Loading...
1994-08-08 ARRA PacketAGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber (2nd Floor) 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA Monday, August 8, 1994 5:00 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. 11. ROLL CALL A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 13, 1994 ORAL REPORTS A. Workshop/Presentation 1. Alameda Science City Proposal for a civilian reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station in the form of a concentration of high tech industries and applied science enterprise to promote job creation through the commercialization of innovative products 2. ACET (Alameda Center for Advanced Technology) Concept to expedite the development, commercialization and application of new environmental technologies and policies, creating a source of new jobs for the region B. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority AGENDA ITEMS A. Report from General Counsel and Action (if any) Regarding Policy Guidelines for Designation by Each Authority Member of His/Her Proxy and Designation of Remaining Proxies B. Discussion and Action (if necessary) on Resolution to Amend Rules and Procedures Regarding Meeting Time of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority C. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Procedure for Formation of Subcommittees ADDITIONAL ITEMS D. Report from Executive Director Recommending Ratification of a Letter from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security Concerning Comments on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance" and the Pryor Amendment E. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Appointment of a Representative of the Alameda Unified School District to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as a Non-voting Ex-officio Member IV. 0 v. VL 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.) COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVE ' ING BODY ADJOU1 MENT REVISED AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber (2nd Floor) 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA Wednesday, August 3, 1994 5:00 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. ROLL CALL A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 13, 1994 ORAL REPORTS A. Workshop/Presentation I. Alameda Science City Proposal for a civilian reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station in the form of a concentration of high tech industries and applied science enterprise to promote job creation through the commercialization of innovative products 2. ACET (Alameda Center for Advanced Technology) Concept to expedite the development, commercialization and application of new environmental technologies and policies, creating a source of new jobs for the region B. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority AGENDA ITEMS A. Report from the City Attorney and Action (if any) Regarding Policy Guidelines for Designation by Each Authority Member of His/Her Proxy and Designation of Remaining Proxies B. Discussion and Action (if necessary) on Resolution to Amend Rules and Procedures Regarding Meeting Time of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority C. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Procedure for Formation of A Subcommittees ADDITIONAL ITEMS D. Report from Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security Concerning Comments on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance" and the Pryor Amendment E. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Appointment of the Superintendent of the Alameda Unified School District to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as a Non-voting Ex-officio Member IV. 0 v. 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.) COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVE ' ING BODY ADJOURNMENT NILNUTES OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, July 13, 1994 5:00 p.m. The meeting convened at 5:15 p.m. with Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr. presiding. I. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda: Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Mr. Mark Friedman. Aide to Supervisor Don Perata, District 3; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda: Vice-Mayor Richard Roth, City of Alameda; Vice-Chair Sandra Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr.. City of Alameda; Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones, City of Oakland. Absent: Councilman "Lil" Arnerich (District Director Sandra Swanson arrived at 5:25 p.m.; Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones arrived at 5:20 p.m. replacing her alternate City of Oakland Project Director Barry Cromartie). A. Approval of Minutes of May 19, 1994 Councilmember Karin Lucas moved to approve the minutes of the meeting, of May 19, 1994. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Richard Roth and carried by a unanimous voice vote. II. AGENDA ITEMS: A. Designation of Each Authority Member of His/Her Pro,ry Councilmember Karin Lucas requested that the nomination of her proxy be delayed until the next meeting. Mr, Mark Friedman reported that he would be the proxy for Supervisor Don Perata. Mayor Ellen Corbett reported that her proxy would be Kent Myers, Vice-Mayor of San Leandro. Chair Withrow reported that his proxy would be Mr. Lee Perez. Chan wan of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG). Barry Cromartie reported that Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones had chosen him as her proxy (she had not arrived vet to the meeting. Vice-Mayor Roth reported that he also would like the nomination of his proxy proxY o be delayed until the next meeting and asked for discussion regarding the prox issue. He requested that there be some guidelines given regarding proxies. as in the case of the City of Oakland. there was already a proxy representing a proxy. (Mayor Elihu Harris appointed as the Reuse Authority Member who in rum designated Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones as his representative, who in turn designated Barry Cromartie as her proxy.) Chair Withrow stated that the proxy selection needed to be recorded for future meetings. Mark Friedman suggested that. as in the case of Oakland, where the Authority Member has designated their proxy. an alternate may be designated to attend for the proxy, but have no voting. privileges (an ex-officio member). Chair Withrow agreed with Mr. Friedman's suggestion that there could be a member. a proxy, and an alternate for the proxy with no voting privileges. Councilmember Dezie Woods-Jones stated that it was certainly the intent of the City of Oakland that either the Mayor or Councilmember Woods-Jones would make every effort to attend the Reuse Authority meetings. She stated that at the last Authority meeting, proxy selection and guidelines were discussed, and asked whether these guidelines had been established. She added that the City of Oakland would be supportive of the Member and the Member's proxy being voting members, and any alternate to the proxy could participate at the meeting to gather information but not vote. Chair Withrow asked the Assistant City Attorney, Heather McLaughlin, whether the issue of a consistent policy for the assignment of proxies could be voted on at the present time. Ms. McLaughlin stated that the issue should be placed on the next agenda. She reported that the Joint Powers Agreement states that each Member can appoint one alternate, but that it could be interpreted that an alternate could appoint an alternate. B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Powers and Authority of the Executive Director, the Secretary. the Finance Director and the General Counsel Councilmember Karin Lucas moved approval of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Richard Roth, and carried by a unanimous voice vote. C. Repqrt froin the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of the Procurement Policy for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Vice-Mayor Richard Roth asked the Assistant City Attorney whether the Procurement Policy was basically the same as the City of Alameda's. Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin reported that it is the same as the City's but improved, taking into account the federal rules. She added that she had made some minor clerical changes to the agreement (for clarity) and requested that these changes also be approved. Councilmember Karin Lucas stated that several of the Councilmembers were approached by local merchants when this item was on the City Council agenda regarding local preference and asked why, on page 70 of the Procurement Policy, there was a section stating that "local and state geographical preferences shall be avoided". Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin stated that this is a federal requirement. Councilmember Lucas requested that this policy be clarified that when state or local funds are being used that local preference be given. Mr. Mark Friedman agreed, and asked that a clause be added to the Procurement Policy stating that "where legally possible, we will give local preference". The area of local preference was defined as those jurisdictions being represented on the Reuse Authority. Vice-Mayor Roth stated that the federal government is considering taking action regarding money spent on base closures being spent in the regional area, and if this should happen, a local preference would then be permissible. Councilmember Woods-Jones stated that there were no specific goals for Affirmative Action within the Procurement Policy. She stated that Oakland has a more specific policy delineating goals set for 30% local hire, 25% for minority hire, etc. She then asked whether the Members of the Authority could get reports regarding success of the affirmative action plans. 3 Chair Withrow requested that the Executive Director furnish regular reports regarding affirmative action to the Members of the Authority. He felt that the issue should be addressed on a case by case basis. The Reuse Office should monitor the affirmative action goals through reports. and give direction at appropriate times. Mr. Mark Friedman stated that he would like to reserve the opportunity for the Authority to amend the Procurement Policy if this "loose approach to Affirmative Action" does not accomplish what it should. Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson agreed with the comments and asked whether the Authority needed a working committee or sub - committee on procurement to flush out ideas so that the interaction is not always formal on these types of questions. Vice -Mayor Richard Roth moved to approve the Procurement Policy with the understanding that changes could be made in the future; that a clause be added stating that "where legally possible, we will give local preference "; and, that an operating committee be formed in the future of less than a quorum of the members, and to work on an ad hoc basis to review and advise the Reuse Authority on procurement issues. The motion was seconded by Mayor Ellen Corbett, and carried by unanimous voice vote. D. Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Assignment of the City of Alameda's Grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin stated that at the special City Council meeting prior to the Reuse Authority meeting, a resolution was adopted assigning authority for implementation of the City's OEA grant to the Reuse Authority. For background purposes, Don Parker reported that on March 28, 1994, the Office of Economic Adjustment, the federal DOD office responsible for planning grants to undertake base conversion, approved a grant request from the City of Alameda for $581,000 for the period of November 1, 1993, to October 31, 1994. In the Bylaws of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, there is a requirement that the Reuse Authority adopt a budget within sixty (60) days of formation, and the Reuse Authority will eventually apply directly to OEA and become its own fiscal agent with its own budget (after October 31, 1994) . In the interim, in order to initiate planning activities underway through the work of a consultant, the City of Alameda assigns responsibility for grant implementation to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. The City is not assigning 4 the funds or the grant itself. but the responsibility for the implementation of the grant funds. This step is necessary before the Reuse Authority can take action on the consultant selection. Vice-Mayor Roth requested that the contract with the consultant be written so that the City of Alameda does not get stuck holding a bill that it cannot pay if OEA does not provide all the funding, for the consultant. Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin agreed that this would be included in the contract. Vice-Mayor Roth moved for approval of the assignment of the City of Alameda's grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mark Friedman, and carried by a unanimous voice vote. E. Report from the Executive Regarding Adoption of Base Conversion Budget by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Until the Authority Submits Its Own Budget to OEA (Fall 1994) Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin reported that under the Joint Powers Authority Agreement, the Reuse Authority is required to adopt a budget within 60 days of its formation, and that the recommendation is for the Reuse Authority to, in the interim, adopt the Base Conversion Office Budget until the Reuse Authority submits its own budget in the fall. Councilmember Woods-Jones moved that the Reuse Authority adopt the Base Conversion budget until it submits its own budget to OEA in the fall of 1994. The motion was seconded by Karin Lucas, and carried by a unanimous voice vote. F. Report from Executive Director Recommending Approval of Selection of Consultant and Authorization for Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract Mr. Parker, Executive Director, introduced Mr. Paul Tuttle, Reuse Authority Planner, who presented the staff report and recommendation on the consultant selection process. Paul Tuttle reported that the original budget approved for this project was $950,000 for the consultant's work, $300,000 of which was allocated in this current fiscal year ending October 31, 1994. 5 The consultant selection process was carried out in two phases: 1) the issuing of the Request for Proposals (RFP); and. 2) the consultant selection process itself. An RFP Staff Committee was formed to develop the RFP; and the RFP was reviewed by OEA and the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) Staff. A Pre-Proposal Conference was held on May 16, 1994, inviting consultants to submit a proposal by the deadline of June 7, 1994. The. Base Conversion Office received seven excellent proposals on the deadline date. The second phase was carried out in three major steps: 1) the review of the proposals that were submitted; 2) interviews of a select group of proposals (teams); and, 3) follow-up interviews with the top two teams. The proposal review was conducted by a review committee made up of City Staff, the Project Director of the EBCRC, Bill Tuohy, and David MacKinnon of the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) as an observer and information resource. At the committee meeting a short list was prepared. Proposals were read and rated, and the three top teams were selected for interviewing from the original seven proposals. The interview process consisted of an interview panel made up of City Staff, Doug deHaan, Chair of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Reuse Subcommittee, Helen Sause, Chair of the BRAG Economic Development Subcommittee, and Allen Dones, a Commissioner from the EBCRC. Through the interview process, two top teams were selected for follow-up interviews. At this point, the Executive Director, Don Parker, and Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner, went to the offices of these two top teams and conducted follow-up interviews lasting three to four hours each. Following these interviews EDAW was selected and is recommended as the Consultant for the Reuse Plan and Interim Reuse Strategy. The planning process involves five major phases: 1) Reconnaissance Phase; 2) Trends and Analysis of Existing Conditions Phase; 3) Interim Reuse Strategy Phase; 4) Development and Analysis of Alternatives Phase; 5) Adoption of the Final Community Reuse Plan Phase. The Minority/Woman Owned Business Participation of the EDAW team is over 34% total with the minority owned business participation over 6%. The budget/proposal was not a major consideration in the selection; however, EDAW was the lowest proposal at $953,667. The schedule proposes a planning process lasting approximately 16 months to meet the deadline of December 1995. As currently envisioned, the schedule involves four major public participation events happening at key stages in the process. In conclusion. Mr. Tuttle. reported that the choice was a difficult one because the top three proposals and the team composition were all excellent. The executive director recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve the selection of EDAW as the lead consultant for the reuse planning process and that the Executive Director be authorized to negotiate and execute a contract. Councilmember Karin Lucas asked how EDAW was proposing to interact with the Reuse Authority. Reuse Authority Planner Paul Tuttle explained that as part of the public participation process, there are regularly scheduled meetings with the Reuse Authority and the BRAG throughout the five phases. The current proposal includes seven (7) meetings with the Reuse Authority. In addition, there have been eight (8) meetings scheduled with the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) with three or four of these being large, public workshops where the whole community will be asked to participate. There will also be three (3) presentations to the EBCRC for information and feedback purposes. Executive Director Don Parker added that these scheduled meetings are subject to change based on the needs of the community and the Reuse Authority. Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson stated that he was very impressed with the involvement of staff and the different organizations involving the EBCRC and hoped that, as a strategy, consultants could advise staff on how best to direct the EBCRC's activities so that it would be helpful. Mr. Mark Friedman requested John Petrovsky, EDAW Consultant, to indicate which members of the team are women and minority owned firms, and location of the firms. John Petrovsky reported that EDAW is headquartered in San Francisco, Bay Area Economics-Berkeley; Fehr & Peers Transportation-Lafayette; Moffatt & Nichol Engineers-Walnut Creek and San Francisco; Harris & Associates-Concord; YEI Engineers-Hayward; Lamphier & Associates-Oakland; Zander & Associates- Novato; Baseline Environmental-Emeryville with approximately 30% of the contract is located in Alameda County in terms of the dollar amounts. Planner Paul Tuttle further explained that Bay Area Economics is a woman- owned firm, YEI is a minority-owned firm, Baseline Environmental is a woman- owned film, Zander & Associates is a woman-owned firm and Lamphier & Associates is a woman-owned firm. Several of the sub-consultants working with Bay Area Economics are also minority-owned firms including the Northbridge Group and Kitahata Associates. 7 Speakers: Eugenie P. Thomson - President of TTE, Engineering, Inc. Ms. Thomson expressed her concern regarding local preference in the consultant selection process. After discussion by the Members regarding the local preference hiring practices of cities within the region, Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson suggested that if any of the current team members do not work out, that local firms should register directly with the Reuse Authority and that every effort be made to integrate some of these local firms into the process. Mr. Mark Friedman suggested that the Reuse Authority approve the contract subject to the Executive Director, Mr. Parker, and negotiate with the consultant to increase participation of City of Alameda and Alameda County as well as minority films in the team. Councilmember Woods-Jones agreed with Mr. Friedman regarding the direction of Mr. Parker to negotiate upward local participation and suggested a list of firms in the community be compiled for Mr. Parker to utilize in his negotiations. Vice-Mayor Richard Roth suggested that the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission could be a resource for this type of effort to compile a list of qualified local, minority and woman owned firms. Vice-Chair Sandra Swanson agreed that he would take the idea back to the Commission for possible implementation. Vice-Mayor Richard Roth moved that the Reuse Authority accept EDAW, the consultant recommended by staff and authorize the executive director to negotiate and execute the contract, subject to further negotiations by Don Parker with EDAW in an effort to increase the minority and local firms participation in the consultant team. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson and carried unanimously with Chair Withrow voting a very reserved "aye". G. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Appointment of the Superintendent of the Alameda Unified School District to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as a non-voting, ex-officio member 8 Speakers: Ardella Dailey - Assistant to the Superintendent for Transition Planning, Alameda Unified School District Ms. Dailey reported that she was in attendance at the meeting. representing Mr. Chaconas who is currently on vacation. According to Ms. Dailey, Mr. Chaconas is interested in issues regarding decisions that the Reuse Authority will make that will directly impact the Alameda Unified School District as well as other school districts in the area. After discussion by the Authority members, Chair Withrow suggested to Ms. Dailey that rather than having Mr. Chaconas as an ex-officio member. that he be included in the day to day activities of the Reuse Authority Office. Councilmember Appezzato moved that Mr. Chaconas be included on the Reuse Authority as a non-voting ex-officio member. Vice-Mayor Richard Roth stated that he was against the proposed ex-officio member status. Mr. Chaconas discussed the matter with him, and added that he felt that the Reuse Authority does not need to begin the practice of having ex- officio members. As a governing body, the Reuse Authority would have a difficult time drawing the line, i.e., on ex-officio membership. Today it is the Superintendent of Alameda Schools, tomorrow it could be Assemblywoman Lee, East Bay Regional Parks, Oakland Unified School District, etc. Vice-Mayor Richard Roth moved that the matter be tabled to allow the Superintendent to work with staff and if the staff arrangement is not satisfactory, that the issue be placed on a future Reuse Authority agenda. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lucas, and carried by a unanimous voice vote. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) A. Don Parker reported that the next meeting of the Reuse Authority is scheduled for Wednesday, August 3, 1994, and recommended that two items be brought forward on the next agenda: 1) ACET Proposal; and 2) Science City Proposal in a Work Session. The Reuse Authority discussed the process of reviewing proposals, and asked that Don Parker, Executive Director, provide a staff summary and analysis of the proposals for their Work Session. 9 B. Neil Patrick Sweeney asked that the new consultant. EDAW, make contacts with the two local newspapers. the Alameda Times Star and the Alameda Journal: stating that they are the only newspapers which have been printing information on the base conversion activities in Alameda. Mr. Sweeney also requested that information be provided to ethnic newspapers for those who do not speak English. so that they can participate in the base conversion process. C. Richard Nevelyn stated that the reuse of the gun test facility has been approved for reuse by the Navy but is currently in some type of conflict with the BRAC laws. Mr. Nevelyn requested that the gun test facility proposal should also be brought forward as something that the community wants on the next agenda. He also suggested that EDAW respond to public input more than the consultants have done which are working with the EBCRC. D. Tom Okey of Conservation Science Institute reported that his organization is a non-profit group which promotes environmental education and scientific exploration and investigation. Mr. Okey stated that there is tremendous opportunity With the base closure for environmental education that could coincide with many of the other reuse options which have been put forward. His organization will be submitting a proposal through the planning process. IV. Communications From Governing Body Members of the Authority requested that the meeting time of the Reuse Authority meetings be placed on the next agenda. V. Adjournment Chair Withrow adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Brydon Secretary 10 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station - - Postal Directory, Bldg. 90 A lamed°. CA 94501-5012 510-263-2870 FAX 510-521-3764 July 27, 1994 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Don Parker Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority SUBJ: Alameda Science City (ASC) and Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) Workshop Updates: The following includes reports from both Alameda Science City (ASC) and Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) giving updates of what has occurred with each respective proposal since they were last presented to the Alameda City Council. Moreover, the ASC and ACET advocates have come to an agreement on their relationship that is mutually supportive through the planning process. This joint development is beneficial to both concepts and assures that federal funding allocations will not be applied to duplicative work. INTEGRATION OF ACET INTO THE ASC FRAMEWORK: During preliminary discussion and presentations, the ASC and ACET proposals were presented as independent concepts to the Alameda City Council. At that time, the City Council and other community groups encouraged coordination between the two concepts. Subsequent to endorsement of the concepts by the City Council, ASC and ACET have worked together to provide a coordinated effort. As a result of these efforts, the following paragraph will be included as part of the ASC Planning Study proposal summarizing the relationship between ASC and ACET: The roles and relationships among existing East Bay institutions and the proposed ASC will be thoroughly developed. Also, there are other initiatives, supporting economic development and related to base conversion, that might beneficially be integrated in the ASC framework. In particular, the proposed Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) will in principle be merged with the ASC/IITD (International Institute for Technology Development) and become the Center for Environmental Science and Technology (cf. Section 3.3 for a discussion of IITD Centers). The "Appendix on Related Activities" addresses in more detail the relationship between the ASC/IITD and ACET proposals and provides a listing of numerous other activities. The evolution of the IITD' s relationship to federal agencies and the private sector will also be developed in some detail in order to support any requirements for enabling legislation. Also attached is the draft appendix of this document which provides a more detailed summary of this mutually supportive framework. Honorable Members- of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ALAMEDA SCIENCE CITY Status Report as of July 20, 1994: July 27, 1994 Page 2 A significant effort has gone into the development of a detailed proposal to obtain funding for the ASC Planning Study. This proposal is being developed under the guidance of a special working group, Chaired by the University of California (UC) Vice Provost, including key participants from the City and County as well as from the UC, national laboratories and industry. This proposal is nearing completion, and is expected to be submitted to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority during the month of August 1994. The scheduled activities for development of the overall Community Reuse Plan set the pace for the proposed ASC Planning Study and, to assure efficient utilization of information and resources, the proposed ASC Study schedule will be closely coordinated with the overall schedule. After the initial endorsement of the "Alameda Science City" (ASC) concept by the Alameda City Council in March 1994, the advocates of this concept continued to brief, correspond and otherwise communicate with the following interested parties: Individual - Consultants, citizens, reporters, etc. Community Groups - Individuals from EDAB, EBCRC, BRAG Local Officials - Livermore Mayor, City Manager and Staff California State Officials and Staff - S.S. Holben, Assistant Secretary, California Trade and Commerce; Glenn Gilbert, Sr. Consultant, Assembly Task Force on Defense Conversion University of California (UC) - UC Provost, UCB Chancellor and Provost, LLNL and LBL Directors and Staff, UC Committee on ASC, UC Committee on Research Policy Beyond these general activities, the ASC team has made a special effort to meet and confer with the original founders and developers of the "Science-Based Industrial Park" in Hsinchu, Taiwan. The focus of these meetings has been on understanding the key factors in the success achieved at Hsinchu, the statutory basis to support successful operations locally and internationally, the key criteria and processes used to select business products and individual companies, the primary incentives necessary to attract private investment, etc., all of which will be developed in detail in the ASC Planning Study. ALAMEDA CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY (ACET) Status Report as of July 20, 1994: ACET Organizational Development - Current activities of the ACET partners focus on transitional, per-funding planning. These activities include: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 27, 1994 Page 3 Development of incorporation papers. In order to proceed with planning, secure funding and begin staffing, the process has been started to create a non-profit corporation representing ACET. This process requires the creation of by-laws and the establishment of a Board of Directors. Development of by-laws. By-laws have been drafted and are under review. Interim Board. An Interim Board will be created by the Board of Supervisors through a public process. The Interim Board of ACET will then formally initiate the public-private partnerships necessary to make environmental technology commercialization work and will provide accountability in the subsequent planning process. The creation of the Board will also make it easier for participating organizations to justify the hundreds of hours of pro- bono work they have donated to ACET. This Board will be re-constituted prior to the formal establishment of the center. ACET Network Development - The word-of-mouth information about ACET has already stimulated interest in the project in several different areas. Two of the more notable are: Discussions with Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center (NFESC). NFESC has developed or modified a number of environmental technologies for Navy use. They are currently looking for a way to assess their market viability and have asked for ACET help. A preliminary meeting has been held to discuss opportunities for technology transfer. The date for a follow-up visit to NFESC to gain more detailed information and to explore commercial partnerships is being negotiated. Sustainable Communities. Partly on the strength of the ACET proposal, the Alameda/East Bay region is being seriously considered for inclusion in a federal "sustainable communities" project. A white paper on the project is being developed and involvement includes eight cabinet secretaries and both President Clinton and Vice- President Gore. Funding. Besides federal support, ACET is seeking other sources of funding. Business Plan Support. California State University Hayward has offered pro-bono support in writing a detailed business plan for ACET. In addition, a private consultant for an environmental equipment manufacturer has offered his services on a consignment basis. These and other resources will be used as a detailed business plan is developed. Current planning involves activities during the transition period and alternate startup scenarios. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 27, 1994 Page 4 Cal EPA Funding. Recently a number of environmental initiatives have been undertaken by Cal EPA with little or no mention of ACET. A letter, cleared through Trade and Commerce Agency Secretary Julie Wright, has been sent to Cal EPA Secretary William Strock requesting $1.5 million in startup funds for ACET. Respectfully submitted, Don Parker Base Conversion Project Director DP/dl:eb Attachment: Relationship Between ASC Proposal and ACET Proposal DRAFT APPENDIX 22 July 1994 Relationship between the Alameda Science City (ASC) proposal and the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) proposal Although these two proposals were originated by different individuals and are considerably different in scope, they share some common organizational support and some similar goals; for example, • creating jobs, • linking public sector r&d with private enterprise, • developir!g projects to convert closing military bases to productive enterprises. The ASC proposal is larger than ACET in its scope of land use and it features an International Institute for Technology Development (IITD) that supports the broad objectives of national competitiveness, including a Center for environmental science and technology. The ACET proposal envisions relatively modest land use and its focus is more narrowly confined to environmental products and processes, emphasizing remediation and restoration. The University of California (UC) will participate in the ASC Planning Study to support development of a Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station, and the Planning Study will define the appropriate management and organizational approach for the IITD. The ACET proponents have already adopted a specific organizational concept and have drafted papers for formation of a stand-alone non-profit corporation. Strategically, these differences are not in conflict and they can be complementary if properly integrated into the overall Community Reuse Plan. On the one hand, the larger ASC framework can in principle readily accommodate the ACET proposal and, on the other, the success of the ACET proposal could in principle support the larger ASC framework. Given the many uncertainties (funding sources; markets; closure and cleanup schedules; competing proposals from other regions, etc.) associated with base conversion, it is only prudent at this time to retain all proposals that are mutually compatible in principle,until the effort to develop an integrated Community Reuse Plan has had more time to evolve toward a final product. During the development of the Community Plan, it will be important to assure that the ASC and ACET advocates are mutually supportive and that government funding support is implemented without any duplication of effort. While these goals can be largely accomplished by coordinating both efforts through the Alameda Base Conversion Office and/or the Office of the Executive Director, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the ASC and ACET advocates have mutually agreed to support and promote both projects in the following manner: • If ACET is funded as a project independent of ASC, it will proceed without obligatory consideration of the ASC proposal. But if ASC is funded as a project independent of ACET, the portion of the funding for planning and/or implementing the ASC/IITD Environmental Science and Technology Center will be clearly identified as funding for planning and implementing both ASC and ACET initiatives in environmental science and technology. • The ASC Planning Study will specifically evaluate the appropriateness of an ASC/IITD Center for Environmental Science and Technology if, for example, either (a) the ACET corporate structure is not compatible with ASC/IITD business requirements or (b) the ACET proposal is not adopted as part of the Community Reuse Plan. • On a quarterly basis, beginning in the fourth quarter CY94, key planners from each project will meet with the Office of the Executive Director, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, to coordinate activities in support of the development of an overall Community Reuse Plan. • The University of California, as a potential major participant in both projects, will evaluate periodically its potential role in the management and/or coordination of any ASC and/or ACET activities as the Community Reuse Plan is developed. These specific commitments are representative of a much deeper and broader commitment to the strategic objective of beneficial base conversion. July 22, 1994 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment FROM: Heather C. Mc Laughlin Assistant General Counsel Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment RE: Authority Authority Report from the General Counsel Regarding Policy Guidelines for Designation by Each Authority Member of His/Her Proxy and Designation of Remaining Proxies Background: The Governing Body, at its July 13, 1994 meeting, directed staff to agendize for discussion and action, if any, guidelines for the designation of proxies. Discussion/Analysis: Section VI.B. ("Governing Body of Authority") of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that: "Each member shall appoint one alternate as a representative. The alternate shall have all the rights and authority of a Member; however, these rights and authority may only be exercised in the absence of the designated Member." Accordingly, each member of the Governing Body may appoint one alternate (i.e., "proxy") with the same full rights and authority as the designated member. Any additional ex-officio proxies would not have full rights and authority, including the right to vote on a matter before the Governing Body. There are no restrictions on the number of proxies that a member may name, except that only one may have full rights and authority. For ease of administration, a limit of one official proxy and one ex-officio proxy per member would be appropriate. There are also no requirements as to the qualifications of proxies. The Governing Body may adopt such required qualifications as it deems necessary and appropriate, including, but limited to: affiliation with member jurisdictions, related experience and expertise, and availability for Governing Body functions. Honorable Members of the July 22, 1994 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, by motion, approve (1) required qualifications for proxies, and (2) one proxy and one ex-officio proxy for each member of the Governing Body. Respectfully submitted, v ( , \ , Heather C. Mc Laughlin Assistant General Counsel HCM:jo ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 001 ESTABLISHING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETINGS TO DELETE SPECIFIED MEETING DATE AND TIME WHEREAS, on May 19, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopted Resolution No. 001 establishing the Rules and Procedures for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meetings; and WHEREAS, Section 1. Meetings, states that the regular meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority shall be held in the City Council Chamber of the Alameda City Hall on the ILI second Wednesday of each month at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Section 1. Meetings to C) amend the specified meeting date and time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda Reuse and ()Redevelopment Authority that said Authority hereby amends Resolution No. 001 by amending Section 1, Meetings, as attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4\data\reso\arra.meetings DRAFT APPENDIX 22 July 1994 Relationship between the Alameda Science City (ASC) proposal and the Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) proposal Although these two proposals were originated by different individuals and are considerably different in scope, they share some common organizational support and some similar goals; for example, • creating jobs, • linking public sector r&d with private enterprise, • developing projects to convert closing military bases to productive enterprises. The ASC proposal is larger than ACET in its scope of land use and it features an International Institute for Technology Development (IITD) that supports the broad objectives of national competitiveness, including a Center for environmental science and technology. The ACET proposal envisions relatively modest land use and its focus is more narrowly confined to environmental products and processes, emphasizing remediation and restoration. The University of California (UC) will participate in the ASC Planning Study to support development of a Community Reuse Plan for the Alameda Naval Air Station, and the Planning Study will define the appropriate management and organizational approach for the IITD. The ACET proponents have already adopted a specific organizational concept and have drafted papers for formation of a stand-alone non-profit corporation. Strategically, these differences are not in conflict and they can be complementary if properly integrated into the overall Community Reuse Plan. On the one hand, the larger ASC framework can in principle readily accommodate the ACET proposal and, on the other, the success of the ACET proposal could in principle support the larger ASC framework. Given the many uncertainties (funding sources; markets; closure and cleanup schedules; competing proposals from other regions, etc.) associated with base conversion, it is only prudent at this time to retain all proposals that are mutually compatible in principle,until the effort to develop an integrated Community Reuse Plan has had more time to evolve toward a final product. During the development of the Community Plan, it will be important to assure that the ASC and ACET advocates are mutually supportive and that government funding support is implemented without any duplication of effort. While these goals can be largely accomplished by coordinating both efforts through the Alameda Base Conversion Office and/or the Office of the Executive Director, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the ASC and ACET advocates have mutually agreed to support and promote both projects in the following manner: July 22, 1994 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment FROM: Heather C. Mc Laughlin Assistant General Counsel Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment RE: Authority Authority Report from the General Counsel Regarding Policy Guidelines for Designation by Each Authority Member of His/Her Proxy and Designation of Remaining Proxies Background: The Governing Body, at its July 13, 1994 meeting, directed staff to agendize for discussion and action, if any, guidelines for the designation of proxies. Discussion/Analysis: Section VI.B. ("Governing Body of Authority") of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that: "Each member shall appoint one alternate as a representative. The alternate shall have all the rights and authority of a Member; however, these rights and authority may only be exercised in the absence of the designated Member." Accordingly, each member of the Governing Body may appoint one alternate (i.e., "proxy") with the same full rights and authority as the designated member. Any additional ex-officio proxies would not have full rights and authority, including the right to vote on a matter before the Governing Body. There are no restrictions on the number of proxies that a member may name, except that only one may have full rights and authority. For ease of administration, a limit of one official proxy and one ex-officio proxy per member would be appropriate. There are also no requirements as to the qualifications of proxies. The Governing Body may adopt such required qualifications as it deems necessary and appropriate, including, but limited to: affiliation with member jurisdictions, related experience and expertise, and availability for Governing Body functions. Honorable Members of the July 22, 1994 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, by motion, approve (1) required qualifications for proxies, and (2) one proxy and one ex-officio proxy for each member of the Governing Body. Respectfully submitted, Heather C. Mc Laughlin Assistant General Counsel HCM:jo ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 001 ESTABLISHING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETINGS TO DELETE SPECIFIED MEETING DATE AND TIME WHEREAS, on May 19, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopted Resolution No. 001 establishing the Rules and Procedures for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meetings; and WHEREAS, Section 1. Meetings, states that the regular meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority shall be held in the City Council Chamber of the Alameda City Hall on the second Wednesday of each month at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Section 1. Meetings to amend the specified meeting date and time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda Reuse and U Redevelopment Authority that said Authority hereby amends Resolution No. 001 by amending Section 1, Meetings, as attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 \data \reso \arra.meetings Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter-Office Memorandum August 4, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Background: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Don Parker, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Report from the Executive Director Recommending Ratification of a Letter from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security Concerning Comments on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance" and the Pryor Amendment The Secretary of Defense for Economic Security has delayed finalizing the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Community Assistance" and the Pryor Amendment to provide an opportunity for comment. The comments are due in Washington, D.C. by August 5, 1994. Discussion/Analysis: In June 1994, Don Parker was invited to Washington, D. C. to comment on the Interim Final Rule. Subsequent to that invitation, it was requested that concerns or recommended changes to the Final Rule be provided in writing to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security by August 5, 1994. Since the August 3, 1994, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting was cancelled, the letter was signed by the ARRA Chair and mailed August 4, 1994, to meet the comment deadline. Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, by motion, ratify the letter to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance" and the Pryor Amendment. Don Parker Executive Director Attachment Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Inter-office Memorandum July 27, 1994 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Don Parker, Executive Director Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security Concerning Comments on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance'' and the Pryor Amendment Background: The Secretary of Defense for Economic Security has delayed finalizing the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Community Assistance" and the Pryor Amendment to provide an opportunity for comment. The comments are due in Washington, D.C. by August 5, 1994. Discussion/Analysis: In June 1994, Don Parker was invited to Washington, D. C. to comment on the Interim Final Rule. Subsequent to that invitation, it was requested that concerns or recommended changes to the Final Rule be provided in writing to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security by August 5, 1994. The attached draft letter, if approved by the Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, would be signed by the Chair and immediately faxed and federal expressed to the Assistant Secretary on August 4, 1994. Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, by motion, approve the execution of the letter to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance" and the Pryor Amendment. Resp tfully sub'. -I on 'arker Attachment Executive Director August 4, 1994 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security Room 3D854 The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3300 Dear Mr. Assistant Secretary: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance" (32 CFR Parts 90 and 91). These comments are provided on behalf of the recently established Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ("ARRA"). The ARRA is the entity responsible for developing and implementing the reuse and redevelopment plan for the Naval Air Station Alameda ("NAS Alameda"), located in Northern California. Because these comments are organized into several key issues and topics that integrate and address many diverse aspects of the Interim Final Rule, it is neither feasible nor appropriate to provide comments in the requested format. Interim Final Rule is Conceptually Flawed Our overriding concern is that the intent of the President's Five Point Plan (See "A Program to Revitalize Base Closure Communities," July 2, 1993) and the Pryor Amendment (See Section 2903 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1994) has been essentially disregarded in the Interim Final Rule promulgated by the Department of Defense. As a result, the Interim Final Rule is conceptually flawed and should be substantially revised. The President, when he announced his Five Point Plan, and the Congress, when it enacted the Pryor Amendment, made it clear that the foremost priority of the base reuse process would be rapid job creation and economic recovery for affected communities. To assure that this policy goal was met, it seemed logical that the Department of Defense and the military departments would work closely and cooperatively with affected communities to develop and implement a meaningful local redevelopment plan. This plan would comprehensively evaluate the unique economic, social and environmental constraints and opportunities facing affected communities. It would be the guiding framework of the entire base reuse process. The Pryor Amendment, in fact, states that: "The Secretary of Defense shall consider locally and regionally delineated economic development needs and priorities into the process by which the Secretary Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 2 disposes of real and personal property . . . . In determining such needs and priorities, the Secretary shall take into account the redevelopment plan developed for the military installation involved." However, as it is currently written, the Interim Final Rule fails to adequately acknowledge the needs of affected communities, and it gives insufficient priority to the local redevelopment plan. This fundamental weakness in the Interim Final Rule is evident in the "Process Flow Chart for Base Closure Community Assistance" (See Appendix A to Part 91 of the Interim Final Rule), wherein the order of priority for property disposal places community interests, as expressed through the local redevelopment plan, last. As the flow chart indicates, all property transfer decisions, except those to the community, may occur prior to completion of the redevelopment planning process. The priority of interests and order of property transfers diagrammed in the flow chart is currently: 1 Transfers to other Department of Defense agencies; 2. Transfers to other federal agencies; 3. Transfers to homeless providers; 4. Sales to third parties; 5. Transfers to other public benefit conveyance interests; and 6. Transfers to local redevelopment authorities for economic development purposes. Clearly, this hierarchy of property disposal priorities is inconsistent with the intent of both the President's Five Point Plan and the Pryor Amendment. As noted above, the principle goals underlying the President's Five Point Plan and the Pryor Amendment were rapid redevelopment and job creation. One would assume that, in order to accomplish these goals, a jobs-centered property disposal process would be created that would put local economic development and the local redevelopment plan as the first priority in making property transfer decisions. How, then, have these goals been acknowledged in the Interim Final Rule when community interests, as expressed through the local redevelopment plan, are given the lowest priority in the property disposal process? The flawed property disposal process in the current Interim Final Rule would have a significant adverse effect on NAS Alameda. If, as is currently being proposed by the Department of the Navy, final property disposal decisions at NAS Alameda are made prior to the community Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 3 completing its redevelopment plan (currently anticipated to be December 1995), the potential result will be that only a fragmented patchwork of land will remain for economic development purposes. This would preclude any opportunity to develop a coherent and economically viable redevelopment plan. To illustrate this point, we have attached a map depicting current property disposal requests that have officially been filed or, as in the case of the homeless interests, have been stated in a preliminary indication of interest. The Interim Final Rule should be revised to permit the redevelopment authority to complete and submit its redevelopment plan before any final property disposal decisions are made. This policy would not prevent the Department of Defense, other federal agencies, or state and local agencies from submitting their potential interests in a base. Final property disposal decisions, however, would be deferred until the requests have been appropriately assessed in the affected community's redevelopment planning process. The redevelopment plan would either integrate compatible requests or demonstrate how certain requests, because they are inconsistent with the plan, would forestall economic development and job creation potential. Advantages to Local Redevelopment Plan Priority If one understands the process and work undertaken to develop a community-supported redevelopment plan, it is clear that this document can be an invaluable resource to all parties who may have an interest in the base, including the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, homeless providers, beneficial conveyance interests and ultimately, third party developers. The redevelopment plan represents a balancing of interests that acknowledges the constraints and opportunities of the base, measures the economic feasibility of converting the base to new uses, determines the marketing potential for the various potential uses for the base, considers the needs of the local homeless community, and finally, examines short-term opportunities and long-term goals of the community. Preparation of the redevelopment plan involves several comprehensive analyses that can be valuable in making subsequent property disposal decisions. For instance, one focus of the redevelopment plan is an investigation of the existing conditions on the base, including the condition of the facilities, infrastructure, and utilities. Complementing this is a determination of the costs and processes required to upgrade these facilities to meet current building standards and codes, as well as an examination of the costs and processes required to operate these facilities. Another emphasis of the redevelopment plan is an analysis of the various federal, state, and local agency jurisdictions over the property. This provides information on the government policies which may affect eventual land utilization. Additionally, the redevelopment plan considers how environmental conditions on the base will affect its reuse, how elements of the natural environment will require protection, and how environmental clean-up activity will affect both the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 4 short term and the long term reuse of the base. The redevelopment plan also identifies future markets for industrial, commercial, residential, recreational, educational, and other potential uses for the base. This evaluation of market potential provides information that is essential to both a short term interim reuse marketing strategy and long term land utilization plan. In short, by permitting the local redevelopment planning process to precede final property disposal decisions, all interested parties will be in an improved position to make reasonable, balanced and well- informed requests for surplus base property. Additional benefits to completing the redevelopment planning process prior to final property disposal should also be considered. First, the redevelopment plan balances the multiple interests expressed for the base. This balancing process integrates commercial and industrial interests with recreational, educational, residential and homeless interests. The resulting product is a vision of what the community feels is compatible with the surrounding environment. Second, the redevelopment plan, because it is structured around the reality of providing continuous and upgraded utility services, enhanced transportation and infrastructure improvements, and most importantly, a financing plan for public and private improvements, ensures that the economic vision of the future has reality as its basis. Finally, by going through the redevelopment planning process, local land use entitlements such as planning and zoning amendments can proceed. Base property is then greatly enhanced in value and is in a vastly improved position for third parties to express interest either for leasing or sale. Failure to prioritize the local redevelopment planning process will have serious adverse effects on base reuse efforts. If, as the Interim Final Rule currently anticipates, third party sales are attempted prematurely, the likely result would be a breakdown in the relationship between the local community and the military departments. The Department of Defense will be perceived as making decisions for the community without allowing the community to participate in the process. More importantly, any interests expressed in base property will be poorly informed, since vast amounts of information on the physical condition of the property will be lacking. Potential offers will be subject to so many conditions that they will lack any real economically viable substance. A particularly adverse impact would be the effect on leasing activity during the period of advertisement and negotiations. Parties interested in interim leasing would be left with no choice but to defer any decision until property ownership is settled. If the Department of Defense continues with its attempt to market base properties prior to the local redevelopment planning process running its course, the potential loss will be great and the gain very minimal. Indeed, the present Interim Final Rule recognizes this, stating that: "Historically, the process of selling bases, or parts thereof, for fair market value has been time consuming and the proceeds from the few sales of base closure properties has been less than originally anticipated." Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 5 One can only wonder, then, why a process which the Department of Defense knows to be unworkable is being proposed to continue in only a slightly modified form. It is critical that the Interim Final Rule be comprehensively revised in such a way as to require completion of the local redevelopment planning process prior to consideration of any final property conveyances (other than interim leasing). Joint Relationship - Community and Military Cooperation In addition to prioritizing the role of the local redevelopment planning process, the Department of Defense needs to consider a new paradigm in thinking with regard to other aspects of the base reuse process. The emphasis of this new approach should be a base reuse process that is equally advantageous to affected communities and the Department of Defense over the long term. That is, the base reuse process, as embodied in the Final Rule, should involve an informal joint venture relationship between the affected community and the military. Maintenance and Operation Issues One aspect of base reuse and redevelopment that would benefit from a joint venture type of relationship is the transfer of maintenance and operation responsibilities. The transfer of these responsibilities from the military to the affected community must be designed to be a seamless process. In creating rules to assure that this happens, one must recognize the ultimate goals of both parties. For the affected community, the goal in both the short and long term is to achieve a balance of economic development and job creation. For the federal government, the goal in the short term is to minimize maintenance and operational costs through early transfer of responsibility, and in the long term, to assure that economic recovery and job creation are achieved so that the tax base is expanded. In devising base reuse procedures, long term goals must not be sacrificed to short term, and shortsighted, results. An informal joint venture relationship would be particularly valuable in determining the timing and scope of maintenance and operation transfer. The Department of Defense and the military departments must join with the affected community to ensure that facilities are maintained and grounds are kept in a quality condition while interim tenants are found for the base. Transfer of maintenance and operation should not be forced on a community until it can be demonstrated that it is financially and logistically capable of assuming the responsibility. At a minimum, the military must remain responsible until a substantial portion of the property has been conveyed. If there is an arbitrary cut-off date for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 6 maintenance and operation, and the community and utility service providers are not capable or prepared to assume responsibility, the likely result will be a long term loss of marketing potential for the base. Personal Property Issues The process for disposition of personal property could also be improved through a cooperative relationship between the military departments and affected communities. It is critical that personal property conveyance decisions are timed to conform with the local redevelopment authority's completion of a redevelopment plan. As part of the process of devising a redevelopment plan, an assessment of the personal property will take place that will analyze the potential value of this equipment to reuse efforts. The community must be given adequate time and information to make the critical decision regarding which existing equipment is vital to the implementation of its marketing strategy. Personal property disposal decisions should ultimately be based on a demonstration within the redevelopment plan that the community can utilize the property. If the redevelopment plan can make a reasonable argument for retaining personal property to ensure economic recovery, the Department of Defense and the military departments should acknowledge this priority. Interim Leasing Issues An informal joint venture type of relationship would also facilitate the interim leasing process. At present, the Interim Final Rule is virtually silent regarding interim leasing. Nevertheless, interim leasing represents the greatest potential to accomplish early economic revitalization and job creation in affected communities, and the potential for an early termination of the military department's obligation for maintenance and operation responsibilities. In many cases where prior uses of base property were industrial or commercial, there is a likelihood of prolonged environmental clean-up and restoration before final property transfer can occur. For these properties, interim leasing is the lifeline to reutilization. The Interim Final Rule needs to be revised to recognize this extremely important economic potential available to the community and the military. Several provisions should be incorporated in the Interim Final Rule to enhance interim leasing potential. First, the procedures for interim leasing should allow for a long- term master lease to the local redevelopment authority so that it can, in turn, be responsible for the interim leasing process. Second, interim leasing guidelines should permit lease terms that extend well beyond one year. In many cases, interim lessees will ( Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 7 be required to make substantial improvements to bring existing facilities into compliance with building codes and to construct tenant improvements. In addition, lessees will incur substantial expenses in relocating and rehiring a new job force. Few firms will be willing to make this kind of substantial financial commitment if they do not have adequate time in which to amortize these expenses. Third, a mechanism should be provided for leases to convert to sales once the property is suitable for final transfer. Fourth, there needs to be a procedure for coordination with federal environmental agencies which have jurisdiction over environmental investigation and remediation. These investigation procedures and remediation standards must be anticipated prior to entering long term leases in order to assure the lessee of uninterrupted occupancy. Finally, the Department of Defense should adopt standard procedures and policies for lease provisions that will encourage the lending community to participate in the interim leasing process. Protection of the lenders which finance these improvements, and warranties of habitability of the lease premises, will ultimately be required. The Interim Final Rule should clearly distinguish between interim leases made prior to final property disposal and those made after. This is particularly true with respect to the financial arrangements between the local redevelopment authority and the Department of Defense. In the current Interim Final Rule it appears that interim leases prior to final property disposal will be made without a rent sharing arrangement. The economic incentive for the military department is the relief from continued maintenance and operating costs. Leases made after final property disposal, however, involve a sharing of the net operating profit, with 40% of proceeds going to the Department of Defense. Both requirements seem reasonable, but the Interim Final Rule should clarify the necessary requirements for pre- and post-disposal leases. Profit-Sharing Issues A cooperative relationship should also extend to resolution of profit-sharing issues. In particular, the Final Rule should provide that profit-sharing will be calculated on a cumulative basis for the entire base as opposed to as individual buildings or land parcels are sold or leased. Additionally, when determining the net sales and lease proceeds for base properties, the Department of Defense and the military departments need to reach a consensus with affected communities as to acceptable types of community operating and capital costs that will represent reasonable community expenses for marketing, maintaining and developing the base facilities. Each base will have its own set of unique circumstances affecting the rebuilding of infrastructure, supplying of future utilities, and the rehabilitation and/or construction of new facilities. The proposed General Services Administration Regulations: Federal Property Management {41 C.F.R. §101-47; Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 8 Utilization and Disposal of Property] does not sufficiently address the variables that will come into play in determining all of the factors that will calculate into a reasonable profit sharing arrangement. There needs to be a flexible process for the community and the military department to mutually agree on a base- specific formula that can adequately address the multitude of variables that will need to be addressed when ultimately determining a 60-40 net profit split. Conclusion The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority acknowledges that the task of writing the Final Rule is extremely difficult, yet the application of the Final Rule has tremendous national importance. Therefore, the Final Rule needs to be written with a viewpoint of practicality and applicability in order to allow for economic and financing feasibility when implementing the community redevelopment plan. Experts in their respective fields, such as real estate development organizations (e.g., Urban Land Institute), the lending community, and the accounting field, should be quickly assembled to assist the rule drafters to assure that the final product is satisfactory to a broad spectrum of disciplines. The future success of base conversion at NAS Alameda depends, to a great extent, on having the intent of the President's Five Point Plan and the Pryor Amendment carried out to its fullest extent. Only this will ensure that the community's interests are given proper priority and that economic recovery and job creation can succeed. Very truly yours, E. William Withrow, Jr. Chair Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority cc: Mr. William Perry, Secretary of Defense Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Barbara Boxer Senator David Pryor Representative Ronald Dellums Representative George Miller Representative Nancy Pelosi Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Naval Air Station Postal Directory, A himecia. CA 94501-5012 510-263-2870 FAX 510-521-376-1 August 4, 1994 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security Room 3D854 The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3300 Dear Mr. Assistant Secretary: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Interim Final Rule on "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance" (32 CFR Parts 90 and 91). These comments are provided on behalf of the recently established Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ("ARRA"). The ARRA is the entity responsible for developing and implementing the reuse and redevelopment plan for the Naval Air Station Alameda ("NAS Alameda"), located in Northern California. Because these comments are organized into several key issues and topics that integrate and address many diverse aspects of the Interim Final Rule, it is neither feasible nor appropriate to provide comments in the requested format. Interim Final Rule is Conceptually Flawed Our overriding concern is that the intent of the President's Five Point Plan (See "A Program to Revitalize Base Closure Communities," July 2, 1993) and the Pryor Amendment (See Section 2903 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1994) has been essentially disregarded in the Interim Final Rule promulgated by the Department of Defense. As a result, the Interim Final Rule is conceptually flawed and should be substantially revised. The President, when he announced his Five Point Plan, and the Congress, when it enacted the Pryor Amendment, made it clear that the foremost priority of the base reuse process would be rapid job creation and economic recovery for affected communities. To assure that this policy goal was met, it seemed logical that the Department of Defense and the military departments would work closely and cooperatively with affected communities to develop and implement a meaningful local redevelopment plan. This plan would comprehensively evaluate the unique economic, social and environmental constraints and opportunities facing affected communities. It would be the guiding framework of the entire base reuse process. The Pryor Amendment, in fact, states that: "The Secretary of Defense shall consider locally and regionally delineated economic development needs and priorities into the process by which the Secretary Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 2 disposes of real and personal property . . . . In determining such needs and priorities, the Secretary shall take into account the redevelopment plan developed for the military installation involved." However, as it is currently written, the Interim Final Rule fails to adequately acknowledge the needs of affected communities, and it gives insufficient priority to the local redevelopment plan. This fundamental weakness in the Interim Final Rule is evident in the "Process Flow Chart for Base Closure Community Assistance" (See Appendix A to Part 91 of the Interim Final Rule), wherein the order of priority for property disposal places community interests, as expressed through the local redevelopment plan, last. As the flow chart indicates, all property transfer decisions, except those to the community, may occur prior to completion of the redevelopment planning process. The priority of interests and order of property transfers diagrammed in the flow chart is currently: 1. Transfers to other Department of Defense agencies; 2. Transfers to other federal agencies; 3 Transfers to homeless providers; 4. Sales to third parties; 5. Transfers to other public benefit conveyance interests; and 6. Transfers to local redevelopment authorities for economic development purposes. Clearly, this hierarchy of property disposal priorities is inconsistent with the intent of both the President's Five Point Plan and the Pryor Amendment. As noted above, the principle goals underlying the President's Five Point Plan and the Pryor Arnendment were rapid redevelopment and job creation. One would assume that, in order to accomplish these goals, a jobs-centered property disposal process would be created that would put local economic development and the local redevelopment plan as the first priority in making property transfer decisions. How, then, have these goals been acknowledged in the Interim Final Rule when community interests, as expressed through the local redevelopment plan, are given the lowest priority in the property disposal process? The flawed property disposal process in the current Interim Final Rule would have a significant adverse effect on NAS Alameda. If, as is currently being proposed by the Department of the Navy, final property disposal decisions at NAS Alameda are made prior to the community Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 3 completing its redevelopment plan (currently anticipated to be December 1995), the potential result will be that only a fragmented patchwork of land will remain for economic development purposes. This would preclude any opportunity to develop a coherent and economically viable redevelopment plan. To illustrate this point, we have attached a map depicting current property disposal requests that have officially been filed or, as in the case of the homeless interests, have been stated in a preliminary indication of interest. The Interim Final Rule should be revised to permit the redevelopment authority to complete and submit its redevelopment plan before any final property disposal decisions are made. This policy would not prevent the Department of Defense, other federal agencies, or state and local agencies from submitting their potential interests in a base. Final property disposal decisions, however, would be deferred until the requests have been appropriately assessed in the affected community's redevelopment planning process. The redevelopment plan would either integrate compatible requests or demonstrate how certain requests, because they are inconsistent with the plan, would forestall economic development and job creation potential. Advantages to Local Redevelopment Plan Priority If one understands the process and work undertaken to develop a community-supported redevelopment plan, it is clear that this document can be an invaluable resource to all parties who may have an interest in the base, including the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, homeless providers, beneficial conveyance interests and ultimately, third party developers. The redevelopment plan represents a balancing of interests that acknowledges the constraints and opportunities of the base, measures the economic feasibility of converting the base to new uses, determines the marketing potential for the various potential uses for the base, considers the needs of the local homeless community, and finally, examines short-teiin opportunities and long-term goals of the community. Preparation of the redevelopment plan involves several comprehensive analyses that can be valuable in making subsequent property disposal decisions. For instance, one focus of the redevelopment plan is an investigation of the existing conditions on the base, including the condition of the facilities, infrastructure, and utilities. Complementing this is a determination of the costs and processes required to upgrade these facilities to meet current building standards and codes, as well as an examination of the costs and processes required to operate these facilities. Another emphasis of the redevelopment plan is an analysis of the various federal, state, and local agency jurisdictions over the property. This provides infoimation on the government policies which may affect eventual land utilization. Additionally, the redevelopment plan considers how environmental conditions on the base will affect its reuse, how elements of the natural environment will require protection, and how environmental clean-up activity will affect both the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4. 1994 Page 4 short term and the long term reuse of the base. The redevelopment plan also identifies future markets for industrial, commercial, residential, recreational, educational, and other potential uses for the base. This evaluation of market potential provides information that is essential to both a short term interim reuse marketing strategy and long term land utilization plan. In short, by permitting the local redevelopment planning process to precede final property disposal decisions, all interested parties will be in an improved position to make reasonable, balanced and well- informed requests for surplus base property. Additional benefits to completing the redevelopment planning process prior to final property disposal should also be considered. First, the redevelopment plan balances the multiple interests expressed for the base. This balancing process integrates commercial and industrial interests with recreational, educational, residential and homeless interests. The resulting product is a vision of what the community feels is compatible with the surrounding environment. Second, the redevelopment plan, because it is structured around the reality of providing continuous and upgraded utility services, enhanced transportation and infrastructure improvements, and most importantly, a financing plan for public and private improvements, ensures that the economic vision of the future has reality as its basis. Finally, by going through the redevelopment planning process, local land use entitlements such as planning and zoning amendments can proceed. Base property is then greatly enhanced in value and is in a vastly improved position for third parties to express interest either for leasing or sale. Failure to prioritize the local redevelopment planning process will have serious adverse effects on base reuse efforts. If, as the Interim Final Rule currently anticipates, third party sales are attempted prematurely, the likely result would be a breakdown in the relationship between the local community and the military departments. The Department of Defense will be perceived as making decisions for the community without allowing the community to participate in the process. More importantly, any interests expressed in base property will be poorly informed, since vast amounts of information on the physical condition of the property will be lacking. Potential offers will be subject to so many conditions that they will lack any real economically viable substance. A particularly adverse impact would be the effect on leasing activity during the period of advertisement and negotiations. Parties interested in interim leasing would be left with no choice but to defer any decision until property ownership is settled. If the Department of Defense continues with its attempt to market base properties prior to the local redevelopment planning process running its course, the potential loss will be great and the gain very minimal. Indeed, the present Interim Final Rule recognizes this, stating that: "Historically, the process of selling bases, or parts thereof, for fair market value has been time consuming and the proceeds from the few sales of base closure properties has been less than originally anticipated." Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 5 One can only wonder, then, why a process which the Department of Defense knows to be unworkable is beingproposed to continue in only a slightly modified form. It is critical that the Interim Final Rule be comprehensively revised in such a way as to require completion of the local redevelopment planning process prior to consideration of any final property conveyances (other than interim leasing). Joint Relationship - Community and Military Cooperation In addition to prioritizing the role of the local redevelopment planning process, the Department of Defense needs to consider a new paradigm in thinking with regard to other aspects of the base reuse process. The emphasis of this new approach should be a base reuse process that is equally advantageous to affected communities and the Department of Defense over the long term. That is, the base reuse process, as embodied in the Final Rule, should involve an informal joint venture relationship between the affected community and the military. Maintenance and Operation Issues One aspect of base reuse and redevelopment that would benefit from a joint venture type of relationship is the transfer of maintenance and operation responsibilities. The transfer of these responsibilities from the military to the affected community must be designed to be a seamless process. In creating rules to assure that this happens, one must recognize the ultimate goals of both parties. For the affected community, the goal in both the short and long term is to achieve a balance of economic development and job creation. For the federal government, the goal in the short term is to minimize maintenance and operational costs through early transfer of responsibility, and in the long term, to assure that economic recovery and job creation are achieved so that the tax base is expanded. In devising base reuse procedures, long term goals must not be sacrificed to short term, and shortsighted, results. An informal joint venture relationship would be particularly valuable in determining the timing and scope of maintenance and operation transfer. The Department of Defense and the military departments must join with the affected community to ensure that facilities are maintained and grounds are kept in a quality condition while interim tenants are found for the base. Transfer of maintenance and operation should not be forced on a community until it can be demonstrated that it is financially and logistically capable of assuming the responsibility. At a minimum, the military must remain responsible until a substantial portion of the property has been conveyed. If there is an arbitrary cut-off date for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 6 maintenance and operation, and the community and utility service providers are not capable or prepared to assume responsibility, the likely result will be a long term loss of marketing potential for the base. Personal Property Issues The process for disposition of personal property could also be improved through a cooperative relationship between the military departments and affected communities. It is critical that personal property conveyance decisions are timed to conform with the local redevelopment authority's completion of a redevelopment plan. As part of the process of devising a redevelopment plan, an assessment of the personal property will take place that will analyze the potential value of this equipment to reuse efforts. The community must be given adequate time and information to make the critical decision regarding which existing equipment is vital to the implementation of its marketing strategy. Personal property disposal decisions should ultimately be based on a demonstration within the redevelopment plan that the community can utilize the property. If the redevelopment plan can make a reasonable argument for retaining personal property to ensure economic recovery, the Department of Defense and the military departments should acknowledge this priority. Interim Leasing Issues An informal joint venture type of relationship would also facilitate the interim leasing process. At present, the Interim Final Rule is virtually silent regarding interim leasing. Nevertheless, interim leasing represents the greatest potential to accomplish early economic revitalization and job creation in affected communities, and the potential for an early termination of the military department's obligation for maintenance and operation responsibilities. In many cases where prior uses of base property were industrial or commercial, there is a likelihood of prolonged environmental clean-up and restoration before final property transfer can occur. For these properties, interim leasing is the lifeline to reutilization. The Interim Final Rule needs to be revised to recognize this extremely important economic potential available to the community and the military. Several provisions should be incorporated in the Interim Final Rule to enhance interim leasing potential. First, the procedures for interim leasing should allow for a long- term master lease to the local redevelopment authority so that it can, in turn, be responsible for the interim leasing process. Second, interim leasing guidelines should permit lease terms that extend well beyond one year. In many cases, interim lessees will Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 7 be required to make substantial improvements to bring existing facilities into compliance with building codes and to construct tenant improvements. In addition, lessees will incur substantial expenses in relocating and rehiring a new job force. Few films will be willing to make this kind of substantial financial commitment if they do not have adequate time in which to amortize these expenses. Third, a mechanism should be provided for leases to convert to sales once the property is suitable for final transfer. Fourth, there needs to be a procedure for coordination with federal environmental agencies which have jurisdiction over environmental investigation and remediation. These investigation procedures and remediation standards must be anticipated prior to entering long term leases in order to assure the lessee of uninterrupted occupancy. Finally, the Department of Defense should adopt standard procedures and policies for lease provisions that will encourage the lending community to participate in the interim leasing process. Protection of the lenders which finance these improvements, and warranties of habitability of the lease premises, will ultimately be required. The Interim Final Rule should clearly distinguish between interim leases made prior to final property disposal and those made after. This is particularly true with respect to the financial arrangements between the local redevelopment authority and the Department of Defense. In the current Interim Final Rule it appears that interim leases prior to final property disposal will be made without a rent sharing arrangement. The economic incentive for the military department is the relief from continued maintenance and operating costs. Leases made after final property disposal, however, involve a sharing of the net operating profit, with 40% of proceeds going to the Department of Defense. Both requirements seem reasonable, but the Interim Final Rule should clarify the necessary requirements for pre- and post-disposal leases. Profit-Sharing Issues A cooperative relationship should also extend to resolution of profit-sharing issues. In particular, the Final Rule should provide that profit-sharing will be calculated on a cumulative basis for the entire base as opposed to as individual buildings or land parcels are sold or leased. Additionally, when determining the net sales and lease proceeds for base properties, the Department of Defense and the military departments need to reach a consensus with affected communities as to acceptable types of community operating and capital costs that will represent reasonable community expenses for marketing, maintaining and developing the base facilities. Each base will have its own set of unique circumstances affecting the rebuilding of infrastructure, supplying of future utilities, and the rehabilitation and/or construction of new facilities. The proposed General Services Administration Regulations: Federal Property Management {41 C.F.R. §101-47; Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security August 4, 1994 Page 8 Utilization and Disposal of Property] does not sufficiently address the variables that will come into play in determining all of the factors that will calculate into a reasonable profit sharing arrangement. There needs to be a flexible process for the cornmunity and the military department to mutually agree on a base- specific formula that can adequately address the multitude of variables that will need to be addressed when ultimately determining a 60-40 net profit split. Conclusion The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority acknowledges that the task of writing the Final Rule is extremely difficult, yet the application of the Final Rule has tremendous national importance. Therefore, the Final Rule needs to be written with a viewpoint of practicality and applicability in order to allow for economic and financing feasibility when implementing the community redevelopment plan. Experts in their respective fields, such as real estate development organizations (e.g., Urban Land Institute), the lending community, and the accounting field, should be quickly assembled to assist the rule drafters to assure that the final product is satisfactory to a broad spectrum of disciplines. The future success of base conversion at NAS Alameda depends, to a great extent, on having the intent of the President's Five Point Plan and the Pryor Amendment carried out to its fullest extent. Only this will ensure that the community's interests are given proper priority and that economic recovery and job creation can succeed. Very truly yours, E. William Withrow, Jr. Chair Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment A thority cc: Mr. William Perry, Secretary of Defense Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Barbara Boxer Senator David Pryor Representative Ronald Dellums Representative George Miller Representative Nancy Pelosi CORRESPONDENCE A lameda Reuse and Redevelopment A uth ority .Nraucil Sitartm 1' tal Dtrectiin., `)() Alameda. C.1 510-263-28770 .V 510-521-37'64 July 2g, 1994 The Honorable Barbara Eox,=- Ha-r-z Eu7d'na Washiraton, DC 20510 Re: Succor for HR 3838 - McKinney Act Amendments Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the local agency responsible for managing reuse and redevelopment of Naval Air Station, Alameda ("NAS Alameda"), I wish to express our full support for House Resolution 3838, particularly the amendments the bill makes to the Stewart S. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. We hope to enlist your help in passing this critical legislation. Section 881 of HR 3838 would provide for certain amendments to the portions of the Stewart 2, McKinney Homeless Assistance Act which affect the Property disposal process at closed or realigned military installations. Specifically, these amendments would bring homeless assistance programs more: closely into the military base reuse and redevelopment planning process. The amendments would permit homeless providers and affected communities to work in concert, rather than separately, to assure that all interests benefit from the redevelopment of closed and realigned military bases. In addition, these amendments would instill balance, trust and reasonableness in a system which presently cultivates contention and mistrust. For this reason, we view the proposed amendments as a "win-win" approach to base reuse and redevelopment. Most importantly, the amendments in HR 3838 will generate informed decision-making. By bringing homeless providers and:the community together throughout the redevelopment planning process, all parties will have the necessary information to make rational decisions about property transfers. Currently, no interested homeless providers ever have the requisite amount of information, early enough in the process, to be certain that their interests are truly met. The proposed amendments will change this, to the mutual benefit of homeless interests and local communities alike. In supporting HR 3838 we hope you will also seek to broaden its applicability to all portions of closed and realigned military bases. The current leaislation would only apply to parcels of base property which were not listed for potential homeless use prior to July 1, 1994. Several parcels at NAS Alameda, however, were listed on June 24, 1994, only days before the proposed cut-off. Uniform applicability is also essential for bases like NAS Alameda which are just commencing their redevelopment planning. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment .-tuthoritv ,Vava/ A H. Postal Director:. 81(1,,, (nt ,-1/aine1a. C.-A Y-15f 'I -2'012 510-263-2870 FAX 510-521-376-1 July 26, 1°94 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Dirksen Buildina #367 Washinacon, DC 20510 Re: Support. for HR 3838 - McKinney Act Amendments Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the local acency responsible for managing reuse and redevelopment of Naval Air Station, Alameda ("NAS Alameda"), I wi:Fh to express our full support for House Resolution 3838, particularly the amendments che bill makes to the Stewart. B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. We hope to enlist your help in passing this critical lecislation. Section 861 of HR 3838 would provide for certain amendments to the portions of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act which affect the property disposal process at closed or realigned military installations. Specifically, these amendments would bring homeless assistance programs more closely into the military base reuse and redevelopment planning process. The amendments would permit homeless providers and affected communities to work in concert, rather than separately, to assure that all interests benefit from the redevelopment of closed and realigned military bases. In addition, these amendments would instill balance, trust and reasonableness in a system which presently cultivates contention and mistru-st. For this reason, we view the proposed amendments as a "win-win" approach to base reuse and redevelopment. Most importantly, the amendments in HR 3838 will generate informed decision-making. By bringing homeless providers and the community together throughout the redevelopment planning process, all parties will have the necessary information to make rational decisions about property transfers. Currently, no interested homeless providers ever have the requisite amount of information, early enough in the process, to be certain that their interests are truly met. The proposed amendments will change this, to the mutual benefit of homeless interests and local communities alike. In supporting HR 3838 we hope you will also seek to broaden its applicability to all portions of closed and realigned military bases. The current legislation would only apply to parcels of base property which were not listed for potential homeless use prior to July 1, 1994. Several parcels at NAS Alameda, however, were listed on June 24, 1994, only days before the proposed cut-off. Uniform applicability is also essential for bases like NAS Alameda which are just commencing their redevelopment planning. Alameda Unified School District We Serve Children July 28, 1994 Mr. Don Parker Base Conversion Project Director City of Alameda NAS Postal Directory Bldg. 90 Alameda, CA 94501-5012 Dear Mr. Parker: Superintendent's Office located in; Historic Alameda High School 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, California 94501 (510) 748-4060 FAX (510) 522-6926 Dennis K. Chaconas, Superintendent On Thursday, July 28, 1994, Ardella Dailey informed me that you had made a decision to not put the proposal for the Alameda Unified School District ex-officio membership on the Reuse Au- thority agenda for Wednesday, August 3, I was shocked by your decision due to the fact that you had not made any effort to contact me prior to making this decision. For your information, upon return from my vacation, I personally contacted Mayor Withrow concerning this issue. The call I made to the Mayor was as a follow-up to the first Reuse Authority meeting on July 13. I was informed by Ardella that, at that meeting, a discussion took place concerning the potential of the District having a staff position in lieu of an ex-officio member- ship on the Reuse Authority. Upon hearing this information from Ardella, I immediately contacted the Board 'President Sam Huie and the Board Vice-President Gail Greely to determine their perspec- tive on these options, Both Board members strongly believe that the District should have an ex-officio member on the Reuse Au- thority. This position would be filled by an elected official of the Board of Education of the Alameda Unified School District. They also believe that, in addition to the ex-officio member, I or my designee should serve as a staff member to the Reuse Au- thority to ensure that the best interests of the students of Alameda County will be taken into consideration in the decision- making process. After conferring With staff, I personally contacted the Mayor of Alameda Bill Withrow about my decision concerning an ex-officio membership on the Reuse Authority. Since I had no prior discus- sions with you concerning this issue, I assumed that my discus- sion with the Mayor would clarify this issue. CILV of \Izime(Li California August 1, 1994 The Honorable Sam Huie . President, Board of Trustees Alameda Unified School District 2200 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Sam: I received a copy of Superintendent Chaconas' letter to Don Parker, dated July 28, 1994. As you will recall, the proposal to put a representative of the Alameda Unified School District on the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority originated with me. I put the concept forward during the initial meetings in the development of the Reuse Authority charter and charge. I have supported the concept in many forums and meetings since then. I have been cautioned by a number of people who have expressed a concern relative to a potential diffusion of focus by the Authority, if there are a number Of single agenda representatives at the table. I proposed and supported the idea of having the Superintendent as a member of the Conversion Office staff as a compromise. I still view that as a valuable concept. However, I strongly support your position, and that of Vice President Gail Greely, with respect to additional participation by the School District. Therefore, I propose that the President of the Alameda Unified School District Board of Trustees be recognized as an Ex-Officio Member of the Authority Board. I also propose that one proxy be allowed, to be consistent with the established Board policy. E. William Withrow, Jr., Mayor Office of the Nlayor, Room 301 City Hall Alameda Unified School District We Serve Children July 27, 1994 Commander (Code 241) Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 900 Commodore Drive San Bruno, CA 94066-2402 Attn: Ms. Beverly Freitas Dear Commander: Superintendent's Office located in: Historic Alameda Hich School 2200 Central Avenue Alameda. California 94501 (5101748-4060 FAX (5101512-692h Dennis K. Chaconas. Superintendent Subject: Expression of Interest - Alameda Naval Air Station The Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) is interested in acauiring property at the Alameda Naval Air Station in accordance with Statute 40 U.S.C. 484(k) (1) (A) as a public benefit conveyance transfer of propert. It is our recuest that the deadline for preparation and submission of a formal application be December 31, 1995. This timing is based upon our knowledge that the proposal must be coordinated with the Total Base Reuse Planning Process. The proposed use of the properties is for educational purposes. AUSD is a tax-supported public education school district. The school district currently operates many of the programs proposed for the NAS properties; therefore, transfer of operating funds will transfer with the relocation of the program. The specific properties we are interested in are: Georae P. Miller School - Since 1965, AUSD has operated an ele- mentary school (K-5) at this location surrounded by Navy housing. The school building was built by AUSD, but the fenced-in land area is owned by the Department of Defense. This school will continue to operate in order to serve the U.S. Coast Guard fami- lies and other families to be located in the housing units. NAS Child Care, Trailer, and Yard Space - This facility could be used by the AUSD Child Development Program to provide toddler, preschool, and school-age child care services to low-income families. There is a small trailer on the grounds of the child care facility which could be used by AUSD for support services, such as psychologists, speech therapists, for child care and George P. Miller School. Attn: Ms. Beverly Freitas July 27, 1994 P.2. Auto Shop and Land Area Adjacent to Encinal Hich School - The facilities of the auto shop can be used by the Recional Occuza- tion Program for educational training. The land and facilities can be converted to a maintenance yard, warehouse, and cen:L7a1- ized kitchen for AUSD. It is located adjacent tc Encinal Hich School, and with the waterfront area included as an outdoor educational program, the area would provide an emphasis on marine and environmental education as well as sports. We estimate the total to be 40 acres in this area. Tennis Courts - There are tennis courts located near Encinal Hich School which would be used as part of the physical education curriculum for Encinal High School. Baseball and Soccer Field - Located a few blocks from George P. Miller School near Mosley Street, it would be an excelenz addi- tion to our physical education program for the elementary, mid- dle, and high schools in that area. Movie Theatre - Would be used as part of the fine arts curriculum for Encinal Hich Schoc]— Other uses would involve the community access for theatrical and recreational uses. Public Works Center Housinc Office - Would be used as a site for administrative offices for AUSD. Family Service Center - Staff development training center to be operated by AUSD Educational Services Department, Materials Encineerinc Lab - A second choice for location of administrative offices for AUSD. If additanal .11-rformatiol': is required, please feel free to contact me or Al-della Dailey (510) 337-70"62 at the Bove address. inc De Superintendent of Sc ools DKC:AD:bt 7191b..6 Parker, Base Conversion Office Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority Attn: William Norton George E. Hoops, U.S. Dept. of Edu'. EAST BAY REGKAAL PARK DISTRICT W\IMOIDIRECIO ,c.CeyConOz a'esCJ, Ica lake Occ DoumaS Sen etav July 26, 1994 5.43,,SrnaM Te3sLwer ,or-003mV Mr. Pete Sly ch.enes U.S. Department of the Interior JearSr National Park Service PaCnn Western Regional Office 600 Harrison Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94107-1372 Subject: Expression of Interest for Facilities at Alameda Naval Air Station Dear Mr. Sly: We are pleased to have received from the National Park Service, information regarding the Military Base Closure Process, with specific reference to the Alameda Naval Air Station. It is our understanding from your letter that if the City of Alameda, the Alameda Unified School District and the East Bay Regional Park District are interested in owning and operating park and recreation facilities and land areas at Alameda Naval Air Station, as a first step, a proposal for such use should be submitted to the National Park Service. In turn, the National Park Service would use this expression of interest merely to insure that in the future, when final land use decisions are made, that our interest will be considered. This letter, therefore, is prepared and submitted in response to your request. It is our understanding that: 1. Subsequent to submission of this proposal, it will be necessary for us to submit an official application conforming to the National Park Service Application Process. 2. This initial proposal, as submitted, can be reduced' in size related to a total concept, as our comprehensive planning process for base re-use is completed. \ RD OF DMICA ocyn Corms President rea Racke e PfPsioem Douglas S aer Sec 'eta/1 Susan Smaw treasurer Jom 0 Dome' U•S• Department of Education Ohverhomes Attn: Mr. George E. Hoops Jean n Federal Real Property Assistance Program Jackson Federal Office Building patcer, 3ener,laae 915 Second Avenue, Room 3364, Code 10-9070 Seattle, Washington 98174-1099 Subject: Expression of Interest for Facilities at Alameda Naval Air Station EAST BAY REGiCNAL PARK DISTRICT July 26, 1994 Dear Mr. Hoops: We are pleased to have received from the National Park Service, information regarding the Military Base Closure Process, with specific reference to the Alameda Naval Air Station. It is our understanding from your letter that if the City of Alameda, the Alameda Unified School District and the East Bay Regional Park District are interested in owning and operating park and recreation facilities and land areas at Alameda Naval Air Station, as a first step, a proposal for such use should be submitted to the National Park Service. In turn, the National. Park Service would use this expression of interest merely to insure that in the future, when final land use decisions are made, that our interest will be considered. This letter, therefore, is prepared and submitted in response to your request. It is our understanding that: 1. Subsequent to submission of this proposal, it will be necessary for us to submit an official application conforming to the National Park Service Application Process. 2. This initial proposal, as submitted, can be reduced. in size related to a total concept, as our comprehensive planning process for base reuse is completed. EAST BAY RE iCNAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Jocelyn Ccrnos Presicem Ted RacWe lficePrmdem DotiglasSiden secretary July 26, 1994 Susan &Tim Treasurer Jam gDomO Oliver Homes jean Sm Commander (Code 241) patol3ner, Attn: Ms. Beverly Freitas General Manager Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 900 Commodore Drive San Bruno, CA 94066-2402 Subject: Expression of Interest - Alameda Naval Air Station Dear Ms. Freitas: The undersigned agencies are interested in acquiring property at the Alameda Naval Air Station, in accordance with Statues 16 U.S.C. 667b-d, 40 U.S.C. 484 (K)(2) and 40 U.S.C. 484 (K)(1)(A). The contemplated use of the property, for a range of park, recreation, education, and resource management activities, is described at length in the attached concept paper. The concept paper has been approved by the Alameda City Council, the Alameda Unified School District Board of Directors and the East Bay Regional park District Board of Directors. The requested transfer would be in fee title. It is our request that the deadline for preparation and submission of a formal application be December 31, 1995. This timing is based upon our knowledge that the proposal must be coordinated with the Total Base Re-Use Planning Process. Parks, Recreation, Resource Management and Open Space Conceptual Plan For Utilization of Portions of Alameda Naval Air Station Introduction. The Alameda Naval Air Station, in Alameda, California, will be closed shortly, as a part of the National Military Base Closure Plan. Closing of the facility has created a wide range of economic and social problems and challenges for the nearby communities, and an extraordinary effort is in process to mitigate the negative impact of the closure action. The facility (primarily situated within the City of Alameda) is located on the San Francisco Bay shoreline, and it is this geographic placement and the fact that the U.S. Government has already developed significant portions of the site for park, recreation, and open space use which combine to suggest a logical basis for the conversion of these improvements to provide needed public park and recreation facilities and services, and an education center. Accordingly, the following conceptual plan for park, recreation, resource management, and open space utilization of the Alameda Naval Air Station is based upon this concept. A. The location of the Base, and the Park and Recreation Improvements Which are Available. A considerable portion of the Air Station actually fronts directly onto San Francisco Bay. The Navy developed appropriate recreation improvements in two areas along this shoreline, and these recreation improvements were complemented and amended by developed parklands. Existing notable park/recreation improvements adjacent to the shoreline include: Recreation Vehicle (RV) Boat Launch Facility site Various picnic Areas Overnight camp sites Cafe and Recreation Center Fishing Pier Boathouse Marina Softball Field Parklands (lawns, Tennis Courts sprinkler system) Westward from the Air Station, in San Francisco Bay, an extensive breakwater, approximately 8-10 feet in width has been constructed, creating a useful still water area. Access to this shoreline recreation area is readily achievable, as is access between the above-identified improved facilities. A second potential park/recreation complex, located at the northern edge of the site, is formed by the indoor gymnasium/swimming pool building in combination with the nearby Officer's Club facilities, Air Station administrative headquarters, and adjacent housing, located at the eastern perimeter of the station. Improvements include: -3- Swimming (the existing southern extension of the shoreline might provide a potentially excellent bathing beach locale); R.V. campground - use on short and long-term basis for shoreline park visitors (it is possible that the existing number of R.V. sites, 24, can be greatly expanded; Trail systems, connecting to the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Trail, and to other existing East Bay Regional and local trails (e.g., extending trail to nearby Crown Beach); School recreation/interpretive programs could be provided on a cooperative basis with Alameda and other school districts, and the College of Alameda and Adult Education Programs. The breakwater could be improved, to include a visual/hiking experience; benches and observation points could be established, and, consistent with legal requirement, access could be provided to facilitate utilization by seniors and disabled persons; The cafe/recreation building could be utilized for meetings and other activities of shoreline recreation agencies and organizations, and this facility could provide a major, ongoing interpretive program related specifically to shoreline features; A youth fishing program could be established. The existing fishing pier could be extended so that it could accommodate the general public, and fishing supply concession could be made available (i.e., bait, tackle, etc.); The picnic area could be expanded and improved in order to accommodate large groups and school activities; Portions of the improved grass areas could be set aside for day-camping. The existing marina could be converted to a boat rental and fishing supply concession; development of a major marina in the seaplane lagoon operated by public or private interests would also be a possibility; Portions of the area could be developed as a soccer field and informal play area. 2. Community Education Center. At the northern edge of the base, the gymnasium/swimming pool, in combination with the Officer's Club, the Air Station Headquarters, adjacent housing, Bachelor Officers' Quarters, Bachelor -5- A baseball facility with adjacent baseball diamonds could be developed near the shoreline, for use by the local community as well as conference participants. Portions of the existing office buildings could be made available as permanent office and meeting sites for community organizations; this would be similar to the approach used at Fort Mason, in San Francisco, but the utilization would be limited to City of Alameda and other East Bay groups, including, but not limited to, those related to: Environmental protection (ecology orgs.) Scout groups Visual and performing arts Music Seniors Disabled Ethnic/nationality Consumer protection Special recreation interest (i.e., camping; cyclists; equestrians; hiking, etc.) A portion of the residential compound could be established and operated as a youth hostel Miller-Sweeney School and the nearby child development center could continue to be operated by a resource for the existing adjacent residential neighborhood C. Wetlands Protection. At the northern edge of the station an extensive wetlands area exists. The park and recreation program would include a plan for appropriate preservation and protection of the wetlands, and an interpretive program which is designed to create public awareness and acceptance of the vital significance of wetlands. The environmental agenda being proposed by the BRAG Environmental Sub-committee will certainly specifically define wetlands protection and other vital issues. (Note: see separate draft of a proposed Resource Management concept paper). D. Economic Impact. Development of a comprehensive Parks and Recreation program would result in a significant positive impact for the City of Alameda and the surrounding East Bay community. During the past 25 years economic studies conducted throughout the United States have demonstrated that the existence of a comprehensive public Parks and Recreation program contributes significantly to the economic well-being of society. Throughout the United States, and most particularly in our -7- E. Conclusion. The existing Alameda Naval Air Station park/recreation/ open space facilities can be converted immediately to civilian, public use, at relatively little cost. Existing federal legislation has established that closed military bases (or portions of the bases) with park and recreation facilities can be transferred at no cost to public agencies, if the land is to be used for public park and recreation. As an example, a large portion of Mather Field, in Sacramento, is now being transferred to the Sacramento County Park and Recreation Department, for regional park and recreation use, and similarly, a smaller part of Mather is being transferred to the Cordova Park and Recreation District, for local park and recreation purposes. If the proposed transfers occur, potential general public use will require special provisions for those facilities of established historical reference; for potential school district use, issues related to earthquake consideration must be addressed. If the indicated lands are made available for parks and recreation use, our Alameda and East Bay communities will be well served. The social implications of such a transfer and use are positive, and immediate. Additionally, and certainly of equal importance, this proposed utilization of the land and facilities, can provide a demonstrable, significant number of job opportunities in maintaining and operating the facilities and programs, and additionally, as noted in the concept paper, the potential positive economic development impacts are considerable. -2- California least terns in existence. The legally protected status of this species (State and Federal endangered species) mandates that this colony and associated habitat continue to be protected. A potential major attraction for residents would be conversion of the air traffic tower to an observation area allowing the public to actually observe behavior and dynamics of the state's largest nesting site for least terns without disturbing the site. A carefully located recreational trail along the shoreline (avoid tern site) also would be a popular scenic attraction providing an extra attraction for hikers and bicyclists. Under Naval management there already exists an extensive jogging trail and this, facility could serve as the basis for creation and management of a public- serving, multi-purpose trail (e.g. equestrian, cycling, hiking, jogging) at a very lovely view site on the Bay. 3-9-94