBUTION OF $25,000 FOR USE IN THE ARRA'S
LEASE MARKETING PROGRAM AND FOR ITS CONTINUING
SUPPORT OF THE BASE CONVERSION PROCESS.
WHEREAS, Pacific Gas and Electric Company has been a continuing strong supporter of
the reuse and redevelopment at the Naval Air Station Alameda; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Gas and Electric Company has contributed $25,000 for use in the
ARRA's lease marketing program; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Gas and Electric Company has assisted the ARRA's first tenant,
CALSTART, in its effort to locate at NAS Alameda.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for its
generous contribution to and support for the reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority records
its appreciation to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Company for its $25,000 contribution
toward the ARRA's lease marketing program and for its continuing support of the base conversion
process.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular meeting,
assembled on the 6th day of March, 1996 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Date: March 6, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 28, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of Pre - Applications to the
Economic Development Administration (EDA) for a Technical Assistance Planning Grant,
Construction Application for the Main Street/Storm Water Improvement Project, and a Building
Improvement Construction Application for a Building to be Leased to the Alameda Center for
Environmental Technologies (ACET).
Background:
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) recently received approval of its 1996 /97 fiscal year
funding. EDA's budget approval had been delayed since October 1, 1996 pending approval of the federal
budget. Working with the regional EDA staff, ARRA staff recommends that the ARRA apply for a $450,000
technical assistance planning grant, that the City of Alameda apply for a $3 million construction grant for the
Main Street/Storm Water Improvement Project, and that the ARRA apply for a $400,000 construction grant
for building improvements to a facility that would be leased by the Alameda Center for Environmental
Technologies (ACET). Since EDA only has seven months left in the current fiscal year, EDA requested the
applications be submitted by the first week in March; therefore, it is critical that the ARRA submit any grant
applications as quickly as possible to be considered for funding this fiscal year.
Discussion /Analysis:
The $450,000 planning grant would be used to conduct three studies: a Building Upgrade Survey with
Construction Specifications, a Building Demolition Study, and a Street Improvement Plan.
Building Upgrade Survey and Construction Specifications ($100,000) – A major problem in negotiating
and realizing revenues from leases is that many of the buildings at NAS have major deficiencies that require
costly upgrades. The Building Upgrade Survey will enable the ARRA to get a firm fix on the cost of required
building upgrades. Once the building upgrade information is available, construction specifications would
be prepared for the facilities in order to complete the building improvements —all of which would normally
be the responsibility of the landlord (in this case the ARRA). Once the ARRA has the information from the
Building Upgrade Survey and Construction Specifcations studies, we would apply for federal funding from
EDA next year to make many of the necessary building improvements. However, if federal funding is not
available and the ARRA is forced to deduct the cost of building improvements from the potential lease
revenue, precise information regarding the extent of these upgrades would be very useful to have in advance
of entering into interim lease negotiations.
Building Demolition Study ($40,000) – Detailed information is required on the scope and projected cost
of building demolition for those buildings not incorporated in the interim leasing effort. Accurate cost
projections are also needed on the recycling of building materials and cost of asbestos disposal. This
demolition cost will be critical to an adequate cash flow analysis and determination of residual value of the
NAS property.
Street Improvement Study ($310,000) — The Street Improvement Plan will identify. which existing
roadways on the NAS and FISC sites would be reused as public streets and which would be abandoned. The
Street Improvement Plan will design a new street system to meet the traffic demand created by the
Community Reuse Plan. The timing of this study is perfect as it can be coordinated with the infrastructure
improvements now being identified in the Utility Study.
Main Street/Storm Water Improvement Project — The City of Alameda would be eligible to apply for a
$3 million EDA construction grant for NAS conversion projects utilizing EDA base conversion funds. In
reviewing the list of Alameda capital improvement projects that would be eligible to utilize base conversion
funding and take advantage of the expedited EDA grant opportunity, the ARRA staff and the Alameda Public
Works Department recommend the Main Street/Storm Water Improvement Project. There are two primary
entrances to NAS the main gate and the east gate; however, when it rains the main gate entrance floods so
that the road has to be closed. This situation creates serious access and transportation constraints which will
negatively impact the reuse of the base. This project will acquire and develop 6.54 acres of abandoned
railway property for a passive park, construct street improvements along Main Street, raise Main Street above
the flood plain, install a pump station, upgrade signals, and add left -turn pockets.
Building Improvement Construction Application — It is recommended that the ARRA also apply for a
$400,000 EDA construction grant to undertake building improvements for a building that could be leased
to the Alameda Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET). With CALSTART, the ARRA's approach
was to require that the cost of upgrades be advanced by the tenant and reimbursed through rental rebates.
This approach generates no revenue for the ARRA to begin necessary infrastructure and other site
improvements that will make the NAS facilities more marketable to future tenants.
Fiscal Impacts:
EDA grants require a 25% local match. For the $450,000 technical assistance planning grant, the City of
Alameda would need to identify $150,000 in local match ($60,000 cash and $90,000 "in- kind" match). The
$3 million construction grant for Main Street/Storm Water would require a non - federal match of $1 million.
(The only federal funds that can be used to match an EDA grant are CDBG, Community Development Block
Grant funds.) To meet the match, the City of Alameda Public Works Department proposes to do all the
design, engineering, and permit work in -house and use Urban Runoff funds. The total project as proposed
in the Alameda capital improvement project budget is $5.1 million; however, EDA has identified $3.4 million
as potentially available funds for Alameda construction projects. The Alameda Public Works Department
is also applying for $700,000 in federal Transportation Enhancement Act funds and $250,000 in state
Environmental Enhancement Mitigation funds. The $133,333 match for the $400,000 building improvement
construction application would be ACET's responsibility.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA endorse pre- applications to EDA for a $450,000 Technical Assistance
Planning Grant, a $3.4 million construction application for the Main Street/Storm Water Improvement
Project, and a Building Improvement Construction Application for a facility to be leased by ACET.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Progress Report on Pan - Pacific University
The Honorable Ralph Appezzato,
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Members of the Base Reuse Advisory Group,
and Staffs of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority:
About eight months have passed since June 28, 1995 when ARRA endorsed the application of
Pan - Pacific University for the public - benefit conveyance of Alameda Naval Air Station property.
We at Pan - Pacific University have been working diligently since that time. We have traveled
overseas numerous times and met many good and helpful people. I stand before you now
happy to have the opportunity to present you with a progress report on Pan - Pacific University.
Pan - Pacific University will begin academic operations September of 1997 with undergraduate
programs and a university medical center combined with alternative- medicine programs.
Undergraduate Programs - -
Pan - Pacific University's academic work is actually already underway. Under PPU's auspices, four
students are currently placed at the College of Alameda for their first two years of language
training. PPU has set up an office there and appointed a full -time faculty member, Ms. Andrea
Safir, to supervise these students while they study at the College of Alameda campus.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Dr. George Herring, President of the
College of Alameda, and Dr. Juan A. Vazquez, Dean, and many other College of Alameda
faculty members for their kindness and cooperation. It is PPU's plan to continue our
educational "partnership" with the College of Alameda which we view as mutually beneficial
to both institutions.
PPU has developed a "family home - stay" program to meet students' room - and -board needs.
As well as housing students, the program is designed to put students in touch with the local
community, an important aspect of their educational life. Once PPU acquires its own campus
and the authority to issue its own "1 -20" forms, our priority will be to aggressively recruit
students. Since PPU is an American institution, not an Asian institution, our recruiting efforts
will extend far and wide and be truly international in scope.
University Medical Center /College of Medicine
Pan - Pacific University has identified a group of medical doctors from a state university medical
school system who will come to Pan- Pacific University and take charge of a project to open a
university medical clinic as well as dental clinic. This will take place immediately following
the decommissioning of the Alameda Naval Air Station. The same group will then organize a
School of Medicine with alternative- medicine programs as a part of it. These medical
professionals have accepted our challenge, including the challenge of raising funds for PPU's
School of Medicine. 1 hasten to add that we fully intend to retain civilian employees at our
medical and dental clinics. In addition, clinic medical services will be extended to the
community at large of Alameda, particularly families of military personnel. The Honorable
Young Duk Lee, former prime minister of the Republic of Korea, and Mr. Chang Keun Choi, a
businessman in Korea well known through his work with the Association of Korean Christian
Businessmen, have accepted the challenge of raising 3.5 million dollars for this endeavor. We
are therefore confident we can reach our financial goal in time.
• A Graduate School of International Commerce and Business is already in its organizing
stages. Its students will be exposed to the world of international trade, import, export, and
finance. Mr. Jae Hyun Lee, a Hong Kong resident and international businessman, has taken
major responsibility for organizing this program for Pan - Pacific University.
• A Graduate School of International Relations is also in its organizing stages. We envision it
as a center for research and study focusing on Asia- Pacific Economic Conference (APEC)
countries.
• A Graduate School of Physical Education and Sports Medicine is also in its organizing
stages. Dr. Ju Ho Chang, Dean of the College of Physical Education at Kyung Hee
University in Seoul, Korea, has assumed a leadership role for this project. In due time,
PPU may integrate its sports- medicine program within the School of Physical Education
into the School of Medicine.
• We at Pan - Pacific University are firmly resolved to begin operations of an undergraduate
department as well as these four professional schools by 1997 through 1998.
• We also envision opening a Graduate School of Theology, Graduate School of International
Law, Graduate School of Linguistic Studies, and Graduate School of Combined Arts at the
very end of the decade.
The one question people ask again and again is this: Does Pan - Pacific University have enough
money to accomplish what it intends to over the next several years? The answer is "yes!"
Our confidence is based on the fact that our approach is different from other universities and
colleges. We conceive of ourselves as a "university - mall." We identify the right kind of group,
the right kind of leadership, the right kind of academic discipline, and bring them together
"under one roof." Each group functions with a fairly high degree of autonomy and is charged
with the responsibility of its own financial readiness and viability.
My friends, I promise you that someday you will proudly say, "Oh yes, Pan - Pacific University —
I helped it get its start." You will feel the pride of ownership in a dream turned into reality
for all of us. Thank you very much.
Peter Sun, Ph.D.
PPU Organizing President March 6, 1996
— Progress Report on Pan - Pacific University, Page 2—
INTERIM LEASING STATUS REPORT
4 -I.
TENANT
BUILDING #
AREA (SQ.
FT.)
STATUS
BUILDING
VACANCY
DATE
PROJECTED
FOSL
COMPLETION
DATE
Nelson's Marine
167 & Finger
Piers
55,450
Agreed On
Lease
Terms
6/96
9/96
Carstar
(Vehicle Painting)
Portions of
24 & 25
34,250
Agreed On
Lease
Terms
Now
3/96
Giannotti (Ship Parts
Repair)
113
-
13,150
Agreed On
Lease
Terms
Now
3/96
Soccer Field
Lease to Be
Signed in
Mid -March
Now
Complete
TOTAL PENDING:
102,850 sq. ft.
Quality Assured
Products (Valve Mfr.)
22
66,000
Offer
Submitted
By Tenant
10/96
9/96
Any Location (Film
Production)
21
66,000
Offer
Submitted
By Tenant
Now
' Complete
ACET
12 or 23
66,000
Offer
Submitted
By Tenant
1/97
9/96
Military Storage Units
Mini - Storage
Units near
Bldg. 530
±750 units
Offer
Submitted
By Tenant
Now
9/96
Cummins Diesel
11 /400A
150,000
Offer
Submitted
By Tenant
Now
Complete
Real Estate
Development Co.
360
180,000
Offer
Submitted
By Tenant
Now
9/96
TOTAL - OFFERS
SUBMITTED BY
TENANT:
528,000 sq. ft.
+ 750 storage
units
lserept.306
TENANT
BUILDING #
AREA (SQ.
FT.)
STATUS
BUILDING
VACANCY
DATE
PROJECTED
FOSL
COMPLETION
DATE
Tower Aviation
530
82,250
Offer
Pending
Now
Complete
Plating Company
32
56,640
Offer
Pending
Now
- Complete
S.F. Foreign Trade
Zone
169 & 170
(warehouses)
179,000
Offer
Pending
4/97
9/96
Bay Ship & Yacht
292
2,700
Offer
Pending
2/97
9/96
MARAD
Piers 1, 2, 3
168
117,000
Offer
Pending
1/97
9/96
TOTAL - OFFERS
PENDING:
sq. ft.
BART
41
110,000
Potential
Tenant
9/96
9/96
Kaiser Aerospace
40
110,000
Potential
Tenant
9/96
9/96
Del Gavio (Ship
Repair)
162
107,000
Potential
Tenant
9/96
9/96
Detox Technology (Air
Emission Filters)
39
55,000
Potential
Tenant
9/96
9/96
EnviroRents (Water
Filters)
39
55,000
Potential
Tenant
9/96
9/96
DEFAS (Defense
Accounting)
6 (FISC)
100,000
Potential
Tenant
Now
Complete
National Airmotive
360
180,000
Potential
Tenant
Now
9/96
UARCO
Portions of
24 & 25
84,250
Potential
Tenant
Now
3/96
Gridcore
530
82,250
Potential
Tenant
Now
Complete
FNS (Catalytic
Converters)
372
18,000
Potential
Tenant
Now
9/96
MBA Polymers (Plastic
Recycling)
Portions of
360 or 12
60,000
Potential
Tenant
Now
9/96
TOTAL -
POTENTIAL
LEASES:
961,500 sq. ft.
Iserept.306
Correspondence
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY, WEST
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
900 COMMODORE DRIVE
SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 94066-5006
PUBLIC NOTICE
IN REPLY REFER TO:
5090.18
185JH /EP6 -922
27 Feb 1996
Subject: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING OF PUBLIC CONCERNS
REGARDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIS /EIR) FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF
NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA AND THE FT,R,FT AND INDUSTRIAL
SUPPLY CENTER, ALAMEDA FACILITY /ANNEX, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to Section 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Part
1506.6) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Department of the Navy and the City of Alameda are preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) to
evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects of the
disposal and proposed reuse of the above referenced properties. For the
NEPA EIS, the Navy's Engineering Field Activity West, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command will be the lead agency and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service be a cooperating federal agency. For the CEQA EIR,
the City of Alameda will be the lead agency.
The Alameda Community Reuse Plan, developed by the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), will constitute the preferred
alternative evaluated in the EIS /EIR. The EIS /EIR will examine the
potential impacts to the environment that may result from implementation
of the Alameda Community Reuse Plan, from three alternative reuse
scenarios and from a "no action" caretaker alternative. A summary,_
description of the preferred alternative, alternatives to be evaluated
and probable environmental effects is included as an attachment to this
notice.
In accordance with federal and state regulations implementing NEPA and
CEQA, the public is invited to express, in writing, their comments and
concerns regarding the action described above. Affected federal, state
and local agencies and other interested parties are invited to submit
their written comments to the address listed below. Comments must be
received by March 29, 1996 to be considered in this initial scoping
process. Address correspondence to:
Commanding Officer
Engineering Field Activity West
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
ATTN: Mr. Jerry Hemstock (Code 185)
900 Commodore Drive
San Bruno, CA 94066 -5006
Telephone (415) 244 -3023
FAX (415) 244 -3737
1
A public scoping meeting to receive verbal and written comments will be
held on Wednesday, March 13, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Alameda High
School Cafeteria, 2200 Central Avenue, Alameda California. If you need
special assistance to participate in this meeting, contact Margaret
Ensley, at the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority office, at
(510) 263 -2870. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable
the City to make reasonable arrangements to allow participation in this
meeting.
For further information regarding the Alameda Community Reuse Plan,
contact Mr. Paul Tuttle, Alameda reuse and Redevelopment Authority, at
telephone (510) 263 -2870, FAX (510) 263 -3764.
Thank you for participating in our public involvement and scoping
process.
cliJohn H. Kennedy
ead, Environmental Planning Branch
2
2
From Berkeley
From Walnut Creek
From San Jose
The scoping meeting will begin at seven p.m. on Wednesday,
March 13 in the Alameda High School cafeteria. To get to
Alameda, follow the signs from Highway 880 to Alameda.
Not to Scale
N
TETRA TECH
Meeting Location Map
NAS Alameda EIS /EIR
Alameda, California
ATTACHMENT A
NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA /FISC ALAMEDA ANNEX
DISPOSAL AND REUSE
I. INTRODUCTION
The Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility
(FISC Alameda Annex) in Alameda, California have been identified for closure under the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act, as implemented by the 1993 base closure process. The current schedule calls for
operational closure of NAS Alameda in April 1997 and of FISC Alameda Annex in September 1998.
The U.S. Navy, with the City of Alameda, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental
Impact Report (EIS /EIR) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIS /EIR will evaluate the environmental effects of disposal and reuse
of NAS Alameda and FISC Alameda Annex properties and facilities. The Navy will be the lead agency for
NEPA documentation and the City of Alameda will be the lead agency for CEQA documentation. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will be a cooperating agency for the NEPA EIS.
II. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF NAS ALAMEDA /ANNEX
NAS Alameda and the FISC Alameda Annex are located at the geographic center of the San Francisco Bay Area
and occupy the western third of the island of Alameda, across the Oakland Alameda Estuary from the City of
Oakland (Figure 1). NAS Alameda is approximately two miles long by one mile wide and occupies 1,734 acres of
dry land and 1,108 acres of submerged land. The 2,842 -acre facility includes: a major airfield, a deepwater port,
a seaplane lagoon, aircraft and ship maintenance facilities, 1,513 units of family housing, two major barracks -type
housing projects, and industrial, retail, warehouse, recreational, and special- purpose facilities. The FISC Alameda
Annex consists of two parcels comprising approximately 188 acres of land, adjacent to NAS Alameda. It is
developed with warehouses, open space storage, and administrative buildings.
NAS Alameda has been an active military facility since the early 1930s. The NAS occupies a flat, open site which
formerly consisted of mudflats and tidal marshlands. Most of the low -lying areas were filled during the 1930s and
the 1940s. Construction of NAS facilities continued at a rapid pace until the end of World War II. Over the
years NAS facilities have expanded and been upgraded to meet the changing military mission of the Navy. The
Air Station was host to approximately 60 tenant commands for a combined military/civilian workforce of over
18,000 personnel.
The FISC Alameda Facility was initially built in 1945 as the Alameda Medical Depot of the U.S. Army. It
subsequently became the Alameda Annex of the Sharpe Army Depot and was transferred to the Naval Supply
Center, Oakland in 1964. The FISC Alameda Annex site was purchased by the Navy in 1951, and has been
continuously used for general warehouses and bulk storage use.
III. ALAMEDA COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN
The Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority (ARRA) is a regional agency created through a joint powers
agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County. The ARRA is the federally designated local reuse
authority (LAR) for the planing, reuse, and redevelopment of NAS Alameda and FISC Annex. In this role the
ARRA assesses the opportunities and constraints of the NAS Alameda /Annex site. The Alameda Community
Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan) developed by the ARRA was approved by the Alameda City Council on January 31,
1996.
The Reuse Plan includes both NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex /Facility. The Reuse Plan is a mixed use,
transit - oriented proposal that identifies seven distinct planning areas:
• Civic Core
• Inner Harbor
• Main Street Neighborhoods
• Marina
1
SANTA ROSA
SONOMA
COUNTY
\
MARIN
COUNTY
NAPA
COUNTY \
SOLANO
COUNTY
SAN
RAFAEL
Alameda
FISC Annex
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
F
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
SE
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
The sites are located at the northem end of
Alameda Island adjacent to the City of Alameda.
0 6 12
Approximate Scale in Miles
LEGEND:
- - - - - -- County Lines
Federal and State Highways
Regional
Site Location M4#
NAS Alameda and FISC Annex
....
• North Waterfront
• Northwest Territories
• Wildlife Refuge
These areas are shown in Figure 2 and the proposed land uses are shown in Table 1. Following is a description of
the uses proposed for each of the seven planning areas.
Civic Core
The Civic Core is a 334 -acre area located in the center of NAS Alameda. It is bordered by the Oakland Alameda
Estuary to the north, the Seaplane Lagoon (Marina) to the south, the runway (Northwest Territories and
Wildlife Refuge) to the west and the existing Navy housing (Main Street Neighborhoods) to the east. This area
was the administrative and industrial center of NAS Alameda. It is proposed for mixed uses with reuse of
existing structures and some new infill development; potential uses include a university campus, research and
development and industrial uses (totaling 2,187,000 square feet), residential uses, and commercial uses (50,000
square feet). A linear open space /civic mall would run north -south in the center of the Civic Core.
Main Street Neighborhoods
The Main Street Neighborhoods is located in the northeastern portion of the NAS Alameda /Annex site. This
321 -acre area currently consists of Navy residences along with warehouses on the Annex portion of the site.
Under the Reuse Plan, the area would remain predominantly residential but would include small areas of civic
uses, schools, mixed use transit nodes, and park uses.
Inner Harbor
The southeastern -most portion of the NAS Alameda site is the 119 -acre Inner Harbor area to the east of the
Marina district. The Reuse Plan proposes that this area be used as a light industrial /research and development
area, which would be consistent with the existing industrial uses. The southern shoreline would be dedicated to
a 50 -acre regional park that could include a 13 -acre recreational vehicle park. The existing marina, recreation
center, breakwater, boathouse, and cafe would be considered for reuse.
North Waterfront
The 120 -acre North Waterfront area includes most of the FISC Alameda Facility and the northeastern portion of
the Alameda Annex. (The remaining portion of the Alameda Annex is located within the Main Street
Neighborhoods area.) Mariner Square and the Webster Posey Tubes are to the immediate east of the area. The
Mitchell Mosely Extension, a new traffic thoroughfare proposed as part of the Reuse Plan, would go through the
center of the area. The northern portion of the North Waterfront is proposed for office park/research and
development uses and residential development, making use of the shoreline access and location opposite
Oakland's Jack London Square. Light industry and research and development would be located in the southern
portion of the area. The Reuse Plan also includes development of a hotel and a school on this parcel.
Marina
The 126 -acre Marina district includes 1.5 miles of shoreline around the existing Seaplane Lagoon. It is part of the
paved runway system to the north and includes three piers which were historically used to berth aircraft carriers
and other Navy vessels. This area could be used for mixed use, water - related commercial uses, marina,
recreation, and residential uses. The three existing piers would be retained and reused for ship docking services.
Northwest Territories
As the name implies, the Northwest Territories are located in the northwest portion of NAS Alameda and is
primarily on land historically used as airfield runway. Most of this area is under public trust jurisdiction due to
3
co
11)
:;I'; ;1;t';■*;1
No Action
Alternative
Caretaker Status
irk
:
....
ea
LI
Ci
Caretaker Status
Caretaker Status
Caretaker Status
Caretaker Status
kr, rk.. r... kr so 0.1 o,
....0 u, ,.., ..., e. .1.
co ro Lel
er ■.
4:, ....
r4 rq
.4- ,
ry va en .
,D rn ,.
-. ,,,
,D
-r
rn
IN ,,,,,
....
t■ rl un ,Or...
.... r., ... ..-^ V
,i rsi as ,r,
IN (4 0
,,,
rq
Alternative C
Campus
Campus Open Space
Civic Open Space
Commercial
Civic Core Housing
Mixed Core
Mixed Use
Marina Village
Schools
Residential
Regional Park
RV Park
School
Office /workplace
Marina
Marina Housing
Marina Industry
Hotel
Visitor Serving Recreatn /Comrcl
Marina Waterfront Open Space
Industrial
Golf Club House /Rec. Facility
Shoreline Open Space
Open Space /Links Golf Course
Wildlife Refuge /Wetlands
Recreation /Open Space
Limited -Use Airport
t
,40 ul y, 00 un rn
mr ...,
N
r4 eq
,0 rl ".
‘D
el
■.,
''' rn *
!2 r4 r4
—
ON
0,
Alternative B
Campus
Campus Open Space
Civic Open Space
Commercial
Civic Core Housing
Mixed Core
Mixed Use
Marina Village
Schools
Residential
Regional Park
RV Park
School
Office /workplace
Marina
Marina Housing
Marina Industry
Hotel
Visitor Serving Recrtn /Comrcl
Marina Waterfront Olen S. ace
Single - family Residential
Golf Club House /Rec. Facility
Shoreline Open Space
Open Space /Links Golf Course
Wildlife Refuge /Wetlands
Recreation /Open Space
t .
. '.'.
un P. r.... sr No rn IN
,0 un rn w. ,.. ,r
...
00 en un
,r ....
(4
.0 ...
(4 N
.4.. ,,
rl ,..0 en 00
,10 el ...
C) u,
en
4.
el
rn 00
,I.
C, (4 0, Un 0 f"...
,, ,, ..., .., ,r
0
r4
r4
rn
■...
u,
Alternative A
Campus
Campus Open Space
Civic Open Space
Commercial
Civic Core Housing
Mixed Core
Mixed Use
Marina Village
Schools
Residential
Regional Park
RV Park
School
Office /workplace
Marina
Marina Housing
Marina Industry
Hotel
Visitor Serving Recrtn /Comrcl
Marina Waterfront O.en S. ace
Port Facilities (5 Container Ship
Berths)
Wildlife Refuge/Wetlands
Recreation /Open Space
Limited -Use Airport
U
1.1
.
v., t■ h. at .../3 rn r4
...,
00 In VI
f4
■0 ,..,
,t. ,r
04) rn
.0
rn
■-•
.... r, ..., ... ,r
.
,0 (4 un
,... —
.... .
Cr,
el
Preferred Alternative
(Reuse Planl
Campus
Campus Open Space
Civic Open Space
Commercial
Civic Core Housing
Mixed Core
Mixed Use
Marina Village
Schools
Light Industry
Regional Park
RV Park
Office /workplace
Marina
Marina Housing
Marina Industry
Hotel
Visitor Serving Recretn /Comrcl
Marina Waterfront O.en Space
Maritime Related Light Industry
Golf Club House /Rec. Facility
Shoreline Open Space
Open Space /Links Golf Course
Wildlife Refuge /Wetlands
Recreation /Open Space
Limited -Use Airport
i'
..0
el
E
a.,
...:4
I
i. Civic Core
334 acres
321 acres
Inner Harbor
119 acres
1LV 8t1 C>
Marina
126 acres
Northwest Territories
208 to 343 acres*
Runway Area Open
Space/ Wildlife
Habitat
390 to 525 acres **
the fact that it is located on land developed by filling of submerged baylands. Under the Reuse Plan a portion
would be used for maritime - related light industry, warehouses, or research and development. The remaining
portion of the area would be devoted to recreation and open space uses, such as a Scottish links style golf course
with a golf club house, and a shoreline trail.
Wildlife Refuge
Although the majority of this planning area consists of paved land, the Reuse Plan would reserve a portion of the
runway area for use as a wildlife refuge. The refuge, located in the southwestern portion of NAS Alameda,
would range between 390 and 525 acres. The Wildlife Refuge would include the runway, wetlands, and
breakwater that provide habitat for sensitive bird species, including the California least tern, the Caspian tern,
and the brown pelican. Limited airport uses would also be permitted on a portion of the runway. Airport uses
could include helicopter and rescue plane operations, aircraft maintenance, and limited landing of other aircraft.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE EIS /EIR
An EIS /EIR must analyze a reasonable range of alternatives and identify a preferred alternative. The Reuse Plan
(described above) will serve as the Preferred Alternative in the EIS /EIR. The EIS /EtR will also examine four
alternative reuse scenarios, including the No Action alternative. The alternative reuse scenarios are described
briefly below and in Table 1.- Additional alternatives or revisions to these alternatives may be developed during
the public scoping period.
A. Seaport Emphasis Alternative
The emphasis of this alternative would be the development of a regional seaport facility (220 acres) on the north
edge of the island (Northwest Territories) using the Oakland Inner Harbor. The port facilities would consist of
five berths for containerized shipping. Use as a port could require a new bridge or a substantial upgrade to the
existing transportation links from Alameda Island to accommodate increased truck volumes. A new bridge could
support rail access. The southern portion of the airfield would be used as a wildlife refuge, as under the Reuse
Plan, but would be larger (513 acres). Limited airport uses would be permitted on a portion of the runway.
Airport uses could include helicopter and rescue plane operations, aircraft maintenance, and limited landing of
other aircraft. The Inner Harbor would have a mixed use, residential emphasis and would limit light industrial
uses. The Civic Core, Main Street Neighborhoods, North Waterfront, and Marina areas would have uses similar
to the Reuse Plan.
B. Increased ResidentialAlternative
This alternative would emphasize increased housing development in several of the reuse areas. Compared to the
Reuse Plan, additional housing units would be developed in the Civic Core and Inner Harbor planning areas. 187
acres in Northwest Territories would be developed as single- family residential and 125 acres would be developed
as a Scottish links style golf course. Increased residential uses would require development of more schools and
neighborhood commercial nodes. The Main Street'Neighborhoods, North Waterfront, and Marina areas would
have uses similar to the Reuse Plan. Under this alternative the Wildlife Refuge would occupy 390 acres. The
increased population resulting from this alternative could require development of a new bridge crossing to
accommodate increased traffic.
C. Increased Open Space Alternative
This alternative would maximize the open space component of reuse and increase the size of the Wildlife Refuge
area to 525 acres. The Northwest Territories would have a 105 -acre Scottish links style golf course that would
serve as an open space /recreational use buffer zone for the wildlife refuge. Limited airport uses would be
permitted on a portion of the runway. Airport uses could include helicopter and rescue plane operations, aircraft
maintenance, and limited landing of other aircraft. The Inner Harbor would have an increased residential
component compared to the Reuse Plan. Uses in the Civic Core, Main Street Neighborhoods, North
Waterfront, and Marina planning areas would be similar to the Reuse Plan.
6
D. No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, the NAS Alameda /FISC Annex properties would go into caretaker status. The Navy
would perform only those tasks needed to protect the property and minimize deterioration of the structures and
grounds.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE EIS /EIR
Though the issues of special concern may change as the scoping an EIS /EIS process continues, the following
issues have been initially identified as particularly sensitive to future reuse activities at NAS Alameda /Annex.
• Socioeconomic impacts on the local community
• Consistency with the Public Trust doctrine
• Impacts to habitat for the California least tern
• Identification and remediation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste
• Potential for increased traffic, noise, and emissions of air pollutants over closure baseline conditions
• Potential need for additional bridge /tunnel access
• Potential geologic conditions affecting reuse
• Utility systems upgrades
• Development of port uses
Evaluation of the potential environmental effect to the following resources resulting from implementation of the
Proposed Action and Alternatives will be evaluated in the EIS /EIR.
Land Use Geology and Soils Traffic and Transportation
Socioeconomics Biological Resources Utilities
Aesthetics and Scenic Resources Air Quality and Meteorology Hazardous Materials
Public Services Noise Historic and Prehistoric
Cultural Resources
Water Resources Cumulative Effects
7
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
Ronald V. Dellums
9th Congressional District
Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Wilma Chan •
:rvisor, District 3
r..,,meda County Board
of Supervisors
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
cutive Director
1 Recycled paper
February 27, 1996
William R. Carsillo, Head, Southern Section
Realty Operations Branch, Real Estate Center
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
EFA West
900 Commodore Drive
San Bruno, CA 94066 -5006
Dear Mr. Carsillo:
(510) 263-2870
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
In December 1995, ARRA received a copy of the formal request for federal transfer
of 75 acres at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Alameda Annex to the
Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). Subsequently, we received another
request for federal transfer of 75 acres at Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS
Alameda) to AAFES.
At its December 1995 meeting, the ARRA governing body took formal action in
opposition to the federal conveyance request for FISC. At the January 1996 meeting
the ARRA governing body took formal action in opposition to the federal
conveyance request for the NAS Alameda property. Both staff reports
recommending opposition to the federal transfers are enclosed for your information.
ARRA. opposes the federal conveyance of 75 acres at FISC based on the
Community Reuse Plan, which envisions this property as a mixed -use office, light
industrial, and R &D area. The new uses are intended to take advantage of the close
proximity of FISC to the existing Marina Village R &D Industrial Park in Alameda.
A large distribution center would be incompatible with adjoining residential uses
and detract from the redevelopment potential of the FISC waterfront as a high -end
mixed -use project for office, commercial, and residential uses. In short, the use of
the FISC site for a major distribution center is inconsistent with the proposed
Community Reuse Plan.
At NAS Alameda, the ARRA is two years into its reuse planning process. The
federal screening period for transfer of NAS Alameda properties has long since
closed. ARRA has supported conveyance to or use by numerous federal, local,
public, and nonprofit agencies. These uses, while desired by the community, will
not produce revenues for the redevelopment of the Base nor taxes to support public
services that the City of Alameda is required to provide. The ARRA believes that j'
William R. Carsillo, EFA West
February 27, 1996
Page 2
we are too far along in our reuse planning effort to support another no -cost federal transfer that
would keep property off the tax roles, thus severely limiting our ability to finance the capital
improvements and infrastructure necessary for redevelopment.
While ARRA opposes federal conveyance of NAS and FISC sites to AAFES, we are pursuing
discussions with AAFES about the possible location of their distribution center at NAS Alameda
under a ground lease agreement. We believe this would meet the needs of both AAFES and the
ARRA.
Should you have any questions regarding the ARRA's position on either of these requests, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
VUC
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Encl. (2)
cc: Colonel Peter J. Geloso, Corps of Engineer
Henry T. Roberts, Jr., AAFES
Bob Brauer, Congressman Dellum's office, Washington D.C.
ARRA Governing Body (w /o encl.)
Alameda Reuse and Itedevelopment Anthority
Naval Air Station, Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandra 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
' 'meda County Board
Jupervisors
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
February 22, 1996
Mr. William Travis, Executive Director
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2011
San Francisco, California 94102 -6080
(510) 263-2870
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Re: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for the San Francisco Bay
Area Seaport Plan
Dear Mr. Travis:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment
for the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. The Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority staff have reviewed the document and prepared the
following comments. These comments focus on that portion of the environmental
assessment covering the Naval Air Station Alameda AS Alameda) and the Navy's
Fleet Industrial Supply Center Annex, Alameda (FI C). .
There are a number of issues either not addressed or inadequately addressed in the
Environmental Assessment for the proposed Port Priority Designation in San
Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan for Naval Air Station Alameda.
1. Noise. The assessment does not adequately address the impacts of increased
noise levels (if any) with the development of a seaport at NAS Alameda.
2. Light and Glare. The assessment does not adequately address the impacts of light
and ?-lare created by a seaport at NAS Alameda. In articular, the light and glare
would impact the Least Tern habitat to the south, and the adjoining university uses
to the east of the proposed seaport. The light and glare impacts on the Least Tern
were identified by Fis . and Wildlife Service in the development of the NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan.
3. Land Use Incompatibility. The assessment does not adequately address the issue
of land use compatibility with existing and proposed land uses at NAS Alameda. A
major port development would not be compatible with adjoining land uses at NAS
Alameda, including a proposed new university, parks and recreation uses, and the
wildlife habitat proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. Animal Life. The Environmental Assessment does not adequate address the
otential conflicts between marine terminal development and the Least Tern colony
an endangerd species) located in the NAS runway area. The Fish and Wildlife
ervice specifically requested that the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
designate an additional buffer and foraging area in the northeast runway area and
incorporated into parks and recreation as an integrated open space system. This
preeminent recreation area covering 100 -150 acres at the northwestern end of the
runway would conflict with port development.
Mr. William Travis
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
February 22, 1996
Page 2
5. Transportation and Circulation. The Environmental Assessment does not adequately address the
necessary transportation improvements and traffic impacts on the island of Alameda due to port
development. The Multitrans Traffic Impact Study does identify the need for additional access and
improvements in the I- 880/980 corridor; however, the Alameda street system would also have to be
improved including the new Mitchell- Mosley Boulevard and additional improvements along Atlantic
Boulevard.
In addition, any new bridge (or tunnel) built connecting Alameda to the regional highway network
should require, at minimum, four travel lanes and not two. The cost of such a bridge would nearly
double the cost estimates assumed in the Multitrans analysis.
6. Recreational Opportunities. The assessment does not adequately address impacts upon the
quality and quantity of recreational opportunities. The ARRA Community Reuse Plan has
designated all lands adjacent to the Bay and Oakland/Alameda Estuary for recreational use, Bay
trails, and open spaces for public access in accordance with BCDC's coastal management plans and
policies. In addition, a large portion of the northwestern runway area is identified as open space and
recreational uses (including a ppotential "links style" golf course) incorporating alternative predator
foraging areas as required by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Community Reuse Plan
incorporates other regional goals for recreational and open space opportunities that would be lost if
a Seaport were developed at NAS Alameda.
7. Naval Supply Center Annex Alameda - Fleet Industrial Su ply Center (FISC) Annex/Facility.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority concurs with the action to remove port priority
designation from the FISC site. Impacts and required mitigation related to alternative development
of the FISC site is now being considered in the Navy's /City of Alameda's EIR/EIS for base closure.
Please note that the name of the Supply Center Annex has recently been changed to the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Alameda Facility /Annex.
8. Removal of Port Designation from other NAS Alameda Lands. The Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority concurs with the proposed action to remove port priority designation from
all other areas of NAS Alameda.
Many of these impact issues will be addressed in the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan EIS/EIR
to be conducted by the Navy and scheduled for completion in January 1997. One of the development
alternatives that will be considered in the Navy's EIS/EIR will be a Container Port development in
the northern runway area. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact
Paul Tuttle, ARRA Planner, at (510) 263 -2870.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/PT /jcb
cc: BCDC Board
MTC Board
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Governing Body
travisbc.dc
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandra R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
Ronald V. Dellums
9th Congressional District
Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Wilma Chan
'ervisor, District 3
..ameda County Board
of Supervisors
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
" -,cutive Director
Recycled paper
February 27, 1996
G.G. Piche (m)
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard
Commander, Maintenance and
Logistics Command Pacific
Coast Guard Island
Alameda, CA 94501 -5100
Dear Admiral-Piche:
(510) 263-2870
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
On January 31, 1996, the ARRA Board formally adopted the Community Reuse
Plan that will become the basis for the Navy's EIS and ROD. Chapter 8 outlines the
disposition strategy that the community recommends to the Navy. On page 8 -7 of
that chapter (see enclosed) the Plan recommends that "the ARRA proposes to apply
for the properties through the EDC at no cost and to exercise the lease back through
the federal agencies mechanism proposed in the pending 1995 Defense
Authorization Act."
The Defense Authorization Act recently passed and was signed into law. Section
2837 of the Act is the provision that allows the Secretary of the Navy to "transfer"
property to an LRA, who in turn would immediately lease back the property to a
federal agency. Now that the "leaseback" provision is law, the ARRA would like
to formally explore that mechanism for conveyance and leaseback with the Coast
Guard.
Also, Commander Rod Smith advised me that the Coast Guard has pursued the idea
of having a "reverter" clause in the title that would allow the property to revert to
the City of Alameda or the ARRA should it no longer be needed by the Coast
Guard. Commander Smith tells me that EFA West Real Estate Center personnel
advised him that title could be conveyed with such a reverter provision. Hence, we
would like to explore that option as well and determine which mechanism would be
most advantageous to both of us.
We are scheduled to meet with a team from EFA West and NAVFAC headquarters
on March 6 to explore conveyance mechanisms with them for all property at NAS,
including the housing. Following that meeting, I would like to meet with your staff
to discuss conveyance and management of the housing.
RADMN G.G. Piche
February 27, 1996
Page 2
Our Base Transition Coordinator, Norma Bishop will be contacting LTCDR Smith to arrange a
meeting on March 12 that will also include Dave Ryan of EFA West, CAPT Christiansen, Navy
Public Works, and me. We look forward to a very productive collaboration with the Coast Guard
in working toward a mutually beneficial solution of issues around the housing you require.
Very truly yours,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
cc: ARRA Board
Dave Ryan, EFA West
CAPT Christiansen, Public Works, U.S.N.
LCDR Roderick L. Smith, U.S.C.G.
Bob Brauer, Congressman Dellum's office, Washington D.C.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Margaret E. Ensley, ARRA Secretary
DATE: February 27, 1996
SUBJECT: OEA Mission Statement and Program Parameters
Following is a copy of the OEA Mission Statement and program parameters as provided by Mark
Braly in response to your request at the January 31 ARRA meeting.
Recycled paper
E
Pcs
iii
c o
es) em4
CA
AIM
4)
v
tiod
S 1 u .cltiv ti
to ;Saga. 'It8 I e)
• e42
• -a U .- o a. ` > -v
a �.o a . a vb a�
0
ca Q .� vJ o c o .-. e)
vUi O � c4 0 .� .5, g W g Q 1
ilFd0.5,. a) o F
i d ca .5 g w 7
) U b
� o2 (9 'Ud9
2 d � g 's Q3 1
0 v . o oQ a p + f
a v a) r..:
tir 2 .fl
C2 (0 43) fl.' 4.1
VI b 2 et) ) 0 4 '5
I '
Q 8 0 0. dl
O
w w B o si
ii a U� o .'"' 52 �
fr Q.9
v1 cC ,G
cu
3 -Es
oo
yj G, ' a 0 o
W 4 . U
Q O bp c° S
N "O 0 0
• g
c.
a
`Lt ` '`� o d
.,
o 4 bb 743 ve 72
a. 0.4 crl t) 0 :t) Ada
• a O a) cd
E 'g a) p g C C .
• .g 2e 0 >^
Po
• -0. �01a
3m
O
El § e't g 1 ,2,4 G ¢. = O • pP, 5
W t •; Q4 l
033 '▪ 't":31 0P.i ccq 2 '112 i 1
03 - 1 4 44 ) LA
o
CO) ° c> Q ✓
'
et
.W c>
. • a to ,o 2 .,4 -0: C
'� c'"' c* gLa v, cs
• u
o
• .S
9 Q. -o
A.4 O O O g
g o.�
�° a
2
g � gip,
g_O t"c O cd O
#1 b
.
.U., zU
a bU �s yia Q v
o
E16 .6
.75 .§ � 4 0 0
U O
2 - •- -0 _ri O O 0
o �, o N ti pQ U N
a� �
` .. _
w 0 -d b
ti V ao
taa o O . � +a' '5 ,a .
a�
� it � 4.=
a, g. .5 o
5. -''c 4).4)
"IC14 73 7?4 5
0
r r° § w
.a ) (4 4
cr> E 4:2
"CS C' •9 E b -
4)
S O N U en
a)
y 'U O y 'Q 2 � O .�O U 5
-v
0 ,-..r ff z 0 .4 t...4
,O0. -a °"3 s
a s a 0 .� aV y ar y+ t.,
as
Cj
41
.0 .5 c a g .2 g
'F't a) > cc o .5 m y s o
O w n � o v
5 u ar
c3 _ .� as
e E 0 c `� : 8�� 00 o `.•moo " o
O 'Aa'�a8 � .1 0 2 g
w a) '� 2 O .
.5. „i, e a a) ,hd 0-11- 0vv�.�▪ 0 2 �1ooaw4y3
(::::, F, ce A •a , .z 0
v...▪ ) . ,T, 0 .,0 1.- ti "
Fy ' o g • o k °) 5 7 Q, o
st014
a
0 cd
cci
E
N
4- 0
' ▪ .9
.y 0 zs v) -8 i
a . v 0
is .., 0
ild C o o
o i
o A .2 L°
a. o �,
�
6 ° b o, .8 �
o a■ o co
rn
a G o a , er' o v �� c
a> iil „ D rtg o a
y 2 -0
O i iGi� U ''r ,d` CMG Vt f+' .. 8 5 4� g Et,
Po .(C c w.0
o o R a 5..
.o
� y v y 8 S O 1:3 y g
D
Yd .34 rn
:G d o'A S
8 y 4.1 .5 2
c a �c to �, Ri
-0 a a 0 •a y ��, ea n.
do 0 2 L
4 -,
a w o o
o b rn 04 .4 0 p A ai �b va y o to
yy O ce•
i ct, C � o d R . C '
to .s g 3 .gE §VArc1-5 gitgt
U d i -v ° b ] y `' 2
." o 1 ai gm bo
a0� 00 v' r:#3 V3 a R
• •
0 �w a.a> o o.�
o V S
M
44
2 .
42
= I 'A %4 •
0 0 R
'
..0 .ti
Q Fr. > CI 0 -,00. •
›.. 5 tib .......
5Cag
: 0, co
o 4-. ---.
g 0 a Mn
to c)
1.. -0 •E g 0., .0
0
i• Cd
i Erill r...).,
/•14
• P•14
• ..' I .0 .. .5
li g 0,;,1 0 CI
*4 g
, ,F4
,...., N .01 e -11 -2 , a ‘,. v, c..) ....
o 0 3 g a '
a- - o
0
§ ...
13
w CO ri.4 M ce • "Z • • • , 4 • .•
4.4 0
n ig ... E v1.14 a 47 0 0 44.. ta ., .1 §
o
)
L.-.
..m.
AI It a A i .5 0.4 en 4-4
c....)
fz3
'0
... 2 -
a) %
..„ ot.
Y., •••••■
ca 6
C, pi* ,...■ 11, E". :g 1.) rd sz -, boi
1.>
g Q I I • .o
: o 2 z . V-) 2
c7) 25
.t:a „„ 73 ,,t,
0 0 0 2
cd ;,.d ro i un
.1.0 0
er.,1 j i 5,1
gn. •1 A io 3 g " , 4.1 IS 0 0
tcl 7; g .,:, ra. ell -- es 4) 0 ,s -0 0
.5 5 Is. 2 .5 0
MO .L., 'S 0 a .-g
14
t.....
0. -o '.
. uo
0.
-?? 1 52 i 2 'zn 0
tu o 0 g. '8
if 11 0
:ILI' 0 d S E
r_
4.) 0
ao g- M .e■1 g
..0 <.,
. ..g.
r...., s=.3 i,, 2 • ..e, 2
-0 .0 -
gok 2 Lci, .6 43 4 _en' 0 v) .5 '''' ,0) e•I
0 "0 ...4 ••- 4 -, .
k..., ...
Pit
<0
- e
4) -5 • 17,-.
4..). fli) 0 1.0 )1-4 z 0 4, -z •••
te.4 0
tr .00 I1
"El
Z 29 ou 0 ler artZ - S ; C r
.. 0 „ "e)
0 •'-'
0
0 0 ...: VI al -,74 6, .. .
•S ,,g .18 'tt 04 cl ce•
0 N .-ii
...,,,, 0 di ..zo so 2
-. E .g 45 .5 g:
< 'I 5 4 n ,,,,. n 0 .,g• L... >,.., .z., - -g -0 Itt V • Ir. 1., Cr) 0 _ 4) 2 , 5 .7,-, ,,,,
8 _ _ _
u = = .c) .74 0 . 0 .0 • O 2 • , * .5 g:
LA g
t" €1,0.2..5g.tgo•
. .0 ....., t., „ .
col 22
cc
1
C) IN 1.1 a 0 0
11) .
6 ?„
owo?..giri),.,.g.79 -iig;r2 sir20,4-0,1/43z.43.-041,04),,e
cp(/6 1 0.g2 c=e.. l . •0 '3 ,•I 2 • . g 8 ,. ..t 1 b. 1 05 ?.. . 0 4P€ 1 4 - 0 0 • e 0 8 a 5 PE6 I,t.-m,," 4 1 o 0 . c4 .0Ei .6.. , . .
. k1 tb , ' . ' ' dE 0 E l § tEa) b . . -- 3 04 5 V) I ■ t*Ec . 04 4 4 . =..8 0ft . ,cc..,.- : , - . f-_"re .; ...' 4
4 1 0
,-.-
;11
4) 1-4 11)4 tr.1 3
.0 p
rri 4c 0 E.
.. 6' d'
g 4-4
CID
0
m g < .ct
0 >
I •
A-
a) to
.s 8
‘).
2 _ = - ti g 1;z4
g o
52 e
1 tN itl
.g 1 1— k i 0 i
1 .....
=
Cia 04 > =
VI
0 0
. cr -c4<4! ?0 "C) CI, • .6> .B 1 2 .,...„
0 rn . . . . . eu
1(4 a
- e
E 8 A
a
.10 -a .8 44 A 44 41,1
-8.
• g • Z
6 no .ck go sal
111
rn 0 7g.
c::,
ct.
c> ti 4 „ ...
.... 0
I • ..,,,
At
.4 v.. o o co •-•-• c•
Q.,. -cii.i.. a )E 8
_.8
c::,
4,
r4 .g .c:1 = 45 0 vr
— fc I 8 8 V
8
..lo 1 1 .:67. E F2,
'I' El IrC 0
esi 0 0 I., In
a,
0
s Z At rest .g)
;t: % 0 _ c4
< I f
E E
o .1
• --F; Fe
cs.
g I 0 -3 al
0 e 6
. ...-
..0 '8
a ....■ JO a 0
0
0. so.1 0
V 3: 7,
g
8 4, -g
4.) 45'7g
o 1 ks r "0 4..?. —
.1* blE t i tO e CA .1 2
.4 0 4
o B ti z . .9. -0*
-8 r/..•,
0 ,..-4 4 .E. 0
4 8 .1
0
w • tz
>CA
4\ Pecil' al rE rcq ,t1
ii i • 4'3 .§ 1 U
1 w 2 8 `4
S 5 4 g c ..=
og 0E1
u ,0
Tei 4) to .9 i 6 i .4 1 ',Si S3g>
.> -. 3 .c.) ``..." 8 ra ... 1.-.
t• U g -. 1 ilci(g. ylPEtigr:-Atsgp-i°611
a 0 •IN
'A ros -,•.; a cy , .0 8 0 E.. o• >,., r,„„ ,.., aa ..= w ..4 ,_.„ r) lo ch •• c„,) u
.E.,
g.
.0 etv:5,4
z
1 I i" 1 ie. 4 4 XI ..i ril t'•• S '0' a 1 2 sl 1 8 2 S cQ r` -,° E: t4 el) g A. r 4 • S S - 0
2 a Ts g v" §
111144*2344'4g.se." cl".1gca8CDPiR '&111 15E
= 4t :4 ■ ELI
(1
tonald Reuther,
Executive Director
President Emeritus
fill Cox,
Administrative
Assistant
loard of Trustees:
1:. Robert Hall,
MGen USAF (Ret)
President
)avid Brocker
IQnna Cheatham
in Cox
:d Davies
Vice President
eRoy Gillead
Imes Gray
lyde Grimes
erry Howell
Secretary
uy Marschner
om Northrup
red Patterson
obert Payne
ichard Perkins
n Roger
Treasurer
-ank Schelling
r' ...'rd Sowell
Western Aerospace Museum
8260 Boeing Street
Post Office Box 14264
North Field, Oakland Airport
Oakland, California 94614
January 27, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 - 5012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RECE1\/Efl
. JAN 2 9 1926
BASE CONVERSION OFFICE
CITY OF ALAt1i:UA
(510) 638 -7100
FAX: (510) 638 -0223
The Western Aerospace Museum wishes to go on record in
support of retention of a limited use /restricted airfield
at the current Nimitz Airfield, Naval Air Station Alameda,
and in support of a museum complex at NAS Alameda to
include the USS Hornet and an aviation history museum.
These entities, and others, would be mutually beneficial in
creating a first class museum complex at NAS Alameda, which
would be an economic, cultural, historical, entertaining
and recreational facility of significant benefit to the
City of Alameda, the East Bay, and the entire San Francisco
Bay Area.
The unique location and circumstances that exist would
allow such a facility to be largely compatible with the
plans already developed by the BRAG process and to enhance
the wishes and economic needs of the City of Alameda and
the Bay Area. Such a complex would be certain to be one of
the most popular such complexes existing anywhere and we
would be pleased to support it.
This letter was unanimously approved the Board of Trustees
of .the Western Aerospace Museum at the annual meeting on
January 27, 1996.
Very truly yours,
H. Robert Hall
Maj. Gen. USAF (Ret)
President
cc: BRAG
NAS Alameda Museum
USS Hornet Foundation
Capt. James Dodge, Commander, NAS Alameda
Alameda Jleuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandrt R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
Ronald V. Dellums
9th Congressional District
Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Wilma Chan
lervisor, District 3
.Lameda County Board
of Supervisors
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
ecutive Director
.7 Recycled paper
March 4, 1996
Mr. Gary McAfee
2614 Bayview Drive
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: Alameda Historic Complex
Dear Mr. McAfee:
(510) 263-2870
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
I am in receipt of your.letters of February 7 and February 16, 1996 requesting a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Alameda Historic Complex. This
Memorandum of Understanding cannot be issued. Much of the property you specify
is slated to go to the Fish & Wildlife Service, the East Bay Parks & Recreation
District/Alameda Parks & Recreation Department, and the Coast Guard.
As shown on your latest map, the property you specify for "Complex Lite" appears
to include the North Waterfront (now FISC); the North Housing area; a strip of land
for a railroad running along the section of Main Street facing the Oakland- Alameda
Estuary; a large rectangle of land in the Northwest Territories for farms; a wagon
road on the northwestern and western portions of the shoreline trail; Point Alameda
Park; a horseback riding trail and wagon road through a large portion of the Wildlife
Refuge; and a use marked "unknown" over the entire western corner of the Wildlife
Refuge.
The shoreline trail and northwesternmost tip of the island are proposed to be
transferred via public benefit conveyance to the East Bay Parks & Recreation
District/Alameda Parks & Recreation Department for development of bicycle/
walking trails and Point Alameda Park. This region - serving use has the full support
of the community.
The Wildlife Refuge will not be under the purview of the Reuse Authority but will
operate under the auspices of the Fish & Wildlife Service. It is doubtful that Fish
& Wildlife would, under any circumstances, allow daily incursions into the refuge.
The North Housing area you have indicated in pink will be occupied by the Coast
Guard —it will not be available for other uses.
In addition, the large area in the Northwest Territories you are interested in is
tentatively designated as a mixed -use area for international commerce and trade
Mr. Gary McAfee
March 4, 1996
Page 2
including light industrial/R &D, and product display centers oriented to maritime industries. This
land has high potential for early development and the income from this area is necessary to help pay
for infrastructure and development on other areas of the base.
As you can see, it is not in our power to give you a Memorandum of Understanding on lands that will
not be ours to lease. Again, as I have stated before, the only option currently available to the ARRA
is an interim lease of property for no more than five years. Much of the property is not available
currently even for interim leasing until the Navy vacates the premises in the Spring of 1997. I
sincerely hope this clears up your questions.
Very truly yours,
VW.i [Wu/
Kay Miller
Executive Director
/mee
cc: Alameda City Council
Bill Norton, City Manager
BRAG members.
overning Body
.alph Appezzato
hair
layor, City of Alameda
andr6 R. Swanson
ice -Chair
istrict Director for
onald V. Dellums
th Congressional District
nthony J. "Lil"
rnerich
ouncilmember
ity of Alameda
'lima Chan
apervisor, District 3
lameda County Board
Supervisors
Chang, Jr.
akland Councilmember
:ruing for
iihu Harris
[ayor, City of Oakland
Ilen M. Corbett
[ayor
ity of San Leandro
lbert H. DeWitt
ouncilmember
ity of Alameda
arin Lucas
ouncilmember
ity of Alameda
harles M. Mannix
ice -Mayor
ity of Alameda
ay Miller
<ecutive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory
Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
March 4, 1996
FIELD(Name)
FIELD(Company)
FIELD(Street Address)
FTRLD(City, State ZIP)
LETTER SENT TO ALL
RECIPIENTS NOTED IN
"COURTESY COPY" AT
END OF LETTER
Re:' BCDC Port Priority Designation of NAS Alameda
(510) 263-2870
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Dear EIELD(Salutation):
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) requests that the BCDC
Board remove Port Priority Designation in the San Francisco Bay Port Plan from all
lands at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center,
Alameda Annex. This request is based on a unanimous vote of the ARRA at its
regular meeting of January 31, 1996.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is a regional agency established
through a joint powers agreement between Alameda County and the City of Alameda.
The ARRA governing body is composed of nine members including: Ronald V.
Dellums, 9th Congressional District; Wilma Chan, Supervisor, Alameda County
Board of Supervisors; Elihu Harris, Mayor of Oakland; Ellen Corbett, Mayor of San
Leandro; the Mayor of Alameda; and, the four Alameda City Council members.
The ARRA is the federally recognized, regional agency charged with tire-planning,
reuse, and redevelopment of NAS Alameda and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center,
Alameda Annex. The ARRA has conducted an extensive regional outreach effort
over the last eighteen months as it formulated the federally required NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan. The Reuse Plan was adopted by unanimous vote of the
ARRA at its regular meeting of January 31, 1996.
The planning process for NAS Alameda and the FISC Alameda Annex has required
the ARRA to consider numerous demands for property from federal agencies,
accommodation of regional homeless needs and other public interests. It has been
a major challenge to balance all of these interests, demands, mandates and constraints
against a fundamental 'goal of reusing the base in order to replace lost jobs and
provide true economic recovery. The President of the United States, in his Five Point
Plan for Base Reuse and Redevelopment, has made job creation and economic
development a top priority.
BCDC Board
March 4, 1996
Page 2
The reuse and redevelopment plans for NAS Alameda have involved a comprehensive effort to
balance national, regional, and local demands and, at the same time, create a fiscally responsible
plan. The goals expressed in the Community Reuse Plan are to preserve large portions of the NAS
Alameda airfield area for open space, habitat protection, recreation, shoreline access and trails, and
potential maritime- related industrial and supporting uses consistent with Public Trust Law. The
Community Reuse Plan designates over 45% of the base for open_ space and recreational needs,
including over 390 acres of dry land and an additional 375 acres of water area for a National Wildlife
Refuge. The plan provides over 15% of the existing housing units (186 units) and over 140,000
sq.ft. of warehousing and 40,000 square feet of commercial space for the exclusive needs of regional
homeless assistance programs. The plan also reserves an additional 585 units for the exclusive use
of the U.S. Coast Guard.
With the extraordinary amount of lands at NAS Alameda dedicated to regional needs, the fiscal
balance for reuse and redevelopment of the site is very tenuous. Any additional lands dedicated to
non - taxpaying or public uses would make implementation of the plan impossible and paying for
infrastructure and needed public services (police and fire) infeasible. Moreover, costs for reuse and
redevelopment are extremely high in the early years when the community has the least resources to
pay for the necessary public improvements and services. Land banking potential development sites
for a speculative future port demand would put an undue burden on the local community to support
the many other regional needs at NAS Alameda. Thus, it.is imperative that all available lands be
reused to help pay for necessary improvement and public service costs.
The unanimous conclusion of the ARRA and the consensus of the community from numerous public
hearings, town -hall meetings, and community planning meetings and workshops is that development
of a container port facility at NAS Alameda is both impractical and unwarranted. Technical studies
conducted in the reuse planning process indicate that future container port develo ment is not
economically feasibility at NAS Alameda and would conflict with the preservation of the Least Tern
(a Federal and State endangered species). Furthermore, the estimates used as the basis of the BCDC
port plan studies do not adequately take into account the increasing efficiencies of modern
technology in the shipping industry. Additionally, the City of.- Alameda does not have the
infrastructure to support port facilities; regional financing is not available nor will it ever be
available; there are no studies or evidence to support the viability of such a proposal; and to any
prudent person, a container port in Alameda just does notmake sense.
Reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda and other base closure sites gives us an opportunity to
meet comprehensive regional planning objectives. Given the increasingly limited number of sites
available in the Bay Area for providing for open spaces, habitat protection, low cost housing,
homeless assistance programs, and economic development and job creation, we, as a region, can no
longer afford to land bank properties for speculative future demands, regardless of their source. The
scarcity of land for regional needs continues to put development pressures on our suburban locations,
bcdc0304.1tr
BCDC Board
March 4, 1996
Page 3
eating up valuable open spaces and habitat, increasing the traffic congestion on an overburdened
regional highway network, and creating additional urban sprawl and air pollution contributing to
global warming.
The reuse of NAS Alameda and other urban base closure sites provides a unique opportunity for the
reuse and redevelopment of older developed areas as "urban in- fill." These urban in -fill sites can
help reduce pressures for urban sprawl in the region's peripheral locations, help reduce long distance
auto trips on the highway system, and thereby reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. At the
same time, redevelopment through urban in -fill can create job opportunities in the East Bay to offset
the devastating economic impacts of base closure.
The community's vision. for NAS Alameda is to maximize its urban location by re- creating the
neighborhood as a new transit - oriented, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive model for
redevelopment that will become an extension of the East Bay community.
Given the economic and functional infeasibility of the reuse of NAS Alameda and the FISC,
Alameda sites for future port development, the ARRA strongly recommends that an alternative goal
of the Bay Area Seaport Plan should be to encourage greater efficiencies and technological
improvements to the infrastructure of the existing ports. We recommend that improvements to
existing port efficiencies are a wiser planning approach than "land banking" limited land resources
needed for other pressing regional environmental and economic goals. If additional terminal
capacity is indeed required, it would make more sense to locate these future facilities in cities that
already have port authorities and facilities in place.
As a regional body, the ARRA has consistently supported regional planning, conservation and
development goals in the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda and the FISC, Alaweda Annex.
The ARRA has supported regional port projects such as the new port improvements at the Port of
Oakland, the Oakland- Alameda Estuary dredging project, and the construction of new port cranes
at the Port of Oakland, thereby limiting potential future airport development at NAS Alameda.
As the Mayor.. of Alameda, Chair of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority governing
body, and a member of the Seaport Advisory Committee of BCDC, I strongly recommend that the
BCDC. board take into consideration the comprehensive regional economic and planning benefits
of reuse and redevelopment of our former military installations and remove the Port Priority
Designation from the Port Plan on all NAS Alameda and FISC, Alameda Annex property.
Removing the Port Priority Designation will not preclude the Alameda Reuse Authority from
considering future maritime uses at NAS Alameda if there is a demand for such uses, if it is
economically feasible, and if a seaport is in the best interests of all concerned. However, retaining
bcdc0304.1tr
BCDC Board
March 4, 1996
Page 4
the Seaport Designation for a future seaport that has no hope of becoming a reality will seriously
impair immediate economic recovery.
Sincerely,
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
cc: BCDC Board
MTC Board
Will Travis, Executive Director BCDC
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Association of Bay Area Governments
bcdc0304.1r
Alameda Reuse and ttedevelopmellt Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre 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
/ '- neda County Board
apervisors
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
March 11, 1996
FIELD': ame)
FIELD ;Company)
FTFLD -Street Address
FIELD ;City, State ZI1
LETTER TO BE SENT TO
RECIPIENTS NOTED IN
"CC:" AT END OF LETTER
(510) 263-2870
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Re: BCDC Port Priority Designation of Naval Air Station Alameda in the San
Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan
Dear FIELD(Salutation):
At its regular meeting of January 31, 1996 the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority voted unanimously recommending BCDC delete the Port Priority
Designation from all lands at the Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet Industrial
Supply Center (FISC) Alameda Annex. (A copy of the motion is attached.) At this
same meeting, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority also adopted by
resolution, the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is a new regional agency
established through a oint powers agreement between Alameda County and the City
of Alameda. The is the federally recognized Local Reuse Authority (LRA)
under the Base Realignment and Closure Act and is charged with the responsibility
for the planning, reuse, and redevelopment of NAS Alameda and the FISC Alameda
Annex. The is the agency respponsible for receiving Navy lands through the
federal property disposition process. In accordance with the base closure process and
President Clinton's five point plan for base reuse, the ARRA has conducted a
eighteen -month planning process for the reuse and redevelopment of the NAS
Alameda and FISC, Alameda Annex sites. This planning process involved extensive
local and regional public input, an extensive analysis of alternative land use scenarios
and a market feasibility study for port and marina uses. :.
The current *San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan designates Seaport Priority for all
naval facilities in the City of Alameda. Recognizing this designation is no longer
appropriate due to the closure of so many naval facilities in the Bay Area, BCDC has
undertaken an update of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. The current
recommendation from the Seaport Advisory Committee on the Seaport Plan is to
remove the Port Priority Designation from all 220 acres on the Northwest Airport
Runway of NAS Alameda. The 220 -acre site is proposed to be "land banked' for
future container port uses. The ARRA has consistently recommended that port
priority designation be removed from the entire NAS Alameda and FISC sites. The
ARRA recommends that Port Priority Designation should not be designated for the
220 -acre northwestern runway site for a number of major reasons as summarized
below:
1. Conflicts with Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Requirements. Port
designation is detrimental to the Least Tern habitat and is inconsistent with the
Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Office recommendations. The
Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that port uses on this site may render a
"jeopardy decision" for the NAS Community Reuse Plan. Thus, the Federal
Endangered Species Act takes precedence over the Port Priority Designation.
This is the same reason that BCDC recommended port designation be removed
from all wetlands at NAS Alameda. Port uses are incompatible with a Wildlife
Refuge for the following reasons:
BCDC
March 11, 1995
Page 2
a. Large port cranes and overhead container conveyances (240 feet high) would impact the
wildlife habitat by providing perch sites for predators.
b. Lighting for port development and cranes would adversely impact the wildlife habitat areas
by lighting adjacent nesting areas at night, creating additional visibility for night predators
such as owls, stray cats, rats, etc.
c. Port uses would attract predators such as feral cats, rats, ravens, gulls, etc. that would
endanger the wildlife.
2. Faulty Port Demand Assumptions. The port cargo forecast assumptions used as the basis of
future container port demand projections are fundamentally flawed and inaccurate. The
ARRA' s Marina/Port Consultant estimated that port demand could be accommodated with new
technological improvements and efficiencies at Oakland's Port and new Intermodal Teuninal.
3. Excessive Operating Expenses. Development of a port at NAS Alameda would add shipping
costs for the additional movement of containers across the estuary that would make any port use
noncompetitive and uneconomical to operate.
4. Detrimental to Regional Economic Needs. "Land banking" NAS property for speculative
needs 20 -25 years in the future would severely impact base reuse potential and negatively
impact the regional need for jobs and economic development, particularly in the East Bay,
Oakland, the City of Alameda, and Alameda County. The larger regional need to replace jobs
lost due to base closure is critical. Planning for a single special use or special interest such as
port demand does not consider the needs of the region from a comprehensive and more balanced
perspective. Regional planning must strike a balance between the needs of one special interest
and the comprehensive needs of the whole community. The regional economy is driven by a
full range of industries that must be balanced with housing, homeless, parks, recreation, and
open space needs.
5. Port Designation is Inconsistent with the Federally Mandated Community Reuse Plan.
The NAS Community Reuse Plan is a comprehensive plan that tries to balance a number of
regional and local goals and objectives. The plan is based upon President Clinton's Five - Point
Plan for early and effective reuse of closing bases. The federal government has charged local
communities with the responsibility of defining a plan with the major objective of replacing
jobs lost due to base closure. "Land banking" tederal.property for a projected f ,tune port use
is inconsistent with the needs of the region.
6. Minimal Landside Access. Existing rail and truck access to Alameda is severely constrained.
To operate a port effectively would require an additional bridge or tunnel for truck and/or rail
access. Costs for an additional bridge or tunnel (estimated at $300 to $700 million) could not
be paid for by port development. Even a crane over the estuary is projected to cost $150
million. In short, port development is not feasible due to limited access. This is the same
reason that BCDC recommends container port designation be eliminated from the City of San
Francisco and Vallejo's Mare Island, as well as other. portions of NAS Alameda.
7. Land Use Compatibility Conflicts. Port use and development of the northern waterfront site
is incompatible with the planned surrounding land use in the area. Use of large overhead cranes
and a conveyor spanning the Oakland/Alameda Estuary would be a visual blight to surrounding
areas and would not be com-Datible to the surrounding land uses at NAS Alameda and Oaklpanc.
Port
urrounding would
residents create the reuse and redevelopmentipotent al of other areas at NAS
Alameda.
8. Bay. Conservation and Open Space Conflicts. The Community Reuse Plan designates major
portions of the Northwestern Territories for open space, recreation, shoreline trails and public
access along the Bay. Port Priori Designation is inconsistent with BCDC's own conservation
and open space goals in the San rancisco Bay Plan.
bcdcport.des
BCDC
March 11, 1995
Page 3
9. Port Management Conflicts. Management and operation of five container docks could not
compete with the Port of Oakland. Any port development at Alameda would likely be required
to be operated and managed by the Port of Oakland. Management of five container berths in
Alameda could not be efficiently managed by the Port of Oakland if a major portion of the
revenue must be shared with the City of Alameda/ARRA. In short, the Port of Oakland could
not pay the additional lease costs for operating a port in Alameda.
10. Excessive Port Development Costs. Costs for port development at NAS Alameda would be
excessive and make any potential port operation of five container berths uneconomical.
Excessive port development costs include additional dredging, port construction, bridge access
development or truck and/or trains, and added costs for a high -span container bridge or
conveyor.
11. Port Operational Conflicts. Development of five new container berths at Alameda would
require widening the Oakland/Alameda Estuary by dredging the north runway area,
approximately 60 -100 feet south, to create a new port. This area of the runway is the most
stable of the till sites at NAS Alameda. The northwestern runway area was once a long sand
spit leading to the bay; The additional widening of the estuary would only create a one -way
channel for ship access into the Port of Oakland. The new wider container ships will be
required to enter the port facilities one at a time, making access to any port terminal less than
efficient.
In summary, this analysis indicates that the possibility of a future container port at NAS Alameda
is incompatible with the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, detrimental to the Least Tern
habitat, of questionable necessity, and likely economically infeasible. Thus, the ARRA recommends
that the BCDC remove Port Priority Designation in the San Francisco Bay Port Plan from all NAS
Alameda and FISC Alameda lands.
If you have any questions-please do call me or our staff We are available to provide any additional
details on our technical assessment and the approved NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/PT /j cb
cc: BCDC Board
MTC Board
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board
Will Travis, Executive Director, BCDC
Governor Pete Wilson
Congressman Ron Dellums
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
William J. Cassidy, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
bcdcport.des
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Margaret Ensley
ARRA Secretary
DATE: February 27, 1996
SUBJECT: New Letterhead Design
Recently, I designed several types of ARRA letterhead for Kay Miller's consideration. The other
side of this page is the design that Kay and the staff chose. At the moment, I have this configured
as a template in our computers —none has been printed.
I used strict protocol to order the names: ARRA Chair and Vice - Chair, then members listed
alphabetically. Before letterhead is ordered, I want to ensure that your name appears the way you
prefer (with/without middle initial, etc.). If you would like to make a change in the way your name
appears, please call me.
1 %0 Recycled paper
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopmeut Authors Y
Naval Air Station Alameda • (510) 263 -2870
Postal Directory, Building 90 Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
February 28, 1996
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre 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
neda County Board
oupervisors
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
fr� Recycled paper