1994-09-07 ARRA PacketAGENDA
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, September 7, 1994
5:30 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and
upon recognition by the Chair, approach the
rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited
to three (3) minutes per item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing
and only a summaiy of pertinent points presented
verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited
during Authority meetings.
1.
ROLL CALL
A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of August 8, 1994
AGENDA ITEMS
A. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter
from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to the Seaport
Planning Advisor), Committee Requesting that the Committee, BCDC, and
MTC Commit to Reconsideration of the Port Priority Designation Decision
on Naval Air Station Alameda Property After the Community Reuse Plan
is Completed.
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Participate in a Joint Letter to be Sent to the
Navy Requesting a Delay in the Implementation of the McKinney Process
to Provide an Opportunity to Incorporate Homeless Interests Into the
Community Reuse Planning Process.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Conversion and Reuse
Budget Submittal to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA).
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed
Change to Bylaws Allowing Members of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to Receive Meeting
Compensation.
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed
Change to Bylaws Appointing a Representative of the Alameda Unified
School District to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as a
Non-Voting, Ex-officio Member, Specifically, the President of the Board
of Education of the Alameda Unified School District with One Non-Voting
Proxy to be the Vice President of the Alameda Unified School District.
F. Discussion and Action (if necessary) Regarding Procedure for Formation
of A' ' • Subcommittees
04
A.
REPORTS
Joint Presentation by the City of Alameda Recreation and Park
Department, Alameda Unified School District, and East Bay Regional Park
District on Their Beneficial Conveyance Proposal for Alameda Naval Air
Station.
B. Oral Report from Chairman of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group
(BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities.
C. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
IV. 0
COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which
the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is
not on the agenda.)
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVE ' ING BODY
VI ADJOU MENT
NIINUTES
OF THE
SPECIAL MEETLNG
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Monday, August 8, 1994
5:00 p.m.
The meeting convened at 5:05 p.m. with Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr. presiding.
I. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda:
Councilman Arnerich, City of Alameda, Vice-Mayor Kent Myers.
City of San Leandro; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of
Alameda; Vice-Mayor Richard Roth, City of Alameda; Vice-Chair
Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District:
Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr., City of Alameda. Absent:
Councilman "Lil" Arnerich (District Director Sandre Swanson
arrived at 5:20 p.m.) Absent: Aide to Supervisor Don Perata.
Mr. Mark Friedman; Oakland City Councilmember Dezie Woods-
Jones.
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 13, 1994
Councilmember Karin Lucas moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of July
13, 1994. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Richard Roth and carried
by a unanimous voice vote.
II. ORAL REPORTS:
A. Workshop/Presentation - Alameda Science City/ACET (Alameda Center for
Advanced Technology)
Don Parker announced that Alameda Science City and Alameda Center for
Environmental Technologies (ACET) had reached agreement on submitting a joint
proposal that would incorporate ACET as the environmental component of
Science City. Mr. Parker explained that since receiving approval from the
Alameda City Council on May 3, 1994, he had been working with the proponents
of Science City and representatives of the University of California on a
budget/planning proposal. As part of the agreement between Science City and
ACET, ACET will be incorporated in the Science City funding proposal.
Presentation by Science City:
Mr. Jim Davis of Alameda Science City reported that since the Alameda City
Council approval, the Science City proposal has moved into the University arena
where it is working its way through their process. After meetings with the
University, beginning with the Provost of the University, meetings have been held
with people in Sacramento regarding future expansions of the activity to get
broader sponsorship than just a single government agency, local officials and
comrnunity groups. The main emphasis has been on the writing of the proposal.
The milestone agreement with ACET is to be integrated into the Reuse
Authority's community reuse planning process. This work is leading to a phasing
of the Alameda Science City planning study into two major segments: (1) a
preliminary integrated plan which would be approximately 1/3 of the total cost
of the $10m proposal (approximately $3-1/2 million which should come from
more than one source, i.e., $2.5 million from the DoD and another million from
the Department of Commerce). Any future funding would be deferred until after
the preliminary integrated plan is approved by the Reuse Authority and has been
subject to community review; (2) a second parallel path has also been explored
with the private sector to identify at least one or more companies which could be
brought to NAS in the near term. The Science City/ACET Proposal is a strategic
proposal for long term development but interim reuse is being pursued on a
parallel path.
Mr. Davis reported that one of the issues which the Reuse Authority may wish
to address is business incentives. Of the 100 major tax-paying cities in the State
of California, all of them have incentive programs to attract industry in the form
of revenue bonds or free rent resulting in a very competitive environment. If
companies are going to be attracted to Alameda and to the Naval Air Station,
serious attention should be given to providing business incentives. One
significant proposal on reuse will be presented to the Reuse Authority office
involving the potential for a couple of hundred jobs from a manufacturing
company interested in locating at NAS.
Councilman Arnerich commented on the statement made by Mr. Davis regarding
attracting businesses and working together using the example of a recent article
in the newspaper regarding the City of Fremont providing business incentives.and
concessions to attract businesses. He agreed with Mr. Davis that the A
must make every attempt to work to attract potential businesses.
Chair Withrow agreed. He said that this is a market driven process, that the
market determines what the conditions are, and that everything must be done to
promote Alameda's assets and strengths.
11 A
Vice-Mayor Roth suggested that perhaps sometime in the future, Mr. Davis could
share with the Authority Members what types of incentives there are and which
ones would be the most effective.
Councilman Arnerich suggested that it would be best for Mr. Davis to make
presentations through the Executive Director and the BRAG process before it
comes before the Reuse Authority.
Councilmember Lucas asked whether there was any potential conflict in the
recruiting process between the Reuse Authority office and Science City/ACET.
Mr. Davis reported that all potential business proposals presently go through the
Reuse Authority office process and he is in continual communication with the
ARRA Executive Director.
Mr. Parker added that Mr. Davis (Science City) has been approved by the Base
Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), and worked especially close with the Reuse
Subcommittee.
Councilmember Appezzato asked Mr. Davis what he was going to present to the
Reuse Authority at the next meeting. Mr. Davis reported that a planning budget
proposal will be presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
for funding to initiate the Alameda Science City/ACET planning study.
Vice-Chair Swanson, who arrived after the presentation, asked Mr. Davis about
the joining of the Science City/ACET proposal process. In summary, Mr. Parker
stated that the two proposals have been merged from a planning standpoint and
from a funding request standpoint.
Presentation by Alameda Center for Environmental Technology (A CET):
Mr. Rob Johnson of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory reported that the labs and the
University are involved in the process from the public service aspect, attempting
to bring the technical resources and planning capabilities of the labs to the service
of the community. Mr. Johnson reported that bylaws have been written, articles
of incorporation are ready to go, ACET is to be a 501.C3 non-profit corporation
structure, members of the Board of Directors have been identified, and
organizationally, ACET is primed and ready to begin its work. A series of
meetings are scheduled later in the month to develop the detailed business plan
that will fold in with the type of planning requests and funding requests which
will come before the Reuse Authority.
Mr. Mike Lakin, of ICF Kaiser Engineers discussed the matter of business
climate in the environmental marketplace stating that his company has been
looking at the environmental marketplace as a regular part of their business, and
3
have worked in conjunction with ACET for approximately 1-1/2 years. He
reported that his company felt that there is a very large environmental
marketplace, particularly in the Pacific Rim which includes California. This
Pacific Rim area as well as Germany are the two largest expanding markets.
California is ideally situated to play into the market because existing California
regulations are preceding most federal regulations and environmental regulations
in the international marketplace; therefore, most of the activity going on locally
presents an excellent training ground for most of the new emerging markets
around the world. Current size estimates of the marketplace through the
Department of Energy are $500 Billion over the next five to ten years and DoD
is approximately $250 Billion over the same time period. Environmental private
sector marketplaces places parallel these sizes. The marketplace is expanding
very rapidly so the timing is right, the location is right, and ACET is attempting
to fit into that marketplace.
Mr. Bruce Kern reported that some materials had been submitted to Mr. Parker
which put into more detail the numbers which Mike Lakin referred to regarding
the size of the market.
After several organizational questions regarding the structure of both Science City
and ACET, Mr. Davis reported along with Mr. Kern that they had agreed to not
create a structure which would be incompatible with a merger of Science City and
ACET.
After discussion by the Members regarding funding, Vice-Chair Swanson reported
that the significance of this process will be exactly what happens to a conference
process in the Congress, i.e., there are monies in the bill for demonstration
projects, technology centers, such that this project would qualify under and apply
for. How the conference turns out between the House and Senate on that
question will determine exactly what monies are available. Within the next
couple of weeks there will be more word regarding this bill, perhaps in
September, there will be more of an idea of how these monies will be made
available.
Chair Withrow concluded the discussion by stating that he appreciates the
opportunity to have the kind of talents that Science City and ACET bring to
participate in the development of a new Alameda and a new economic engine for
not only the City of Alameda, but the entire East Bay. He added that the region
is indeed privileged to have this kind of talent available.
Speakers:
Neal Patrick Sweeney, a resident of Alameda, requested that more information
about this particular program be delivered to the Alameda Times Star and
Alameda Journal.
B. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority
Mr. Parker previewed the anticipated agenda for the next Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority to be held on September 7, 1994, including: (1)
Presentation of the proposed Reuse and Redevelopment Authority budget being
submitted to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) with funding from
November 1, 1994 to October 31, 1995; (2) As part of the budget presentation.
Report to the Reuse Authority on the process of establishing the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority's own fiscal agent; (3) Report on the planning
study/joint effort by Alameda Science City with inclusion of ACET into the
planning study and endorsement of the request being submitted to DoD or other
bodies for funding; (4) Workshop to hear a joint proposal for parks, recreational.
and educational uses of the Naval Air Station being sponsored by the City of
Alameda's Recreation and Park Department, Alameda Unified School District.
and the East Bay Regional Park District. The deadline for additional items for
the agenda is 5:00 p.m. on the Monday of the week prior to each Reuse
Authority meeting.
Vice-Mayor Roth requested that the portion of the agenda which discusses the
next agenda item be placed at the end of the meeting rather than at the beginning
III. 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
Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin reported that the JPA, as currently
drafted, allows each member to appoint one proxy. This proxy has full powers
of the Member, but it only functions in the absence of the Member. Ex-officio
members can also be appointed; however, according to the way that the JPA is
drafted, only one fully empowered alternate can be appointed. An ex-officio
member can be appointed to act as a third back-up person; however, this person
would be present in a passive, non-voting sense.
Vice-Mayor Roth made a motion to allow one designated proxy with full voting
powers of the Member, (with the exception of the House of Representatives
Member who shall be permitted to have two permanent voting proxies) provided
that the Member is not present, and that an additional non-voting, ex-officio
proxy can be appointed by each Member which will be seated at the staff table
rather than at the podium with the voting members. The motion was seconded
by Councilmember Lucas and carried unanimously.
5
Councilmember Lucas appointed Alameda resident Roberta Hough as her
permanent proxy: Councilmember Appezzato passed: Chair Withrow had
already designated Lee Perez. BRAG Chair as his permanent proxy; Vice-Chair
Swanson designated his Senior Staff Member, Roberta Brooks: Councilmember
Roth designated BRAG Reuse Subcommittee Chair. Doug deHaan: and
Councilmember Arnerich designated Mr. Albert DeWitt.
B. Discussion
Procedures
Authority
Vice-Chair
changed to
Members.
and Action (if necessary) on Resolution to Amend Rules and
Regarding Meeting Time of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Swanson requested that the starting time of the ARRA meetings be
5:30 p.m. to better accommodate the busy schedules of all of the
Councilmember Appezzato moved for acceptance of the resolution to change the
time of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority monthly meetings to the
first Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Lucas and carried unanimously.
C. Discussion and Action (if any) Regarding Procedure for Formation of ARRA
Subcommittees
After discussion regarding the types of subcommittees which may be required in
the future (i.e., Procurement Policy, Marketing, Finance), the number of
Alameda City Council Members permitted to be on any one subcommittee be two
(2). and that subcommittee members volunteer or be designated by the entire
Governing Body for subcommittees. Councilmember Lucas recommended that
this item be continued on the agenda should the need ever arise to form
subcommittees.
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
Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the letter. The motion was seconded
by Councilmember Roth and adopted, with one Member abstaining.
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
6
Speakers:
Sam Huie, current President of the Alameda Unified School District. reported that
the Alameda Board of Education needed to be involved at the Reuse Authority
level because of the need for the Board to have a say in the reuse of the base. and
recommended that a representative of the Alameda Unified School District be
appointed to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as a non-voting.
ex-officio member.
Gale Greely, current Vice-President of the Alameda Unified School Board. added
that the reason that the School District is interested in participating in the Reuse
Authority is the recognition of the interdependency of education and successful
base conversion. She reiterated that a representative of the Alameda Unified
School District be appointed to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
as a non-voting, ex-officio member.
Chair Withrow reported that he had distributed a letter indicating, his support of
the President of the Alameda Unified School District Board be an ex-officio
Member on the Reuse Authority. He added that there is a risk of having a
diffusion of focus: however, in this case he felt that both have the same
constituency, and that there is a very significant inter-relationship between what
is done in converting the base and the quality of education that we experience in
the City of Alameda and other cities in the region.
Councilmember Appezzato concurred with the Chair and added that he had
originally requested that this item be agendized. He stated that the importance
of education on the base reuse and redevelopment effort is not only a factor in job
creation, but a major deterrent to crime and hoped that the Reuse Authority Board
would vote unanimously for this action.
Councilmember Appezzato moved that a representative of the Alameda Unified
School District be appointed to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
as a non-voting, ex-officio member, specifically, the President of the Board of
Education of the Alameda Unified School District with one voting Proxy to be the
Vice-President of the Alameda Unified School District, with the change to be
incorporated into the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Bylaws after
being agendized at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Lucas.
Vice-Mayor Roth reported that he had never withdrawn his concerns and asked
Mr. Huie to answer some questions. Vice-Mayor Roth asked for clarification
of the previous statement by Mr. Huie, "As President of the Board, the Board felt
that it was important for an elected official to be on the Reuse Authority in order
that they may direct staff. ...". Vice-Mayor Roth expressed his concerns
regarding the request: (1) as individuals. Reuse Authority Members do not direct
staff, only as a body; and, (2) when was this request on a School Board agenda
voted on at a public meeting?
Mr. Huie reported that the School Board can make some philosophical decisions
through concensus without necessarily doing a School District agenda: however.
if the Reuse Authority feels it is important enough. the Board will agendize it for
a vote.
Assistant City Attorney reported that if the change is incorporated into the
Bylaws, a vote by at least three Alameda City Councilmembers is required for
passage.
Speakers:
Mr. Dennis Chaconas, Superintendent of the Alameda Unified School District
responded to several of the questions raised by the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority regarding appointment of the BRAG Chair and
placement of the item on the School District agenda.
Chair Withrow reported that a motion had been made and seconded and called for
a vote. The motion was carried six to one.
It was clarified that the ex-officio member will not sit at the Council podium, but
at the staff table.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Speakers:
Richard Neve lin, displaced Depot worker and member of several of the BRAG
committees and several of the EBCRC Committees, expressed his disappointment in the
progress of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as well as the progress of
the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission.
Neal Patrick Sweeney, a resident of the City of Alameda, stated that the formation of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is delaying too long and fighting over
small issues and that the Reuse Authority should get busy with base conversion.
8
V COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he had read Mr. Nevelin's article in the newspaper and
chose not to respond to the newspaper article, even though it was directed to his office. He
stated that fact that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is the body that will decide
what happens at the Naval Base, and it is the body recognized federally to make decisions is
in fact progress. The Port of Oakland's expansion is directly related to job creation and
conversion activity from all of these committees came ideas that have been translated into a
number of legislative proposals which have been enacted into law and that will result in action.
It was out of some of these committees that a piece of legislation is going through Congress right
now which provides that instead of laying off a worker, give an employer $10,000 of their
respective termination monies as an incentive to hire them. This idea came from all of these
committees. The community cannot afford to be pessimistic, but rather should be aggressive.
It was the fire fighters from NAS Alameda who came to the EBCRC Commission and pounded
on the desks and asked, "What are you going to do with the public safety offices?". This issue
is currently in a piece of pending legislation so that if they want to become fire fighters for the
City of Alameda, there is money to do that. This legislation came out of a committee. He
emphasized that Mr. Nevelin's comments are not a fair characterization that nothing is
happening. Of course, the process is slow, and it involves a lot of work. Everyone is trying
very hard to make things happen. He reiterated that he chose not to respond to Mr. Nevelin's
newspaper articles; however. he felt that Mr. Nevelin continually repeats comments which are
not accurate.
Councilman Arnerich agreed with Vice-Chair Swanson that the process is a seemingly
slow and tiresome thing. The BRAG and all the agencies involved are faced with terrible
constraints by regulatory agencies, commissions and boards. Many things have come out of all
the meetings, and that Rome wasn't built in a day.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Withrow adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizaseth Brydon
Secretary
9
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-office Memorandum
August 31. 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Dave Louk. Acting Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ:
Background:
Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Authorize the Executive Director to Communicate With
the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee Requesting the Committee. BCDC.
and MTC Commit to Reconsideration of the Port Priority Designation Decision
for the 198 Acre North-west Portions of Naval Air Station Alameda Property
After the Community Reuse Plan is Completed.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) are revising the 1988 San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan.
The Seaport Planning Advisory Committee is overseeing the plan revision. The Advisory
committee consists of representatives of BCDC. MTC, local port agencies. and various other
public and private entities. The Seaport Advisory Committee has requested the City of Alameda
and the Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) provide comment and input on their port
planning studies at their next meeting.
The Seaport Plan now designates the Naval Air Station Alameda and the Naval Supply
Center (NSC) Annex as Port Priority Use, if no longer needed for military use. This designation
restricts the future land use and development of NAS and NSCAlameda to:
1. Marine terminals and directly related ancillary activities; and,
Public access and public and commercial recreational development provided they
do not significantly impair the efficient utilization of the port area.
Seaport designation precludes other uses except on an interim basis.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page
Au2,ust 31. 1994
BCDC has direct permit authority for the land underwater and inward 100 feet from the
highest tidal action. All development within BCDCs jurisdiction is subject to BCDC permit
requirements. MTC ensures compliance with the Seaport Plan policies through its authority to
withhold Federal Transportation funding where a community does not comply.
The Seaport Advisory Committee has been reviewing four documents as part of their
seaport planning process: (1) Future Marine Terminal Requirements: Proposed Approach for the
1994 Update of the Seaport Plan. prepared by BCDC staff; (2) Strategic Assessment Draft,
prepared by MultiTrans. Transportation consultants; (3) Military Base Opportunities and
Constraints for Civilian Seaport Development. an evaluation and recommendations of potential
civilian seaport development of Bay Area naval bases. prepared by MultiTrans; and. (4) the Draft
Intermodal Report, recommendations for the landside transportation of marine cargo in Oakland.
also by MultiTrans.
On October 8. 1993. owners of the Encinal Terminals in Alameda requested deletion of
Port Priority Designation on their facility, and on May 27. 1994 owners of Alameda Gateway
also requested deletion of Port Priority Designation on their facility.
On March 15, 1994, the Alameda City Council requested that the Port Priority
Designation be deleted from both the NAS Alameda and the NSC Annex, because of
transportation constraints and because of the need for economic development to offset base
closure.
On August 9, 1994. the Seaport Advisory Committee reviewed the MultiTrans and staff
reports on Port Priority Use and Marine Terminal Designations. The consultants recommended
that the Port Priority Designation be removed from the NSC Annex and all portions of NAS
Alameda except for 198 acres in the north-west corner of the airfield adjacent to the Oakland
Inner Harbor Channel.
Don Parker, Executive Director of the Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, also made a
presentation to the Advisory Committee at its August 9, 1994, meeting. Mr. Parker reviewed the
reuse planning process and issues of redevelopment of NAS Alameda. Mr. Parker reported to the
Advisory Committee that Port Designation of NAS Alameda is problematic and premature at this
time, and any decision should be postponed until the completion of the reuse plan for NAS
Alameda.
The next Advisory Committee meeting is being held on Tuesday. September 13, 1994 at 9:30
a.m.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 3
August 31. 1994
Discussion/Analysis:
The Draft Military Base Evaluation for Civilian Seaport Development, prepared by
MultiTrans. evaluates opportunities and constraints for civilian seaport development of Bay Area
military bases: Mare Island. Treasure Island. NAS Alameda. NSC Annex and the Oakland Naval
Supply Center. The study recommends elimination of the Seaport Priority Designation on all of
Alameda except for one location - a 198 acre area in the north-west portion of NAS Alameda
along the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel.
The NIultiTrans report states that "the Inner Harbor Channel seashore north of the
proposed turning basin be designated as container sites in the Seaport Plan. These sites are the
most suitable container sites among the military sites analyzed. except for NSC Oakland. The
sites are technically feasible and limited development could be accomplished with the existing
roadway system. However, a high-level bridge would be necessary to achieve full development.
It is recognized that the reuse plan for NAS Alamzda has not been completed and that seaport
development vill require the support of the City of Alameda". (See page 57, Draft Military
Base Evaluation. July 1994)
The approximately 58 acre, NSC Annex in Alameda just west of Webster Street along the
Inner Harbor Channel is also analyzed in the MultiTrans study. (see attached map). The Draft
report recommends that the NSC Annex site "not be designated for seaport development, even
though it has the third highest numerical rating. Ongoing land use planning (by the City of
Alameda) is intended to provide an integrated development between the Alameda Gateway and
Mariner Square, and major seaport development would be inconsistent with the concept." (See
page 60. Draft Military Base Evaluation, July 1994 ).
However, in reviewing the draft MultiTrans report at its August 9, 1994, meeting, the
Advisory Committee directed staff to reconsider designating the NSC Annex site for "break-
bulk" port uses. The City of Alameda City Council is taking a separate action on this Seaport
Advisory Committee recommendation.
ARRA staffs review of the MultiTrans study identified six major issues which make the
port designation highly infeasible, premature and in need of further study.
1. Access Limitations - The MultiTrans study for Port Designation recognized that
vehicular access is severely limited. The existing tubes are at their peak hour capacity and
additional redevelopment of NAS would fill all existing capacity of the tunnels. Major surface
access improvements would be necessary to develop the NAS site for port use. The MultiTrans
study assumes a "least cost" scenario, with access provided by a two-lane, high-span bridge.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 4
August 3 I . 1994
While such a connection is technically possible. a two-lane bridge would not provide
adequate capacity for future traffic generated by the additional reuse of NAS. Cost estimates for
a four lane bridge would be higher than assumed by the MultiTrans study. In addition. the
estimated costs do not account for land purchase costs.
2. Dredging Cost and Environmental Impacts - The MultiTrans study does not adequately
address the costs and technical problems of dredging_ for new container berths. Toxic
contamination. clean-up and disposal costs for dredging, the NAS site are unknown at this time.
Much of the required dredging area is considered contaminated with unknown toxics. The NAS
Baseline Survey, now underway. will provide a more clear understanding of toxic contamination
latter this year.
3. Conflicts with Fish and Wildlife Request - Fish and Wildlife has submitted a request for
the use of all of the airfield areas for a national wildlife refuge as a nature preserve and bird
sanctuary. The 198 acre site identified by the MultiTrans study for port designation falls within
this area and is incompatible with the Fish and Wildlife request. The reuse planning process is
organized to review all reuse requests and to analyze the costs and benefits of alternative land use
proposals.
4. Airfield Reuse Potential Foreclosed - The existing air field is still being considered as one
potential reuse option in the reuse planning process. A port priority designation would not allow
for the air field as a potential reuse option. A recent EBCRC study ( P&D Aviation. May 1994)
found that the airfield reuse is not likely; however, some aviation facilities may be preserved and
their activities continued. Further marketing would provide an indication of interest in these
facilities. Thus, the reuse planning process has kept the airfield reuse option open for further
consideration.
5. Impact on Potential Adjacent Land Uses - Designation of the north-west corner of NAS
Alameda as Port Priority would severely impact and limit the redevelopment potential of
adjacent property. Port uses are a high intensity industrial type activity that would be
incompatible with lower intensity uses such as parks and recreation, high-tech research and
development, office, housing, etc. Adjacent reuse potential would be limited to compatible uses
such as industrial uses, warehousing, or other marina uses, ship sales and repairs, shipbuilding,
etc. Limiting surrounding land use options would severely hinder the successful economic
redevelopment. reuse and revitalization of NAS Alameda.
Honorable N'Iembers of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 5
August 31. 1994
Seaport designation has deterred the realization of economic potential on other sites in
Alameda. The 1993 "Area-wide Strategy Report". prepared for the City of Alameda. found a
demand for redevelopment of the entire Northern Waterfront area with mixed use. including
housing, rather than continuation of the declining industrial uses along the estuary. Effective
redevelopment and provision of access and amenities requires elimination of both seaport
designation and rail service in these areas.
6. Limited Reuse and Redevelopment Potential - Designation of the 198 acre. north-vest
corner site of NAS Alameda for Port Priority is premature. The existing. studies do not
adequately address the financial feasibility or fiscal impacts of operatin.c., a new container port
facility at NAS given the associated costs and impacts of site development. ie: access, dred2ina,
toxic clean-up, etc. Port priority designation on NAS Alameda prematurely forecloses the
potential reuse of the airfield and severely limits the short term redevelopment of adjoining sites.
Holding large areas of land for an uncertain long term. demand for container facilities would
foreclose immaliate redevelopment potential necessary to make reuse economically viable.
Retaining port priority designation on the basis of what might be needed in 20 years would have
a chilling, effect on the reuse of NAS Alameda.
Financial Impact/Budget Consideration:
Removal of the Seaport Priority Designation will have no impact on existing DoD/OEA
ARRA funding.
Without a seaport designation, MTC and other federal funding, for future access or other
transit related improvements could be effected. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) funds are priority rated for port designated land uses. Thus, without Port
Designation priority ratings for future transportation grant applications (ISTEA) could be
precluded.
Continued Seaport Priority designation will severely limit future interim and long term
development options. The total cost and fiscal impacts are not known at this time. However,
land banking large areas of NAS for an uncertain long term demand for container facilities would
foreclose options for immediate redevelopment potential necessary for economic viability.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation:
Page 6
August 31. 1994
Staff recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA)
support the removal of Seaport Priority Designation from NAS Alameda and direct the Executive
Director to communicate the ARRA's determination. and request the Seaport Planning Advisory
Committee. BCDC and MTC reconsider the Port Priority Designation for the 198 acre. north-
west portions of NAS property after the Community Reuse Plan is completed.
Respectfully Submitted
Dave Louk. Acting Executive Director
cc: Alameda City Manager
City Council, City of Alameda
Alameda Community Development Director
Alameda Planning Director
Bill Touhv. EBCRC
Attachments:
Map
MultiTrans. Military Base Evaluation for Civilian Seaport Development, July 1994
a
DRAFT
MILITARY BASE EVALUATION
FOR
CIVILIAN SEAPORT DEVELOPMENT
Prepared in support of the Update
of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan
Prepared for
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eight Street, Oakl. Id California 94607
(510) 464-7827
Prepared by
MULTIT S
Transportation Consultants
2880 Zanker Road, Suite 203
San Jose, California 95134
(408) 432-7277
In Association with
Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers
July, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
CONTEXT OF MILITARY BASE EVALUATION . ..... . . . . . . . . . 3
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..... . . . ... . . . • . . . . 4
NAVAL SHIPYARD (NSY) MARE ISLAND . ..... . . . . . . . . . ..... 4
Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . 4
NAVSTA TREASURE ISLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . 7
Site Description . . . 7
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION AND NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER ANNEX
10
•••••••••••••••••••••••..
Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER OAKLAND • . . . • 14
. •
Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.0 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS . . • • • . .. ... 4 • • • 17
INTRODUCTION ..... . ...... . . . . .
NAVAL SHIPYARD (NSY) MARE ISLAND . . ..... . .• 1177
Development Potential . ... . ... . . . • . 19
NAVSTA TREASURE ISLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... — 21
Development Potential 21
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION AND NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER ANNEX
. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . 22
Development Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . 24
NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER OAKLAND . .
Development Potential 27
4.0 CONCEPT LAYOUT PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . 28
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . ....... . . _ 28
NAVAL SHIPYARD MARE ISLAND . . . . . ...... . ..... . . . . . 28
Capital Improvements . . . . . . . . 28
. . . . . .
Landside Improvements . 33 .
Waterside Improvements 35
Estimated Throughput Capability .
Environmental Concerns . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 6
. ..... . ......... . 35
Potential for Break-Bulk Cargo Facility .. ...... 337
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTI
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION AND NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER ANNEX
38
38
38
41
42
42
43
44
44
44
46
46
Capital Improvements .. .
Landside Improvements ... .
Waterside Improvements ... .
Estimated oughput Capability
Environmental Concerns ...... .
Potential for Break -Bulk Cargo Facility
NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER OAKLAND
Capital Improvements .. .
Landside Improvements . .
Waterside Improvements .... .
Estimated Throughput Capability
5.0 EVALUATION OF MILITARY SITES
EVALUATION CRITERIA ......... •
EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL SITES . .
Mare Island ........ ...... • • •
Naval Air Station Alameda (Inner Harbor)
NAS Alameda (South Island) . .
Naval Supply Center Oakland . .
NSC Alameda Annex
Treasure Island
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants
48
. 48
. 50
50
54
57
58
59
60
. 61
EXECUT
This report evaluates the potential for civilian seaport development of five naval bases
located on San Francisco Bay that are likely to be closed in the near future. The three
facilities that have been approved for closure by the Congress -- the Naval Air Station (NAS)
Alameda, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and the Naval facilities at Treasure Island. Also
included are two facilities that have not as yet been approved for closure but are likely to be
available for leasing by local communities in the same time period the, Naval Supply Center
(NSC) Oakland and the NSC Annex in Alameda. Recommendations for Hunter's Point were
developed separately. Development is recommended at the following four sites based on the
evaluation process described in the report:
NAS Alameda: Six container berths to be developed on the south side of the Inner
Harbor Channel. At full development, this project would require a bridge crossing
to accommodate the forecast truck traffic. The advantages of this project are an
existing deep-water channel, proximity to rail facilities and the regional freeway
system in Oakland, and the absence of any existing development on the proposed site.
Disadvantages are limited road access and potential environmental problems that have
not been completely assessed at this time.
Mare Island: Two break-bulk berths to be developed on Mare Island Strait south
of the causeway. The exact location has not been fixed and will depend upon the
ability to attract long-term tenants for areas designated in the recently completed Base
Reuse Plan for heavy and light industry. It is uncertain what water depth can be
justified in the strait after naval operations cease. A minimum of 32 feet is
recommended to be able to develop new seaport facilities, which compare to the
current dredged depth of 36 feet.
NSC Oakland: Seven berths to be developed on the north side of the Inner Harbor
Channel and to become an integral part of the Port of Oakland. Development will
occur when the need arises and when the existing Union Pacific railyard is moved to
the joint intermodal container terminal now in the advanced planning phase.
The following three-step process was used to generate the military base recommendations:
Overall opportunities and constraints were analyzed to establish potential
civilian seaport sites for container development. The initial emphasis was on
container sites because they have the most restrictive requirements and
because the major growth in marine cargo is expected to be in containerized
freight. Technical feasibility was based primarily on available backland and
available water depth; but land use, environmental, and land access were also
considered.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants ES-1
Executive Summary
2. Concept plans were developed for the sites with the greatest potential for
development from a technical perspective. A total of 32 container berth sites
were identified and included sites on all bases except Treasure Island. These
sites represent an opportunity to help meet the long-range seaport needs of the
Bay Area, but for a variety of reasons it is unlikely that all sites would be
developed for seaport uses.
3. A more detailed evaluation of the sites was conducted based on the following
seven criteria:
1. Land use compatibility
2. Land access
3. Environmental considerations
4. Institutional considerations
5. Supporting infrastructure
6. Available land, and
7. Water depth.
Development of the NSC Oakland sites will occur, as they are already a part of the long-
range plans for the Port of Oakland. For the other two sites, development will depend upon
a local commitment to develop the facilities and meet the long-term market demand. The
NAS Alameda berths likely will not be developed during the next ten years. At Mare Island,
no near-teiiii shortage of bulk cargo facilities is forecast; but it is possible that a tenant could
be located for niche cargo as long as operating costs would be competitive with other
available options.
The fact that only 15 of the 32 berths for which conceptual plans were developed have been
recommended for designation as seaport site does not mean that the other sites are not
technically feasible. Should the freight forecasts and the competitive position of the Bay
Area ports change, reconsideration of the sites may be appropriate.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants ES-2
1.0
1
RODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the analyses and findings of a study conducted by
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants to evaluate the opportunities and constraints for
the reuse of all or part of five military bases in the Bay Area as civilian seaport development
facilities. These facilities are illustrated in Figure 1, and are as follows:
1. Naval Ship Yard (NSY) Mare Island
2. Naval Station (NAVSTA) Treasure Island
3. Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda
4. Naval Supply Center (NSC) Oakland
5. Naval Supply Center Annex Alameda
For the purpose of this report, the Alameda Annex is analyzed in conjunction with the NAS,
as both are located in the City of Alameda. Hunter's Point was specifically excluded from
the analysis as the analysis for this port has been conducted separately by the City of San
Francisco Redevelopment Authority and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC). The remainder of this report is divided into five major
sections, as follows:
2. Description of Existing Conditions
3. Description of Opportunities and Constraints
4. Description of Conceptual Layout Plans for Sites Technically Suitable for
Major Seaport Development
5. Evaluation of Potential Sites
6. Recommendations
The 1988 Seaport Plan includes seaport designations for sites currently under military
ownership and stipulates that each site, when made available for civilian uses, "shall be
included among the near-term sites unless the conditions under which it has been made
available make it unreasonable to do so". The exception is Treasure Island which is not
currently designated as a potential civilian seaport facility. Mare Island, Treasure Island,
and NAS Alameda have been approved by Congress for closure. Although the Oakland
Naval Supply Center was on the latest list of military base closures, it was removed from
this list by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission; however, it is likely to be
included in the next round of base closures and, for that reason, has been included in the
analysis. Hunter's Point has already been closed, but no land has as yet been transferred
from the military. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is
responsible for the analysis of civilian seaport potential for this facility.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 1
CENTRAL
crL) BAY
REASURE
LAND,
Base Map: USGS 1970
FIC;HRF 1 1 nrATInm NA A P PAY AREA AlI ITARY RF
Introduction
From a regional perspective, the closure of the military bases provides an opportunity to
include additional seaport facilities as near-term sites to meet forecast freight demand. Also,
the addition of any new seaport site may allow the opportunity to delete an existing site so
that the overall capacity remains in balance with forecast demand.
CONTEXT OF MILITARY BASE EVALUATION
The preliminary designation of civilian seaport facilities by the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (June, 1993) does not provide enough capacity
at existing ports to meet the forecast traffic for the year 2020. For container freight, only
86 percent of capacity could be provided (42 of 49 berths); and for bulk freight, only 75
percent of capacity (29 of 40 berths).
Even these figures represent an optimistic evaluation of available capacity, for the following
reasons: (1) the average capacity for existing facilities has been assumed for all new
facilities, which for container facilities is heavily weighted towards Port of Oakland facilities,
which have relatively high capacities; (2) an annual increase in the capacity of one percent
per year has been assumed (29.5 percent increase in capacity by 2020) even though this
increase may not be achieved for all container terminals; (3) actual freight movements have
been assumed to be 70 percent of capacity, which is relatively high on a regional basis, and
(4) three terminals (two in Richmond and one in Oakland) are assumed to come from
conversion of existing private freight berths.
Although the deficiency for breakbulk facilities is approximately the same magnitude as that
for container terminals, it is of less concern from a long-range planning perspective.
Breakbulk facilities require less restrictive water depth, less backland per berth, and less
demanding land access requirements.
It is likely that suitable sites can be located when the demand exists even if they are not
included in the forthcoming Seaport Plan. Container facilities, on the other hand, require
a concentration of facilities so that the costs of dredging, rail access, and supporting
infrastructure, such as warehousing, can be spread out among as much freight as possible.
The current planning efforts for the Seaport Plan, to the extent possible, should try to the
extent possible meet the need for container freight demand.
In the preparation of this report, various personnel involved in the base closure process were
contacted to obtain information. This included engineering and planning staff at the bases,
base conversion staff at the City of Vallejo and the City of Alameda, and staff at the Port
of Oakland (for NSC Oakland). The feasibility of developing a marine terminal at the bases
was based on the precept that containerized cargo represents the majority of the projected
growth in Bay Area waterborne cargo that cannot be met by existing facilities.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 3
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
In this section, existing conditions are described for each of the following four military
facilities included in this analysis:
1. Naval Ship Yard (NSY) Mare Island
2. Naval Station (NAVSTA) Treasure Island
3. Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda and Naval Supply Center s ex Alameda
4. Naval Supply Center (NSC) Oakland
NAVAL SHIPY
, IP 111
(NSY) M
. .
IS
1
Site Description
Location: San Pablo Bay. Mare Island is within the boundaries of the City of Vallejo
in Solano County. It is actually a peninsula with Mare Island Strait on the east and San
Pablo Bay on the west (See Figure 1).
Seaport Plan Status: The Plan includes four terminal sites within the existing naval
shipyard base (sites 22A, 22B, 23A, and 24A). Three are located along Mare Island Strait
and one is located on the south end of the island where there is an existing pier. The Plan
provides the following guidance in the development of these sites: "If and when not needed
by the Navy, give first consideration to port and water-related industry. Port use should be
limited to shallow draft shipping unless the channels serving the site can be maintained at a
cost that is reasonable in relation to other regional dredging needs."
Land Uses: The Mare Island shipyard has been used by the Navy as a repair and docking
facility since 1854. In the 1950's the Navy designated the facility as a building and overhaul
yard for submarines, which remains its primary mission. The facility is approximately 3.5
miles long by one mile wide, and includes about 1,650 acres of dry uplands, about 1,450
acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands, and approximately 2,360 acres of submerged lands.
Figure 2 presents a layout of the site.
Land use on Mare Island is varied and includes heavy industrial, office, commercial,
residential, educational, cultural, and institutional facilities as well as open space. There are
approximately 960 buildings on Mare Island containing a total of 10.5 million square feet.
The Mare Island Naval Complex is a National Historic Landmark because of the island's
significant role in American Naval History. Mare Island is primarily an industrial facility,
with most of the activities located within the Controlled Industrial Area (CIA). This area
is located on the eastern side of the island along the Mare Island Strait. These facilities
provide construction, conversion, overhaul, repair, alteration, drydocking and outfitting of
surface and subsurface naval vessels. There are 99 buildings inside the CIA, including
shops, offices, and storage areas.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 4
Existing Conditions
The 1.5 miles of waterfront inside the CIA include four drydocks, two shipbuilding ways,
19 ship berths along the waterfront, and three finger piers, each approximately 700 feet long.
Water Access: Water access to Mare Island Strait is from San Pablo Bay and the Carquinez
Strait. The U.S. y Corps of Engineers maintains a channel in Mare Island Strait to a
depth of 36 feet (MLLW). The current authorization for civilian uses is 25 feet. When the
Navy ceases operations, Congress would have to approve a new authorization for this depth
to be maintained.
In addition to Corps dredging operations, the Navy performs its own dredging to a depth of
36 feet to 250 feet out from its waterfront line. The dredging is . terial is piped through a
system of pipelines to disposal areas on the west side of the island. Mare Island Strait
currently has no designated turning basin.
Land Access: Land access from Vallejo to Mare Island is via two bridges across the Napa
River. The northern access gate via State Highway 37 has two lanes. Approximately 4,
feet to the south is the Main Gate served by a three-lane causeway that is an extension of
Tennessee Street in Vallejo. Access roads to this gate also include Wilson Avenue from the
north and Mare Island Way from the south. The causeway has a central lift span and carries
a single railroad track operated as a military facility. During peak hours on the causeway,
there are two lanes in the predominant direction and one lane in the opposing direction.
The average daily traffic volumes are 18,340 at the main gate (61 percent) and 11,716 at the
north gate (39 percent). Peak hour volumes are more balanced, with 2,751 vehicles per hour
(vph) at the main gate and 2,421 vph at the north gate. At the Main Gate, peak hour traffic
is approximately 1,600 vehicles per hour in the predominant direction during both the
morning and afternoon peak periods.
I I
The military operates a standard gauge, one track rail service between Mare Island and a
connection to the north with a Southern Pacific branch line near the intersection of Broadway
with Sereno Drive. The military line is active and in good operating condition and has ten
at-grade crossings of local Vallejo streets. The branch line connects to the Southern Pacific
mainline tracks at Suisun City. On Mare Island, rail service is located on Railroad Avenue
with spurs into the industrial area.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 6
Existing Conditions
NAVSTA TREASURE ISLAND
Site Description
Location: Central Bay. Located within the City and County of San Francisco (See
Figure 1).
Seaport Plan Status: No terminal designations are included in the current Seaport Plan.
Land Uses: The base provides port and harbor services to Navy vessels in the San
Francisco Bay area to ensure that appropriate services are available to them when they arrive
at their home port. It also operates and maintains facilities and structures for Navy
Technical Training. A Navy museum, approximately 800 units of housing (officer and
family), and various administrative buildings also are located on the base. The Island is
constructed on fill, and a dike protects the perimeter. The base occupies approximately 400
acres (excluding Yerba Buena Island) within the confines of the dike as shown on Figure 3.
An additional area of about 300 acres of submerged land around the Island is also owned by
the Navy.
Waterfront facilities include a 300 foot long fishing pier on the western boundary, a launch
ramp at the northern boundary, a fuel dock on the eastern boundary, and a recently
constructed 900 foot long finger pier at the southeastern boundary. The finger pier (Pier 1)
was built for berthing frigates and minesweepers. A service dock and a marina at the
southern boundary are also in current use.
Water Access: There is no deepwater access currently available up to Treasure Island. The
project depth at Pier 1 calls for a maximum dredged depth of 32 feet (MLLW). The access
channel from the Oakland Bar Channel is dredged infrequently since the maximum draft of
the frigates berthing at Pier 1 (27 feet) is less than existing depths. Vessels have to pass
under the west span of the Bay Bridge, proceed along the Oakland Bar Channel (38 feet
dredged depth), and pass under the east span of the Bridge. The East span of the Bay Bridge
has a clearance of about 184 feet at Mean High Water (MHW).
Land Access: Treasure Island has no rail access, and road access is via a single roadway,
the two-level Bay Bridge. Vehicle traffic includes military-related traffic as well as tourists
in both automobiles and buses. The panoramic view of the San Francisco skyline and the
naval museum are the primary tourist attractions.
In the westbound direction, there are two on-ramps and one off-ramp; and in the eastbound
direction, there are two off-ramps and one on-ramp. This combination of ramps provides
connections to both Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island. Peak traffic hours occur from
6:00-7:00 a.m. for inbound ramps and from 2:30-3:30 p.m. for outbound ramps, which are
earlier than the peak hours for Bay Bridge traffic.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 7
Existing Conditions
The traffic flows vary significantly between the ramps. Two of the ramps serve limited
traffic volumes (less than 60 vph in the peak periods). The westbound off-ramp (1986 data)
has the highest volume of any ramp, with approximately 440 vph in the AM peak hour. In
the PM peak period, the major on-ramps for the eastbound and westbound directions each
have approximately 250 vph during their peak traffic hours. Overall traffic to and from
Treasure Island is approximately three percent of the daily traffic on the Bay Bridge.
Daily traffic through the Treasure Island security gate is approximately 6,500 vehicles. Of
this amount, the percent trucks is very small (3.8 percent overall and 0.4 percent heavy
trucks).
The ramps have major shortcomings that preclude the development of activities that generate
large vehicle volumes to and from the island. The approach speeds are low, 15-20 miles per
hour in most cases and only one of the off-ramps has a deceleration lane. One of the three
on-ramps has a required stop, and the other two usually require stops because of the heavy
Bay Bridge traffic and the below standard tapers.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 9
AL . DA NAVAL AIR STATION
Site Description
NAVAL SUPPLY CE
Existing Conditions
Location: South of the Bay Bridge. It is located within the City of Alameda in Alameda
County (See Figure 1).
Seaport P1 Status: Terminal sites are designated in three separate areas for these
installations, as follows: (1) two on the south side of the island in the general area occupied
by aircraft carrier berths (sites 59A and 60A of the 1988 Seaport Plan); (2) four terminal
sides on the north side of the terminal beginning at the entrance to the Middle Harbor
Channel (sites 58A, 58B, 58C and 58D), and (3) a single terminal on the Middle Harbor
Channel within the boundaries of the Alameda . ex of Oakland NSC (site 57B). The Plan
provides the following guidance in the development of these sites: "If and when not needed
by the Navy, should be developed for port and related industrial uses."
Land Uses: NAS Alameda operates and maintains facilities for Naval aviation-related
activities. These facilities include two fully instrumented runways, berthing for two nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, and aircraft repair support services. It is the fourth largest Navy
landholding in the Bay Area. The base consists of approximately 1,700 acres of dry land
that is engineered fill. The Navy also owns about 1,100 acres of submerged land (inter-tidal
and water areas).
Major on-site structures include seven aircraft hangars, ordnance storage warehouses, about
1,200 units of family housing, industrial repair shops, and an oil refinery. The airfield
includes two runways and taxiways. Figure 4 presents a layout of the base. Waterfront
facilities include three piers (Piers 1, 2 and 3) on the south side of the island. Pier 3 is
capable of handling nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The Navy also owns the NSC-
Alameda Facility, west of NAS Alameda on the Inner Harbor, that is administratively an
annex of the Oakland NSC. The 95-acre facility was formerly used by the Coast Guard to
accommodate their vessels. It consists of approximately 2,111 feet of marginal wharf, with
about one million square feet of warehousing facilities.
Water Access: Access to the carrier berthing area on the south side of the island, which has
two finger piers, is via an entrance cs. el, which is dredged to 42 feet (MLLW). There
are currently no civilian uses for this channel, which means that maintenance dredging will
end when naval operations cease. Regaining the authorization would be difficult unless
seaport development is likely to occur in the near future. If re-authorization is required at
a later date, it probably would be considered new construction and would require a local
sponsor. The turning basin, south of the berthing area, is protected by a breakwater and also
has a project depth of 42 feet. Annual average maintenance dredging quantity is over
500,000 cubic yards, based on Corps dredging records for the period 1981 to 1986. A
seaplane landing lagoon, which is approximately 2,800 feet long and 1500 feet wide, is
adjacent to Pier 1. The lagoon is not dredged and is believed to be approximately 12 feet
deep.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 10
6 LANE
*IA
Existing Conditions
The Oakland Inner Harbor Channel runs adjacent to the northern periphery of the base and
could be used to access future berths on the west or north side of the base. The dredged
depth for this channel is currently 38 feet MLLW, but the project has been approved to
deepen it to 42 feet MLLW. The Port of Oakland will submit an application to deepen it
further to 45 feet MLLW as soon as possible after this project is completed. These
improvements probably would occur before any be could be developed on the Alameda
side; and, thus, the City of Alameda would only have to pay for dredging costs from the
channel to the be and to participate in channel mainte . e dredging.
The NSC-Alameda facility has a 2,111 foot long marginal wharf with four berths. The
be g area is dredged to -33 feet (MLLW). The Oaldand Inner Harbor C • $ el is used
to access the berths.
Land Access: The island has both rail and road access to Oakland, although the rail service
is limited. The rail line on the base has been abandoned for some time, although the military
currently can require the Southern Pacific to provide a rail connection to its boundary. Rail
access is via the Alameda Belt Line Railroad, which is jointly owned by the Santa Fe and
Union Pacific. It connects to the Southern Pacific via a bridge at Fruitvale Avenue on the
southern part of the island. The bridge clearance (20 ft. 2 in.) is adequate to allow for the
shipment of double-stack containers.
The alignment from the bridge is along Clement Street north to Grand, then along Buena
Vista to Sherman, and then along the Atlantic Avenue corridor to the NAS boundary. The
line has 15 at-grade rail crossings that present a constraint to extensive operations. The low-
speed rail line, currently serving six industrial customers on the island, would require
substantial upgrading to serve a seaport facility, even for relatively small shipments.
Road access is via the Webster and Posey tunnels and three bridges to the south located at
Park Street, Fruitvale, and High Street. The tunnels have two lanes in each direction.
Webster Street becomes State Highway 61 in the City of Alameda. The tubes operate at or
near capacity during peak weekday traffic periods, primarily because of local street
constraints on the north side. Congestion. is alleviated somewhat with base working hours
that create peak flows one hour earlier than those for the channel crossings.
The NAS has four gates, one of which (the South Gate) is open only during peak commuting
hours. A total of 28,111 vehicles enter or leave the base during weekdays. The Main Gate,
accessed from Main Street, is open 24 hours and handles approximately 24 percent of daily
traffic. The East Gate, located on an extension of Atlantic Avenue, serves the highest
volumes in the peak traffic periods and handles approximately 48 percent of daily traffic.
The Avenue C Gate, located between the Main and East gates, handles approximately 20
percent of daily traffic.
The South Gate, which is open only for two hours in the morning and afternoon, is second
only to the East Gate in the volume of • peak hour traffic and handles the remaining eight
percent of daily traffic. Access to the Naval Supply Center is from either the west side on
Main Street or from the east side on Tinker Avenue off of Mariner Square Loop.
MULTIT
. •
S Transportation Consultants 12
Existing Conditions
Atlantic Avenue is the primary east-west access road for all gates except the South Gate.
Signalized intersections on this road at Webster Street and Main Street operate at Level of
Service D. The most recent Alameda General Plan, which assumed continuing operations
at the NAS, shows relatively stable traffic volumes over time. The only major road
improvement west of Webster Street is a new road that would connect Main Street to
Mariner Square Loop and provide improved access to the Alameda Gateway area.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 13
Existing Conditions
NAVAL SUPPLY CE R OAKL
Site Description
Location: South Bay (See Figure 5). Located within the City of Oakland in Alameda
County. Boundaries are Seventh Street on the north, the Southern Pacific Rai lyard on the
east, and the Union Pacific railyard on the south.
Seaport Plan Status: Two terminal sites are located on the east site of the Middle Harbor
(sites 51B and 51C). Both sites are actively used by the Navy. The Plan provides the same
guidance in the development of these sites as for the development of the NAS sites in
Alameda: "If and when not needed by the Navy, should be developed for port and related
industrial uses."
Land Uses: NSC Oakland provides supply and support services for Department of Defense
activities in the Region and throughout the Pacific. It maintains deep-draft berthing facilities
(-42 feet MLLW) for the Navy, and Military Sea lift Command vessels. It is adjacent to the
Port of Oakland and has direct access to the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel, as shown on
Figure 5. The base is approximately 500 acres in size and, although recommended by the
Pentagon for closure, was removed from the list by the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission. The City of Oakland General Plan designates the base for alternative civilian
uses if and when the Navy declares the land to be excess.
The Port of Oakland will initially be leasing approximately 240 acres of the base, for
maritime and transportation activities in the ,near future. It has agreement in principle to
lease up to 400 acres. A Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement has also been issued by the Port of Oakland and the
Navy. The document will address a redevelopment project for seaport related activities on
the leased portion of the site.
Existing facilities on-site include two piers and a marginal wharf for berthing deep-draft
vessels, about 7.8 million square feet of warehouse space, and three units of family housing.
Water Access: The piers are accessed via the Oakland Bar Channel and the Oakland Middle
Harbor Entrance Channel. The Oakland Harbor Channels are currently authorized to a depth
of 42 feet (existing dredged depth is 38 feet). Long term plans by the Port of Oakland
include deepening the channels to 45 feet to accommodate fourth generation container ships
for all tidal conditions. Project depth is 41 feet at the Entrance Channel and 38 - 41 feet at
the berthing locations.
Projected maintenance dredging estimates call for 250,111 Cubic Yards per year. However,
no maintenance dredging was performed in 1992 and 1993. Vessel maneuvering is difficult
at the existing berthing areas, due to size restrictions of the turning basin.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 14
•
10
\GO
/
C5 /
14 1:5 ; 2 I 10,,,
•
0 I / /
.5e/
1 01 /1'
\
. ?' ;'" II
‘4 ,/
"1 I I
‘
„,;
-\
11
,
' .;
,
Existing Conditions
Land Access: On-site rail lines connect to the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific switching
and intermodal yards. ediate access to the Santa Fe railroad is also available via
Southern Pacific tracks. Good access is available to adjacent freeways. 1-80 is two miles to
the north via Maritime Street, and both Seventh Street and Middle Harbor Road provide
access to 1-880. Road access to other Port of Oakland terminals and the intermodal yards
is also available in the immediate vicinity using these roads.
3.0 OPPORT TIES
INTRODUCTION
g
CONST
This section describes the opportunities and constraints for civilian seaport development at
the military bases considered in this report. the issues discussed are base closure schedule,
land use, adjacent land developments, water access and land access. Based on the analyses
of these issues, the overall potential for the development of major seaport facilities is
discussed and preliminary development plans evaluated.
NAVAL SHIPYARD (NSY) MARE ISLAND
Closure Schedule: The current closure schedule calls for the complete relocation of tenant
commands, and reduction in the force of shipyard workers by April, 1996.
Land Use: Large potential backland areas exist for container terminal operations. The
facility contains approximately 7,500 linear feet (LF) of existing wharf and dry dock space.
Extensive modifications of waterfront facilities will be required for a container terminal
facility. The layout of the buildings close to the wharf will be a constraint for long-term
development. Mare Island is classified as a National Historic Landmark, and some facilities
of historical significance are located in the industrial area, including the dry docks.
All berths would have to be located south of the causeway because the bridge clearance poses
a constraint to modern container vessel traffic. Container port development could occur
from an area just south of the causeway, up to the existing finger pier area. The existing
drydocks and shipbuilding ways would have to be filled to create storage space for
containers. The finger piers would be demolished, and fill would be required to match the
existing pierhead line. An objective of the Seaport Plan is to minimize bay fill; development
of the piers would be considered bay fill, but the drydocks are considered to be a land
facility.
Port development sites at the south-east side of the island (site 23A in the current Seaport
Plan) would be impractical for containerized operations due to hills and bluffs that would not
allow for the required backlands. Port development at the south side of the island (site 24A
of the Seaport Plan) would also be impractical for containerized operations. Extensive
dredging of the mudflats would be required to create adequate shoreside berths.
Relationships to Adjacent Land Developments and Activities: The proposed backland
area serving seaport berths would only extend inland to Railroad Avenue. The remaining
land on the island that is suitable for development could be utilized for non-water related
commercial and residential land uses. Some of the commercial development likely would
complement any seaport development that occurs. The non-seaport activities also would
contribute to the need for land access improvements.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 17
Opportunities and Constraints
The City of Vallejo does not have any active, civilian seaport facilities on the east side of
the strait, although facilities in support of industrial development have operated in the past.
The current Seaport Plan calls for a near-term site to be developed in the Valley industrial
area south of Curto la Parkway and north of a Southern Pacific branch line. Existing water-
related uses that are expected to continue on the Vallejo waterfront, include the marina
located south of the Mare Island causeway, a terminal for the ferry service to San Francisco,
as well as a municipal dock and a small boat launching ramp. Without the development of
any major seaport developments in the near future, the Corps of Engineers' authorization to
maintain the Mare Island Strait at its current depth (36 feet MLLW) would likely be in
danger.
Water Access: Shallow-draft container vessels (less than 32 feet MLLW) could continue
to negotiate Mare Island Strait, assuming current maintenance dredging procedures are
continued. However, a likely scenario is that the authorization for the current 36 foot depth
would be removed, and the channel would be allowed to reach a depth of 25 feet, which is
the current authorization for civilian uses. It is unclear whether or not the designation of
near-term sites on Mare Island would be adequate to permit the 36 foot depth to be retained.
A local sponsor for 25 percent of the dredging costs would have to be found to re-establish
this depth if the 36 foot authorization is allowed to lapse for a significant period of time.
The shipyard's dredge disposal system could be used for ongoing maintenance dredging of
berth depths, assuming planned improvements to the dredge spoil capacity were
implemented. An extensive network of pipes and levees is in place and is being used to
pump dredged material from the channel to disposal ponds on the west side of the Island.
The disposal areas currently are used only for the disposal of dredged materials from Mare
Island strait, but could serve as a regional resource.
Extensive dredging of the Mare Island Strait Channel is now required by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and Navy to maintain depths of 36 feet MLLW. Substantially more
dredging would be required to maintain adequate c s. el depth for modern container ships
and would require a local sponsor. Also, development of a turning basin would be required
for container ship maneuvering. The likely location of such a basin is on the east side of the
channel south of the current marina.
Land Access: It would be desirable for seaport development to be located as close as
possible to the major access points to the island so that the impacts of truck traffic on the
island road system would be minimized. Thus, the location of initial development should
consider whether or not a new access facility will be constructed in the near future. Without
improved access, initial seaport development would be more desirable at the north end of
potential sites. Based on traffic forecasts for alternative land development scenarios on the
island. however. a high-clearance, vehicle bridge at the southern part of the island in the
Lemon Street corridor or Curtola Parkway has been included as a project to provide for
build-out traffic forecasts. It would provide good access to 1-80 at the existing 1-780
interchange.
MULTITRANS Trnricnnrtntion Concriltnnty
Opportunities and Constraints
Traffic forecasts indicate that a high percent of future Mare Island traffic would be to or
from the south on 1-80. Seaport development could help justify such a facility. Assuming
its construction, seaport development along Mare Island strait should begin at the south end
of the island to minimize impacts of truck traffic and then proceed to the north as
appropriate. Even though it is assumed that development would proceed south to north, two
factors favor initial development at the north end and should be weighed against the
advantage of being next to the new access road. The two berths at the south end require bay
fill to change piers to a marginal wharf.
Also, the rail access point is at the north end of the island, and it is unlikely that access at
another location could be developed given the absence of any other appropriate rail
connection points on the Vallejo side.
If a new road crossing is not constructed, serious congestion can be expected at the existing
access points. The Navy currently is able to minimize traffic impacts by having its peak
hours of traffic (6:30-7:30 a.m. in the morning and 3:30-4:30 p.m. in the afternoon) occur
one hour earlier than those on the local and regional road networks. Also, the Navy has
been able to achieve a high auto occupancy of 1.44 for commuting vehicles. Assuming that
seaport development occurs only on the northern end of Mare Island Strait, the preferred
truck route would be the State Highway 37 bridge over the Napa River in order to minimize
traffic and noise impacts along the Vallejo waterfront. However, this would not be a direct
route for the significant percentage of trips that would be to or from intermodal rail facilities
located to the south in Richmond and Oakland. Also, environmental concerns may limit the
ability of Caltrans to widen Highway 37 between the entrance gate and Interstate 80 (I-80)
to meet forecast demand. Delays would occur for truck and rail traffic due to operation of
the center lift span and the expected traffic volumes generated by other civilian land uses on
the island.
Most modern ports desire connections to at least two rail lines servicing the facility, and
Mare Island currently has regional access to only one line (Southern Pacific). This access
is to a branch line, and the nearest mainline is located approximately 16 miles to the
northwest at Suisun City. It is assumed that no new rail access points would be provided,
given the absence of any new connection points. With high levels of seaport development,
it would be desirable to develop an intermodal container transfer facility (ICTF) nearby,
based on the significant travel time between Vallejo and the existing ICTF's in Oakland and
Richmond. Possible options would be a facility on the island itself or perhaps one in the
Benicia area, where a facility adjacent to the SP mainline would have good access via
Interstate 780 (I-780).
Development Potential
The only sites found to be suitable for detailed evaluation as future major seaport facilities
are located on Mare Island Strait south of the causeway to slightly beyond the existing finger
piers. The area to be developed would be east of Railroad Avenue in the Controlled
Industrial Area (CIA).
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 19
Opportunities and Constraints
A maximum of seven container berths could be accommodated. Three could be created by
demolishing the existing piers and placing fill up to the pierhead line. The dry docks could
be filled and required waterside improvements constructed to add an additional two berths.
Two more berths could be accommodated further to the north.
/f T. Tr 7'Vrr) 4 TC f".1.1 err lee", f
Opportunities and Constraints
NAVSTA TREASURE ISLAND
Closure Schedule: The Navy plans to have all personnel removed from Treasure Island by
1997, and the existing waterfront facilities would be left vacant.
Land Use: The 400-acre base provides adequate land area for seaport uses. However,
extensive demolition of existing buildings would have to be accomplished to provide required
storage space for a containerized port facility. Demolition of buildings would be a
significant constraint, since historical significance could be attached to many of the existing
structures on the base. The dike on the perimeter of the Island sustained some damage
during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and maintenance is cited as an on-base development
concern by the Navy. Other concerns cited by the Navy relate to the exposed utility access
system which needs upgrading to protect it from potential earthquake damage. The City of
San Francisco has expressed interest in civilian housing development and other related uses
at the Island.
Water Access: Deep-water access would have to be provided to enable modern freight
vessels to berth at the Island. Currently, deep-draft vessels only have such access up to the
Oakland Bar Channel. A channel would have to be dredged connecting the Bar Channel to
new berths on the eastern edge of the Island. The berthing areas, and a turning basin would
also have to be dredged. Dredged depths should be a minimum of 42 feet (MLLW) for a
containerized facility, since modern container vessels have loaded drafts in excess of 38 feet.
Waterside improvements would include demolition of the existing pier (Pier 1).
Berthing on the western edge of the Island would also be possible. This would involve a
reduced amount of dredging, but the berths would be exposed to greater wave action and
would pose a navigational hazard to ships coming into the Bay.
Land Access: The biggest concern for any seaport development at Treasure Island is the
access limitations. In fact, this concern is considered a fatal flaw for development of a
container facility. There is no rail access, and road access is limited to the Bay Bridge. For
a two-berth container terminal, peak traffic would exceed 1,500 trucks per day, which
compares with a total 26 heavy trucks per day observed in 1986. The ability to improve
ramps to and from the Bay Bridge is limited because of restrictions posed by the bridge
structure and tunnels through the island.
Development Potential
No seaport development for containerized freight is considered feasible, given the access
constraints. Any other seaport-related activity at Treasure Island involving dry cargo would
also generate significant traffic volumes.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 21
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION
•
a
Opportunities and Constraints
NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER X
Closure Status: The NAS is scheduled for closure in 1997. The NSC Annex has not been
approved for closure, but the local Congressional delegation is seeking to have the facility
closed through Congressional legislation rather than through the base closure process. The
possibility then would exist for the Navy to provide long-term leases to the City of Alameda
for use of the site. The disadvantage of this approach is that different funding programs
would be available for toxic clean-up and for planning, and these programs are likely to have
less funding than would be available through the base closure program.
Land Use: The area that has been designated for seaport development has only limited
development at this time because of the proximity of the airfield. Thus adequate land area
exists on the approximately 1,700 acre NAS for the phased development of a civilian
seaport. The proximity to a major marine terminal facility (Port of Oakland) provides an
added advantage, since the supporting infrastructure for port development is in place. With
a significant amount of land occupied by the airfield, the amount of demolition to create the
required backland for port development would be limited.
The base was constructed by filling in submerged and marsh lands. Some demolition of
buildings adjacent to the piers at the southern boundary of the base would be required to
create storage space for containers, if seaport development occurs in this area. A fire
training area, storage sheds, fuel lines, and other smaller buildings exist adjacent to the
Oakland Inner Harbor Channel to the North. Demolition/relocation of these facilities would
be required for marine-terminal related activities at the northern boundary.
Any significant seaport-related activities on the base would preclude continuing operation of
the airfields. The size of the container gantry cranes (over 200 feet overall height) would
pose a significant obstruction to aircraft. A recent study sponsored by the East Bay
Conversion and Reinvestment Commission concludes that reuse of the airfield for civilian
purposes is economically infeasible. Forthcoming decisions about the future of the airfield
will influence the potential for seaport development on the NAS.
A historical district was delineated in earlier studies that includes the facilities north of the
seaplane lagoon up to the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel. Any development of this area
might offer some constraints, but certainly not all structures will be retained. Another
constraint could be the clean-up of toxic materials, specifically in the seaplane lagoon where
a plating plant was previously located on its shoreline.
The 95-acre NSC-Alameda facility would provide adequate land area for a two-berth
container terminal. However, significant demolition of warehouses would be involved. At
this stage. no other constraints were identified at the facility.
Water Access: Deep-water access to the carrier berthing on the south east end of the facility
consists of a 42 foot dredged channel. The Corps currently maintains the channel and
turning basin for the Navy, and the Navy performs additional dredging at the pier be g
,r Tr 'T T '7' T1 1 C' -■ v. rrr TOnIplito
Opportunities and Constraints
areas. A breakwater protects the turning basin and berthing area. A 750-foot gap in the
breakwater will have to be closed to reduce sedimentation into the basin. For container
vessel berthing, the piers would have to be demolished; and new fill would be required to
accommodate two berths along the shoreline. Also, berthing facilities in an east-west
direction would be possible at the end of Runway 13 (site 59A in Seaport Plan) by dredging
the area adjacent to the existing dike.
Development of any berths on the northern periphery of the Island along the Oakland Inner
Harbor Channel would require widening of the channel to provide adequate spaces for berths
and maintain safe passage within the navigational channel. This would involve relocating
the dike further inland.
Berthing at the NSC-Alameda facility is also possible. A 33-foot dredged depth exists at the
facility, and deepening would be required to accommodate modern container vessels. The
Port of Oakland is proceeding with approval to widen the southern side of the channel
adjacent to the west end of the supply center wharf (opposite the Schnitzer Steel terminal),
but this project should not affect any future development of the wharf for civilian freight
uses.
Land Access: The Webster Street tubes approach capacity during peak traffic hours.
Increased congestion can be expected with civilian development of the NAS and NSC Annex
land. The peak hours of traffic will coincide more closely with those of the local and
regional road network, and the favorable job-housing balance that exists on a military base
will no longer exist. No improvements in road access are planned at this time, although the
detailed base conversion planning process for the NAS has not as yet begun. It is anticipated
that major redevelopment could not occur without some major road access improvements for
cross-channel traffic.
The most likely scenario would be a high-clearance vehicle bridge in the corridor connecting
Main Street to 1-980 or a local arterial roadway. Difficulties would exist in providing
freeway connections on the Oakland side because of the development of the new Bay Bridge
approach to replace the Cypress structure that collapsed in the 1989 earthquake.
The present design of the Alameda Belt line Railroad probably precludes its development as
a major rail connection. Also, the proximity of major rail facilities across the channel
adjacent to the Port of Oakland favors transporting all containers on trucks. At this point,
the construction of a second rail crossing is unlikely unless it is required by additional
industrial development on the island. Also, a lift bridge might not be able to provide
adequate vertical clearance. The current General Plan for the City of Alameda supports
continued operation of the railroad, but major increases in freight movements have not been
anticipated. The community is particularly sensitive to impacts of rail and trucking traffic
on Buena Vista Avenue.
Existing road access conditions to the west side of Alameda pose major constraints for the
development of major container terminal facilities at the present time. However, with
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 23
Opportunities and Constraints
sufficient long-term planning and construction of new access routes that would serve traffic
generated by both seaport and other redevelopment uses, the potential exists for future
seaport development. Improvements in rail access are not considered as important as road
improvements because of the proximity of rail yards in Oakland.
Adjacent Land Uses: Surrounding land uses are compatible with seaport development.
There is concern among local officials about the desirability of major seaport development
on the island. The current City of Al. eda General Plan states that "port access is essential
to existing Alameda industries". The questions to be • wered are what is the extent of
access that is required for these industries and what new industries would be attracted if
major seaport development occurred.
The proximity of the Port of Oakland is a significant advantage. Commercial and light
industrial activities have developed around the Port that favor further seaport development
in the area, including warehousing and freight forwarders. Both the Union Pacific and
Southern Pacific operate their Bay Area switching yards adjacent to the Port and a major
intermodal container transfer facility is in the advanced planning stages. Also, deep-water
dredging channels are already in place for any development in the Inner Harbor area; and
improvements are scheduled that would benefit future development on the Alameda side of
the Inner Harbor. The Alameda shoreline on the Inner Harbor Channel historically has
served water and port-related uses. The inactive Todd Shipyard is located between the NAS
and the supply center, and the Alameda Gateway Ferry Terminal to the west but in the same
area.
Institutional Arrangements: The City of Alameda does not now have an agency
responsible for port operations. The Port of Oaldand, although in close proximity, is an
agency within the City of Oakland and could not pursue ownership or even management of
seaport facilities at the NAS or Alameda NSC without the approval of the City of Alameda.
Nevertheless, the development of seaport facilities in Alameda will require informal and
probably even formal cooperation between the two cities to improve ground access and
facilitate the intermodal movement of containers.
Development Potential
Various levels of development are possible at the base, due to the large amount of shoreline
on Alameda Island now controlled by the military that has access to deep water. Five
separate development areas have been identified: (1) on the south side of island, two be
at the eastern entrance to the seaplane lagoon now used for aircraft carrier berths; (2) also
on the south side, two berths at the western entrance of the lagoon at the end of a runway;
(3) potential berths along the southern shore of the Inner Harbor Channel within the NAS
boundaries; (4) a potential terminal at a marginal wharf now occupied by the NSC Alameda,
and (5) development of a new seaport facility on the west side of the island.
For the west island option (Number 5), development could occur within an excavated harbor
basin or along the existing dike. Neither option has been lyzed at this time for three
11411I,T1TR-1Vc Trfincnnrtntion rnrivultanty
74
Opportunities and Constraints
reasons, as follows: (1) development costs would be considerable in both instances (The
harbor option would require extensive excavation, and development along the existing
shoreline would require a breakwater to reduce dredging); (2) development would not be
adjacent to any existing seaport or water-related activities, and (3) development would not
be located adjacent to major transportation facilities linking the island to the mainland. The
basin option has the added disadvantage of requiring a large amount of land for development.
It would not only require backland for storage but also land that would have to be dredged
to create a harbor, including a turning basin.
Sites selected for additional evaluation are those on the south side of the island and on the
Inner Harbor Channel. On the south side, a two-berth facility could be constructed at the
south end of Runway 13. Near the seaplane lagoon, two berths could also be developed in
the area now occupied by piers for carrier berths. The piers would be demolished, new fill
would be placed, and a two-berth facility would be created.
The two sites on the south side of the island could benefit from the dredged, deepwater
channel that exists for the carriers stationed at the base. However, civilian uses would have
to bear the ongoing costs of maintenance dredging.
The northern area of the base, adjacent to the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel, could also be
developed as a seaport. Six berths could be provided along the perimeter, and the required
backland storage area could be provided with a minimum amount of demolition of buildings.
The potential for a two-berth, container facility also exists at the NSC Alameda facility. The
berthing areas would also have to be dredged from the existing 33 feet to 42 feet.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 25
Opportunities . d Constraints
NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER OAKL
Closure Schedule: Although the base was not approved for closure, the Navy has been
authorized to lease any "excess" land areas to the Port of Oakland. The lease is conditional
upon completion of an environmental review process, which has already been initiated by
the Navy and the Port of Oakland. The leased land is an important element of the Port of
Oakland plan to develop a joint intermodal container transfer facility and to create six new
berths on the Inner Harbor shoreline on the current Union Pacific railyard. The ability to
obtain land leases in a timely manner from the Navy may enable development of additional
berths to occur sooner than might have happened if the base closure process was in effect.
Land Use: The base is approximately 500 acres in size, which would provide sufficient
backland area for a seaport development. However, a significant portion of existing
warehousing facilities would have to be demolished for a containerized cargo facility. The
Port of Oakland has plans to lease approximately 400 of the 500 acres in three stages. This
includes the eastern and southern portions of the base, which will be used for an intermodal
transfer facility and container storage/staging. The Navy for the foreseeable future will
retain the northwestern portion for administrative offices and warehousing. Land
requirements for the proposed berths on the Inner Harbor Channel would require some bay
fill where the existing Navy piers are located.
The potential for environmental problems with land that will be leased by the Port from the
NSC is unknown. Potential investors in new terminals might be uncomfortable with
pursuing development on land that might require environmental mitigation in the future.
Long-term development plans include relocating the Union Pacific rail yard, which is
adjacent to the Inner Channel, further north. This would enable about six berths to be
constructed along the Channel, with adequate landside storage space.
Water Access: The Middle Harbor entrance channel is maintained at 41 feet by the Navy,
which is adequate for most container vessels (except fourth generation vessels). Any seaport
development within the Harbor would have to consider the cost of dredging the channel and
berth areas.
Two piers (Pier 4 and 5) and the North Marginal Wharf are in current use for vessel
berthing. However, the configuration of berths will have to be changed for a containerized
cargo facility since the existing pier-berthing layout is more amenable to break-bulk than
containerized cargo operations. Also, difficulty in vessel maneuvering is judged to be a
constraint for any modern container vessel berthing in the Middle Harbor.
Piers 4 and 5 would have to be demolished, and a new wharf (or fill) could be constructed
for vessel berthing. Other options are also possible, such as extending the North Marginal
Wharf westward: this option is shown on Figure 5. The storage area for this terminal would
be located to the north in what is now the administrative area of the base. The Port of
MULTITRANS Transnartation Consultants 26
Opportunities and Constraints
Oakland, if it acquired the entire Base, has indicated that it might consider warehousing for
this area, as this land use has the potential for creating more on-site jobs.
Long-term plans for the shoreline on the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel where the Union
Pacific Rail Yard exists, as noted, has been planned for conversion to six berths, as shown
in Figure 5. This development would involve relocating the dike further inland, to allow
safe navigation. It is contingent on development of the joint ICTF that will occupy the
northeastern section of the current base property.
Land Access: On-site rail tracks connect directly to the Southern Pacific (SP) and Union
Pacific (UP) Intermodal Yards. Immediate access to the Santa Fe Railroad is also available
via the Southern Pacific tracks; but, this line has not as yet been included as a participant
in the joint ICTF facility.
Immediate road access is possible to 1-80 (two miles distance) via Maritime Street. Access
to the SP and UP yards, in the immediate vicinity is also available. The Port of Oakland's
road network is accessed via 7th Street and Middle Harbor Road.
Development Potential
The proximity of the base makes to Port of Oakland and railyard facilities makes its
shoreline prime candidates for development as major seaport facilities. The emphasis should
be on developing sites on the Inner Harbor. Fill would be required in the Middle Harbor
to develop adequate backland to support the maximum number of Inner Harbor berths (at
least six and possibly seven).
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 27
4.0 CONCEPT LAYOUT PLANS
INTRODUCTION
The previous section on opportunities and constraints identified military base sites that would
be technically feasible for major seaport development. In this section, concept layout plans
are presented that will be used as the basis for a more detailed evaluation of the potential for
seaport development at the sites. The plans have assumed development of facilities for the
handling of containerized cargo, for two reasons. Freight forecasts indicate that a high
percentage of growth will occur for this Wing category. Also, these facilities have the
most demanding requirements for backland and water depth. Sites that are suitable for the
development of containerized cargo facilities could also be developed for bulk cargo
facilities, if they are eventually found to be more suitable. It is assumed that except for
development on Alameda Island, traffic to and from the sites would utilize existing local
streets.
Concept layout plans are presented below for the three major facilities that were found to
have potential for the development of major seaport facilities -- Naval Shipyard on Mare
Island, Naval Air Station Alameda and the NSC ex Alameda, and the Naval Supply
Center Oakland.
NAVAL SHIPY
•
ISL
Concept layouts for three potential container terminal sites with a total of seven container
berths at the shipyard were prepared, along with anticipated capital improvements at the
sites. Layouts are presented on Figures 6 through 9. Figure 6 presents the location of the
potential sites in relationship to other facilities on the island. Site 1 includes the finger pier
area which consists of three berths (see Figure 7). Site 2 includes the dry dock area which
has a potential for two berths (see Figure 8). Site 3 includes the North Waterfront Facility
(near the causeway), which has a potential for two berths (see Figure 9).
Capital Improvements
Anticipated capital improvements (both landside and waterside) are outlined in this section.
The improvements were identified based on the following assumptions:
Only containerized cargo facilities were considered for this analysis;
The minimum land area requirement for a containerized cargo facility is 30
acres per berth. Railroad Avenue was assumed to be the landward boundary
of the potential seaport facility, restricting the majority of port development
use to the Controlled. Industrial Area;
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 28
0
I.,
811.1 i _
1171.-.•-tgi
,,.0e - -
(Tr
:1
.1 • • 1.--*
`
I I
t - Ij
•
J;
1
it ,
•
‘"Nk
\ "
, 1 --• t :':i N :.! t.,.....
: in: '' l';`,1.7,,,,‘..;:f'.4s*I.Nrii::-'2:'-_;' • 11:-...
1 '1. it '''''. ie, . I • l.")•-•'•.:
\ , . ... _
" \ .....--... - . ....
FIGURE 6. MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD - PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
.t
1 f
Ir-- —11 1 H c 1
' i ,, i . ■ .0.
0...... ..• : .,.... ............ ..., t.i I L
,..t, —.
i 1 • ; n,
st
I i
JOI
1 : ;
„ ,• I
. t„„ , .. . .......... ...:....,
,. , I ■ i • 1
■ ' ; ,
. i ....3 .,.,
1 i
."".
' , ■ : I I f.:1-.4
..... ....._____I ..g;:3
r .....
1 I 2
.‘• c 7 .-'::, ,...1.- is. s
fi
..... .
• r
I ;
.....
1 t
1 4^,
. I f
1, I
• • tf. '1- —
...
.kk\
• .0
. ..
r1
APPROX. 69 ACRES
iH.
I gg 6X
.. .
I<
.... ,
; °:. f-2: ::' o 0
I-- ,-
.1. ..... .. .. : ........ ... _. . rl. . P," . •
'1. .
(..
X
1—
co 0
0
to
1-
La
FIGURE 8. MARE ISLAND CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR
CN1
1—
z
0
LzJ
0
CC
LLI
z
z
0
0
. I ---
:C,...- : f ..., — -777- ,.... ■ 1/4 .,°,•, :, '—
'-'I
t . ......„ . ....) (.... 4, ,„
: __--D •, ......... . ..... :............ • ,,iri
-,.........., ...------ ,-.......... 0, ,.....„.........x,_ -•-•............
< 1: .....,,,..., ,.... ,.., , ......, „......... „, ••• ,......„ ..,,,,,, ,
rC•.•••!- )
I: ;;. <;...." ....
./: . ... , i ".. '..c ::: L °_•,• '.. '' .
. i
t? (a ' ,...'''......-."
- _T.: -' ,
' .. ' . , ... . . • ■ .1 • i_-.,,.
.-....., : . '''" -....-. z
-.1._
•
.t.-:•• e••• • ::„.z."..-.-. __ _ ... ., r.,-.. .f.:44 i i , 1
:•.:...., ,... 1" ,•--- - - ::
..., : . _ ......__.• ,
'•, 7..c.; 1 ;
.:, "'" ::. '.1 1 i. z.•:, _ •/..._ ,
• ; ,
; _.:::...-1 • -..: .1 i '.1
...-
•
1 1
I
rH
I
N jS. ........ L
Ilf-44-zsrivo
■•■■• 0;1'
, , 4
L
• D
0
I. ... ....
I
17..1
*
-
........ • .
• . .......
'
z
*".°: .........
0.
....... • •
0
0
0
0
0
Concept Layout Plans
• The maximum ship size expected to call at the facility is a "C10" cargo vessel
(Length = 1,000 feet; Beam = 135 feet; Draft = 41 feet), at high tide
conditions. Assumed channel depth is 41 feet at Mean Lower Low Water
(MLLW); and,
• A minimum of two gantry cranes is required per berth.
Landside Improvements
Site 1: Finger Pier Area
Total area of this site is approximately 107 acres, with about 4,200 feet of available
waterfront (see Figure 7). Potential exists for three berths at the site Berths 5, 6, and 7.
Anticipated improvements are shown below.
Demolish three finger piers, construct containment dike, and fill
approximately 22 acres of existing Bay;
• Construct dike and fill approximately 4.3 acres of mudflats at south end of
site;
• Construct pile supported concrete wharf (about 3,300 feet long and 120 feet
wide) up to the pierhead line, for crane rails;
• Demolish approximately 20 structures (about 545,000 square feet);
• Construct Container Equipment Maintenance (CEM), Container Freight
Station (CFS), and administration buildings, or upgrade existing buildings, if
similar in size and at appropriate location;
• Regrade and pave site, including striping of the yard;
• Install cleats, bollards, and fendering system;
• Construct gate complex;
• Install cranes (6 units) and acquire yard equipment (hostlers, transtainers,
picks).
Site 2: Dry Docks Area
Total area of this site is approximately 69 acres, with about 2,800 feet of available
waterfront (see Figure 8). Potential exists fcr two berths at the site (Berths 3 and 4). The
following improvements are anticipated:
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 33
Concept Layout Plans
• Fill Dry Docks 1-4 (about 6.2 acres) and Ways 1-2 (about 2:4 acres);
• Construct dike and fill approximately 3.7 acres of existing Bay fronting the
dry docks and ways;
• Construct pile supported concrete wharf (about 2,800 feet long and 120 feet
wide) up to the pier head line, for crane rails;
Demolish approximately 30 structures (about 650,
•
Oil
square feet);
• Construct Container Equipment Maintenance (CEM), Container Freight
Station (CFS), and Administration buildings (or upgrade existing buildings,
if similar in size and at appropriate location);
• Regrade and pave site (including striping of the yard);
• Install cleats, bollards, and fendering system;
• Construct gate complex;
• Install cranes (4 units) and acquire yard equipment (hostlers, transtainers,
picks).
Sit c 3: North Waterfront Facility
Total area of this site is approximately 63 acres, with about 3300 feet of available waterfront
(see Figure 9). Potential exists for 2 berths at the site (Berths 1 and 2). Anticipated
improvements are shown below:
Construct concrete apron (about 2400 feet long and 120 feet wide) for crane
rails;
Demolish approximately 50 structures (about 635,111 square feet);
Construct Container Equipment Maintenance (CEM), Container Freight
•
Station (CFS), and A.. *stration buildings (or upgrade existing buildings,
if similar in size and at appropriate location);
• Regrade and pave site (including striping of the yard);
• Install cleats, bollards, and fendering system;
• Construct gate complex; and,
T T
Concept Layout Plans
Install cranes (4 units), and acquire yard equipment (hostlers, transtainers,
picks).
Waterside Improvements
Existing channel depth of the Mare Island Strait is 36 feet (MLLW). Additional dredging
to a depth of 41 feet was assumed in this analysis. This would permit the larger container
vessels (draft 41 feet) to use the channel at high tide conditions. Other smaller vessels could
use the channel during all tidal conditions. A 1,000 feet wide turning basin would also be
dredged south of the causeway.
The amount of additional dredging (below Corps' dredged 36 feet channel depth) is estimated
to be approximately 1.6 million cubic yards.
Estimated Throughput Capability
Throughput capability was estimated based on the methodology used in the Port Handbook'.
Specific assumptions to establish the critical constraint in cargo handling operations are
discussed below:
• The number of expected ship calls at the potential facility is not assumed to
be a constraint (sufficient market exists for the proposed berths);
• Sufficient gantry cranes and yard equipment will be provided at each terminal.
Therefore, cargo transfer (ship-to-apron, apron-to-storage, or storage-to-final
destination) is not expected to be a constraint; and,
• Gates will be designed for the maximum throughput capacity. Therefore, this
component also is not expected to be a constraint.
The only constraint anticipated at the potential sites is the size of the storage yard. An
assumed throughput density of 2,400 containers per acre per year was used in estimating
throughput capability, as shown in Table 1.
Moffatt & Nichol. Engineers. Port Handbook for Estimating Marine Terminal Cargo Handling
Capability, Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, November
1986.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 35
Concept Layout Plans
Table 1
Potential Throughput Capability
Naval Shipyard Mare Island
Site
1. Finger Pier Area
(3 berths)
2. Dry Docks Area
(2 berths)
3. No. Waterfront Facility
(2 berths)
Total
Area
(acres)
107
69
63
239
ual Throughput Capability
Containers
256,800
165,600
151,200
573,600
TEUs1
436,560
281,520
257,040
975,120
Short Tone
3,081,600
1,987,200
1,814,400
6,883,200
Notes:
1) TEU = 20-foot container equivalent unit. Assumed 70% of containers are 40
feet long, and 30% are 20 feet long.
2) Assuming 12 short tons per container.
Environmental Concerns
Mare Island has been a heavy industrial site for almost 140 years. As a result, numerous
sites on the island have are contaminated with industrial wastes; in fact, the Navy has
identified over 100 Installation Restoration (IR) sites. The locations of these sites are
identified in the City of Vallejo's Draft Reuse Plan and are rated from 1-7, with the lower
numbers indicating areas of lower concern. The City of Vallejo has classified most of the
CIA as Category 7 (areas requiring additional evaluation) and isolated areas as Category 6
(hazardous substance release, no actions taken). The level of environmental remediation that
the Navy will unde . e for a specific area depends upon the future approved reuse.
Seaport activities will require a lower level of remediation than if the site were developed
for housing or recreation. As a result, environmental cleanup is not judged to be a major
constraint for seaport development along Mare Island Strait.
Some mudflats and wetlands exist along the Strait. Container terminal development at Site
1 will require filling in approximately 4.3 acres of mudflats south of the finger piers, as
shown on Figure 7. This could pose a significant environmental concern, unless appropriate
mitigation measures are implemented. No other wetlands have been identified in the CIA.
Concept Layout Plans
Another environmental constraint to any significant seaport development activity at Mare
Island is the historical significant attached to many structures in the CIA. The shipyards is
a National Historic Landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic places, within
almost all the historic facilities concentrated within Sties 2 and 3 (Dry Dock area and North
Waterfront facility). The Reuse Plan has planned this area as a historic district that extends
slightly west of Railroad Avenue. Break-bulk facilities have smaller backland area
requirements and may be more appropriate at these sites.
Potential for Break-Bulk Cargo Facility
There are obvious constraints posed by demolition of potentially historical structures,
significant dredging requirements, and filling in of the finger piers associated with container
terminal development. A break-bulk facility has smaller backland area and channel depth
requirements, when compared to containerized cargo facilities. The potential exits for a
break-bulk cargo facility in the vicinity of the finger piers associated with container terminal
development. A break-bulk facility has smaller backland area and channel depth
requirements, when compared to containerized cargo facilities.
The potential exists for a break-bulk cargo facility in the vicinity of the finger piers, with
minimal impact on existing conditions. A single-berth terminal would include about 7-1/2
acres of land (800 feet x 400 feet). The area immediately north of the finger piers can be
developed as a break-bulk cargo facility; this area has been designated in the Reuse Plan as
heavy industry. Anticipated improvements would include:
• Upgrade 800 feet of waterfront for berthing break-bulk cargo ships
(rehabilitate seawall and construct 100 feet wide concrete apron);
• Demolish three to four miscellaneous structures (Apprix. 25,000 square feet);
• Construct transit shed (600 feet x 200 feet);
• Install cleats, bollards, and fendering system; and,
• Acquire yard equipment (fork lifts).
The existing road and rail network is judged to be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated
level of traffic. The existing channel depth of 36 feet will have to be maintained to
accommodate break-bulk cargo ships. No additional dredging is anticipated. The expected
cargo throughput was determined to be about 80,000 short tons per year, based on the size
of storage yard/shed.
The North Waterfront Facility also has potential for a single berth break-bulk cargo facility.
This is the area south of the causeway, which is shown as "chassis storage" on Figure 9.
Anticipated improvements would be similar to the facility described above. The expected
cargo throughput was determined to be about 80,000 short tons per year.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 37
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION
Concept Layout PI
NAVAL SUPPLY CE R • X
Concept-level layouts for two locations on NAS Alameda were prepared, along with
anticipated capital improvements, as presented in Figure 10. Five berths were included on
the south side of the base near the existing aircraft-carrier be g area. Six be were
included on the north side of the base along the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel. The
potential for a two-berth terminal also exists at the NSC-Alameda Facility, as shown on
Figure 10.
Capital Improvements
Improvements were identified based on the assumption that containerized cargo terminals are
to be developed at the three sites. Other specific assumptions are shown below:
The minimum backland area required for a containerized cargo berth is 30
acres;
The dredged entrance c el to the carrier berthing area and the Oakland
Inner Harbor Channel would be maintained at minimum of 42 feet depth, to
allow "C10" cargo ships to call at the sites during all tidal conditions;
• The dike at the northern periphery of the island would be relocated further
inland, to allow safe berthing of vessels at Berths 1 - 6;
• All aircraft operations would cease to exist on the island.
Landside Improvements
Carrier Berthing Area
Two sites were identified in this area: A 92 acre site at the south end of Runway 13/31, and
a 62 acre site where the carriers currently berth. Total length of waterfront available for
berthing would be about 5,800 feet. Potential exists for five berths in this area, as shown
on Figure 10. Anticipated improvements would include the following:
• Demolish carrier be g piers and pile supported deck, extend sea wall to
south and west, and fill approximately three acres for Be 4 and 5;
• Construct pile supported concrete wharf (about 2,400 feet long and 120 feet
wide) at Berths 4 and 5, and a concrete apron (about 3,300 feet long and 120
feet wide) at Berths 1, 2 and 3 for crane rails;
• Demolish about 20 structures (approximately 320,000 square feet);
• Construct CEM, CFS and Administration buildings (1 each per terminal);
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants
38
Concept Layout Plans
• Regrade and pave sites (including striping of yard);
• Install cleats, bollards, and fendering system;
• Construct gate complex at each terminal (3 total); and,
Install cranes (10 units), and acquire yard equipment (hostlers, transtainers,
picks).
Along Oakland Inner Harbor Channel
The potential exists for three terminals (six be ) in this area, as shown on Figure 10. The
total area of each terminal would be about 66 acres, with approximately 2,200 linear feet of
waterfront per terminal. Port development along the c .. el would require that the existing
dike, which forms the northern periphery of the island, be relocated about 150 feet further
inland. This would allow safe berthing of vessels, while maintaining navigation along the
channel. Anticipated improvements would include the following:
• Demolish existing dike along channel and construct new rock structure further
inland,
• Construct pile supported concrete wharf (about 6,900 feet long and 120 feet
wide) for crane rails;
• Demolish about 40 miscellaneous structures (approximately 100,000 square
feet), including underground fuel lines in the area;
• Construct CEM, CFS and Administration buildings (1 each per terminal);
• Regrade and pave sites (including striping of yard);
• Install cleats, bollards and fendering system;
• Construct gate complex at each terminal (3 total); and,
• Install cranes (12 units), and acquire yard equipment (hostlers, transtainers,
picks).
NSC Alameda Facility
A two-berth terminal is shown on Figure 10 with an area of about 58 acres. Total length
of waterfront available at the site is approximately 2,000 feet. The site has extensive
warehousing facilities (in excess of one million square feet). The wharf is along the Oaldand
Alm TITRA VC Trryncnnrtrutinn Cnncriltnntv
4n
Concept Layout Plans
Inner Harbor Channel, which is currently dredged to 38 feet, and is used occasionally by the
Navy to berth supply vessels. Anticipated improvements would include the following:
• Upgrade existing wharf to take container gantry crane loads;
• Demolish 3 warehouse structures (approximately 450,000 square feet), and
other miscellaneous structures on site;
• Construct CEM, CFS and Administration buildings;
• Regrade and pave sites (including striping of yard);
• Install cleats, bollards and fendering system;
• Construct gate complex; and,
• Install cranes (4 units), and acquire yard equipment (hostlers, transtainers,
picks).
Waterside Improvements
Carrier Berthing Area
Existing depth of channel to the carrier berthing piers at the south of the island is maintained
at 42 feet (MLLW). The channel would have to be maintained at this depth to allow large
container vessels to use it at high tide conditions. Other smaller vessels could use the
channel during all tidal conditions. Additional dredging will be needed at the proposed
berthing areas (Berths 1-5) to a depth of 42 feet. The amount of dredging is estimated to
be about one million cubic yards.
Along Oakland Inner Harbor Channel
The Oakland Inner Harbor Channel is currently maintained to a depth of 38 feet, and the
Corps plans to dredge further to 42 feet pending finalization of a disposal site. Vessels
berthing in this area would use the existing channel and turning basin.
Additional dredging to a depth of 42 feet will be needed after relocation of the dike (Berths
1 through 6). The amount of dredging is estimated to be about 900,000 cubic yards.
NSC Alameda Facility
Access to the facility exists from the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel. Some dredging would
be required at the proposed berths to allow container vessel berthing. An allowance was
made for 90,000 cubic yards of dredged material.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 41
Concept Layout PI
Estimated Throughput Capability
The throughput shown in Table 2 was based on the methodology and assumptions as
explained in the analysis for Mare Island. An assumed throughput density of 2,400
containers per acre per year was used in estimating the throughput capability.
Table 2
Potential Throughput Capability at
Alameda Naval Air Station and Naval Supply Center Annex
Site
Area
(acres)
Annual Throughput Capability
Containers
i EUsl
Short Tons'
Carrier Berthing Area
(Berths 1-3)
Carrier Berthing Area
(Berths 4 & 5)
Along Oakland Inner Harbor
Channel (6 berths)
NSC Alameda Facility
(2 berths)
Total
92
62
199
58
411
220,800
148,800
477,600
139,200
986,400
375,360
252,960
811,920
236,640
1,676,880
2,649,600
1,785,600
5,731,200
1,670,400
11,836,800
Notes:
1) TEU = 20-foot container equivalent unit. Assumed 70% of containers are 40 feet,
long, and 30% are 20 feet long.
2) Assuming 12 short tons per container.
Enviro ental Concerns
A wetlands delineation survey on the base was recently conducted for the Navy. Two areas
were identified to have known wetlands, as follows:
In the vicinity of the West Beach Landfill; and,
• South of Runway 13/31 (Be 1 through 3 in Figure 10).
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants
42
Concept Layout Plans
Discussions with the base Closure personnel also indicate potential for seasonal wetlands
along the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel. However, no determination has been made at this
time.
As part of its Installation Restoration (IR) program, the Navy had identified various areas
for environmental clean-up. Four sites along the Inner Harbor Channel were identified as
part of this program. They included a fire training area, two storage buildings, fuel lines,
and the Oakland Inner Harbor estuary. Proposed berths on the south side of the island do
not have any known IR sites. Cutting back the dike on the Inner Harbor Channel has the
potential for releasing some toxic contamination.
The filling in of wetlands at the south side of the island is seen as an environmental
constraint, and mitigation measures would have to be identified should any seaport
development be recommended for this area. Environmental clean-up is not seen as a major
constraint at any of the proposed sites.
Potential for Break-Bulk Cargo Facility
The 95-acre NSC Alameda Facility is suitable for use as a break-bulk cargo terminal with
minimal improvements to existing facilities. Approximately one million square feet of
warehouse space currently exists on site. A 2,000 feet long marginal wharf, a dredged
channel depth of 38 feet, and direct road access from the Webster tunnel are also available
at the facility. The berth areas have been dredged to 33 feet by the Navy, and additional
dredging. to 35 feet will be required to accommodate larger break-bulk cargo vessels.
The potential exists for a two to three-berth cargo terminal at the site, depending on the
length of ships calling at the facility. It would include about 23 acres of land and 250,000
square feet of existing warehouse space. Remaining land and warehouse area could be made
available for future waterfront-related or other users. Improvements would include dredging
at the berth areas and upgrading the warehouse structures based on the type of expected
cargo. Annual cargo throughput is expected to be about 250,000 short tons.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 43
Concept Layout Plans
NAVAL SUPPLY CE R OAKL
Concept-level layouts were based on information obtained from the Port of Oakland. The
Port proposes to lease a substantial portion of the NSC, currently owned by the Navy.
Relocation of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroad yards to a Joint Intermodal
Terminal (JIT) is a key element of the port's development plans on Navy land. The location
of the proposed Intermodal Terminal is presented in Figure 11. Approximately 150 acres
of the existing NSC will be used as part of the JIT, about 85 acres will be retained by the
Navy, and the rest will be developed by the Port for marine terminal uses.
Figure 11 shows seven berths along the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel. The location of
Berths 2-7 is proposed by the Port. The potential exists for an additional berth (Berth 1) at
the western edge of the Inner Channel. The potential also exists for a single berth, break-
bulk cargo terminal in the Middle Harbor at the North Marginal Wharf. However, the
250,000 cu. yd./year dredging requirement for the Middle Harbor is perceived to be a major
economic constraint for a single berth terminal.
Capital Improvements
Improvements were identified based on the assumption that containerized cargo terminals are
to be developed at the sites. Other specific assumptions are shown below:
Backland area requirements for Berths 2-7 is approximately 40 acres per berth
(as proposed by the Port). The additional berth (Berth 1) was assumed to
have a 30 acre backland area
• The Oakland Inner Harbor Channel would be dredged to 42 feet depth to
allow "C10" cargo ships to call at the terminals for all-tidal conditions; and,
• The dike at the southern periphery of the current Union Pacific railyard would
be relocated further inland to allow safe berthing of vessels.
Landside Improvements
The potential exists for seven berths in this area, as shown on Figure 11. Total length of
waterfront available for be g, along the Inner Harbor Channel, would be about 7,400
feet. Three two-berth terminals, and one single berth terminal are included in the concept
plan. The total area of each two-berth terminal would be about 80 acres, with approximately
2,100 linear feet of waterfront per terminal. The single berth terminal is about 30 acres,
with 1,050 linear feet of available waterfront.
Port development along the channel would require that the existing dike, which forms the
southern periphery of the existing Union Pacific intermodal facility, be relocated about 150
feet further inland. This would allow safe berthing of vessels, while maintaining navigation
along the channel. Anticipated improvements would include the following:
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 44
FIGURE 11. NSC OAKLAND
CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR CONTAINER TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT
O
Concept Layout P1
Demolish existing dike along channel and construct new rock structure further
inland;
• Construct pile supported concrete wharfs (about 7,400 feet long and 120 feet
wide) for crane rails;
• Demolish about 43 structures (in excess of three million square feet),
including 25 warehouses;
• Construct CEM, CFS and Administration buildings (1 each per terminal);
• Regrade and pave sites (including striping of yard);
• Install cleats, bollards and fendering system;
• Construct gate complex at each terminal (4 total);
• Install cranes (14 units at two per berth), and acquire yard equipment
(hostlers, transtainers, picks).
Waterside Improvements
The Oakland Inner Harbor Channel is currently maintained to a depth of 38 feet, and the
Corps plans to dredge further to 42 feet pending finalization of a disposal site. Vessels
berthing in this area would use the existing channel and turning basin.
Additional dredging will be needed after relocation of the dike (Berths 1-7) to a depth of 42
feet. At this stage, an allowance of 500,11 • cu. yds. of dredging is included in the analysis.
Estimated Throughput Capability
The throughput shown in Table 3 was based on the methodology and assumptions as
explained in Section 1.2: Estimated oughput Capability for Mare Island. An assumed
throughput density of 2,400 containers per acre per year was used in estimating the
throughput capability.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 46
Concept Layout Plans
Table 3
Potential Throughput Capability
Naval Supply Center Oakland
° Site
Area
(acres)
ual Throughput Capability
Containers
TEUs'
Sh. Tons'
Berth 1
30
2,
111
122,400
864,000
Berth 2 -7 (3 terminals)
Total
235
265
564,000
636,000
958,800
1,081,200
6,768,000
7,632,000
Notes:
1) TEU = 20 -foot container equivalent unit. Assumed 70% of containers are 40 feet
long, and 30% are 20 feet long.
Assuming 12 short tons per container.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 47
5.0 EVALUATION OF
EVALUATION CRITE
1
ARY SITES
The potential for each military site has been examined and rated based on the following
seven consideration factors:
• Land Use Compatibility
• Land Access
• Environmental Considerations
• Institutional Considerations
• Supporting Infrastructure
• Available Land, and
• Water Depth
These considerations focus on requirements for container terminals but are also appropriate
for analysis of bulk terminals. A description of each of these factors is provided in the
following paragraphs:
1. Land Use Compatibility. This consideration focuses on compatibility with
adjacent land uses. Sites surrounded by industrial land use, either existing or
zoned for future use, would receive a higher rating than residential,
institutional, or commercial land uses. This factor is usually not a fatal flaw
for long-range planning.
2. Land Access. Adequate land access is a fundamental requirement for the
development of major seaport facilities. In general terms, the site must have
good access to the regional freeway system and to mainline rail yards,
especially intermpdal container transfer facilities (ICTF). Rail access to sites
is desirable but not essential; an adequate truck route to a nearby ICTF is
acceptable. Inadequate land access could be considered a fatal flaw.
3. Enviro ental Considerations. For long-range planning, an assessment of
environmental factors can be difficult. The first two Seaport Plans focused
on the need for bay fill, and this issue remains a primary concern. For
military bases, other factors, such as con " • .tion by hazardous materials
and wetlands, should also be taken into consideration.
First, some contamination exists and remedial actions will have to be taken.
Detailed studies required to assess the contamination status of both on-shore
and off-shore soils are underway by the U.S. Navy, and no final results are
available at this time. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be drawn from
studies that identified Installation Restoration (IR) sites. Second, terminals
are paved throughout, which limits the potential for exposure to toxic
materials and to movement of these materials to other locations. In effect,
development of seaport facilities can serve as a remediation measure at
er
7 r ■-r-wv-r•rt r77 Few In
42
Evaluation of Military Sites
locations where toxic materials have been identified. At this stage in the
planning process, environmental factors would not be considered a fatal flaw,
as mitigation measures could be developed to address most environmental
issues.
4. Institutional Considerations. Seaport development must have a local sponsor
to undertake the planning, financing, and management of facilities. This
factor represents the degree to which there is local support for the
development of seaport facilities. The existence of a port agency within the
jurisdiction generally is considered evidence of a local willingness to
undertake the development of new or upgraded seaport facilities.
5. Supporting Infrastructure. This factor reflects the fact that seaport facilities
require supporting infrastructure to promote the overall efficiency of port
operations and land transportation movements. Such infrastructure includes
warehousing, truck terminals, and industrial operations that handle either
import or export freight.
6. Available Land. Seaport development requires adequate backland acreage
for the efficient movement and storage of freight. Based on current port
planning practices for containerized facilities, 50 acres per berth is considered
desirable for a container terminal, and at least 30 acres is considered
essential. Container terminals can be developed with smaller amounts of
backland, but this will limit overall capacity. Backland storage or gate
processing area is the capacity constraint at all except one container terminal
in the Bay Area.
7. Water Depth. A necessary ingredient for the development of a major seaport
facility is access to deep water channels and berths. For long-range planning
purposes, the following categories of water depth considered to be
economically feasible have been used:
Category 1: water depth of 39-45 feet, which would allow for access
by a significant percentage of modern, fully-loaded container vessels;
• Category 2: water depth of 35-39 feet, which would allow access by
older and partially loaded container vessels;
• Category 3: 30-35 feet, which would allow the port to handle most
bulk cargo vessels and older container vessels operated by small
shipping companies serving "niche" markets; and,
• Category 4: Less than 30 feet.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 49
Evaluation of Military Sites
The lack of deep water can be a fatal flaw for the development of container
facilities but not for the development of bulk freight facilities. Numerous
sites exist in San Francisco Bay where 30 foot water depths can be provided,
but Category 1 or 2 depths are considered essential for development of future
container facilities. At several current military sites, the costs of continued
dredging could be prohibitive without Navy support.
EVALUATION OF
I II
IVIDUAL SITES
Table 4 presents the evaluation matrix for seven military sites, as follows: (1) Mare Island;
(2) NAS Alameda (Inner Harbor); (3) NAS Alameda (South Island); (4) NSC Oakland; (5)
NSC Annex Alameda; (6) Hunter's Point, and (7) Treasure Island. Three of the seven sites
are located within the City of Alameda, two with the City and County of San Francisco, and
one each within the Cities of Vallejo and Oakland. Table 5 presents a quantitative summary
based on a qualitative rating and a weighing for each factor. The numbers assigned to each
rating are as follows: Poor = 0; Fair = 1; Good = 3, and Excellent = 5. A weighing of
1 was assigned to the land use, environmental, and institutional factors and 2 to the other
four factors. The numerical matrix is intended only for providing a general assessment of
a site's relative potential for container development and was considered in the
recommendations.
For long-range planning purposes, potentially fatal flaws are considered to be limited to four
factors: (1) inability to provide economical access to a deep-water channel; (2) inability to
provide at least 30 acres of backland; (3) no adjacent regional freeways or a railroad
mainline, and (4) a need for large amounts of Bay fill. Of the bases studied, only Treasure
Island is considered to have fatal flaws for the development of civilian seaport development
based on land access considerations.
The analysis of each site for the seven evaluation factors is presented below:
Mare Island
Land Use: The Mare Island waterfront on the strait has existing seaport activities,
including freight transfer, docking, and ship repair facilities. Future civilian seaport
activity along this waterfront would be consistent with existing land uses. The City
of Vallejo completed in June, 1994 its Mare Island Final Reuse Plan. Four separate
land use areas had been included along the waterfront. From south to north, they are
a marina/residential area north to the existing piers, a heavy industrial area that
extends past two of the three dry docks, a small historical district, and an office/light
industry mixed use that extends as far as the causeway. Based on these land
designations, seaport activity could potentially occur in either the heavy industry or
mixed-use areas. The existing warehousing in the light industrial area would favor
a breakbulk facility in that area. This factor is rated "Good" based on the existing
seaport activities and plans that are compatible with seaport development.
MTILTITR,4NS Trancnortntinn Conculianfc
5n
a.)
0
0
a)
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"CI
"c8
0
44
0
t:4
0
0
0
0
0
0
a.,
Land Access
0
0
4-
"0
0
0
40'
;-
0
0
0
0
0
0
a.,
CU
0
0
f2k
• o
" a.)
"0
Mare Island
improvements that are consid
0
0
•
CU
0)
Cr)
•—■
r—I
0
NS Transportation Consultan
Cation of Military Sites
C
'Tr & 0
Land Access
v7
V'l
ari
NSC Oakland
M
rs
Cri
E
¢
1
cn
z
cz
E
z<
0
1
r
ti
.-r
O
Cr)
Cr)
ert
2
cn
Q
etS
0)
1-
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants
Evaluation of Military Sites
Land Access: • Two land access points exist, both at the northern end of the island.
The northernmost gate provides access to Highway 37, and the causeway to the south
is an extension of Tennessee Street that passes through central Vallejo. The
causeway contains rail tracks in good condition as well as a road. Rail movements
have been limited in the past, and no railyard exists in the adjacent area. The reuse
plan contains the recommendation for a southern bridge crossing along either the
Lemon Street or Curtola Parkway corridors. The facility would be needed to
accommodate traffic demand for build-out conditions, for which no date has been
assigned but is expected to occur after 2006. Land access is considered "Fair"
primarily because of limited access to an interrnodal rail facility and because of
problems with access to 1-80.
Environmental: No major environmental problems have been identified, but clean-
up of some toxic contamination on potential seaport sites would be required.
Wetlands is not an issue and seaport development would require no bay fill. This
factor is rated "Fair" because of the uncertainty regarding the extent and timing of
clean-up work.
Institutional: No existing port agency exists, but Vallejo in the past has supported
limited seaport development. The reuse plan, however, is incompatible with major
seaport developments along the development. This factor is rated "Poor".
Infrastructure: No civilian seaport facilities currently exist in the area. This factor
is rated "Fair" because of the current seaport infrastructure on the island itself,
although major changes would be required for use as civilian facilities.
Available Land: The land located to the east of Railroad Avenue currently serves
industrial purposes and would be adequate for seaport development. However,
extensive demolition of existing facilities would be required; and many are in good
condition and serve new tenants on a short-term or even long-term basis. This factor
is rated "Fair" because of the extensive demolition that would be required and
because some potential seaport development sites are located in areas of historical
significance.
Water Depth: Current dredging depth is 36 feet, which would be adequate for many
bulk vessels but would not serve modern container vessels. The extensive dredging
required, even to maintain the current water depth, and the small level of seaport
activity that would exist to support additional dredging strongly suggests that the
water depth will be allowed to decrease once the Navy ceases operations at Mare
Island. This factor is rated "Fair".
Overall Recommendation: The unlikelihood of achieving adequate water depth for
modern container vessels at an economical cost, makes Mare Island unsuitable for
designation as a major container facility. However, the reuse plan is compatible with
limited seaport facility development north of the existing piers on Mare Island Strait.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 53
Evaluation of Military Sites
It is recommended that two bulk terminals be designated in the area between the piers
and the causeway. Maximum flexibility should be allowed in where the terminals
should be located and in approving interim uses, as no short-term needs exist for bulk
terminals in the Bay Area at this time. The low numerical rating (second to last) as
shown in Table 5, is indicative of the island's unsuitability for major seaport
development. The dredging ponds on the western side of the island are considered
a regional resource that should continue to be available for depositing dredged
materials.
Naval Air Station Al eda (Inner Harbor)
Land Use: The potential sites for marine terminals are located adjacent to an
existing airfield and, thus, do not have any current land uses that are incompatible
with seaport development. Land use is rated "Good" based on these conditions.
Development of a reuse plan for NAS Alameda has only recently started and no
results are available at this time. The Area Wide Strategy study conducted by the
City of Alameda did not include the Naval Air Station.
Land Access: The primary road access to Alameda Island is via two tunnel tubes
that together provide two lanes in each direction. The clearance constraint is 14 ft.
0 in. for the Posey Tube that serves northbound traffic. The tunnels serve Webster
Avenue in both direction on the Alameda side. On the Oakland side, southbound
traffic is provided by Webster Avenue, and Harrison Street serves northbound traffic.
The tunnels, according to the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
(CMA), operate at Level of Service "F" (at or above capacity) during the PM peak
period. The primary constraints for traffic in the corridor facility are access and
egress to 1-880 using local streets in Oakland.
Limited rail service is available to the island via a bridge at Fruitvale Avenue.
However, the Alameda Belt line's trackage is designated only as Class 3 and could not
move large volumes of traffic without substantial improvements. The trackage
currently does not extend westward of the NSC ex. The proximity of the
intermodal railyard in Oakland makes rail service to the potential Inner Harbor
seaport sites unnecessary, as long as they are developed as container te Is.
Containers would be tr ported by truck to and from the intermodal facility either
through the existing tunnels or on a new crossing facility.
The land access rating is "Poor" for existing facilities. This rating is based on initial,
limited seaport development, that the peak period for the movement of trucks does
not coincide with the peak period for overall traffic, and that no rail access is
considered necessary. Current traffic forecasts prepared by the CMA are based on
continued operation of the Air Station by the Navy. At this time, it is impossible to
estimate the impacts of either short-term or long-term development of sites other than
being lyzed for seaport development.
1, r rr• V '7,71 4 ef, rot,: crelf rr t
54
Evaluation of Military Sites
Table 6 presents a summary of estimated traffic impacts on existing traffic conditions.
At this time, it is unsure what the level of traffic will be for build-out of a reuse
strategy. It is anticipated that improvements in land access would be required even
without seaport development, as is the case at Mare Island.
A two-berth container facility would increase the existing two-way traffic levels in
the Webster Avenue tubes by only 3.6 percent during the PM peak hours. However,
the upper level of development, six berths, would result in a 10.8 percent increase
in two-way traffic, which would result in a significant traffic impact.
The major land access improvement considered necessary is a high-level bridge
crossing west of the Webster tubes. With such a facility, the terminals would have
"Excellent" access both to the regional freeway system via the local roadway system
in the Port of Oakland, and Oakland's joint intermodal container facility.
Table 6
Estimated Traffic Impacts of Seaport Development at
NAS Alameda Inner Harbor
(PM peak period vehicles/hour)
Background Traffic (Existing Conditions)
Northbound
3,293
Southbound
2,772
Two-way Total
Container Terminal Traffic (2-way)
6,065
Two Container Berths
218
Percent Increase
3.6%
Four Container Berths
436
Percent Increase
Six Container Berths
7.2%
654
Percent Increase
10.8%
Note: See Intermodal Report traffic forecasting assumptions.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 55
Evaluation of Military Sites
The East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission produced a draft document by
Korve Engineering entitled Alameda Seaport Access Assessment in June, 1994 that
summarizes. an analysis of alternative crossing concepts.
The estimated low-range costs range from $120 million for a two lane, high-level
vehicular bridge from Middle Harbor Road to First Street, to $580 million or more
for a vehicular tunnel from Cypress Street to Fifth Street. The study is being revised
to reflect concerns of the Port of Oakland and the City of A1.1 eda. The alig • • ent
and the tie-in with the Oakland street network need to be carefully designed to
minimize impacts on port operations and to provide the best possible freeway access.
The $120 million structure could be supported solely by seaport facilities, based on
the development of six container be . A similar type of development occurred in
Long Beach where two $90 million truck bridges connect the-mainland to container
berths on an island. Leasing fees have been adequate to finance both the
development of the terminals and the bridge crossing.
Enviro •ental: No bay fill would be required for development of the sites.
Environmental studies at the proposed sites are incomplete at this time. It is possible
that some of the lands could be designated as seasonal wetlands. Relocating of the
existing dike may release some contaminants into the channel. Also, it is certain
that some contaminated soils will be located on the proposed sites; however, it is
unlikely that the extent of contamination will be so great that it would preclude the
development of seaport facilities. The rating is "Fair" for this factor.
The Navy is responsible for cleaning up contaminated materials to a level appropriate
for anticipated reuse. As noted earlier, a seaport facility would require less clean-up
than most other potential land uses and, thus, might enable the sites to be
revenue-generating in a shorter time frame than if other uses were adopted. The
rating is "Fair" for this factor, based on the uncertainty of the extent and timing of
toxic clean-up and of wetlands designations.
Institutional: The City of Alameda does not operate any port facilities and
currently is on record as not supporting seaport development on the NAS. The rating
is "Fair" because the reuse plan has not been completed and because no studies at this
time indicate that any other uses would be preferable for this site from a local or
regional perspective. Also, the City of Al eda could enter into a joint operating
agreement with the City of Oakland that has experience in port operations.
Infrastructure: A rating of "Good" results from the proximity of the proposed sites
to the Port of Oakland, even though it is recognized that full development of the
Inner Harbor sites would require improved land access to mainland facilities.
Available Land: The rating for this factor is "Excellent" because there are no
existing_ structures or current land uses that would be incompatible with seaport
development. The assumption is that airfield operations will cease after the air
111 7 T T rl 4 A. T C° _ of". "sn er
Evaluation of Military Sites
station ceases operations. A report by the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Commission concludes that no economically feasible opportunities exist for continued
use of the airfield.
Water Depth: The rating for this factor is "Excellent" based on pending plans of
the Port of Oakland to deepen the approach channel and Inner Harbor Channel to 42
feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and later plans to apply for further deepening
to 45 feet MLLW. The ability of the sites to begin operations with a deep-water
channel and to share the ongoing maintenance costs of channel dredging is a
significant advantage, given the difficulty of obtaining authorization for the dredging
of new channels or deepening of existing channels.
Overall Recommendation: It is recommended that the Inner Harbor Channel
seashore north of the proposed turning basin be designated as container sites in the
Seaport Plan. These sites are the most suitable container sites among the military
sites analyzed, except for NSC Oaldand. The sites are technically feasible and
limited development could be accomplished with the existing roadway system.
However, a high-level bridge would be necessary to achieve full development.
It is recognized that the reuse plan for NAS Alameda has not been completed and that
seaport development will require the support of the City of Alameda.
NAS Alameda (South Island)
Land Use: This factor is rated "Fair" because not all of the adjacent land uses are
compatible with seaport development. The existing seaport activities relate to aircraft
carriers rather than freight transfers and could not be converted to civilian uses
without extensive modifications. Also, all freight would have to be transported
across the island on city streets.
Land Access: The "Poor" rating is the same as for the Inner Harbor site. Adequate
land access is available for a small number of container berths that do not require rail
access to the sites.
Environmental: Environmental is rated "Poor" because there is a year-round
wetlands area on the west side of the lagoon, bay fill would be required to develop
the carrier berths into civilian seaport facilities, the lagoon is known as being heavily
polluted, and the potential exists for toxic contamination on the proposed sites,
especially for those on the west side.
Institutional: The "Fair" rating is the same as for the Inner Harbor sites.
Infrastructure: The "Good" rating is the same as for the Inner Harbor sites.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 57
Evaluation of Milit Sites
Available Land: The "Good" rating is based on the small number of existing
structures that need to be demolished to obtain adequate backland space for seaport
development.
Water Depth: Water depth is only "Fair" despite the existing deep-water c
(42 feet) because considerable costs would be required to maintain a channel that
would only support five berths at most. Is unlikely that this depth would be
maintained after the base closure because near-term seaport development is not
anticipated. The existing channel would have to be re-authorized and re-dredged to
project depth.
e
Overall Reco endation: No seaport development is recommended, primarily
because of future dredging costs, likely environmental problems, the need to cross
the island with all freight, and the • .bility to group the two terminal sites together.
Naval Supply Center Oakland
Land Use: This factor is rated "Excellent" because the facility is surrounded by the
Port of Oakland.
Land Access: The facility has the same land access characteristics as the Port of
Oakland; and, thus, this factor is rated "Excellent".
Environmental: Some bay fill will be required to provide adequate backland, and
some toxic contamination might be found on sites; but no major problems are
anticipated. The Navy will be required to perform necessary clean-up activities
before any future transfer of ownership occurs. This factor is rated "Fair" because
the extent and timing of remedial actions that would be required for eventual transfer
of the sites to the Port of Oakland is u own at this time.
Institutional: The existing Port of Oakland would develop and operate the sites. The
rating for this factor is "Excellent".
Infrastructure: This factor is rated "Excellent" because it is bordered by the Port
of Oakland and adjacent rail facilities of the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific
Railroads.
Available Land: Adequate land, with some bay fill, exists to provide approximately
40 acres for seven new berths 1,111 feet in length. This factor is rated "Excellent".
Water Depth: The new terminal sites would be located on the Inner Harbor that
currently has a 39 foot depth (MLLW) and will soon be deepened to 42.5 feet. The
Port of Oakland has indicated that it will seek further deepening to 45 feet as soon
as the approved dredging project is completed. This factor is rated "Excellent".
Evaluation of Military Site
Overall Recommendation: The Supply Center has ideal characteristics for near-tern
development for container terminals, and it is recommended that all seven sites be
designated as Civilian Seaport sites. All development is expected to occur on the
Inner Harbor. Opportunities are limited in the Middle Harbor, and land should
instead be used to support the Inner Harbor terminals. All factors are rated
"Excellent" except for environmental considerations. The "Good" rating for that
factor is because some bay fill will be required and because the need for toxic
clean-up is unknown at this point. The numerical rating for this site is the highest
of all sites analyzed (see Table 5).
NSC Alameda Annex
Land Use: This factor is rated "Fair" because the surrounding land uses are
incompatible with extensive seaport development, even though it would be technically
feasible to develop two container berths at the facility. The Area Wide Strategy
developed by the City of Alameda in Spring, 1993 recommends that the facility have
continuous shoreline access, that two east-west connections be considered
(Mitchell-Mosely closest to the channel and Tinker-Tynan to the south), and that the
area contain a mix of residential and revenue-generating land uses. The City has a
goal of improving the visual corridor along Webster Avenue and promotinE
development to the west similar to that which has occurred to the east.
Land Access: Movements between the site and the Webster tubes is easily
accommodated via ramps on either side of the roadway. Although the Alameda
Belt line tracks extend into the facility, major improvements would be required before
freight movements on a regular basis could be safely handled. The "Poor" rating is
the result of major congestion in the Webster tubes, especially in the PM
period.
Environmental: The rating is "Good" because no bay fill is required, and no major
toxic contamination is anticipated for which adequate remedial actions could not be
provided.
Institutional: The "Fair" rating is the same as for the two sites evaluated on NAS
Alameda.
Infrastructure: The "Good" rating is the result of the proximity of the Part of
Oakland.
Available Land: Adequate backland exists to support the development of two
container facilities. However, existing development limits the ability to acquire
additional backland. It would be desirable for new container facilities to be able to,
accommodate more than two berths. The rating for this factor is "Good".
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 59
Evaluation of Military Sites
Water Depth: The rating for this factor is "Excellent" as for the two other potential
military sites on the Inner Harbor Channel.
Overall Reco endation: It is recommended that this facility not be designated for
seaport development, even though it has the third highest numerical rating (see Table
5). Ongoing land use planning is intended to provide an integrated development
between the Alameda Gateway and Mariner Square, and major seaport development
would be inconsistent with this concept.
Treasure Island
Land Use: The rating for this factor is "Fair" because of the significant potential for
incompatible land uses on land adjacent to any major seaport development on the
island. Visual impact of seaport development on Treasure Island also is a negative
impact.
L d Access: The inadequate ramp capacities between the island and the Bay Bridge
result in a "Poor" rating for this factor. In addition, the congestion on the bridge and
lack of easy access to a railyard compound the land access difficulties.
Environmental: No major problems with toxic con ination are anticipated, and
no bay fill would be required. The rating is "Good" for this factor.
Institutional: The existence of the Port of San Francisco makes a "Good" rating
suitable for this factor.
Infrastructure: The absence of any adjacent civilian seaport facilities makes a
"Poor" rating suitable for this factor.
Available Land: This factor is rated "Good" because adequate land could be located
if a seaport development were found to be feasible.
Water Depth: A rating of "Fair" is given because no access for deepwater vessels
currently exists.
Overall Reco endation: No development is recommended at this facility. Land
access is considered a fatal flaw, and relatively favorable ratings for some of the
other factors would be unable to overcome these conditions.
71,fT1T TIT; PA VC Troncrrnrtatinti Consultants 60
6.0 RECO
1 I
NDATIONS
The section on conceptual layout plans identified a total of 26 technically feasible container
berth sites that could be developed on five military bases, as follows: Mare Island (6), Naval
Air Station Alameda and NSC Annex Alameda (13), and Naval Supply Center Oakland (7).
The analysis, as described in the previous section, indicates potential development at only
slightly more than half of these berths -- seven container berths at Naval Supply Center
Oakland, six more container berths at Naval Air Station Alameda, and two break-bulk berths
at Mare Island. In addition, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission has recommended that three break-bulk berths be desi: • ted at Hunter's Point.
Most likely, the Naval Supply Center sites would be the first of the military sites to be
developed. In fact, advanced planning is already underway by the Port of Oakland for the
first phase of that development that includes movement of the current Union Pacific
intermodal terminal located on the Inner Harbor to a joint intermodal terminal. Development
of the NAS Alameda sites likely would occur after the Port of Oakland sites approach
capacity, and the feasible conversion of bulk freight to container freight facilities has taken
place at the Port of Richmond. The date for this need likely will not be before 2005. The
need for break-bulk terminals does not exist at the present time but is forecast to occur in
the long-term as some existing break-bulk terminals at the Ports of Oakland and Richmond
are converted to container terminals.
The civilian seaport recommendations for military bases, as presented in the previous
section, gave consideration to all seven evaluation criteria. Of the three sites not
recommended for any conversion to civilian seaport facilities, Treasure Island was eliminated
primarily because of land access considerations, the NSC Alameda Annex primarily because
of land use considerations, and the NAS Alameda air carrier berths primarily because of the
combination of long-term dredging costs, inability of developing facilities at a single
integrated site, and environmental considerations.
Table 7 contains a summary of recommendations and development costs. Costs are based
on development costs of $1.0 million per acre for container facilities and $600,000 for
break-bulk facilities. Acreage for container facilities corresponds to those contained in the
conceptual layout plans, and 15 acres is estimated for the break-bulk sites. The only
development where major access improvements is required is for the NAS Alameda sites.
The costs of a high-level bridge crossing is estimated at a minimum of $120 million, as
presented in a separate study by Korve Engineering. This cost increases the per berth
development costs from $50 to $70 million. This increase is considered to be acceptable at
the time when existing sites and the NSC Oakland sites approach capacity after the year
2000. It is offset by more expensive costs that would have to he incurred to provide access
and infrastructure improvements as well as dredging for the development of a major new
container port in the Bay Area.
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 61
Recommendations
Military Base
Naval Supply
Center Oakland
Naval Air Station
Alameda
Mare Island
Totals
Table 7
ary of Military Base Reco endations
for Civilian Seaport Development
7
6
2
13
2
Cargo Type
Container
Container
Break-bulk
Container
Break-bulk
Backland
Area
(Acre)
265
200
30
495
Development Costs (Millions)
Terminal 1 Access
$265
$200
$18
$483
$0
$120
$0
$120
Total
$265
$320
$18
$603
MULTITRANS Transportation Consultants 62
' - Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-Office Memorandum
August 31, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Participate in a Joint Letter to be Sent to the Navy
Requesting a Delay in the Implementation of the McKinney Process to Provide
an Opportunity to Incorporate Homeless Interests Into the Community Reuse
Planning, Process
Background:
Several property requests for Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda have been made by
outside entities, including homeless assistance providers through the Title V McKinney Act. In
order to develop a successful Community Reuse Plan, it is critical to incorporate all property
requests for the NAS into the reuse planning process. The advantages of a cooperative process
would be of mutual benefit to both the local community and homeless assistance providers. For
instance. analyses and information generated through the reuse planning process (i.e. cost
estimates for building operation and maintenance, toxics, seismic, utility metering, etc.) are
essential to make an informed decision about reuse.
Therefore, it has been proposed that a joint letter be sent to the Navy from the homeless
providers and the local reuse authorities, requesting a delay in the McKinney process to allow
for the incorporation of homeless interests into the community reuse planning process. The
reuse planning process will work to balance local interests with those of homeless assistance
providers as well as other property conveyance requests.
Discussion/Analvsis:
Attached is a draft letter for your consideration. The proposed joint letter is the result
of a collaborative effort coordinated by Congressman Dellums' office involving the East Bay
Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC), the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) Executive Director, the Director of the Oakland Base Reuse Taskforce,
representatives of homeless providers, the Alameda County Housing and Community
Development Department, and the City of Alameda Community Development Department.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 31, 1994
Page 2
The joint letter would be signed by Congressman Dellums, Carl Anthony of the EBCRC.
Don Parker for the ARRA, Barry Cromartie for the Oakland Base Reuse Taskforce. Amy
Hodgett for the Alameda County Housing and Community Development, and all homeless
applicants participating in the Alameda County Homeless Assistance Base Conversion
Collaborative. The joint letter would be mailed to the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable
John Dalton, and the Director of Health Facilities Planning for the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Ms. Judy Brietman, who under the existing Title V McKinney Act
receives the homeless applications.
The joint letter will request that the deadline for all homeless expressions of interest and
applications for base properties at Alameda Naval Air Station and Oak Knoll Naval Medical
Center be extended eighteen months or until the Community Reuse Plan is finalized. The
extension will allow homeless groups and the local reuse authorities to work cooperatively to
incorporate homeless uses into the community reuse planning process. Under current legislation,
should efforts to develop an integrated community plan fail, the existing Title V McKinney
process would be reactivated.
To ensure a successful reuse planning effort, the local community and homeless
providers must work together so that all base property decisions are made with available
information and in a coordinated fashion.
Fiscal Impact/Budget Consideration:
None.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reue and Redevelopment Authority participate in
a joint letter to be sent to the Navy requesting a delay in the implementation of the McKinney
Title V to allow the local reuse authorities to engage in a cooperative process to incorporate
homeless interests into the Community Reuse Planning process.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP:jm
Attachment: Draft Joint Letter
DRAFT LETTER
The Honorable John Dalton
Secretary of the Navy
Office of the Secretary
Navy Department
Washington, D.C. 20350-1000
Ms. Judy Brietman
Health and Human Services
Division of Health Facilities Planning
Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857
Dear Mr. Secretary: Dear Ms. Brietman:
We, the undersigned, hereby request that the deadline for all expressions of interest and
applications that have not yet passed for conveyance of base properties at Alameda Naval Air
Station and Oak Knoll Naval Medical Center for homeless uses be extended eighteen months or
until the Community Reuse Plan is finalized. This extension will allow the homeless groups and
local reuse authorities now engaged in the reuse planning process to develop an integrated
community plan. Our efforts to create such a plan are described below. At any time that these
efforts irreparably break down, the undersigned shall so notify you so that the existing Title V
process can be immediately reactivated, and applications thereby submitted.
We further request that consideration on any applications that have already been
submitted for homeless uses involving properties at Alameda Naval Air Station and Oak Knoll
be held in abeyance until the Community Reuse Plan is completed to allow the local reuse
planning process to create an integrated community plan.
Our request for an extension of the application filing period is made under Title V of the
Stewart B. McKinney Act, 42 USC Sec.11411(e)(2), and the Department of Defense Interim
final rule, 32 CFR Sec.91.7(b)(5), 59 Fed.Reg. 66 at 16129, promulgated pursuant to Sec. 2903
of the National Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for Alameda Naval Air Station and
the Oakland Reuse Planning Taskforce for Oak Knoll have committed to incorporating homeless
uses into the integrated community plans. Work is now underway on said plans, and involves
the input of designated consultants to research and propose homeless uses.
All parties to this letter agree to enter into a process to develop, within 90 days of
approval of the extension request, a quantifiable standard to measure whether the Community
Reuse Plan for Alameda Naval Air Station and Oak Knoll Naval Medical Center make available
a reasonable amount of property or assistance to the homeless in the community. The group will
use existing documents to develop the standard and/or identify what other documentation needs
to be developed.
Secretary of the Navy/NIs.Brietman
Date
Page 2
Homeless service providers an, advocates in Alameda County have organized the
Alameda County Homeless Assistance Base Conversion Collaborative, specifically to determine
suitable uses of base properties from the perspective of meeting the needs of their constituents.
The Collaborative has spent 8 months reviewing properties and formulating a homeless
community plan to support applications under Title V. The Collaborative has agreed to integrate
its plan and needs into the larger community planning process, to achieve one of its principle
goals to "integrate meeting the needs of homeless people with the needs of the broader
community".
Alameda County Homeless Assistance Base Conversion Collaborative members have
submitted letters of intent, under Title V and the base closure law, directly and through the
auspices of their lead agency, Alameda County Housing and Community Development. If our
efforts to create one community wide plan accommodating their needs are successful, there will
be no separate applications.
We would appreciate your response to this request by September 21, 1994. The time for
the Homeless Assistance Collaborative to file its application is already running. We want to
make sure they have as much time as possible to move forward on their application in the event
you deny this request.
Please contact Roberta Brooks, Senior Staff Assistant to Congressman Dellums, at (510)
763-0370 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Ron Dellums, Congressman
U.S. House of Representatives
Carl Anthony, Director Barry Cromartie, Director
East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission Oakland Base Reuse Taskforce
Don Parker, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Amy Hodgett
Alameda County Housing and
Community Development
And enclosed letters from each provider/applicant of the collaborative affirming agreement to
the extension.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-Office Memorandum
August 29, 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 the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Conversion and Reuse Budget Submittal to
the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)
Background:
In March 1994, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) amended the East Bay
Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) grant agreement (CL#9405-93/94-01A) to
provide funding for the City of Alameda base conversion and reuse planning efforts. On July
13, 1994, the Alameda City Council assigned authority for implementation of OEA grant
CL#9405-93/94-01A to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA).
Also, on July 13, 1994, the ARRA accepted authority for implementation of the City's
OEA grant - including award of the master consultant contract, and the ARRA adopted the City
of Alameda Base Conversion Office budget as its own until the ARRA would submit its own
budget to OEA.
Attached is the proposed ARRA "Conversion and Reuse Budget" for Fiscal Year (FY)
November 1, 1994, to October 31, 1995, for submittal to the ()EA. To prevent any gaps in
funding and per OEA's general grant procedures, a draft of the budget has already been
submitted to OEA pending approval by the ARRA. Upon receipt of the draft, OEA has
requested and received clarification or additional information on several items. Based upon this
preliminary review by OEA, it is anticipated that the ARRA budget for FY 94/95 will be funded
by OEA.
Discussion/Analysis:
The proposed ARRA budget submittal to OEA is for $1,154,552. The majority of the
funding request is for the consultant contract to prepare the Interim Reuse Strategy and the final
Community Reuse Plan. Last year's OEA grant award was for approximately $600,000. This
year's OEA budget submittal includes funding for: ARRA staff/office expenses, ARRA
expenses, Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) community outreach expenses, and
consultant activity.
Honorable Members of the August 29, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
ARRA Staff/Office Expenses:
A staff/office expenses are essentially the same as provided by OEA in the
previous fiscal year. The budget submittal does include a 3% annual increase in salary
for the Facilities Manager and the Senior Planner, as allowed by OEA. The salary level
for Executive Director is already at the ceiling for this position as established by OEA;
therefore, OEA will not fund a 3% annual increase for the Executive Director.
Compensation for the Administrative Manager has increased 6% commensurate with the
increased responsibilities and duties as Secretary to the A • • . Upon review and
recommendation of OEA, the budget includes purchase, rather than lease, of the copier
and fax machines.
A Expenses:
In last year's budget submittal, OEA funded $20,000 for legal assistance provided
by the Alameda City Attorney. In this year's budget submittal OEA, allowed $25,000
for General Counsel legal services for the A
,
P a
The OEA has allowed $28,200 for the A. . to contract with the Alameda City
Finance Department to provide accounting and financial services for the A' • . Staff
will be employees of the A' " , but through a contractual arrangement may participate
in City benefit programs. This arrangement will allow for the City to continue to pay
the difference in salaries from what OEA will fund for the Executive Director and the
Facilities Manager.
OEA will not fund an additional clerical position, but funding for temporary
secretarial services has been increased to support the additional workload generated by
the A
II a
The original draft budget submittal to OEA included meeting compensation for
A' " • members in the amount of $100 per meeting - anticipating 18 meetings a year.
OEA rejected that funding request which has subsequently been deleted from the draft
budget submittal; however, the City Attorney has drafted an amendment to the A
Bylaws to allow for compensation should another funding source be identified/utilized.
(The proposed amendment to the Bylaws is also on the September 7, 1994, agenda.)
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Expenses:
August 29, 1994
Page 3
Last year OEA provided $23,000 for the Alameda Reuse Advisory Group
(BRAG). The BRAG's primary function is to provide a forum for community input to
the base planning process, give the community information on the status of base
conversion, and ultimately provide reuse recommendations to the Alameda City Council
who are also members of the ARRA. In this budget submittal, the BRAG award has
been lowered to $4,500 to be used primarily for bus tours and town meetings. This year
there is a public participation component included in the consultant award that includes
the BRAG and the EBCRC.
Consultant Activity:
On July 13, 1994, the ARRA approved award of the consultant contract to
EDAW. At that time, it was anticipated that the consultant award for Fiscal Year (FY)
94/95 would be $700,000. The actual consultant funding request for the FY 94/95 is
$721,900.
Of the $300,000 budged for consultant activity in the current fiscal year (FY
93/94), it is anticipated $270,000 will be expended by EDAW. Approximately $30,000
was expended before EDAW was retained to help jointly fund EBCRC pilot project
consultant activity (Korve), and preparation of base maps (Towill). It is anticipated that
$68,200 will be needed in FY 95/96 to complete the consultant activity.
There are four changes in the draft budget submittal to OEA from the original
proposal approved by the ARRA for EDAW's consultant activity. The draft budget
submittal proposes the addition of a McKinney Housing Specialist to the EDAW team
($28,000); expands the analysis of environmental toxic clean-up ($16,000) by adding a
local environmental firm (McClaren-Hart); expands the utilities analysis ($10,000) to
include a sewer capacity study for the new sanitary sewer line crossing the Oakland
Harbor; and, expands the transportation and planning analysis ($4,000) to evaluate the
proposed port designation studies by BCDC and MTC. An additional overhead cost
($1,650) is included for the management of the extra studies and consultant members.
These proposed changes are recommended by the ARRA staff to strengthen the
team makeup by improving expertise in these areas. (These changes from the original
proposal are outlined on Page 16 of the draft final budget.) In the proposed additions
to the EDAW team, efforts were made to incorporate the ARRA's interest in expanding
local and minority participation in the consultant activity.
Honorable Members of the August 29, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4
Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact:
The total proposed budget submittal to OEA is $1,154,552. Should OEA for some
reason not fund the entire conversion and reuse budget, the Executive Director will seek to
utilize other potential funding sources to fund any gaps in financing and/or renegotiate the
consultant contract.
As it did in this fiscal year for the current OEA grant award, the City of Alameda will
provide the 25% OEA matching requirement for the A' • A grant award through continued City
staff contributions to the base conversion and reuse planning effort.
The Executive Director of the A' A will be responsible for administration of this
budget/OEA grant award, and only substantive changes to the budget will require further action
or reconsideration by the A
•
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, by motion,
approve the draft final "Conversion and Reuse Budget" submittal to the Office of Economic
Adjustment for funding, and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute the grant
award.
DP:jm
Attachment: A
II 16 A
Respectfully subinitted,
76)'6 a2-1-
Don Parker
Executive Director
Conversion and Reuse Budget
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
CONVERSION AND REUSE BUDGET
November 1, 1994 to October 31, 1995
Final Draft.
August 24, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevleopment Authority
Alameda Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda California 94501-5012
510. 263.2870
FAX 510. 521.3764
AL
DA REUSE
REDEVELOP
(A
1
NT AUTHORITY
Conversion and Reuse Planning Budget
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope of Work 4
Scope of Consultant Activity 6
1
Budget Summary -
Consultant Activity by Project Phase 15
Budget Summary -
Consultant Activity by Fiscal Year
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority -
Budget Summary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority -
Budget Spreadsheet
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority --
Budget Narrative
Attachments
A
16
17
19
21
Application Forms for Federal Assistance A
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
Staff Report/City of Alameda Resolution Assigning
Authority for OEA Grant Implementation
Consultant Scope of Work and Schedule
A
• • A
Job Description - Administrative Manager
Draft Scope of Work - Homeless Consultant
Memo-Clarification of Environmental Planning
A
10 • A
Completion of Federal Certifications
D
E
F
H
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
CONVERSION AND REUSE PLANNING BUDGET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the City of Alameda received its reuse planning grant (#CL9405-93/94-01A) from
the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) through the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Commission (EBCRC) for the period of November 1, 1993, to October 31, 1994, the City and
County of Alameda formed a regional legal body to deal with the reuse planning of Naval Air
Station (NAS) Alameda and Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) (referred jointly herein as NAS).
In April 1994, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Alameda and the
County of Alameda created the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) - which
is recognized by the Department of Defense (DoD) as the responsible entity for submitting and
completing the Community Reuse Plan for NAS. (See Joint Powers Agreement-Attachment B).
The ARRA is also responsible for the development of an Interim Reuse Strategy, taking title to
base lands conveyed from the federal government, and implementation of the final Reuse Plan.
In this grant application, the ARRA is seeking OEA funding to continue its planning for the
reuse of NAS.
The ARRA is composed of nine members: the Mayor of Alameda and the four Alameda
City Councilmembers, the Mayors of Oakland and San Leandro, the Board of Supervisors
member representing the Third District, and the United States House of Representative member
representing the Ninth District. Five of the nine ARRA members are East Bay Conversion and
Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) commissioners which provides for the integration of the
EBCRC into the ARRA process.
Since convening, the ARRA has established bylaws and operating procedures, and
adopted the City of Alameda base reuse planning budget as its own budget on an interim basis
until submission and approval of this grant application. (See Attachment C - ARRA staff report
and City of Alameda Resolution assigning authority for implementing OEA grant.)
Per the ARRA Bylaws, the ARRA contracted with the City Manager of the City of
Alameda, or the City Manager's designee, to serve as the Executive Director of the ARRA. The
City Manager designated the Alameda Base Conversion Project Director, Don Parker, to be the
ARRA Executive Director. The Bylaws also provide for a Finance Director to have the care
and custody of all ARRA funds, a General Counsel to serve as chief legal officer of the ARRA,
and a Secretary to prepare and keep records of the ARRA meetings and actions. The Alameda
Base Conversion Office staff became staff to the ARRA.
In addition to staffing the A" " a and continuing the NAS reuse planning activities, the
staff continues to support the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG). The BRAG's
primary function is to provide a forum for community input to the base planning process, give
the community information on the status of base conversion, and ultimately provided reuse
recommendations to the Alameda City Council. The additional workload generated by the
A ' a was not previously anticipated in the City of Alameda grant application to OEA.
Funding for the award of the consultant contract for the preparation of the Community
Reuse Plan was included in the City of Alameda reuse planning budget for FY 1993/94. Upon
assignment of the implementation of the City of Alameda OEA grant to the A e , the A' "
selected the consultant to prepare the Community Reuse Plan and the Interim Reuse Strategy.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) was formulated with input from the City of Alameda
staff and the EBCRC staff to ensure coordination with pilot project activity. In addition, the
draft RFP was reviewed by ()EA.
Seven consultant proposals were received by the deadline of June 9, 1994. A selection
committee made up of City of Alameda staff, A' " a staff and EBCRC staff reviewed the
proposals, and selected a short list of three teams for interview.
Review of the top three consultant teams included the City of Alameda and ' " a staff,
two members of the BRAG and a commissioner from the EBCRC. Following the review
process and assessment, the selection committee determined EDAW, who had just completed
the Mare Island Community Reuse Plan, to be the most qualified team to prepare the Interim
Reuse Plan and the Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda.
The EDAW proposed work program fulfilled all the tasks requested in the, RFP, and
included a number of additional critical tasks, such as: developing conceptual alternatives early
in the planning process, developing the reuse plan simultaneously with the development and
analysis of long range alternatives, and inclusion of the selection and refinement of a preferred
alternative prior to development of the final plan. (See "Scope of Consultant Activity", Page
6, for additional information on consultant activity.)
EDAW's proposed budget was one of the lowest of all seven proposals at $953,667.
Work products include: administrative draft and final reports at each phase of the project, color
presentation wall graphics for alternatives and the preferred plan alternatives, marketing strategy
and marketing plan, financial analysis and operations plan, financing schedules, a building
demolition plan, a dynamic operations and financial model, and a draft and final interim reuse
plan and community reuse documents.
It is anticipated that the Community Reuse Plan will be completed by December 1995,
and submitted to the DoD in January 1996.
2
Since the acceptance of EDAW's proposal, there have been changes to the scope of work
and team, namely: (1) addition of a homeless/housing sub-consultant; (2) addition of a national
marketing firm as a sub-consultant; and, (3) the addition of an environmental firm. Each of
these additional sub-consultants to the team are local (Alameda County) firms at the request of
the ARRA. The housing sub-consultant will provide an additional work scope to the proposed
work program. The additional environmental and national marketing sub-consultants will be
performing tasks as part of the original scope of work. In addition, EDAW has agreed to print
all major reports and documents through a local (Alameda County) printing company to increase
local representation on the consultant team as requested by the ARRA.
Funding for the initial phase of the consultants work from the City's FY 1993/94 OEA
grant award was in the amount of $300,000. From this $300,000 approximately $30,000 was
expended to help jointly fund EBCRC pilot project consultant activity (Korve), and preparation
of base maps for ARRA/EBCRC (Towill). Per OEA, the funding used for these activities will
be reimbursed in the next grant award. Funding for the remainder of consultants work, a critical
component of the next fiscal years budget, is estimated at $721,900.
In the near future, the ARRA will be considering land use proposals that have been
endorsed by the Alameda City Council and the BRAG, including: Alameda Science City,
Alameda Center for Technology Transfer (ACET), and the East Bay Regional Park District
Proposal. These proposals, or any other proposals endorsed by the ARRA, will be analyzed and
possibly incorporated into the community reuse planning process. The ARRA is currently
involved in on-going interim use potential activities including: (1) reviewing process with Navy
drawdown plan/utilities, etc.; (2) discussing master lease concept; (3) discussing teens and
conditions with potential interim users.
In addition to the creation of the ARRA, the ongoing community outreach activities of
the BRAG and continued coordination with the EBCRC, the ARRA staff has been: monitoring
environmental clean-up activities, working with the homeless providers to integrate the homeless
requests into the reuse planning process, working with the State of California on legislative
initiatives and a state matching grant, coordinating with the U.S. Coast Guard on its request for
NAS housing units, analysis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife request for 950 acres for the
endangered least tern, reviewing with Navy and State lands jurisdictional interests, pursuing the
early reuse of existing facilities and equipment, and continued analysis of existing conditions.
3
AL , EDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SCOPE OF WORK
The first year grant award focused one data gathering, formation of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority (A ' ' • ), retention of the consultant team, analysis of existing
conditions, development of a public participation program, and completing background work in
preparation of the development and analysis of reuse alternatives.
PHASE I
(November 1993 to April 1994) of the first year grant request focused on information
gathering, formation of the A ' * • , and OEA budget approval.
Deliverables:
1) Creation of the regional Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
2) OEA budget approval
3) Collection and cataloguing information provided by the Nay
4) Establishment of reference library for public use
PHASE II
(March 1994 to December 1994) of the first year grant request focused on retention of
the consultant team and analysis of existing conditions.
The A' ' • Planner was responsible for drafting the consultant Request for Proposals
(RFP), compiling the consultant list, distribution of the RFP, coordinating and overseeing
consultant selection, execution of consultant contract, and will monitor consultant work/contract.
The A • • retained a master consultant that will determine the potential to integrate the
NAS facilities into the physical, social and economic fabric of the East Bay community. In
conjunction with the EBCRC pilot studies and BRAG input, the A'' will continue to study
local transportation patterns and capabilities, recreation facilities, local retail services,
educational resources, and community social service facilities to determine how existing and
planned facilities within NAS can be intermeshed with community assets to satisfy local and
regional needs. The consultant will coordinate with and incorporate appropriate parts of the
EBCRC pilot project activities.
4
Deliverables..
1) Retention of master consultant
2) Establishment of Reuse Authority bylaws and operating procedures
3) Matching grant application to State of California
Since the period for Phase II extends through the next grant period, the following
activities are to be completed in the next ARRA fiscal year:
1) The consultant will retain a housing coordinator to work with the homeless
providers to incorporate their needs into the reuse plan in a compatible manner
that does not jeopardize the successful economic conversion of NAS.
2) Determination of aviation and port uses.
3) Report on Conditions, Constraints and Trends.
(Analysis of existing conditions, infrastructure, utilities, etc.)
5
AL , EDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SCOPE OF CONSULTANT ACTIVITY
Introduction
The second year consultant activity will continue the work program started in the
preceding fiscal year's (FY 93/94) OEA reuse planning grant (#CL405-93/94-01A). Phase
I - Reconniasance and half of Phase II- Existing Conditions and Trends analysis is to be
completed in October 1994 under this years current planning grant. Next years activity will
focus on completing the final four phases of the planning process: Phase II - Completion
of data gathering, analysis of existing conditions, and preparation of the existing conditions
report; Phase III - Development of an Interim Reuse Strategy and leasing program;
Phase IV - Identification and analysis of long term reuse alternatives and, selection of a
preferred alternative; and, Phase V - Formulation of a Draft Community Reuse Plan.
The consultants work builds upon all existing information and studies completed by
others, including the EBCRC pilot studies and studies by Naval Engineering Facilities
Command, Western Division on national habitat, wetlands, endangered species, and historical
resources. Working with community groups, regional concerns will be integrated into the
local framework. Included in the work program and budget is a special subconsultant to work
proactively with the homeless community to address their needs and integrate McKinney Act
requests into the Community Reuse Plan. The plan will identify economic opportunities at NAS,
based on an analysis of regional and local social and economic characteristics.
There will be two primary products completed in this years work activity: an Interim
Reuse Strategy for the leasing of existing facilities and an administrative draft of the long-term
Community Reuse Plan, for the ultimate development of NAS Alameda. It is anticipated that
the final Community Reuse Plan will be completed in December 1995, and submitted to the
Navy in January of 1996.
The work for this OEA grant application will take place over a 12-month period
(November 1, 1994 through October 31, 1995), with an estimated budget of approximately
$721,900 (see page 19). The Final Community Reuse Plan will be completed by December
1995, for submittal to the Department of Defense (DoD) in January 1996. (Note: The estimated
third year budget, November 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, for completion of the Plan
is $68,200.)
Interim Reuse Strategy
The Interim Reuse Strategy will identify which existing facilities can be leased in the near
term as they become available to maximize job creation/retention. It will also provide a vehicle
for making an early decision regarding possible airfield and/or large scale port operations at
NAS.
The strategy will take into account major constraints such as endangered species, State
Lands requirements, BCDC's Port Priority designation, the status of historic buildings and
districts, the physical condition and code compliance of structures, and the impact of hazardous
and toxic materials in and around facilities. It will be necessary to determine the condition of
utilities and their adaptability, and projected costs to serve existing buildings to be leased
although more detailed studies on the utilities will be required by the providers to determine their
later acceptance of the systems to implement the long-term Reuse Plan. It will also be necessary
to review the inventory of available equipment to determine what economic opportunity is
created by having this equipment available, and to retain the validity of existing environmental
permits, such as air quality credits, during and after the planning process.
Included in the strategy will be plans and programs for the near term use and operation
of existing recreational facilities for educational opportunities, the use of existing housing by the
Coast Guard (request for 582 units), and for homeless providers. Also included will be an
administrative plan for the transition of utilities and services, such as Police, Fire, and
emergency medical services from the Navy to private utility providers and the City.
The strategy will include a demolition plan indicating facilities that have no useful
economic function, and an operating and management plan for the operation of NAS during the
transition from the Navy. In addition, a marketing plan will be developed to implement the
interim leasing strategy.
III. Long-Term Reuse Plan
Working with community groups, the consultant will prepare several planning
alternatives, which will include proposals such as Alameda Science City (ASC) and the Alameda
Center for Environmental Technology (ACET) which have already been presented to the Base
Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), the City and the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Committee (EBCRC). These will be analyzed at a general level of detail according to their
transportation, economic, fiscal, and environmental impacts, and presented for public review.
The preferred alternative selected will be the basis for the long-term Community Reuse Plan.
The Reuse Plan will specify: a land use pattern, types of uses, intensities and densities;
local and regional transportation facilities; community facilities; infrastructure; job development
and retraining programs; incorporation of programs by others (such as the county); remediation
programs for toxins and hazardous wastes; and, design and development standards.
The plan will indicate transportation and other improvements needed to implement its
policies, estimate the costs of these facilities, and identify sources of funding. It will contain
an analysis of the fiscal impact of the plan on the City of Alameda, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and on other cities, and methods of covering these costs. It will
analyze the possible use of the redevelopment process for plan implementation. It will indicate
phases for plan implementation, including how interim uses will be replaced by permanent uses
over a long range time frame. The implementation portion of the plan will include a marketing
program.
7
The Navy will review the completed Reuse Plan to comply with the requirements of the
National Environmental Protect Act (NEPA). The Navy will also be conducting environmental
reconnaissance related to federal agency jurisdiction, such as wetlands and endangered species.
The consultant will incorporate this information into the planning process, but will not prepare
the NEPA/CEQA analysis as part of this scope of work.
IV. Planning Process and Schedule
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority will be responsible for managing the
contract and producing the Interim Reuse Strategy and Community Reuse Plan. Work on the
plan commenced in August 1994. Phase I - Reconnaissance will be completed September 1994
as well as a portion of the work on Phase II - Existing Conditions and Trends (See Attachment
D - Consultant Scope of Work and Schedule).
V. Summary of Work Program
The following is a summary of the consultant's (EDAW) work program.
A. Phase I - Reconnaissance (Completed September 1994)
The reconnaissance phase was started in July 1994, and will be completed
September 15, 1994. During this reconnaissance period, a memorandum on
Existing Data and Resources, a refined scope of work, and a Community
Participation Plan will be developed and submitted to the BRAG and ARRA
for approval. The reconnaissance memorandum will be a summary of the
findings and conclusions of the consultants activity in the first two months.
These tasks include: (1) familiarization of the EDAW team with info' illation
available, planning issues, and the site; (2) initial contacts with key participants
in the planning process, including the City, Navy, EBCRC, and other local and
regional agencies; and, (3) refinement of the scope of work and budget for the
following phases of the work effort, including technical study requirements
and public/agency involvement. The primary focus of the public involvement
plan will involve (1) a meeting plan with the ARRA, B • A G and EBCRC, (2)
a public outreach effort including local planning workshops/town meetings and
production of an informational flyer/newsletter, (3) and finalization of a
community survey on issues, goals and objectives, and (4) Agency coordination
meetings involving local and regional agencies who have review and approval
authority over the reuse planing effort (i.e. BCDC, Fish and Wildlife, MTC,
Air Resources Board, etc.). In addition, the consultant will be conducting
local ongoing Team Coordination meetings on a bi-weekly schedule which will
include City/Reuse Authority staff, EBCRC staff, Navy representatives, and
EDAW team members.
Deliverables: A series of products completed in Phase I include: a Community
Participation Plan; Community Vision Workshop on issues, concerns, goals, and
objectives for the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda; and, a
Reconnaissance Memorandum on Existing Data and Resources and a refined
5=1
scope of work for the consultant team. In addition, the consultant will prepare,
administer and analyze a community survey on planning issues goals and
objectives, and prepare the first offour Reuse Planning newsletters/flyers for area
wide distribution.
Meetings: One (1) BRAG community workshop/town hall meeting on issues, goals
and objectives and vision identification, one (1) ARRA meeting/presentation on
issues, goals and objectives, and one (1) EBCRC presentation on the planning
process and issues, goals and objectives.
B. Phase II - Conditions and Trends
This phase of the work involves building a data base and conducting necessary
data analysis to support decision-making for both the Interim Reuse Strategy and
the final Community Reuse Plan.
The consultant will optimize use of existing information in conducting these
investigations. Care will be taken to ensure that the data gathering and
analysis provides the Reuse Authority with a clear and unbiased view of the
conditions, issues, and trends which will effect reuse planning decisions. New
analysis is expected to be required in some key areas, particularly land use
planning, building and equipment conditions/reuse potential, utility systems,
transportation and in social/economic and market conditions.
The work outlined in these tasks represents the completion of the work started in
the previous fiscal year. Data gathering and analysis will be conducted in the
following three major areas:
1. Physical and Regulatory (2 months)
The consultant will compile and analyze information on existing physical
and regulatory conditions, constraints, and opportunities affecting NAS,
integrating existing information and studies by other agencies wherever
possible. Studies will include location assessment, aviation and port uses,
base facilities/infrastructure, property and equipment inventory, local and
regional transportation facilities, and environmental and geotechnical
conditions. Regulatory requirements will include those of the State Lands
Commission, Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC),
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, federal and state fish and wildlife services, and others.
2. Social and Economic (2 months)
The consultant will compile and analyze information on economic and
social characteristics of the area, economic trends affecting the site, real
estate market analysis, reuse potential of existing facilities, and the costs
of maintaining and operating the property once transferred. The
Consultant will utilize existing data and studies by other agencies
wherever possible.
9
3. Electronic Planning and Economic Model (In Conjunction with 1 & 2)
A key part of EDAW's approach in this phase of the work program is the
creation of an electronic model of the installation. This model will be
used to understand all major aspects of the existing installation and to
project the results of various interim and long-term reuse scenarios. This
model will link automated mapping (CADD maps and other resources) and
data resources, in a data base and spreadsheets. The EDAW team will
continue to build the electronic data base and model through Phase II
efforts using AutoCad. The overall electronic model will reside in an
ArcInfo/ArcCad GIS system for use in developing and assessing interim
and long-term reuse alternative development scenarios. The electronic
data and mapping system will be provided to the Reuse Authority/City of
Alameda upon completion of the planning effort to assist in detailed
management and implementation of the reuse programs.
The GIS model will include both physical and economic analysis
components. The physical parameters model will include those data layers
noted above. The economic component of the model represent a unique
financial operation model, originally developed for the National Park
Service for use during conversion of the Presidio of San Francisco This
model which is based on a building-specific data base aggregates costs and
operating budget information into a sensitivity analysis. Revenues are
estimated on a type of use basis, but can be modified for a collection of
buildings as a lump sum payment pro forma "user" . Operating costs are
based on a "bottom up" operating budget, not a refinement of obsolete
military operating data. The model produces a "cost-to-occupy" analysis,
from the tenants perspective, allowing for comparison to market rate rents
for leasing and marketing purposes.
Deliverables: (1) A series of technical reports on each major subject, (2)
an electronic model of NAS Alameda to be used in assessing alternatives
and in eventually managing the facility, and (3) a summary report on
Existing Conditions, Constraints, and Trends, presented for information
in a series of workshops and to local agencies.
C. Phase III - Interim Reuse Strategy (5 months)
This phase of the work will focus on the vital goal of achieving optimum, near-
term replacement of jobs and economic activity at NAS Alameda. Using the
electronic/GIS model established during Phase II, interim reuse strategies will be
explored by the planning team and presented to the BRAG Commission and the
Reuse Authority. The consultant will prepare a strategy for interim use of base
facilities including a marketing and implementation strategy and information on
how the interim uses can be phased and integrated into the long-term Reuse Plan.
10
The EDAW team will provide specific descriptions of alternative approaches to
interim reuse, involving specific sets of facilities, associated improvement
requirements, and financial and marketing implications. The team will provide
an assessment of alternatives to assist the Reuse Authority in determining the
preferred course of action in the near- and mid-term horizons. The final interim
reuse strategy must be economically viable, must optimally respond to the need
to achieve employment/reemployment and fulfill other community goals, and must
be sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing market conditions and the
evolution of the communities long term vision for NAS Alameda. The interim
reuse strategy will build upon the ongoing work of the Reuse Authority in
marketing existing buildings for interim lease.
Deliverables: (1) Detailed descriptions of potentially viable interim reuse
strategies, (2) a comparative assessment of alternatives, (3) a final Interim Reuse
Development and Marketing Strategy, presented at a series of public workshops
and presented for approval to the Reuse Authority, with input from local agencies,
including specific implementation programs, and (4) a GIS model of the interim
strategy for use in implementation.
Meetings: One (1) BRAG workshop on the Interim Reuse Strategy, (1) Reuse
Authority Workshop on the Interim Reuse Strategy; one (1) presentation to the
EBCRC.
D. Phase IV - Plan Alternatives (7 months)
Phase IV of the process focuses on alternative overall programs for the long-term
reuse of NAS Alameda. In order to save time and provide consistency between
the interim and long-term plans, this phase will be conducted simultaneously with
Phase III of the planning effort. Basic concepts and plan principles explored
during Phase III will be further developed to articulate the communities
fundamental choices regarding the ultimate vision for the installation. The
alternatives will also respond to the results of the federal and McKinney Act
screening processes, and explore options for public benefit and economic
development conveyances.
The consultant will describe up to five alternatives for the long-term Reuse Plan.
One or more of these alternatives will incorporate previously suggested
development concepts and proposals such as Alameda Science City which
incorporates ACET, the Parks and Recreation Request, School District request,
the Fish and Wildlife request, the Coast Guard request and others as they become
known.
Alternative descriptions will be based on the GIS model and include general
information on: residential, commercial, and industrial uses and densities;
transportation; recreation; and educational and community facilities.
11
The EDAW team will also provide an analysis of alternatives. Each alternative
will be described in all the key areas (criteria) important to decision-making,
including: goals/ objectives achieved, land use compatibility, social and economic
impacts, financial implications, infrastructure (utility and transportation)
requirements, market feasibility, environmental impacts, and
institutional/regulatory feasibility.
EDAW will develop a specific decision-making system for the Reuse Authority
to asses alternatives and select a preferred long-term course of action. This
system will use graphic and numeric techniques to rate each alternative in terms
of its relative response to each key evaluation/decision-making criterion. The
planning team will then assist the Reuse Authority in determining the relative
importance of individual criteria. By using a final hierarchy of decision criteria,
the relative performance of each alternative in successfully meeting the
community's goals can be assessed. This process will guide the Reuse Authority
through alternatives assessment process to selection of a preferred alternative or
a combination of alternatives. The other alternatives will remain useful to the
Navy/City in its EIS/EIR preparation efforts.
Deliverables: (1) development and documentation of up to five alternative long-
term plans for NAS Alameda, (2) development and application of a graphic and
numeric decision-making system for assessing the relative success of the
alternatives in achieving the community 's goals and objectives, and (3) a final
report on Plan Alternatives, documenting the alternatives, the alternatives
assessment process and its results and the community's selection of a preferred
plan. The plan alternatives will be presented at a series of community workshops
and presented for selection of a Preferred Alternative to the Reuse Authority, with
input from local agencies.
Meetings: One (I) BRAG workshop on alternatives, (1) Reuse Authority Workshop
on Alternatives; one (1) presentation to the EBCRC.
E. Phase V - Long-Term Community Reuse Plan (4 months)
The final phase of the reuse planning process will focus on detailed development
of the preferred long-term reuse alternative and preparing a final plan document
which meets state of California General Plan requirements. Of primary
importance in preparing and adopting the final Community Reuse Plan will be:
(1) its completeness and adequacy as part of the City of Alameda General Plan
(i.e. as a General Plan amendment), (2) the plans clarity in articulating to the
community the long-term vision for NAS Alameda, and (3) the plans value as a
marketing tool in the Reuse Authority's efforts to achieve exemplary and
successful base conversion.
12
The final plan will include all the following required elements:
Plan Elements:
• Land use: Overall pattern, types, intensity and densities
• Transportation: Regional and local facilities, public transit, roadways,
railways, operational improvements, trip reduction strategies, strategies to
offset air quality impacts and parking improvements.
Community facilities: Schools, parks, recreation facilities, social
services, cultural facilities, libraries, and medical facilities.
Infrastructure/Utility Systems: Electrical systems, gas, telephone,
telecommunications services, steam, sanitary sewer, stoini drainage, water
and fire protection and solid and hazardous waste disposal.
• Environmental and Historical Resource Protection: Endangered species
habitat, wetlands, bay front, and historic district resources.
• Job development, Retention and Worker Retraining Programs:
Incorporation of work by others such as the county, EBCRC, and the
Navy.
Resources for Homeless Service and Facilities.. Incorporation of the
Homeless Screening Requesfs as processed through the Community Reuse
Planning Process.
Remediation Programs for Toxic and Hazardous Wastes: Community
Reuse Plan will reference the Navy's Base Clean-Up Plan (BCP) and the
Navy's Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS).
Health and Safety: Including seismic, geologic and fire hazards,
flooding, noise , hazardous materials and waste management.
Community Standards: Including design, community appearance, view
protection, and shoreline access.
Implementation Programs:
• Marketing and implementation strategies: A strategy for the marketing of
NAS Alameda facilities, industrial equipment and redevelopment sites
locally, nationally and internationally for interim and long-term use and
development.
Fiscal impacts and cost recovery: An electronic, operations and finance
model for the assessment and ongoing evaluation of alternative reuse
proposals.
Financing Plan: Incorporation of public and private financing sources and
uses of these funds.
• Implementation Monitoring: Method for evaluating and revising the long-
term plan, based on experience in carrying out the Interim Reuse Strategy
• Information on Environmental Review Process: Subsequent environmental
review process by the Navy (EIS).
• Plan Phasing: Phasing diagrams showing Reuse Plan implementation
over time in clear segments or phases starting with the Interim Reuse
Strategy.
13
Another key product of this phase of the planning process will be a GIS model
of the installation and the Plan itself. This model will be provide to the
Redevelopment Authority for long-term use in implementation of the Plan. Its
main purposes and uses will be to maintain a constant and up-to-date record of
facility conditions, improvements, interim leasing, property transfers, financial
modelling, and other aspects of Plan implementation.
Deliverables: (1) the Final Long-Terrn Community Reuse Plan, and Executive
Summary, and (2) a GIS model of NAS Alameda, the plan, and implementation
programs. The plan will be presented at a series of public workshops and
presented for approval to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, with
input from the agencies.
Meetings: One (1) BRAG workshop on the Reuse Plan, (1) Reuse Authority
Hearing on the Reuse Plan; one (1) presentation to the EBCRC.
VI. Estimated Budget
The budget summary for the scope of consultant activity by phase is provided on page
15. Also, a budget summary of the consultant activity by fiscal year for the complete project
is provided on page 16.
14
CD 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 o o 0
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 o o o o
cn o C CD CD CD CD o CD CD CD CDICD o o o
t----: c' I-- C'5 "Cr o5 c6 -1: (15 csi c6 ,o- i.st- 1,r; -1: &
N OD 00 N- C0 T- CN CO N-- 1-- -e-- N I N- C°1 CN
CV EA- EA- 69- 69 69 1-- 69- 69- EA- 69- EA 64 69- 69 t•---
69 69- 6/4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
0 0 CO 0 0 0 CD 64 69- 64 64 0 0 0 0
Co 0) CV •r" '1 (NI N. CO CO CO.
- - -
..o°
CN 69 69 69- EA 69- 69 69- 69-
69- 69
o o c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
o o ‘Lt. c) CD CD C) CD 6969-000 0 0
0 LO CO LO CD CD LO 0 000 0 0
05 (0 of ci 06 .7t7 N.- 0) cci o5 N. cal on
r.-. ea- COI 64 69 69- N N- 69- 7 69-
69- 69 64 69- 69- 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0
0 00 'I' CD CD 0 0 CD 69- 64 69 0 0 CD 0
0 1"--- CA 01 C) CD CA CD CD , 0 CD 0
(0 (.15 N: c\i 1,-: ,:t (0 Cr; (6,W C\i c.0
(0 ..4- CV (0 69- 64 "CT CV 64 tf3-
69 69- 69 69- 69, 6)3 69
o 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0
o CV CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD C):CD 0 0
0 CV a) o o o ,o c)
i. i 0 _ c. o . 0 _
o 0 0
6 6 o c6 0 ,- (0 c) 0 cn
,Lt..L0 10 (0
C9 CV b (0 -,--- 69- CO CV
69 69- 69- 69 69- 69- 69 69- 69-
uJ
a)
(/) Z
<
Lc) j
ti
cn aW
>— ff)
LJ-
a.
w
2 5 <
2 tsz
LLJUJ
u-) <
0 <
�O<
Reconnaissance
Completed FY 93-94
and Use Planning & MAnagement Activities
Completed FY 93-94
lEconomic Analysis & Marketing
Completed FY 93-94
Completed FY 93-94
Completed FY 93-94
9' 9) 9' 0)0)) 9' 9' 9)
cococoAco co co co
0) 0) 0) a) a) a) a) a)
7- 7- 7.- 7- 7- 7- 7- ›-
L L LL LL LL LL U L U L,
(1) 0.) 0.) 0.) ID w CD (1)
CD a) <1.) CD CD a) a) 130
E E E E E E E E
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co
co ::-...•
'
co •I, ii3
CO)
C CC W
r- a , = a) 0_
. .
< 2 ...7, • to ‘ .--
E, g v,
c i'...' -Cfs co c a) ca co
>° co co >" on
c
'5) — 5(1)
C < "C) ,_,C
CD
in p CO CO >, < d .0 E co 0.)
0 06 2 To L.. 2
c c 12 ° 2 a) o t°
c EFL. 0 7:= ti
co ., 0 0 0)
i.u. (2 .<
• 2 EV-1 "g.". g 2 g E cL
I— 15 a E E
c'd 2 E a) u) in w 2 t
en to E o) o) 0
oti -ism "cT) -cii 0 < c c
2
E. 0 a, ...- „, ,,, , th . ca o o —
co = . -- . , . . .° . 0 c / ) " .0 °I E 75 . cc!ci, . :0 1 . . . . ,c-"E° I ma: Li j* : c -rp 6—
ii ,,T, tit,. °
a)
,,,, 5-<- o _a a> .c) .z. rn
C °L.: a) CD CO = RS
ow co LT.1 c0 `J....! To o 0 c a) c c:1- 0 o
0 cti 15 F- CD DE CC 01 'cr.) z
fi c 0 f
— c
0 0, t 5 co
c 0_
a
= €
co 5 5 c c
_T:).
c
It 0 < W
L...
0
2
Completed FY 93-94
Kinney Act Housing Planning Analysis
O 0
C C
• (15
cc
CD CID CD
CD N
N N
c6
ER ER
N-00 0000 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co- co7 o6 [xi 6 6 p-
c sr- C4 '4' 01 0) 01 C9 C9
6/9 ER ER ER ER
69 ER ER 69-
co
(ci
• N a) CO
01 69- ER
N-00
co co os
N- CD 0
L6
co ER v-
69, EA
0 CD 0
ER 69. 69. ER
CD 0 CD
69 69- 0
1"-- 0 N-
CO 0 0
CO 0 (0
cO
N 04 La
CD 69 0)
ER EA-
F.- r•-•
CO 0 CO
It- 0
(.6
LO 69-
(0
Eft
ER
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0
to c) co co co co P co c) co cr) co
C N I C D C M 0 0 0 0 CO N
c.6 cO co to
(C) 04 N st
CR 69 69 ER ER 69- 69 (0 69-
co p co co co co co co co co co co 0
CO LO 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0 10 0
'71- 0400 0000 C) C) C) 01. CI
Lci oi 6 co oi 4. in .:I-
(o "zt 01 01 LO •t- 69- C9 1- N- ER N 69.
ER 6 69 69 69- 69 69 ER 69. 01
ER
EBCRC Activi
>-■ C CO
0) o a)
o 47, -o
—,-,
00
trs_ a) 0
73 0 's-en
---- E
0)
En 0
c
Cf) a) w -.... as
...--- ....„
CD ci) a) o, ca 1
.?5,. >, u) .- o
fo u) °F..
as 0)j,
c RI a)
-63 E '0 ci) >, g <c "6
al 0 "r„73, ,0
CD --4.• a)
H c a... 0
5
0.) c -..,a .- ..-. .... o
a E E < 2 co 5 ca
a ca °I o a) (.0 ----. o)
5,2 LP a)
:k..... u i
LU _I til I-- b
CO
0)
a)
G/EBCRC/AR
0
10
-47
co
Total EDAW (Original Proposal)
0 0 0 0 CD 0
0000100
0 CZ) 0) 0 0 0,
c'ICOOCOv-- 'I-
N ea C EA EA.
EA. Ee
CD 0 00
69 69 CD CD
00
4 '1:
Eft 69-
CD CD CM CD CD 0
CD CD CD 10 CD CD
00_ CD CO 0 0
65 4- -47 -,--- c\i" o6
6 9 - -
0 0 0 0 CD 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 CD
69- 69 ER ER
ea
't >s
CO =
.2
0)'-0 c ui .c
F2. >, c..) co a.
as 2 2 = 06
0
O as
2 ,c) -(.5 a)
o V 0
0.1-- --.
<q
4-
co • c ti, o .t
0.
O a-
c_. a)
- '5 ui 0 E „en
us f)
O al C o) >,
_
ca c
c 57(' a) 7/5 o) ,-(u (13 a
o
w „.
us
o.
2 B. t, g "5
e- u)
u)
a) E vs 23 a) to) 0 a„
own meetings
L 0) ,... c c ,a .6 _c
CI)
a) c 5 co
Cu • '5
0 m 2 c o 0
0 uJ co 2 ii. F- rt
10
CO
69-
EA-
co
co
co
Total Changes
0
0▪ 4
r-
EDAW TOTAL
August 29, 1994
0)
0)
ca
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BUDGET SUMMARY
The projected annual budget (11/1/94 - 10/31/95) for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) is as follows:
EXPENSES
I. A
It 11
Staff/Office Expenses
Staff Salaries
Project Manager
Facilities Manager
Senior Planner
Administrative Manager
Staff fringe benefits
Office Expenses
Telephone
Equipment/Furnishings
Fax/Copier (Service Contract)
Supplies
Postage
Outside Copying Service
Janitorial
Travel Expenses
Local Travel
Long Distance Travel
II. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Administrative Services
Temporary Secretarial
Accounting Services
General Counsel Services
SUB-TOTAL
$216,058.00
$64,800.00
53,270.00
52,620.00
45,368.00
$12,000.00
20,969.00
2,208.00
7,000.00
7,000.00
6,000.00
3,900.00
3,000.00
12 ,000.00
Authority Expenses
17
20,000.00
28,200.00
25,000.00
64,817.00
59,077.00
15,000.00
73,200.00
$428,152.00
III. Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG)
General Expenses
Community Bus Tours $2,500.00
Supplies 500.00
Town Meetings 1,500.00
$ 4,500.00
IV. Consultant Activity - (See Page 15 for Consultant Activity by Project Phase)
Planning Activities $721,900.00
Land Use Planning $227,900.00
Economic Analysis and Marketing 93,000.00
Transportation Planning & Traffic 81,000.00
Civil Engineering/Utility
Civil/Marina/Sewers,
Storm Drainage 73,000.00
Electrical/Gas 34,000.00
Water Systems 16,000.00
Architectural/Building & Structural 64,000.00
Environmental Planning/Regulatory
(See Attachment G)
Geotech/Soils/Hydrology 16,000.00
Toxic Base Line Analysis 16,000.00
Species Habitat 18,000.00
Environmental Permits/Codes 24,000.00
Public Participation Program:
Planning Newsletter (3 issues) 12,000.00
Town Meetings (3 meetings) 8,000.00
BRAG Presentations (5 meetings) 15,000.00
EBCRC Presentations (2 meetings)
Reuse Authority Meetings (5 meetings)
Local Meetings/Presentations (By A Staff)
Housing/McKinney Act Coordinator 24,000.00
SUB-TOTAL
*****GRAND TOTAL*****
V. Direct Funding Sources
OEA Planning Grant
VI. Match Requirements
City of Alameda OEA Match
$1,154,552.00
$288,638.00
$726, 400.00
$1,154,552.00
0
1-
z
w
0
0
Ij- J
0
CI
z
w
›-
Ce
W
CO 2
<
m
<
WW
0 I-
2 0
<0
Staff/Office Expenses
ARRA PERSONNEL STAFF SALARIES
CO CO 0 0
0000
0)C') 0
ON r-: N:
cq 69.
64
o o
o o
o at
Ccl
M
0
0
0
6;
0 0 10
00 0.1
91 10 C9
69 69 M
0
0
CO 0 91
(00 OI
LO
M 63 64
O•
0 CE/
to co
6363
o 0 ..cc
0 0 co
o ,to
64 M
64
0
0
tr•
0 4 co
0 co 00
• ,0”
000
03 0 ot
Lo
co to tcAt
CO •
•■••-
`Er
691
C.0 I
(0 ;
4',
64,
to,
to,(14.1
I
40
641
(0 0 4)
CO 0
LO to (0
64 64 40
0 0 •cr co (00(4)
0000 COCOON
0 CO •c-• ,0 41 C9
E141E9 64 64
63
Ct o cr CO CI 0 0
0 04)D CO CO 0 C4
LO r- LO 0 0
T.; 64164 69 69 69 641
•
0 <tr. 4') co 0 o
o co co CO o 01;
0 LO LO LO (4) CO.
63 64 64 63 60 MI
$17,
00 cr C9 VI 0 LO
0000000041
LL1 ,t- LO LO (01
s„:169 69 ER IA 69 to,
00 r
0 0 010 0 CLII
C CO 0 0 LO
LO !LO LO U, CO'
M 64 64 64 64 (9;
4 co co to
.0 co colco 0'041
tal (4 )00 ■
69 64 64 64 64 641
$3,67 L. $3167�
40
(.6
63
„
c •
0
z
ii E
0,
zsisa
S3 EA3
Lc9 :?.
8
o.
a)
0)
z
0
0
Benefits @30%
0
0)
'C
0
ai
Office Expenses
0
0
w
(r)
z
w
0
II. »uwxEoA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR!
to
9)
0)
0 0
0 0
0 CV
0 CO
C".1
64 M
0
0
0
60
0
Le,
0)
0.
co
0
1°- 0
(0 )4)
ta
0
60
l•-• 0
(0)0 00
(0_ VI 0
—('44(4
E9 69 69
04')
to to co
co 0 0
• cr4"
E9 69 64
4-04')
co Lc, oc,
o0400
csi
co Gs
• 0 1')
(0 (00
0 0 0
• Cg
69
0- CO
• LO 00
co CR 0
6000
81
(0
0
■-•
0.
CO
0
cr,
Administrative Services
0 CI
0 00
CR 0
0•1
(0413
td
—1
0
63
w
z
w
0.
6
BASE REUSE ADVISORY GROUP
General —�
5 Oct-95 FY 5 Aug-95 95 Jun-95 _55 API uu 5 Feb-95 Bus _ _ ___�x_ _ ��mm 42
r��`w*e�o�_ ----� -- ------ �5� __.[---' -----'�__._.-��- -� ---_�-�-----'-'---___-���� 5421 SI
-------�-- -- -- --- �- -- -- ---'-----�--------- | ----------l-
BRAG EXPENSE
rce
- Budget Summary (Continued)
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Au
CONSUL
o!c3
Lo 0010
a) al
<
Cit N ca 01
0 - 0;6971
a O 0
to coo to
o a; o
al tat-ad
4-
N. CAI,- CD
0 0169 691
o
o. co
o
ati
0 0 0
000
0 CD CO
c6
al (0
4969 CO
o CD
o 0:Cal
6- 69,69
0 01CD
LO 0 CD
(0 001
e•-• (9,664
0!0 0
69 69'0 691
0
69
o to co
4000
o
44 *0
69
0 014 0
EA 0.0 tat
co:o
04
76.
696A
0 0
69 69
000
6900
0
69 CV
0 CS ,C)
CD 00
CD1C7
- -
CO 6-.0
6-; 690
4DIO a
o 0069
("4 9Ja
6-• CV 16-
6969,49
0 0 0
EA to to
0
(0
Cal
e--
0 CD1C0
1.0 0:CD
0)
CD1C;)
"*:;;C;6;
6910
co alto a
o co a at)
co a 10
ai
0 064
0 0 0
0 0 69
a
69
0)
0)
CO
69
0 00
010
0.1, CD:CD
E- Cc;•05
CV 169, 69;
69 •
0 C710 0
0 0,0 69
00'O
69 010
69;
CD CD CD
0 CD
CD CD CV
„
0) 04 V'
69
co a ItD
CD:0
4-0
Cafg
LO 0 0
CO 0 a
04 6°- 69
0 EA.
0 01010
CD 010 0
CV CD 0CD
69 49;69 0
•
0000
0 69169 0
CO ;
1 LC)
40
0000
69 00 )-
0040
ati ai
44,69 `Cr
0000 1.0
69 o
C a ca.
1 al ai
to 69 LC)
to
oca.al
co a a
O
0.1 6- c0
cwen,
0010 0
0 67 69 0
O
6E7 ; '40
0000 0
CD 0 69 0 CO
0S 0 71:,
Csi cra
6969 667 LO
o o a
cola o
o
ai N-
046969
0 CD 0
LO!CD ;CD
6:t IC> 0
CO IR at:
00;00
CD:0•0
0.1.
a•-•
4949(69
69: I
; 1
00 CD;C:D
0 0 0.0
010:0
c)5 1.64 )i ,c7
4969I 69 'EA
co c) a cat
co ca o
ca 0 to co 1 Di CV
6969 69 CD
CA
1
0 CD la co to
0 0000
0 0 0 0 0
60 0 ('4 01
69 64 69 69 CO
010 0
0410
0)10 o
calm). tO
a- 0
69991
00.010
co to .ca
4:
otaa
4- 01010
e•-•69.0.1
69 691 169
I
0000
0000
a co a o
c‘i
69 69 69 EA
0
0,00
.100
6969
1
1 I
ca co 0 a 0.
CD 0 0 0 0
CD 0 c0
0 .67 Di 0
O
(0
"Po
0
175
0
0)
E
10(0
01
ta
(0
(0
0,
0 0 0 0
to to o co o
-icnocaoa
< ° ca. cal uiari
ta)
6- 667 6- CO
O 69 6969
010
169
0
00
64 69
0
CD CD CD 0
0000
0000
77;" 4)1 04
69.0 69 0
0 0 0
EA 69 69
CD CD 0 0
69490 0
0 CD
Kai
6949
00 0 0
69 69 0 0
0 0
cti
6969
0000
0 0 00
E-•
69494969
00 0 0
69 64 0 o
00
00001
49496944)
0000
0 0 1 (0 0
0000
OD
69 69169 69
,t1t.
0)
C3
•11.
cr)
0 010 0
69 6910 CD
C> 0
C-4
14,49
0000
EA CD CD
0 CD
69 69
E
cr,
hli�^ Pa' 'a
0) C9
z
<
0 a'
69
a
69
co:
cai
691
01 101
0 01
0; DE
al°, P.
aoi al
0
01
01
C'Y
0.
01
49
0
0
49
0
0
0
C•1
69
0
0
C11
49
LO
77.
0
69
0
0
667
c
0
c))
0
0
69
0
CV
69
0
0
69
C9
=IInning ies
0.
0)
Li
0)
• 0
0 • 04
a)
• Z)
ca
0
0
0
01v1l3ULTA,IT BUDGE
I. A
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BUDGET NA
11
TIVE
A Staff/Office Expenses:
Staff Salaries
Per OEA, the salaries include an 8% increase allowance given the California cost of living, and
a 3% annual cost of living increase.
Administrative Manager: The creation of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) has greatly expanded the duties and responsibilities of the Administrative
Assistant/Office Manager. The Administrative Assistant has been appointed Secretary to the
ARRA, and the new additional duties include: drafting staff reports, agendas, minutes, memos
and correspondence; and meeting coordination. The Administrative Assistant has also assumed
most of the responsibility for grant administration, and has worked closely with the EBCRC and
the OEA. The salary has been increased 6%, as allowed by OEA, commensurate to the increase
in the level of responsibility and technical expertise. To backfill some of the general office and
clerical duties, funding for part-time temporary secretarial has been increased in the budget.
(See Job Description Attachment E.)
Fringe Benefits
A maximum of 30% for benefits was calculated, in compliance with OEA guidelines.
Office Expenses
Telephone expenses include monthly equipment charges and toll calls. The estimated annual cost
of phone service is based on the first six months of operation.
Equipment and furnishings include miscellaneous furniture and/or equipment and office
improvements which may be required for the increased staff and activity as well as the purchase
of the Ricoh FT-6750 copier and Ricoh 3100L fax machine.This purchase was approved by OEA
based on an analysis of purchase versus lease pricing over a three year period.
Copier and Fax Machines Service Contracts: Service for copier includes full maintenance
including drums, heat and pressure rollers. Does not include supplies of developer toner and
paper. Service for fax includes 20,000 impressions per year, parts, and labor.
Office Supply expenses have been approximately $600 per month including xerox paper,
envelopes, stationery, general supplies, etc. In addition to general office business, there is a
massive amount mailing for the BRAG and the eleven BRAG Subcommittees that meet weekly
or biweekly, in addition to special meetings and tours. Also, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority mailings occur monthly, with additional mailings throughout the month
for general correspondence to the Reuse Authority Members.
21
Postage has been averaging $400 per month with an anticipated increase due to Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority mailings as well as an additional need for messenger services,
support for consultant activity, and increased staff. ,
Outside copying services use has been primarily for copying of Navy information for staff and
consultant use, the community reuse groups and the public library. In addition, it is anticipated
that copy service needs will increase due to the increase in the number of public meetings, and
the additional copying required for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority members.
There will also be in an increase in the need for video taped briefings and public meetings which
will require duplication of video tapes.
Janitorial service currently costs $300 per month with an anticipated increase of $25 to cover
the increase in occupied building space.
Travel/Conference/Training expenses include local travel expenses for six staff people at a rate
of $.29 per mile as allowed by OEA. Long distance travel includes trips to Washington for staff
to converse with OEA and legislative representatives involved with base closure issues, and
travel for staff members to base conversion conferences, and/or to visit other communities
impacted by base closure.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Expenses
Temporary secretarial services needs have increased due to the creation of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority.
General Counsel is necessary to provide regular legal assistance to the A • • A General
Counsel will also negotiate and draft contracts and other documents related to and necessary for
closure and reuse.
Accounting Services are necessary in order to support the fiscal operations of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority. In the process of becoming its own fiscal agent, the A • • A is
contracting with the City of Alameda Finance Department to handle accounting and financial
management for A
111
III. BRAG (Base Reuse Advisory Group)
Bus tours - The Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) provides bus tours to acquaint community
organizations, including EBCRC, with facilities on the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS).
Consultant briefings or Town Meetings may occur on NAS, and for security, participants must
be transported on base by bus.
Supplies - The BRAG participates in numerous public information activities /forums to solicit
ideas and greater community involvement. Often miscellaneous supplies are needed to
participate in these community activities/forums.
Town Meetings - To encourage community participation and update the community on the reuse
planning effort, the BRAG will continue to hold a series of town meetings. Even with the
donation of many services and supplies, the expense of the town meetings includes equipment
rental, set-up fees, etc.
IV. Consultant Activity
The following is a description of consultant activity by discipline. The budget summary for these
activities by "Phase" is provided on page 15. These descriptions provide a summary of work products
by discipline.
Land Use Planning - The consultant's land use planning activity involves the preparation of the
interim leasing strategy and the long term community reuse planning documents. Each
document will be prepared as in-house administrative draft, a public review draft, and final
planning documents. In addition, the land use activity includes preparation of interim reports
on existing conditions, alternatives and alternatives analysis, presentation graphics and maps of
the alternatives as well as an electronic model (GIS and CADD systems) of the project. Land
use planning activities include: coordination of the consultant team, negotiations with regional
agencies (BCDC, federal and state Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers, etc.) on land use
decisions. A critical component of this activity is the development of a strategy to deal with the
State of California on the State Lands issue.
Economic Analysis and Marketing - Economic analysis and marketing activities include the
preparation of local and regional market analysis and a competitive assessment of the region, a
market feasibility analysis for specific uses, an employment analysis, a fiscal resources analysis,
an interim reuse marketing strategy and plan for implementation, a long-term marketing strategy
and plan, and the development of an electronic, economic model for operations and financing.
Transportation Planning & Traffic Analysis - Transportation Planning activities includes a
number of technical planning studies of local and regional transportation and traffic
improvements for the interim and long-term reuse of the site. This analysis will include review
of existing and ongoing transportation studies, analysis of alternative land use scenarios, impacts
of the preferred land use plan, and recommendations and a financing strategy for funding
transportation access requirements to the site.
Civil Engineering/Infrastructure & Utility Analysis - Civil engineering and infrastructure
activities include technical planning studies and recommendations on all existing and proposed
utilities and infrastructure to service the site including: the electrical system, storm drainage,
gas, telephone and communication systems, steam systems, and sanitary sewer and industrial
waste water systems. This analysis will include impacts of alternative land use scenarios, with
recommendations and a strategy for utility transfers, utility service for interim uses, as well as
long term improvements. A key study now underway by the consultant team is a sizing/capacity
analysis for the new upgraded, sanitary sewer lines crossing the Oakland estuary proposed by
the Corps of Engineers in conjunction with new Port of Oakland dredging plans.
Architectural/Building & Structural Analysis - The architectural/building and structural analysis
focuses on an "order-of-magnitude" assessment of building conditions and the requirements to
bring the buildings into code compliance for both interim use and the long-term reuse. The
technical study will provide a systematic survey of existing structures (typology study) with an
identification of those structures capable of interim and long-term reuse and those structures that
should be demolished. Included in this analysis is a review of existing industrial equipment and
the development of a strategy for the reuse and disposition of existing equipment.
23
Environmental Planning/Regulatory Analysis - Environmental Planning and regulatory activity
includes a review, and technical report with recommendations, on the Navy's environmental
studies now underway (the Environmental Baseline Survey, environmental Base Cleanup Plan,
endangered species studies, wetlands designation, etc.), air quality credits, dredging permits,
historic and cultural resources, seismic, hydrological and geotechnical conditions of the site, as
well as biotic resources and other environmentally sensitive areas. Critical in this phase of the
work are meetings and negotiations with the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other
regulatory agencies on habitat and wetlands preservation requirements and potential impact
mitigation/restoration alternatives.
Public Participation Program - The public participation and community outreach program consist
of four key components: facilitation of community workshops; publication of a planning
information newsletter; presentations to the local BRAG Commission, the EBCRC, and the
A' • ; and preparation and analysis of the BRAG community survey. In addition, the
consultants will facilitate bi-weekly team meetings between the City and Reuse Authority staffs,
the Consultant team, and the EBCRC staff. Community workshops are planned at four critical
stages in the planning process: early identification of the community vision including issues,
goals and objectives for the project site; development of alternatives and an interim reuse
strategy; assessment of alternatives and selection of a preferred long-term reuse plan; and
review of the final Community Reuse Plan. The local Reuse Authority staff will continue to
make presentations to local and regional community groups, civic organizations, and interested
citizens as part of the ongoing community outreach effort.
Housing/McKinney Act Coordination - This phase of the consultant activity includes
coordination with the local homeless providers to ensure their needs are incorporated in the
planning process. The housing consultant will provide information and negotiate with homeless
providers throughout the reuse planning process to promote, in a cooperative manner, the
integration of homeless interests without jeopardizing the economic viability of other economic
development reuse planning efforts. In addition, the consultant will advise the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority on the creation of a non-profit housing corporation to determine
the viability and timing of this concept.
Ut-M.311\11-"\L
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into pursuant to the provisions of
Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500, et sec.)
oli,'•-the California Government Code, relating to joint exercise of
powers, between the City of Alameda and County of Alameda, for the
purpose cf establishinc a public entity for assuring the effective
transition of the Alameda Naval Air Station from federal ownership
to local ownership and use which agency is hereinafter desicnated
"Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority".
WITNESSETH:.
WHEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit and in the best public
interest of the parties to this Agreement to join together to
establish this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Purposes
hereinafter set. forth; and
WI-7REAS, the Alameda Naval. Ai.r Station and Depot have been
selected for closure under the 1993 . base closure process; and
WHEREAS, the ?.1ameda Naval Air Station and Depot are located
primarily within the city limits of the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station and
Depot will have a regional impact on the surrcunainc communities
including the County; and
WHEREAS; the recional impact on the surrounding communities
includes social and economic impacts including impacts on local
businesses nrovidinc direct services or support services to the
Alameda Naval Air Station and Depot and their employees and
families; and
WHEREAS, the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station and
Depot will have the largest imnact on the emnloymett cf the
citizens of the cities of Alameda, Oakland and San Leandro; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, City of
Oakland and City of San Leandro all have an interest in the
successful closure, reuse and redevelopment of the Alameda Naval
Air Station and Depot; and
WHEREAS, Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1
(Section 6500, et sec.) of the California Government Code authorize
joint exercise by two or more public agencies of any power common
to them; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda and County of Alameda have
determined that issues related to the closure of the Alameda Naval
JPA/03.29.94 (REVISED)
Attachment B
Air Station and Depot can best be addresed through an entity
called the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, which is
created hereunder; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties sicnina this
Acr.teemenc to jointly provide for the Alameda Reuse and
Reevelopmenc Authority for their mutual advantace;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual advantages to
be derived, and in consideration of the execution of this
Aareemenc, by the City of Alameda and County of Alameda, each of
the parties hereto does hereby agree that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority be created as follows:
2. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
terms used in this Agreement shall have the following
The
meanincs:
The California Joint Exercise
set =pi-th in Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5,
Government Code of the State of Califorria
Section 6500, et sec.).
E. "Al=m=ria".
The City of Alameda.
of Powers Act as
Article 1 of the
(Government Code
C. "Alameda City Council".. The City Council of the City of
Alameda.
D. "Authority". The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority created by thisAareement, which is the local reuse and
redevelopment authority for the Alameda Naval Air Station and
Depot.
E.
"ERAG".
The Base Reuse Advisory Group created by the
Alameda City Council.
F. "Board of Supervisors".
Alameda County.
G. "County".
E. "EBCRC".
The Board of Supervisors of
The County of Alameda.
The East Bay Conversion
and Reinvestment
Commission.
T. "Executive Director'. The City Manager of the City of
Alameda_
J. "Fiscal Year". That period of time established in the
Bylaws.
IP.4/03 .29 .94 (REVISED)
2
K. "Governing Body". Unless the context otherwise
specifies, the governing body of the Authority.
T "Member". Unless otherwise specified, a member is a
member of the Governing Body.
" M. "Naval Air Station". Alameda Naval Air Station and
Depot, a map of which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference.
N. "vartv". A signatory to this Acreemenc.
C. "Redevelopment Aaencv". The agency authorized under
California Community Redevelopment law to act as the redevelocment
agency for the Naval Air StatiOn.
"Redevelopment Authority". The agency within the meanina
of Title 24 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994.
Q. "Reuse Plan". ' The redevelopment Plan referred to in
federal base closure law that is developed by the Authbrity Fo- the
Naval ?Jr Station and that provides for the reuse and redevelopment
cf the real and personal property of the Naval Air Station that is
available for such reuse and redevelopment as a result of the
closure of the Naval Air Station.
TT.
PURPOSES AND TERM
A. Purposes. The Authority is the local reuse and.
Redevelopment Authority for the Naval Air Station. Its purposes
include the following:
1. Develop an interim reuse strategy and a reuse plan
for the Naval Air Station which promotes the economic
revitalization of the area within and surrounding the Naval Air
Station by creating jobs, training or retraining of employees,
developinc technolocy, considering small business concerns and
public purposes, and planning appropriate land uses.
2. Take title to the Naval Air Station from the federal
government.
3. Receive federal and state grants and other available
funding in order to develop and implement the reuse plan for the
Naval Air Station.
E. Term. This Agreement shall becOme effective as of the
date hereof, and shall continue in full force and effect until
terminated as provided herein. However, in no event shall this
Agreement be terminated before the expiration of five years from
the date this Agreement is fully executed by the parties.
JP.V03.29.94 (REVISED)
111.
CREATION OF AUTHoRTTy
Pursuant to Section 6500, et seg. of the Government Code,
there is hereby created a public entity, senarate and apart from
the -parties hereto, to be known as the Alameda Reuse and
Red,evelopment Authority. Pursuant to Government Code Section
608.1, the debts, liabilities, and oblications of the Authority
shall nct constitute debts, liabilities, or oblications of any
party to this Agreement.
POWERS OF AUTHORT7v
A. The Authority shall have the followinc common powers and
is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary for the exercise of
said common powers:
1• To prepare appropriate plans and policies relating
co the Naval Air Station, including an interim leasing strategy and
a final base reuse plan;
2. To appear and narticipate in heerinCs, meetings,
discussions, or other necessary or desirable interaction with the
Urited States federal government or State of California, or any
branch or denartment, or other croups or entities as may be
arrrcpriate to further the purpose of this Acreement;
3,
hold, lease,
property of
property as
Acreement;
To acquire (by sale, eminent domain or otherwise),
manage, maintain,and dispose of real and personal
the Naval Air Station, and other real and personal
appropriate, to Carry cut the Provisions Of this
a. TO solicit and accent funds to assist in the reuse
and redevelopment process.
5. To make and enter into contracts, including but not
limited to in lieu agreements, to the extent and in the manner
permitted under Government Code Section 6508, or other applicable
provisions of law.
6. To invest and reinvest money in the treasury of the
Authority pursuant to Government Code Section 53601;
7. To incur debts, liabilitiee, or obligations, but no
debt, liability, or obligation of the Authority shall be a debt,
liability, or obligation of any party to this Acreement, except as
otherwise provided herein.
8. To appoint standing and snecial committees from the
Members of the Governing Body to assist the Authority. The
Governing Body may delegate as much authority.to such committees as
it deems desirable to fulfill their duties. In addition to
a.
5PA/03.29.94 (REVISED)
standing and special committees, the Governing Body may appoint
advisory bodies from outside its Membership to provide advice in
the performance of its duties.
9. To exercise such powers under California Community
Redevelctment law to the extent such may be authorized by law,
defecated by the Parties, and approved by the Authority,
10. To sue and be sued in its own name; and
11, To exercise all powers necessary and proper to carry
out the terms and provisions of this Aareement, including but not
limited to those noted in Article 4 cf the Act, or otherwise
authorized by law, and to do all acts necessary or convenient to
the exercise of such powers or as otherwise authorized by law.
The Authority hall proceed to do all acts necessary or
desirable to accomplish the purposes of this Aareement. Such acts
may, but need not necessarily include, all cr parc of the
follcwina:
Coordinating efforts of the parties in:
(a) Promoting the economic revitalization of the
area within and surrounding the Naval Air
Station;
(b) Job creation;
(c) Traininc;
(d) Technology development;
(e) Planning for the reuse of the Naval A-r-
Station;
(f) Accuisition, lease, disposition, and sale of
real property and/or facilities within the
Naval Air Station;
(a) Development of infrastructure financing
technicues for infrastructure facilities
necessary to serve the Naval Air .Station;
(h) Provision for endangered steciez and wetlands
mitigation at the Naval Air Station;
(i) Planning for the provision of utility and
infrastructure services at the Naval Air
Station;
(j) Planning for the protection and enhancement of
the environment at the Naval Air Station and
the surrounding area;
(k) Development of plans and policies related, to
housing resources and the homeless.
2. Providing information for public dissemination and
establishing a clearinghouse for exchange of information and the
coordination and communication of all efforts by any Member which
JPA103.29.94 (REVISED) 5
would affect or otherwise relate to the Naval Air Station and its
reuse.
3. Amplyina for, receiving, and using grants and/cr
loans From federal, state, or local governments or from any otheT-
source.
a . Negotiatina and entering into appropriate acr—ments
with the United States or any agency or department thereof, for the
purpose of determining the disposition, reuse and/or conservation
of the Naval Air Station property or facilities.
The listing of the above acts is not intended to indicate any
Priority of one act over the other, nor is such listing intended to
be inclusive, and the Authority may authorize other acts to be done
in the accomplishment of the purposes of this Aareement. One cr
several acts may take place concurrently or in sequence, as tHe
Authority shall direct.
V. R7SERVATTON OF POWERS
A. The powers of the Authority are non-exclusive and shall
not be constrtied as restricting or limitinc any Parties,
individually or severally, from performing any governmental cr
regulatory powers or duties of the Members under the law.
. Each Party expressly reserves and retains the right to
develop, adopt, implement, and enforce, in its sole discretion,
land use plans, land use, zoning and building reaulations,
redevelopment plans, capital improvement plans, and public
improvement or service plans for property, buildings, and
facilities which are within the Naval Air Station and within its
jurisdiction.
C. To the extent permitted by law, the.governina body of any
Party may specifically delegate these functions or portions thereof
to the Authority. Otherwise, such functions shall remain the duty
of the Party with jurisdiction under ,California law. Such
delegations shall be effective'when accepted by the Authority.
VI. GOVERNING BODY OF AUTHORITY
A. The Authority shall be governed by the Governing Body
which is hereby established and which shall be composed of the
folloWina nine Members:
• The Alameda City Council shall appoint its five
Councilmembers, including the mayor (EBCRC commissioner)
and vice mayor (EBCRC alternate);
• The Board of SUpervisors shall appoint its representative
from the Third Supervisorial District (if the seat
JPA/03.29.94 (REVISED)
6
becomes vacant, the Board of Supervisors shall make a
temporary appointment, which shall be followed with a
-permanent appointment when the seat has a permanent
replacement) and
• The Board of Supervisors shall enter into a Memorandum of
4
Understanding with EECRC; which shall provide tHat the
Board of Supervisors shall appoint the following three
Members
1. the Mayor of Oakland
2. the Mayor of San Leandro
3. the United States House • of Representative member
representing the Ninth Congressional Districa.
If any of the three members resigns from the
Governing Body, the Board of Supervisors shall appajnt a
replacement that is selected by the EBCRC, who shall be
an EECRC commissioner, subject to the ratification and
veto by majority vote of the Governing Body,
If
EBCRC is no lancer in existence and if any of the
three members resigns froth the Governing Body, the Board
of Supervisors shall appoint replacements directly,
subject to the ratification and veto by majority vote of
the Governing Body.
E. Each Member shall aopoinc 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.
C. Each Member shall have one vote.
D. Members shall hold membership on the Governing Body until
they are no longer aualthed as determined by the public entity
which appointed them. In the case of a vacancy in the membership
of the Governing Body, the vacancy -shall be promptly filled,
subject to the restriction in Paragraph A above, by the public
entity which had appointed that representative.
VII. POWERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
The Governing Body shall have the following powers and
functions:
A. The Governing Body shall have the power to conduct, on
behalf of the Authority, all business of the Authority, which the
Authority may conduct under the provisions hereof and pursuant to
law.
WA/03.29.94 (REVISED) 7
P. Subject to the provisions of paragraph IX, the Governing
Body may hire employees and contract with consultants and special
legal counsel.
"C. The Governing Body shall have such other powers and
funcr_ions as are provided for in this Agreement or in the Bylaws.
VIIT. MEETINGS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
A. Meetinas. The Governing Body shall establish a regul
meeting
Minutes. The Secretary of the Authority shall cause
minutes of regular, adjourned regular, and special meetinas to be
keot.
c. votina. A majority of the members of the Governing Body
shall constitute a auorum for the transaction of business, except
that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time.- A vote of
the majority of a auorum present ac a meeting shall be sufficient
to constitute action by the Governina Body, except 'as otherwse
specifically set forth in this Aareement or in the bylaws. Votes
shall be cast in person and may not be cast by proxy.
The vote of 5 members of the Governing Body, three of
whom shall be representatives of the Alameda City Council, is
--eauired to take any action on the followina:
1. Adoption of a Community Reuse Plan.
2. Formation of a.Redevelopment District and adoption
of a Redevelopment Plan.
3. Adoption of any plan or land use proposal in
contradiction to the City's land use plan,
redevelopment, and zoning plan.
a. Delegation of any authority to another body by the
Authority.
5 Transfer of any real or personal property of the
Authority.
G. Adoption of or any amendments to the Authority's
Bylaws.
7. Termination of this Agreement.
8. Selecting the ,Chairperson of the Governing Body.
D. Brown Act. All meetings of the Governing Body shall
comply with the reauirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government
Code Section 54950, et sea.) as amended.
E. Rules and Reaulations. The Governing Body shall adopt
bylaws, rules, and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and
affairs.
RA/03.29.94 (REVISED)
8
F. Chairperson. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the
Gove=inc Body shall be selected by the Members from amoncst
themselves. The term of office of the chairperson and vice-
chairperson shall be one year.
IX, FINANCES
A. Accountina.
1. Accountinc Procedures. The Authority shall maintain
full books and accounts in accordance with sound accounting
practices and consistent with those utilized by municipalities. In
particular, the Treasurer and Auditor/Finance Director of the
Authority shall comply with the requirements of the Act.
2. Audit. The records and accounts of the Authority
shall be audited annually, and copies of such audit reports shall
be filed as public records With the Auditor of .Alameda County, each
Party, and each Member within twelve (12) months after-the end of
the fiscal year under examination.
Budaet.
1. Sources of Funds. Funds for the Authority shall
come from Party contributions, state or federal crants, and from
any ocher source. The Executive Director may take such steps as
are necessary to arrance for the Authority's receipt of such funds
as are available to it and as necessary for the conduct of its
afairs.
2. General Budcet. Within sixty (GO) days after this
Acreement takes effect, and annually thereafter, the Governing Body
shall adopt a general budcet for the ensuing fiscal year. The
budaet shall be prepared in sufficient detail to constitute an
operating outline for the source and amount of funds available to
the Authority and expenditures to be made during the ensuing year.
3. Approval of the Budaet. The general budaet or any
amendment to the general budget shall be approved by a majority of
the Governing Body. Until such time as formal approval has been
received, the budget shall be subject to further consideration and
revisions.
a. Expenditure of Funds. All expenditures within the
designations and limitations of an approved general budget shall be
made on the authorization of the Governing Body. The Authority
shall not expend funds except as specified in the approved budget.
C. Personnel.
1. The Alameda City Manager or his/her designee shall
serve as the Executive Director of the Authority, and shall be
IPA/03.29.94 (REVISED) 9
responsible for the administration.of the Authority through
contract with the City of Alameda.
2. -km, employees of the Authority shall be hired,
compensated, disciplined, and discharged by the Executive Director
and in accordance with all applicable laws.
D. Party Contributions_ Except as prohibited by law and
this Acreement, each Party may:
1. Make contributions and make or arrange for payments
of public funds to defray the costs related to the purposes of this
Aereemenc; and
2. Make advances of public 'funds for such purposes,
such advances or payments to be repaid.
X. PROPERTY
Except as provided herein, all assets accuired by the
Authority during the course of its operations under he terms of
this Acreement shall be the assets of the Authority alone, and not
of the Parties. The Governinc,Sody may, by majority vote, transfer
or distribute all or any part of the Authority's funds, property,
or assets.
XI. LT,:lTLITT7S
Except as provided herein, the debts, liabilities,
obligations of the Authority shall be the debts, liabilities
cbliaations of the Authority, and not of any or all Parties.
XII.
INDEMNIFICATION
and
and
The Authority agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and to
defend the Parties and their officers, employees, and accents from
any and all claims for injury or damage of whatever type broucht by
or on behalf of any third party, including but not limited to the
Authority's officers, employees, and agents, arising from or
connected with any acts or omissions in the performance of this
Agreement by the Authority, except from any such claim arising
solely out of the negligent acts or omissions attributable to the
Party or its officers, employees, or agents.
XIII. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment
approved by the governing bodies of the Parties.
JPA/03.29.94 (REVISED)
10
XIV. ASSIGNMENT
The parties to this Agreement shall not assign any richt or
obligation hereunder without the written consent of the other
Parties.
XV. TERMINATION
A. This Agreement may be terminated by the vote of 5 members
of the Governing Body, three of whom shall be representatives of
the Alameda City Council; provided, however, that no such
termination shall relieve the Authority or any succeeding agency of
any financial oblations incurred by the Authority while actinc
pursuant to this Aareement.
E. Upon the termination of this Agreement, any property,
funds or assets acquired as a result of this Aareement shall be
divided or distributed in accordance with the vote of 5 members of
the Governing Body, three of whom shall be representatives of the
Alameda City Council.
XVI. BINDING EFFECT
This Aareement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the permitted successors and assigns of the Par ies.
XVII. NOTICES
All notices, demands, reauests or approvals to be given under
this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be
deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business
day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, recistered or certified, addressed as hereinafter
provided.
All notices, demands, recuests or approvals to Alameda shall
be addressed as follows:
City of Alameda
Attention Base Conversion Project Director
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to County shall be
addressed as follows:
County of Alameda
Attention: County Administrator
1221 Oak Street
Oakland, CA 94612
JPA/03.29.94 (REVISED)
11
XVIII. COST OF LITIGATTON
If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision
hereof or for damaaes by reason of an alleged breach of any
prov'isions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
enr*itled to receive from the losing party all costs and expenses in
slIch amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys'
ees.
XIX. CONFLICT OF LAW
This Agreement shall be interpreted under and enforced by the
laws of the State of California, excepting any choice of law rules
which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction.
The Acreement and cbliaations of the parties are subject to all
valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities
havina jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the succetsors of those
authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement =hail
be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda; State of
Califorra_
XX. WAIVER
A waiver by a Party of any breach of any term, covenant, or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waive,- of
any subsequent breach of.the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein whether of the same cr a d.44`Int
character.
XXI. INTEGRATED CONTRACT,
This Aareement re-presents the full and complete understandina
of every kind cr nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and
all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or
nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant
shall be held to vary the provisions hereof.
XXII. SEVERABILTTv
In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines
that any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid or
unenforceable or in conflict with any law or regulation having the
force of law, each Party shall have the right to withdraw from this
Agreement Within ninety (90) days from the data of entry of a final
nonapbealable decision. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the remaining portions of this Agreement shall be in full
force and effect.
JPA/03.29.94 (REVISED)
12
XXIII. CAPTIONS
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are
not a part of the Agreement, and in no way affect, limit or amplify
the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to
be executed on this 5th day of April , 1994.
Ti e PRESIDENT aFfl. IT BOAr_ OP SUP7.,VISVAS
OF ALAMMA COUNiY, CALIFOLNIA
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Approved as to form:
COUriS
LOREZO E.
1RA/03,29.94 (REVISED)
13
E. William Withrow,
-- Mayor --
Attest:
C>i"
' Clerk
Approved as to form:
L. (;)
(41-)
City Attorney
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501-5012
510-263-2870
FAX 510-521-3764
July 6, 1994
Attachment C
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: City of Alameda Assignment of OEA (Office of Economic Adjustment) Grant
Implementation to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Background:
On March 28, 1994, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) informed the EBCRC
that their OEA grant had been amended to include the City of Alameda's Reuse Planning Budget
request of $581,374 for the period of November 1, 1993 to October 31, 1994.
Discussion/Analysis:
In September 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority will submit its own
budget request to the OEA for funding for the period of November 1, 1994 to October 31, 1995.
In the interim, the City of Alameda can by resolution assign authority for the implementation
of OEA Grant #CL 9405-93/94-01A to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
("Authority").
Funding for the award of the consultant contract for the preparation of the "Community
Reuse Plan" is included in the City of Alameda Reuse Planning Budget. The City resolution
assigning authority for grant implementation to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
includes authority for award of the consultant contract.
Upon adoption of the City resolution and selection of the consultant by the Authority, the
City of Alameda would execute the contract with the consultant.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Fiscal Impact:
None.
July 6, 1994
Page 2
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority accept
assignment for the implementation of the City of Alameda OEA grant - including award of
consultant contract for the preparation of the "Community Reuse Plan".
DP:JM:eb
Rispectfully sub
Don Parker
Executive Director
Attachment: City of Alameda OEA Budget
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12553
ASSIGNING THE CITY OF ALA=A'S GRANT
FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT (OEA)
TO THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on March 28, 1994, the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA) informed the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Commission (EBCRC) that the OEA grant had been amended to include
the City of Alameda's Reuse Planning Budget request of $581,374 for
the period of November 1, 1993 to October 31, 1994; and
WHEREAS, in September, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority will submit its own budget request to the
OEA for funding for the period of November 1, 1994 to October 31,
1995; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda can assign authority for the
implementation of OEA Grant #CL 9405-93/94-01A to the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority; and
WHEREAS, funding for the award of the consultant contract
for the preparation of the "Community Reuse Plan" is included in
the City of Alameda Reuse Planning Budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Alameda
assigns authority for implementation of City of Alameda OEA grant
implementation, including award of consultant contract for the
preparation of the "Community Reuse Plan" to the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Office of
Economic Adjustment.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the
City of Alameda in special meeting assembled on the 13th day of
July , 1994, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Appezzato, Lucas, Roth and
President Withrow - 4.
None.
Councilman Arnerich - 1.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 14th day of July , 1994.
(76te e • (
Diane BU Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda
SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT—NAS ALAMEDA COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN
EDAW CONTRACT WITH ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JULY 7, 1994; AMENDED AUGUST 17, 1994
C. SCOPE OF WORK, WORK PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE
C.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides a detailed description of the EDAW team's approach to the NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan assignment. It is presented in the following sequence of discussion:
• Understanding of the Issues
• Overall Approach and Scope ofWork
• Work Program
• Schedule
C.2 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES
The City of Alameda and the surrounding region face a tremendous challenge due to the planned
closure ofNaval Air Station Alameda. If properly met, however, this challenge can be transfoi med
into unparalleled opportunities for economic growth, community enrichment, and the realization
of a vibrant new addition to the fabric ofthe City and the Bay region. It is the promise of these benefits
which must motivate the reuse planning effort for the installation.
The City has established a clear organization for addressing the challenge of planning for the "re-
opening" ofNAS Alameda. The City has entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with other involved
jurisdictions and government representatives to establish the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority. This Authority will be responsible for preparing, approving and implementing the reuse
plan for the installation. Under the leadership ofthe Authority's Executive Director (Alameda's City
Manager), the Project Director ofthe City's Base Conversion Office will assemble and work with a
consultant team to provide the necessary technical studies, alternatives analysis, and detailed planning
to achieve successful reuse ofNAS Alameda.
Planning for the reuse/re-opening ofNAS Alameda must address the following key issues and
challenges (and the planning team must have the expertise to convincingly and successfully address
them):
• Immediate and effective replacement of employment and economic activity lost due to the
closure--One key measure of the success ofthe reuse planning effort will the pace at which (1)
new jobs are created on-base to replace those that are lost as the Navy departs, and (2) the
overall level ofbeneficial local and regional economic activity represented by the Navy's
presence is restored and exceeded by reuse initiatives. A clear understanding ofthe
1
Attachment D
opportunities and constraints represented by existing facility conditions (physical,
institutional, and economic), combined with realistic reuse marketing expectations, must
guide interim reuse planning.
• Articulating a long-term vision for the future ofthe NAS Alameda as a part of the City and
the Bay region--While the immediate need to replace jobs and economic activity is very
real and must be successfully met, the Naval Air Station property has tremendous long-term
potential to become a unique, balanced, and vibrant addition to the urban and open space
fabric of Alameda and the surrounding region. Several long-term proposals have already
been put forward for the installation; others have yet to be defined. Many, if not most, of these
proposals would require extensive redevelopment ofthe installation property and
construction of new facilities. Regional agencies are also studying the potential role of the
installation in serving regional air transport and seaport industry needs. Reaching consensus
on a long-term vision for NAS Alameda will be a challenge. Nevertheless, articulation of and
progress toward such a long-term vision must be a key factor in structuring near- and mid-
term reuse strategies.
• Understanding and responding to local and regional needs related to the reuse ofNAS
Alameda--Planning for the conversion ofthe Naval Air Station involves looking both at the
base itself (and the opportunities and constraints represented there) and the surrounding
land use and urban systems ofthe City of Alameda and Alameda County as a whole. Perhaps
the key area of concern in terms urban systems is transportation. Access to Alameda Island is
limited; reuse ofthe NAS could involve land use activities different from and intensities
beyond those represented by the Navy; planning for transportation systems will be a critical
determinant of the final reuse plan. From another perspective, the Air Station may represent
significant local and regional opportunities in the areas of housing, education and recreation.
Planning must address the Air Station in full context with the systems and needs ofthe City of
Alameda and the surrounding area.
• Ensuring that both interim and long-term strategies for reuse are fiscally sound--Base
conversion truly represents the creation of a "small city" and a "large real estate development
project". The small city implies the need to provide public services, capital improvements,
and operations and maintenance finictions. The large real estate project implies the need to
manage disposition like a real estate development corporation, seeking ways to maximize
revenue and minimize costs. Both ofthese perspectives are compounded in the case of
military base conversion due to the involvement of multiple federal, state, and local agencies
and the presence ofbuilt facilities/infrastructure which can be substandard or require
expensive upgrading. Appropriate financing plans and realistic revenue expectations must be
a part of every phase ofreuse implementation. The reuse ofNAS Alameda must not become a
fiscal burden to the City or other involved local jurisdictions.
• Defining realistic reuse phasing in terms of (1) the Navy's departure process, (2)
environmental clean-up and resource protection requirements, and (3) facility and
infrastructure conditions, capacities, and improvement requirements--Planning for reuse of
military installations must face many realities. For example, the military will not depart
overnight; planning must address phasing of civilian access to facilities and coordinated
2
transfer of property and facility/infrastructure maintenance responsibility as military activities
diminish and community activities increase. Civilian reuse of facilities may also be
constrained by environmental clean-up requirements; planning for reuse must assist in
setting priorities for the clean-up effort. Existing facilities and/or infrastructure may not
have the capacity or be in adequate condition to support some reuse initiatives; a clear
understanding of facility conditions and capacities, code compliance issues, and the feasibility
of needed facility/infrastructure improvements is required to support planning decisions.
Establishing and implementing an aggressive and successful marketing_strategy—NAS
Alameda is only one of many military installations which are closing in the Bay region, the
state, and the nation. Marketing ofthe installation's unique assets, combined with creative
but practical packaging ofland/facility/equipment resources, will be critical to achieving
reuse/redevelopment, especially in the near-term. The realities of facility conditions at
military installations as well as the property disposition process itself can significantly
influence marketability. As noted above, the condition, code compliance, design and
configuration of existing facilities can impact the cost and timing ofreuse; so also can the
environmental condition ofbuildings and grounds. Perhaps most importantly, the disposition
process is often surrounded by uncertainty and risk, making it difficult for the private sector to
respond in a timely manner.
Careful monitoring of and response to the federal and McKinney Act surplus land screening:
process--The City is already aware of and is monitoring the federal property screening
process (e.g. the Coast Guard request) and the potential interests of homeless services
providers. In the latter regard, the proposed creation of a non-profit housing organization is
an excellent response to the need for coordination oflocal and regional housing needs at the
base. Both the interim and long-term strategies for reuse ofthe installation must account for
and accommodate approved federal agency reuses and McKinney Act requests resulting from
these processes.
• Making optimum use ofthe Public Benefit and Economic Development Transfer provisions
in the federaVDOD base closure and realignment process--Under the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of1949 and other disposal authorities, and the 1994 Defense
Authorization Act, state and local governments or reuse authorities can obtain installation
facilities without cost for defined public benefit purposes (e.g. schools, parks, health care);
under the new authority ofthe 1994 Act, facilities can be obtained without cost through an
Economic Development Conveyance (with future profit sharing with the DOD).
The above notations represent the major broad-scale issues and challenges which must be addressed
in planning for reuse ofNAS Alameda. EDAW's Work Program, presented in Section C.4, provides
additional insight into specific technical and planning issues and our approach to addressing them.
3
C.3 OVE LL APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WO
OVERVIEW
The City's RFP presents a logical and well-thought-out sequence of work for achieving a practical
and successful reuse plan for NAS Alameda. EDAW's overall approach to the work will follow the
same five major phases of effort presented in the RFP. The following paragraphs provide an overview
of our approach to each phase and the key aspects of our scope of work which are designed to achieve
the efficiency, coordination, creativity and useful planning tools required by this challenging
assignment. A detailed, task-by-task description of our work program and methodology is provided
in section C.4, below.
Phase 1 Reconnaissance
This phase ofthe reuse planning effort emphasizes (1) complete familiarization ofthe EDAW
team with the information available regarding the installation and its surroundings, as well as the
issues which must be addressed by the planning effort, (2) initial contacts with key participants in
the planning process, including the City, Navy, EBCRC consultants and those agencies which will
have regulatory authority over aspects ofthe reuse program, and (3) refinement ofthe overall work
program, including technical study requirements and the public/agency involvement effort.
It is appropriate in describing the intent ofthis phase of work to emphasize EDAW's fundamental
belief that the NAS Alameda reuse planning effort should focus as much as possible on use of
existing information resources. Through other base reuse planning assignments, most recently
Mare Island, we have demonstrated that by structuring our own team to include those individuals
most knowledgeable regarding the installation and the reuse planning process and through effective
use of available resources within the Navy and other involved agencies (including the City) we can
reduce the need for extensive new studies and allow a focus of planning resources on those aspects of
investigation which are truly important to decision-making. We have established a close working
relationship with Navy and other agency sources ofinformation and intend to make optimum use of
existing resources.
It is also in this phase ofthe effort when our fundamental working relationship with the Base
Conversion Office will be established and when the approach to public/agency involvement will
be solidified. In the first regard, we intend to establish and maintain one primary point of contact
for the City within the EDAW team (i. e. our Program Manager). Experience indicates that regular
phone/fax communications will be required (several times per week) between EDAW's manager
and the Base Conversion Office. In addition, we suggest that team meetings be anticipated on a bi-
weekly basis to coordinate the efforts of all team members and to report progress and results.
Regarding public involvement, we expect that the primary forums will be the BRAG Commission
and the Reuse Authority. It is expected that workshops with the BRAG Commission and the
Reuse Authority will occur during all phases ofthe effort; the frequency of these workshops must
be determined. We will also discuss with the City, the desirability of producing regular media
announcements and a reuse plan newsbriefto keep the general public informed of the process and
its results.
4
Key products ofthis phase ofwork will include: (1) a project management and coordination plan,
(2) a public and agency involvement plan, and (3) a refined scope ofwork for the planning team.
Phase 2 Conditions and Trends Analysis
This phase ofthe effort essentially involves building the full database and conducting necessary
data analysis to support decision-making for both the Interim Reuse Strategy and the final
Community Reuse Plan. As specified in the RFP, data gathering and analysis will be conducted in
the following areas (additional areas recommended by EDAW are also noted):
Physical and ReQulatory Analysis
• Building condition, O&M costs, code compliance, reuse potential, and improvement
requirements for various reuse scenarios (including commercial and industrial buildings,
housing, and recreational and other special-purpose facilities)
• Personal property condition and reuse potential
• Utility distribution systems
• Geotechnical and environmental conditions (including geotechnical and hydrologic
conditions, dredging requirements/permits, biological resources; it will be noted that
EDAW's scope ofwork also includes a review and interpretation of the Navy's BCP and
EBS related to hazardous waste clean-up)
• Historic Resources
• Transportation
• Regulatory Requirements
Social and Economic Analysis
• Community Resources
• Employment
• Competitive Assessment ofthe Region
• Market Feasibility Analysis
• Fiscal Resources and Analysis
As noted in discussion ofPhase 1, EDAW will optimize use of existing information in conducting
these investigations. However, care will be taken to ensure that the data gathering and analysis
provides the City with a clear and unbiased view ofthe conditions, issues, and trends which will
effect reuse planning decisions. New analysis is expected to be required in some key areas,
particularly land use planning, building and equipment condition/reuse potential, utility systems,
transportation, and social/economic factors.
A key part of EDAW's approach to this phase ofthe work program is the creation of an electronic
model ofthe installation. This model will be used to understand all major aspects oft.he existing
installation and to project the results ofvarious interim and long-term reuse scenarios. This model
will link automated mapping (CAD maps and other resources) and data resources including
spreadsheets and databases developed for the base conversion process. Key data layers to be input
or refined include but are not limited to: building data (including construction type, code compliance
issues, reuse opportunities, capital improvement requirements), land use/urban design factors,
5
environmental factors, institutional/regulatory factors, utility systems, and transportation systems. It
is understood that the Base Conversion Office and the Navy already have some data in electronic
format (i e. AutoCad, data in spreadsheets and databases). The EDAW team will continue to build
the electronic database through Phase 2 efforts using AutoCad as the primary input tool. The overall
electronic model will ultimately reside in our ArcInfo or ArcCad GIS system for use in developing and
assessing alternative interim and long-term reuse alternatives: Through our experience developing
the Navy's Electronic Master Plan software system and our creation of GIS models for Mare Island
and other communities, we have a unique in-house capability to generate these electronic tools for the
reuse planning effort. The electronic data and mapping system developed will be provided to the Base
Conversion Office upon completion ofthe planning effort to assist in detailed management and
implementation of the reuse program.
The GIS model ofthe installation will include both physical and economic analysis components.
The physical parameters model will include those data layers noted above. The economic component
of the model represents a unique financial operations model, originally developed for the National
Park Service for use during conversion of the Presidio. This model, which is based on a building-
specific database aggregates cost and operating budget information into a customized format so that
the cash flow-style output can be used for decision-making and sensitivity analysis. Revenues are
estimated on a type ofuse basis, but can be modified for a collection of buildings as a lump sum
payment forma "user." In this way, for example, a user such as ACET at NAS Alameda, who will
likely master sublease a collection of office, industrial, and warehouse space, can be analyzed as one
component of a multi-user disposition strategy. Operating costs are based on a "bottom up"
operating budget, not a refinement of obsolete military operating data. The model produces a "cost-
to-occupy" from the tenants perspective, allowing for comparison to market rate rents for leasing and
marketing purposes.
Capital costs from building improvements come from the underlying data base, and base-wide capital
costs are integrated from a separate module. The model can calculate annual NOI for the overall
operating entity, and can estimate debt service supportable by this NOI (including financing terms
arising from public debt structures). Finally, the model can accommodate public subsidies such as
grants and/or special appropriations, or alternatively can calculate the amounts needed from these
sources to balance the cash flow each year.
Key products ofthis phase ofthe effort will include: (1) technical reports covering data and findings
ofthe Physical and Regulatory and the Social and Economic Analysis efforts, (2) an electronic model
ofNAS Alameda to be used in assessing alternatives and in eventually managing the facility, and (3) a
synthesis report describing the key opportunities and constraints represented by existing conditions.
Phase 3 Interim Reuse Strategy
This phase of the reuse planning process will focus on the vital goal of achieving optimum, near-term
replacement ofjobs and economic activity at NAS Alameda. Using the electronic/GIS model
established during Phase 2, interim reuse strategies will be explored by the planning team and will
be presented to the BRAG Commission and the Reuse Authority. Key aspects of the analysis of
alternative interim strategies will include:
Consistency with long term vision (this phase must include an exploration basic planning
principles which will effect long term reuse ofthe installation; EDAW includes exploration of
long term concepts as part ofthis phase; a key aspect of this exploration will be basic
assumptions regarding the long-term use ofthe facility for seaport or air transport activities)
• Navy policies and requirements (from the standpoints of property leasing terms, O&M and
clean-up requirements, and the phased departure ofNavy activities)
• Provision of services and utilities
• Requirements for building and infrastructure improvements (i.e. transportation and utilities)
• Target markets and market feasibility
• Financial implications
The EDAW team will provide specific descriptions of alternative approaches to interim reuse,
involving specific sets of facilities, associated improvement requirements, and financial and
marketing implications. The team will also provide an assessment ofthe alternatives (using the
GIS/financial model and a defined set of evaluation/decision-making criteria) in a manner which will
assist the Reuse Authority in determining the preferred course of action in the near- and mid-term
planning horizons. The final interim reuse strategy must be economically viable, must optimally
respond to the need to achieve employment/reemployment and fulfill other community goals, and
must be sufficiently flexibly to accommodate changing market conditions and the evolution of the
communities long-term vision for NAS Alameda.
Key products ofthis phase ofwork will include: (1) detailed descriptions (narrative, mapped, and
numeric/economic) of potentially viable interim reuse strategies, (2) a comparative assessment ofthe
alternatives, (3) a final report documenting the preferred interim strategy, including specific
implementation programs, and (4) a GIS model ofthe interim strategy for use in implementation.
Phase 4 Plan Alternatives
Phase 4 ofthe process focuses on alternative overall programs for the long-term reuse ofNAS
Alameda. Basic concepts and plan principles explored during Phase 3 will be further developed to
articulate the communities fundamental choices regarding the ultimate vision for the installation as
an integrated and vibrant new "neighborhood" of Alameda and the surrounding region. The
alternatives must array the full range of overall land use concepts and the entire spectrum of feasibility
and financial viability. The alternatives must also respond to the results of the federal and McKinney
Act screening processes and explore options for public benefit and economic development
conveyances. The EDAW team will portray five alternatives (as specified in the RFP). These
alternatives will explore the major concepts identified to date, as well as new concepts which emerge
from the planning and public involvement efforts. Documentation ofthe alternative will be based in
and derived from the GIS model developed for the NAS Alameda effort.
EDAW is well-known for its ability to develop meaningful and understandable decision-making
systems for assessing alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative. Each alternative must be
described in all the key areas (criteria) which are important to decision-making, including:
goals/objectives achievement, land use compatibility, social and economic results, financial
implications, infrastructure (utility and transportation) requirements, market feasibility,
environmental impacts, and institutional/regulatory feasibility. EDAW will then develop a specific
decision-making system for the City to assess alternatives and select a preferred course of action in
the long-term. This system will use graphic and numeric techniques to rate each alternative in terms
of its relative response to each key evaluation/decision-making criterion; the planning team will then
assist the City in determining the relative importance ofindividual criteria (i.e. which criteria are most
important, when compared with others). By using a final hierarchy of decision criteria, the relative
performance of each alternative in successfully meeting the community's goals can be assessed.
EDAW will guide the City through this alternatives assessment process to the goal of selecting a
preferred alternative (the other alternatives will remain useful to the Navy in its EIS preparation
efforts).
The primary products ofthis phase ofthe effort will include: (1) development and documentation
ofthe full range of alternative long-term plans for NAS Alameda, (2) development and application
of a graphic and numeric decision-making system for assessing the relative success ofthe alternatives
in achieving the community's goals and objectives, and (3) a final report documenting the alternatives,
the alternatives assessment process and its results, and the community's selection of a preferred plan.
Phase 5 Community Reuse Plan
The final phase of the reuse planning effort will focus on detailed development of the preferred
long-term reuse alternative and preparing a final plan document which meets state General Plan
requirements. The final plan will include all the elements noted in the City's RFP (these need not
be repeated here). Of primary importance in preparing and adopting the final Community Reuse
Plan will be (1) its completeness and adequacy as a part of the City's General Plan (i. e. as a General
Plan amendment), (2) its clarity in articulating to the community the long-term vision for NAS
Alameda, and (3) its value as a marketing tool in the City's efforts to achieve exemplary and successful
base conversion.
EDAW will explore with the City the actual form of the final document(s). It is suggested that the
plan be prepared in multiple volumes, the most important ofwhich would be a graphically
sophisticated Executive Summary to be used in communicating the City's vision to the public and
to target markets. Other volumes of the plan can include the technical support underlying the plan,
documentation of public involvement and the City's decision-making process, and other important
information.
Another key product which will emerge from Phase 5 will be the GIS model of the installation and
the Plan itself. This model will be provided to the City for long-term use in implementing the Plan.
Its main purposes and uses will be to maintain a constant and up-to-date record of facility conditions,
improvements, interim leasing, property transfers, financial modelling, and other aspects ofPlan
implementation.
The major products, then, of this final phase of the planning effort will include: (1) final Community
Reuse Plan documents, especially the Executive Summary, and (2) the GIS model of the installation,
the Pian, and the implementation program(s). It is an EDAW committed goal to provide the City with
the most useful and productive "tools" in support of successful reuse of the NAS Alameda, both in the
interim timeframe and in the long-term.
C.4 WORK PROGRAM
PHASE 1 RECONNAISSANCE
Task 1.1 Project Kick-Off Meeting/Site Visit
Objective
During project start-up, EDAW and its subconsultants will attend an all-day "all hands" meeting
with representatives ofthe City and Navy. EDAW will prepare the agenda in consultation with the
City. The morning session will include the following items:
1. Discuss the work program to ensure all members ofEDAW's team understand the
expectations ofthe City.
2. Compile a list ofinformation, maps and other data that will be available to EDAW, and
establish dates when these resources will be turned over to EDAW.
3 Discuss access to NAS, security clearance and the use of cameras.
4. Explore feasibility of establishing an office on NAS for use by EDAW for the duration of
the consulting services Agreement.
5. Establish a regular (e.g., bi-weekly) meeting schedule for EDAW, City and the Navy.
The afternoon session will include a tour ofNAS Alameda. The site and its environs will be driven,
walked and photographed by EDAW and its subconsultants as necessary to identify existing
conditions and trends relevant to reuse planning.
Task 1.2 Community Outreach - Public Participation
Objective
EDAW will be an active participant in the community outreach program, and will attend public
meetings to assist the City of Alameda/Reuse Authority in presentation of information resulting from
this work program. At these meetings, EDAW will respond to questions, make presentations and/or
participaie in an advisory capacity on an as-needed basis as determined by the Executive Director.
Methodology
The community outreach program will include the following:
Preparation ofwritten plan of action for public participation, community outreach and
consensus building.
9
Attendance at public meetings to include presentation of information gathered and analyzed
to date and receipt of comments from the BRAG, EBCRC, the Alameda City Council, the
Reuse Authority, and various county, state and federal agencies involved in the reuse planning
process.
Preparation of monthly reports which describe the work accomplished during the past
month, work to be accomplished during the subsequent month, anticipated or real problems,
and notification of any significant deviation from previously agreed upon work plans.
Task 1.3
Objective
During this task, existing data and analysis will be collected and evaluated to identify issues and
concerns with regard to reuse planning.
Data Gathering/Identification of Key Issues and Concerns
Methodology
Data gathering will include all relevant studies and data by EBCRC, the Navy and other agencies;
previous and ongoing work by other subconsultants (i.e., Pilot Project consultants); and digitized
base maps. Information will be compiled on existing physical, operational, and regulatory conditions,
constraints and opportunities affecting NAS, including:
Physical and Regulatory Analysis
- Commercial and Industrial Buildings
- Housing
- Recreational and Other Special-Purpose Facilities
- Utility Distribution Systems
- Geotechnical Conditions
- Other Environmental Conditions
- Historic Resources
- Transportation
- Regulatory Requirements
Social and Economic Analysis
- Community Resources
- Employment
- Competitive Assessment ofRegion
- Market Feasibility Analysis
- Fiscal Resources and Analysis
Task 1.4 Key Interviews/Agency Contacts
Objective
During this task, contacts will be made with agencies to determine regulatory requirements,
constraints and policies which may affect reuse planning.
Methodology
Agencies to be contacted include:
1. Alameda County Department ofEnvironmental Health
2. Airport Land Commission of Alameda County
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
4. California Department ofFish and Game
5. California Department of Transportation
6. California Environmental Protection Agency
7. California State Lands Commission
8. California State Office ofHistoric Preservation
9. California Department of Toxic Substances Control
10. Federal Highway Administration
11. Metropolitan Transportation Commission
12. Native American Commission
13. Regional Water Quality Control Board
14. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
15. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
16. U.S. Navy, Western Division
17. United States Coast Guard
18. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
21. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Task 1.5 Identify Data Gaps
Objective
Based on the inventory and agency contacts, the significance and usability of information, and data
gaps will be determined. Information will be verified through limited site reconnaissance where
necessary. It is expected that most needed information will be derived from existing sources. It is
also expected that this information will be used by the Navy and the City for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR").
Methodology
Provide critical analysis of studies.
Determine validity and completeness of conclusions
If field surveys of original analysis is found to require additional verification, ED AW will
document these requirements with the City prior to proceeding.
Integrate work where it is deemed useful.
Task 1.6 Refine Scope
Objective
The results of the above tasks will provide the basis for any alterations to the work program.
Methodology
Compare original work program to revised work program in the following Conditions and
Trends phase.
If there are substantial changes, amend scope and modify contract as may be necessary.
Phase I Products
Public Participation Plan of Action
Attendance at Public Meetings (Ongoing during the Work Program)
Monthly Work Progress Reports (Ongoing during the Work Program)
Administrative Draft Phase I Report (20 copies)
Final Phase I Report (50 copies)
Work Program and Budget Refinements
PHASE 2 CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ANALYSIS
Task 2.1 Physical and Regulatory Analysis
The physical characteristics ofNAS, both manmade and natural, have determined its land uses and
will continue to do so in the future. In addition, operational constraints and agency regulatory
requirements may affect the potential future reuse. An understanding of these issues is critical
prior to defining an interim reuse strategy, developing alternative reuse scenarios, and developing
the Community Reuse Plan. EDAW and its subconsultants will evaluate information gathered in
the previous phase to identify all issues that will affect successful land use decision-making and
reuse planning. These issues will include those that are environmental (protected by statute),
operational (imposed by past Navy operations), and/or regulatory (related to title and potential
future land use restrictions) in nature, including:
- Commercial and Industrial Buildings
- Housing
- Recreational and Other Special-Purpose Facilities
- Utility Distribution Systems
- Geotechnical Conditions
- Other Environmental Conditions
- Historic Resources
- Transportation
- Regulatory Requirements
Each resource or issue will be described, mapped (if appropriate, using GIS) on a series ofbase
maps, and assessed in terms of its impact on the reuse potential ofthe NAS. Based on the assessment,
the rationale will be provided and a determination will be made as to whether identified resources
should be avoided, enhanced, preserved, prioritized and/or mitigated. Products will include
individual reports summarizing the significance ofthe resources on reuse planning, and a series of
constraints/opportunities maps.
1 '2
Commercial, Industrial, Recreational, Special Use and Aircraft Maintenance Buildings
Structural Condition Code Compliance (Except Seismic Review)(Note: draft revisions to scope
made on August 17, 1994 are noted via underline and strikeout; these revisions are made pending
final negotiation of building conditions analysis scope of work; these negotiations will be completed
after formal contract signing andwill result in insertion of a final scope into the formal contract--
i.e. via contract amendment)
Issues and Approach
The approach described below will satisfy proposal requirements for the major facilities listed in
the RFP (commercial and industrial buildings, housing, and recreational and other special-purpose
facilities) while minimizing extensive review and analysis ofthe myriad of buildings at NAS Alameda.
This will be achieved by classifying buildings by type, establishing standardized evaluation criteria for
the major items of concern regarding codes, access, existing conditions, and other criteria determined
to be significant for each building type identified. A data base ofbasic information will be assembled
for each facility that will provide the basis for effectively determining if the building will be included in
a more involved review or if it is to be eliminated from further study.
The facilities to be considered in greater detail will be ranked systematically according to a
predetermined set of criteria for each major area of consideration such as codes, existing condition,
and others. This approach will ultimately provide results in a numerical ranking format (ranking
system to be developed in conjunction with the City). It is expected that the primary criteria to be
used in assessing the viability of reuse for buildings on the NAS will be the cost associated with
achieving code compliance and other necessary improvements; the scope of work for building
analysis includes order of magnitude cost estimates for these purposes (e. g. fire safety, structural
conditions. ADA/Title 24 compliance, seismic retrofit (ifrequired--as discussed later) and
environmental clean-up (information to be derived from the Navy) ). Another important criterion will
be the estimated cost for operation and maintenance ofthe buildings; the scope of work includes
estimating costs in these regards. In addition to the numerical ranking, the experience and sensitivity
ofthe code consultant reviewing the facility with regard to understanding the relative importance of
the constraints to reuse and the potential opportunities for each of the facilities is paramount. The
EDAW team of architects specializes in adaptive reuse of .. buildings for public agencies and this
dual approach will provide the best overall evaluation ofthe buildings under consideration.
To reduce costs, standardized criteria for hangers, warehouses, housing units and other building
types that are similar and perhaps even prototypical will be assembled. To avoid unnecessary
evaluation of similar types ofbuildings or for those with the same floor plans, findings on the initial
facility will be provided and applied to the appropriate similar buildings (it is expected that
approximately 30 "prototypes" will be studied in this regard, including prototypes in the housing
category). Building types will be separated into four (4) categories: industrial, commercial/service,
recreational and aircraft maintenance. Each of these categories will be evaluated with the
predetermined criteria which recognizes the unique constraints and possibilities associated with the
specific building type. This ranking coupled with a review deteniiinatien of the adaptive reuse
possibilities offered by each facility will provide a balanced approach for evaluating the potentials for
the building involved. It is suggested that the "prototypical" buildings to be studied in each of the
categories noted above will be selected from the list of78 buildings with reuse potential included in
the City's RFP and that the analysis will be extrapolated to include all ofthese buildings. Overall,
analysis will provide information on all buildings on the NAS.
In order to facilitate the analysis ofthe significant numbers ofvariables inherent in the evaluation of
building conditions
, a matrix which
identifies the variables involved will be developed and used in the evaluation ofeach building. The
matrixes will provide a consistent reference for the evaluation of each building and should assist in the
determination ofreuse potential.
Working with the City, information will be assembled to make sound decisions about the existing
facilities and their potential adaptive reuse. Regarding adaptive reuse, it should be noted that primary
analysis of building conditions and code compliance issues and upgrade costs will be based on the
existing occupancy of the buildings at the NAS. In select cases where existing occupancy is known
not to be a candidate for future reuse (e.g. aircraft maintenance hangers), an assumed different
occupancy type (e.g. office, industrial, or warehouse) may be considered as the basis of initial,
primary analysis. It should be recognized also that assessment of multiple occupancies, especially
new occupancies is a complex and expensive process. For cost control purposes, it is assumed that
fl) assessment of multiple occupancies will be limited to order-of-magnitude cost estimates, based on
professional judgement, (21 multiple occupancy review will be limited to prototypes in the aircraft
maintenance and industrial categories ofbuildings and (3) the "prototypical" multiple occupancies to
be reviewed will be office/warehouse and office/industrial. Any review of multiple occupancies is
expected to occur later in the assessment process (i.e. after primary analysis of existing buildings and
existing occupancies) and will focus ofkey building reuse opportunities emerging from the reuse
planning effort overall.
Methodology
Prepare standardized evaluation criteria for existing conditions (location and access, utilities,
parking, building construction, code compliance, ADA/Title 24 access requirements),
maintenance issues, and opportunities for reuse, impediments to reuse--including constraints
on alternative uses.
• Inventory available data via database. Items to be inventoried include base maps, building
drawings, studies and reports, plans and ordinances.
• Classify buildings into specific building type categories (industrial, commercial/service,
recreational and aircraft maintenance).
Review data available from Navy on buildings under consideration, including maintenance
history, current operating costs, site plans, building floor plans, location of related parking
and findings from others on adequacy ofutilities.
• Refine standardized criteria to rank buildings based on evaluations ofeach major area of
consideration (i.e., code compliance, physical conditions, operating costs). Specific criteria
will be developed for each building category which addresses the considerations unique to the
various building types identified.
• Develop a matrix for identifying and cataloguing the variables involved in building evaluation.
These will include: construction type, existing occupancy, potential occupancies, potential
ife safety and disability access considerations.
• Based on available information, review major code compliance issues oflife safety, disability
access, construction type, current and allowable occupancy types,
separations-FequiFed, fire protection requirements, and catalogue information via the matrix
developed. Develop cost estimates ofrequired improvements bases on this analysis.
• Perform limited assessment ofissues and constraints (including order-of-magnitude cost
estimates e ardin mixed occu ancies in rotot Iles of aircraft maintenance and industrial
buildinas; mixed occupancies to be considered include office/warehouse and office/industrial.
• Perform limited field verification of existing conditions for 10 percent ofeach building type to
randomly check accuracy of data received prior to completion of matrixes.
Enter information into a matrix developed for each building type.
• Identify any major impediments to reuse, determine which buildings are not suitable for reuse
and therefore do not require further analysis.
• Evaluate the reuse potential for each building type, based on the above analysis.
Products
• "Early" Preliminary Findings Report (i.e. buildings unsuitable for reuse, candidates for early
reuse).
• Database containing building analysis findings (e.g. site considerations; cost estimates for
building retrofits and other upgrades based on analysis of structural conditions, code
compliance, ADA/Title 24 compliance, utility systems; and cost estimates for annual
operation and maintenance).
• Reuse Recommendations Based on Analysis ofBuildings by Systems.
Building Structure Seismic Review
Issi les and Approach
The building prototypes in each ofthe building categories described in the previous discussion 73
ill be considered, as well as a
representative sample ofthe nearly 1,500 housing units. Each ofthe buildings types will be classified
by age, size, structural system and occupancy. Existing PWC files will be used supplemented by
discussions with the Navy's WESTDIV office and PWC personnel familiar with the buildings to
prepare this inventory. A rapid field assessment ofthe buildings will be used to verify the data, and a
pre-screening ofthe buildings will provide a means to remove those listed buildings that are clearly
unsuited for reuse based on seismic considerations alone. The remaining buildings will be evaluated
for general compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements (including disability access) for
existing buildings, and determination made ofthe conditions under which reuse, including mandatory
upgrade, may be permitted. Cost estimates will be prepared for those buildings that require
improvement.
Methodology
Commercial/Industrial Buildings
1 Screen for general structural condition and seismic code compliance to determine if
suited for reuse.
2. •Provide a brief analysis of each building with reuse potential to determine seismic
code improvements and provide a preliminary cost estimate to bring into compliance.
Products
Building Seismic Study Technical Report for incorporation into "Early" Preliminary Findings
Report.
17
Industrial Equipment
Issues and Approach
The condition of existing equipment that will be left by the Navy will be determined to identify its
potential for reuse, and industrial market segments that should be targeted in the interim and long-
term. Experts in commercial leasing and industrial equipment reuse (Northbridge) will review the
suitability ofthe equipment for the industrial market.
Methodology
Review list of available equipment from the Base Conversion Office.
Determine reuse potential ofequipment for commercial leasing and targeted industries.
Products
Industrial Equipment Technical Report
Toxic Contamination/Hazardous Wastes
Issues and Approach
The development and operation ofthe Alameda Naval Air Station over the last 50 years as military
installation supported by numerous industrial activities presents a significant potential for the release
of hazardous materials to soil and water. Such releases could present human and environmental risks
that could pose constraints to the short- and long-term reuse ofNAS. The identification and
classification of affected areas ofthe site is required to a rigorous regulatory process conducted by the
Department ofDefense and federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Whereas most ofthe
constraints related to hazardous materials impacts could be reduced though remediation or control
measures, the timeframe for initiation and completion ofsuch activities is likely to be protracted over
a long time.
The influences on prioritization ofremedial actions include the immediacy of health risks and the
costs and benefits of these actions. The areas ofidentified or suspected hazardous materials release
are not concentrated in any localized area ofNAS and, therefore, could impact reuse options
throughout the facility. The development ofthe Reuse Plan will be affected by the prioritization and
scheduling ofremedial actions. More importantly, the Plan should contribute a planning perspective
to the clean-up activities and focus attention on the best opportunities for long-term development
during reuse. The impact of hazardous materials issues at the site will also significantly influence the
development of an effective Interim Use Strategy, requiring recognition ofthe potential for property
leasing and transfer options at site under current or future remediation requirements.
The most recent available BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP) will also be evaluated to develop a preliminary
understanding ofthe current status of hazardous materials investigation and remediation activities at
NAS. The BCP will define a preliminary schedule for conducting necessary additional investigations.
Interviews ofthe BCP Team members, or their staff, will be conducted to develop the most up-to-
date information on the BRAC process. The status of all Navy environmental programs, including
testing programs for lead-based paint, and PCB-containing equipment will be reviewed. If available,
the basewide Environmental Baseline Survey will also be reviewed during this task.
Methodology
The hazardous materials technical report will present a clear and concise description of the
BRAC compliance requirements for environmental problems and will summarize the BCP
prepared for NAS.
This report will include an outline ofthe CERFA guidelines for property lease and transfer.
The general impacts ofthe types of contaminants identified at NAS will be described,
including the implications or their health effects and persistence in the environment.
The technical report will also include tables which summarize the conditions at individual
sites identified as affected or potentially affected by hazardous materials releases. The
sites will be presented on maps.
10
The most currently available status of hazardous materials investigative and remedial
activities will be summarized and the implications on NAS reuse will be outlined.
If available, the BRAC classification for parcels within NAS described in the EBS will be
presented on a map and a summary table.
The report will identify the locations of "CERFA-clean'' (Category 1) parcels and present
general reuse potential of properties with other BRAC classifications.
Products
Hazardous Materials Technical Report and Maps
Air Quality Credits
The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in August 1977 and October 1990, dictates that project
emission sources must comply with the air quality standards and regulations that have been
established by federal, state and county regulatory agencies. Air quality program compliance
activities will continue at NAS as long as the Permit to Operate for the current sources are not
canceled or surrendered. To date, there are no plans to cancel any ofthose permits. Therefore, the
maintenance ofthe current permits will continue until a decision ofownership is reached. Interface
with the BAAQMD`regulators will be ongoing as long as the permits are current and active. The
Navy will transfer the ownership ofthe permits to the City/Development Corporation to facilitate
reuse ofindustrial facilities, and will apply for and resolve the disposition of air emissions credits. The
City will implement the actions listed in the transportation section, which will contribute to an
improvement in air quality.
Issues and Approach
Air quality in a given location is described by the concentration ofvarious pollutants in the
atmosphere, which are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m3). Air quality is determined by the type and amount ofpollutants emitted into the
atmosphere, the size and topography ofthe air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions.
The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing it to federal and/or state
ambient air quality standards. These standards represent the maximum allowable atmospheric
concentrations ofvarious pollutants that may occur and still protect public health and welfare, with
a reasonable margin of safety. The federal standards are established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and termed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
state standards are established by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and are termed the
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in August 1977 and October 1990, dictates that project
emission sources must comply with the air quality standards and regulations that have been
established by federal, state and county regulatory agencies. These standards and regulations focus
on: 1) the maximum allowable ambient pollutant concentrations resulting from project emissions,
both separately and combined with other surrounding sources; and 2) the maximum allowable
emissions from the project.
The primary agency for the enforcement of air quality regulations governing Alameda County is the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The standards set forth by the BAAQMD
meet or exceed those set forth by the ARB, which are in compliance with the CAA. All required
operating permits for NAS operations are on file at the base. Compliance is demonstrated by a Yearly
Emission Inventory, which tracks the potential hazardous sources of air pollutants at NAS. The air
quality program compliance activities will be continuing at NAS as long as the Permits to Operate for
the current sources are not canceled or surrendered. To date, there are no plans to cancel any ofthose
permits. Therefore, the maintenance ofthe current permits will continue until a decision of ownership
is reached. Interface with the BAAQMD regulators should be ongoing as long as the permits are
current and active. The City wishes to propose a program to maintain the permits and transfer them to
the Reuse Authority to facilitate reuse ofindustrial facilities.
21
Methodology
Document the current status of air quality program compliance activities at NAS.
Provide a discussion of air quality issues affecting base reuse, including air quality credits.
Recommend implementation actions for the continuation °fair quality compliance and
maintenance activities, including
Apply for the Title V "Operating Permits" ofthe Clean Air Act.
2 Apply for and resolve disposition ofair emissions credits.
3 Transfer ownership of permits to Reuse Authority to facilitate reuse of industrial
facilities.
4. Implementing transportation system management actions to contribute to an
improvement in air quality.
Products
Air Quality Resources Technical Report
Housing (Single Family/Dormitory)
Structural Condition Code Compliance (Except Seismic Review)
Issues and Approach
Information on existing conditions, catalogued in the database developed in the previous phase
will be compiled and analyzed relative to physical, operational, regulatory conditions, constraints and
reuse opportunities for each prototypical housing type building.
Housing types will be separated into single family and dormitory categories. Each of these categories
will be evaluated with a set ofcriteria which recognizes the unique constraints and possibilities
associated with the specific housing type. Using the criteria for each area of major considerations,
such as physical conditions, code compliance issues, adequacy of existing utilities (per findings
provided by others), a numerical ranking will be determined for each housing building type. This
ranking coupled with a determination of adaptive reuse possibilities offered by each housing type will
provide a balanced approach for evaluating the potentials ofthe buildings involved.
Standardized criteria for similar and/or prototypical housing types which are identical or very similar
in floor plan and construction type, will be developed to reduce hours and costs involved in analyzing
these structures. In order to facilitate the analysis of the significant numbers ofvariables inherent in
the evaluation ofthe suitability ofthe single family and dormitory housing types for reuse based on
existing construction type and related fire protection, life safety and disability access considerations, a
matrix will be developed and used in the evaluation of each housing type which identifies the variables
involved. The matrixes will provide a consistent reference for the evaluation of each housing type
and should assist in the determination ofreuse potentials.
Methodolo'y
• Classify housing units into single family and dormitory categories.
• Refine standardized criteria . - . - to rank housing units based on
evaluations of each major area of consideration (i.e., code compliance, physical conditions,
maintenance history, operating costs). Specific criteria will be developed for each housing
building category which addresses the considerations unique to the various housing types
identified.
• Develop a matrix for identifying and cataloguing the variables involved in evaluation of the
housing types. These will include: construction type, existing occupancy, potential
occupancies, separations, life safety and disability access considerations.
• Review data available from Navy on buildings under consideration, including maintenance
history, current operating costs, site plans, building floor plan, location of related parking and
findings from others on adequacy ofutilities.
23
• Based on available information, review major code compliance issues, life safety,,disability
access, construction type and occupancies, and make assessments of reuse potential.
• Perform limited field verification of existing conditions for 10 percent of each housing type
identified to randomly check accuracy ofdata received prior to completion of matrixes.
• Enter information into a matrix developed for each housing type.
• Utilizing matrix information and the standardized ranking criteria developed, the reuse
potential for each housing building type will be evaluated.
• Prepare "Early" Preliminary Findings Report which identifies any major impediments to reuse
and determine which housing buildings are not suitable for reuse and therefore do not require
further analysis.
• Using data collected and catalogued, further analyze housing building with reuse potential to
develop recommendations.
Products
• "Early" Preliminary Findings Report
• Reuse Recommendations Based on Analysis ofHousing Buildings
Seismic Review
Please refer to the subtask on commercial, industrial, recreational, special use and aircraft
maintenance buildings for methodology and products for this subtask.
Adequacy of Utilities
Issues and Approach
The general adequacy ofutilities servicing the housing may be an impediment to reuse.
Methodolo • y
Review general adequacy ofutility service.
Review metering to determine the need for reconfiguration to best provide for future service.
Review current operating costs as provided by the Navy and determine a projected range of
operating costs for future reuse.
Products
Technical Memorandum on Housing Utilities
operating budget, not a refinement of obsolete military operating data. The model produces a "cost-
to-occupy" from the tenants perspective, allowing for comparison to market rate rents for leasing and
marketing purposes.
Calculate capital costs from building improvements come from the underlying data base, and
integrate base-wide capital costs from a separate module.
The model will calculate annual NOI for the overall operating entity, and will estimate debt service
supportable by this NOT (including financing terms arising from public debt structures). Finally, the
model can accommodate public subsidies such as grants and/or special appropriations, or
alternatively can calculate the amounts needed from these sources to balance the cash flow each year.
Products
Synthesis of Technical Reports Covering Data and Findings ofthe Physical and Regulatory
and the Social and Economic Analyses
Electronic Model ofNAS (for use in assessing alternatives and in eventually managing the
facility)
Summary Report ofKey Opportunities and Constraints Represented by Existing Conditions
and Trends
Task 2.3 Synthesis of Conditions and Trends Analysis Technical Reports
Issues and Approach
This subtask will involve building the full database and integrating the results of the above analyses
and technical reports to support decision-making for both the Interim Reuse Strategy and the Final
Community Reuse Plan.
Methodology
Creation of an electronic model of the installation.
This model will be used to understand all major aspects ofthe existing installation and to project
the results of various interim and long-term reuse scenarios. This model will link automated mapping
(CAD maps and other resources) and data resources including spreadsheets and databases developed
for the base conversion process.
Input or refine key data layers in electronic format, including but not limited to building
data (including construction type, code compliance issues, reuse opportunities, capital
improvement requirements), land use/urban design factors, environmental factors,
institutional/regulatory factors, utility systems, and transportation systems.
It is understood that the Base Conversion Office and the Navy already have some data in electronic
format (i. e. AutoCad, data in spreadsheets and databases). The EDAW team will continue to build
the electronic database through Phase 2 efforts using AutoCad as the primary input tool. The
overall electronic model will ultimately reside in our ArcInfo or ArcCad GIS system for use in
developing and assessing alternative interim and long-term reuse alternatives. Through our
experience developing the Navy's Electronic Master Plan software system and our creation of GIS
models for Mare Island and other communities, we have a unique in-house capability to generate
these electronic tools for the reuse planning effort. The electronic data and mapping system
developed will be provided to the Base Conversion Office upon completion ofthe planning effort to
assist in detailed management and implementation of the reuse program.
Develop GIS model ofthe installation to include both physical and economic analysis
components.
The physical parameters model will include those data layers noted above. The economic component
ofthe model represents a unique financial operations model, originally developed for the National
Park Service for use during conversion ofthe Presidio. This model, which is based on a building-
specific database aggregates cost and operating budget information into a customized format so that
the cash flow-style output can be used for decision-making and sensitivity analysis. Revenues are
estimated on a type ofuse basis, but can be modified for a collection ofbuildings as a lump sum
payment forma "user." In this way, for example, a user such as ACET at NAS Alameda, who will
likely master sublease a collection of office, industrial, and warehouse space, can be analyzed as one
component of a multi-user disposition strategy. Operating costs are based on a "bottom up"
45
Products
Technical Report on Market Feasibility
Fiscal Resources and Analysis
Because this subtask will occur prior to finalization ofinterim reuse strategies and the Community
Reuse Plan itself, it will be conducted on a conceptual level. It is anticipated that the entire issue of
financing infrastructure and capital improvements will require an iterative form of analysis. Thus,
for this subtask, needs for such improvements will be quantified as they are known at the point this
subtask is being completed. Gary Kitahata, an expert in redevelopment and public finance, and
Donna Pitman, an expert in federal and state transportation infrastructure finance, will assist BAE
in completing this subtask.
Methodolo .y
Identification of known available fiscal resources to finance infrastructure and building
improvements (based on meetings, research, and prior information).
Estimation of amount ofresources and their timing on a conceptual level (matching to
known costs from other subconsultants).
Identification of shortfalls in funding.
Identification of general methods to ensure additional funding.
Identification ofthe relationship between large capital improvements and shortfalls that may
impact the timing ofinterim and final reuse. This may result in refinement ofinterim strategies
as they have been thought ofup to this point in the planning process.
Products
Technical Report on Fiscal Resources
Describe base closure employment impacts, available and proposed retraining and economic
development resources, and characteristics of the displaced and related labor force segments
that will need assistance as well as those that will enhance marketability ofNAS Alameda.
Products
Employment Technical Report
Competitive Assessment of Region
Issues and Approach
Portions of the work needed for this subtask has already been prepared for other entities. Thus, this
subtask will focus on a summary ofNAS Alameda's competitive advantages within the region, as
well as the region's future growth prospects within the national and international marketplace.
Methodolo • y
Compile existing information about the region's competitive advantages and disadvantages.
Products
Technical Report on Competitive Assessment ofRegion
Market Feasibility Analysis
Issues and Approach
For this subtask, the REP anticipates that available studies will be sufficient to project market demand
for a variety ofuses at NAS Alameda. Such information will be reviewed during the previous phase,
and incorporated into the technical as appropriate. It should be noted, however, that in order to meet
the needs ofthe Community Reuse Plan for both strategic interim and final reuse alternatives, it may
become necessary to expand upon or augment pre-existing work. NAS Alameda offers significant
opportunities and constraints from a market perspective. It is critical that these be clearly understood
and that reuse planning links to changes in future market demand. Thus, this work program assumes
that the approach set forth in the RFP will be sufficient for reuse planning purposes, the scoping ofthis
task may be revised following the reconnaissance phase.
Methodology
Compile and summarize existing market studies and information to assess market feasibility
for uses including but not limited to industrial, warehouse, office, retail, recreation, and
education in both the short and longer term (for purposes of forming interim and final reuse
strategies).
43
Task 2.2 Social and Economic Analysis
Conzmunity Resources
Issues and Approach
The focus ofthis subtask is on off-base community services that will be impacted by base reuse. Much
ofthis work will relate directly to the activities being undertaken by the EBCRC and others. Existing
information regarding the availability and adequacy ofthese services both within the City of Alameda
and in the surrounding region will be reviewed. Key providers of services in the community will be
contacted including City and regional park districts, Alameda County library, nearby hospitals, and
cultural service providers to reach agreement on existing resources and identify those services which
may be impacted.
Methodolo • y
Review existing material.
Meet with key service providers.
Identify services that will be impacted.
Identify services that are assets related to marketing and disposition.
Products
Community Resources Technical Report
Employment
Issues and Approach
This subtask will focus on the characteristics ofthe labor force being impacted by base conversion,
the assets these workers represent for marketing purposes, the resources being utilized by EBCRC
and others to integrate displaced workers into the reuse process, and the quantifiable outcomes of
these activities. It should be noted that a document has already been produced by BAE which
summarizes employment impacts from NAS Alameda conversion for the EBCRC, including
substantial corrections of earlier impact assessment work completed by others. BAE is currently
working with the EBCRC to focus on job growth and target industries for Alameda County. All of
this information has been collected and compiled previously and is available in BAE offices.
Methodology
Compile existing BAE, EBCRC material, and other information.
Structure the information in a time-line format, so that employment losses, expected re-
employment, and target populations can be analyzed strategically.
Regulatory Requirements
Issues and Approach
As NAS is converted from a federal facility to a local facility, a number of federal, state, regional and
local agencies will impose regulatory requirements affecting many reuse efforts, including
implementation of portions ofthe CRP. Ofparticular concern is the California State Lands
Commission, which is tasked by state law to protect tide and submerged lands by restricting
development to such traditional uses as ports, fisheries and water related recreation, habitat
preservation and open spaces; and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, which has jurisdiction on most lands 100 feet from the line of highest tidal action within
San Francisco Bay, and is in the process ofdesignating sites for port priority uses as part of the San
Francisco Bay Seaport Plan. As in all subtasks, the EDAW team will incorporate work by others,
including EBCRC consultants, in responding to this issue.
Methodology
The regulatory requirements of each agency listed below will be determined, and maps and
memoranda will be prepared which summarize the regulatory interests of each:
1. Alameda County Department ofEnvironmental Health
2. Airport Land Commission of Alameda County
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
4. California Department ofFish and Game
5. California Department of Transportation
6. California Environmental Protection Agency
7. California State Lands Commission
8. California State Office ofHistoric Preservation
9. California Department of Toxic Substances Control
10, Federal Highway Administration
11. Metropolitan Transportation Commission
12. Native American Commission
13. Regional Water Quality Control Board
14. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
15. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
18. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
EDAW and its subconsultants will indicate opportunities to facilitate and expedite the
regulatory review process and provide incentives to attract industry.
Products
Regulatory Requirements Technical Report
40
Product
Transportation Technical Report
39
10. Constitution Way/8th Street
11. High Street
12. Broadway/Otis Drive
13. 1-80, 1-880, 1-980,1-580
14, S.R. 24, S.R. 61
Perform up to ten (10) additional peak hour counts at critical locations where existing data is
more than one ( I ) year old,
Calculate existing peak hour intersection level of service using HCM Planning or Operations
Method.
Inventory the existing signalized intersections on the NAS and City arterials; evaluate
condition, capacity, and timing.
Quantify the amount ofremaining capacity on the regional network.
Identify areas of peak period congestion.
Identify major connector alternatives to 1-80, 1-880, 1-980, and 1-580.
Identify potential capacity constraints related to transit based on existing ridership, service
levels, and accessibility.
Identify all major rail freight trackage and yards, along with current usage and operating
constraints.
Estimate the internal mode split ofpersons using vehicles, walking, riding shuttles, and
riding bicycles.
Identify major origin-destination patterns of commuters and residents, and especially those
which could use ferry, bus, BART, or bicycle trips.
Inventory all existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on and leading to Alameda and the
NAS, and evaluate physical condition and conformance to Caltrans standards.
Inventory and evaluate marine terminals for general condition, access, and suitability for
non-military use.
Inventory and evaluate truck access to the NAS and internal facilities such as loading bays and
docks.
Major constraints in the existing transportation system will be shown graphically and by extent of
deficient capacity. Planned transportation improvements in Alameda, Oakland, and surrounding
areas will also be identified, along with project status (funded, under construction, programmed).
Particular attention will be paid to the re-constructed 1-880 alignment in west Oakland.
AC Transit Short Range Transit Plan
BART Short Range Transit Plan
Bikeway and Pedestrian Plans
Regular coordination with members ofthe EBCRC, City of Alameda and BRAG Committees,
Caltrans, City of Alameda staff, Alameda CMA staff, and others will be established to learn about on-
going issues and other sources of information.
The existing transportation system includes transit service, roadways, railroads, truck routes,
bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities, both on and offAlameda. The transportation
system can be defined as that network which will be used by people and goods destined for NAS
Alameda, and those people and goods moving within the NAS community. As such, the system
includes the base itself and a network in and around Alameda reaching to BART and the Bay
Bridge on the north and 1-880, 1-580, 1-980, and S.R. 24 on the east, and S.R. 61 (Doolittle Drive)
on the south.
NAS Alameda has a unique internal circulation system, very similar to a college campus, which
should be maintained if possible. Most vehicles entering the NAS currently park in one of several
large parking facilities. Internal circulation is often accomplished by walking This system is optimal
for a constrained site, and minimizes on-site congestion.
System constraints may include roadways with insufficient capacity, poor roadway conditions,
unsafe geometries, inadequate sidewalks and bikeways, or lack of connectivity afforded by the
current system.
Methodolo • y
• Collect and review all relevant transportation elements, reports, and model outputs that
include the City ofAlameda, Oakland, 1-80,1-880, 1-980, 1-580, S.R. 24, and major arterials
such as Doolittle Drive (S.R. 61), High Street, and Fruitvale Ave.
• Identify the regional and local transportation network and study network
• Collect existing daily and P.M. peak hour traffic count data from the U.S. Navy, Caltrans, the
City of Alameda, and City of Oakland, for arterials and collectors on the roadway network,
including:
1. Atlantic Avenue
2, Main Street
3. Central Avenue
4. Encinal Avenue
5. Park Street/29th Avenue
6. Buena Vista Avenue
7. Lincoln Avenue
8. Tilden Way/Fruitvale Avenue
9. Webster Street/Harrison Street
Transportation
Issues and Approach
The objective of this task will be to review the existing capacity and quality ofthe regional and
local circulation networks and identify constraints that must be addressed.
One ofthe most critical issues with regards to reuse ofNAS will be the ability ofcurrent
transportation infrastructure to support redevelopment ofthe base and the feasibility and cost of
transportation infrastructure improvements. Vehicular access is restricted by the capacities ofthe
Webster Street and Posey Tubes, and the Park Street, Fruitvale, and High Street Bridges. Other
crossings to Oakland have been proposed, but in order to effectively serve the northern end ofthe
island without affecting traffic through the City of Alameda, a crossing would be necessary of the
Inner Harbor Area. The Ineer Harbor is used as a port facility and has a very high clearance
requirements, both in terms ofthe necessary depth ofa tunnel or height ofa bridge.
In addition, ifreuse were to generate significantly higher traffic volumes than the existing use, a more
direct means of getting these vehicles to Interstate 880 would be ofgreat benefit, both in terms of the
increased development potential ofthe NAS site and in terms ofthe impacts to the City of Oakland's
circulation system. One ofthe key components ofthis project will be to determine the feasibility ofa
direct interchange with Interstate 880.
In addition to the vehicular constraints, rail transport is also significantly limited. The NAS was
served with rail many years ago, but the rail lines have been inactive for the last ten (10) years and
much ofthe rail infrastructure is in disrepair or has been removed. The inability to move goods by
rail will make reuse ofthe base as a port facility a challenge.
The constraints described above are significant, but not insurmountable. Creative and cost effective
solutions to many ofthese issues can be reached based on work with various agencies and groups, and
discussions on major issues and ideas. Many ofthese feasibility issues have already been identified in
previous reports or are being addressed in ongoing projects.
Information on circulation conditions gathered in the previous phase will be evaluated, including
documents prepared in-house (such as Marina Village Transportation Study) or are currently being
used as part of other reuse work (MTC Ferry Plan). Background research has already included
speaking to stafffrom MTC, the Alameda CMA, the City of Alameda, and Port of Oakland. A full
library of background data to be evaluated is listed on page 3 ofExhibit C ofthe REP Appendix
and includes:
•
Webster/Eight Street Couplet Optimization Project
1-880 Intermodal Corridor Study
MTC Ferry Plan
Alameda General Plan - Traffic Study
Marina Village EIR
Congestion Management Plan
Ballena Bay Village Traffic Study
An inventory and map ofthe historic district and buildings on NAS based on the Historic
Resources Inventory prepared by the Navy. Discuss historical importance of the district and
buildings, and restrictions on future use or alteration of historic resources.
Procedures to facilitate and expedite the compliance review process, such as execution of a
Programmatic Agreement for taking into account the effect ofthe reuse plan on historic
properties, to be negotiated between the Reuse Authority, Navy and the SHPO
Indicate methods available to the Reuse Authority for preservation, such as preparation of a
Historic Preservation Plan (Navy/National Park Service) to:
establish preservation priorities and develop preservation/rehabilitation guidelines
and specifications for maintaining the character defining elements of the historic
buildings, structures and districts,
2. ensure compatibility ofnew construction with the character of the historic districts;
and
3 employ strategies for marketing the historic buildings and structures.
Products
Historical Resources Technical Report
Historic Resources
Issues and Approach
Many ofthe buildings in the center ofNAS are located within a designated historic district. The
buildings include some from each stage of the island's history and display a variety of architectural
and building materials. Conveyance ofthe Mare Island Naval Shipyard from the Navy to the City will
require many historic buildings to be upgraded to meet life/safety standards and seismic hazards in
order to permit existing uses to continue or new uses to be established. As part ofrehabilitation, these
buildings will be modified to bring them up to safe levels of occupancy consistent with current
building codes. Development ofNAS to modern standards may also require lessening of density and
demolition of certain historic structures.
To preserve the historic sense-of-place ofthe historic district, uses will need to be selected that
would, to the extent feasible, minimize impacts on the historic character defining elements of
individual buildings and structures. Every reasonable effort must be made to incorporate compatible
adaptive uses or uses for which the buildings were originally designed. However, given current
market conditions, utility constraints and environmental contamination, adaptive reuse of certain
historic buildings will be difficult. Impacts related to rehabilitation ofhistoric buildings must be
addressed when tenants were selected and proposals submitted. In addition, methods will need to be
identified to eliminate hazardous materials (such as asbestos and lead paint), secure and protect
vacant buildings, provide for fire detection and suppression, and correct deficiencies ia access for
people with disabilities with minimal impact on the buildings if economically feasible.
Most actions for historic buildings, including leasing and rehabilitation, will trigger a review process
to comply with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Plan (NHPA) and other legal
authorities that mandate consideration of effects on historic properties. The compliance review
process is designed to ensure that historic properties are considered during project planning and
execution. The review process is administered by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and it involves
identification and evaluation of historic properties, assessment of effects, and consultation and
agreement on ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. Providing a mechanism for timely
and expedient reviews to ensure that buildings are not left vacant, yet are managed in compliance with
all applicable regulations, is a reuse planning concern.
Methodology
The EDAW team will analyze the impact ofbase closure on historic resources. The analysis will
include:
A discussion of the compliance review process based on discussions with Louis Wall,
WESTDIV's Cultural Resources Coordinator and the SHPO. Discuss the roles ofthe Navy,
ACHP, SHPO and the City, and their significance for reuse planning.
Assess effect of wetland delineation on potential reuse scenarios.
Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and WESTDIV on nature and extent of
Corps' jurisdiction on the base.
Track status of California least tern study coordinated by WESTDIV and review information
as available to assess affects results of study would have on the reuse potential ofthe base.
Detiermine biological resource issues of potential concern to state agencies by reviewing data
gathered in the previous phase. Place emphasis on those issues outside the concern of federal
agencies.
Products
Biological Resources Technical Report and Maps
2;
initially in order to determine the types and conditions of agreements regarding biological resources
that may already be in place for the base.
Known or potentially occurring species that are of concern to CDFG on the base (state-listed, listed
by the California Native Plant Society, or California Species of Special Concern) will also be
identified and an assessment of effects on these species will be included.
Two studies are currently being undertaken by the Navy regarding biological resources on the base:
wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, and a
study of the California least tern nesting sites in relation to adjacent land issues. Decisions made as a
result ofboth of these studies have the potential to affect allowable land uses in and adjacent to these
areas for the long term. Agreements reached between the Navy, USFWS and the Corps regarding
these issues will likely be transferred, in some manner, with the land. It is important that the Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority remain aware ofthe progress of these studies and establish a forum in
which to provide input into the decisions reached, particularly as these decisions affect reuse
potential. Biologists on the EDAW team will serve as liaison between the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, the Navy and the regulatory agencies to assure that all parties remain
apprised ofthe study results and concerns regarding how these results may affect reuse potential of
the base. Additionally, information regarding potential biological resource issues that state agencies
such and the California Department ofFish and Game would be concerned with on the Base will be
researched and provided.
Methodology
Based on contacts with Ms. Sherry Withrow or other appropriate personnel at NAS to
review Natural Resources Management Plan and accompanying documents, review all
additional data relating to biological resources and all available correspondence with the
USFWS regarding the California least tern.
Follow up on discussions with:
1. Mr. Doug Pomeroy at the WESTDIV office with regard to biological resources at
NAS, studies that have been conducted, status of studies that will be conducted, and
available files maintained for the base, and
2. Ms. Karen Miller ofthe USFWS regarding the least tern habitat at NAS and other
concerns the Service may have.
As with all subtasks, interface with EBCRC Pilot Project consultants to integrate studies
completed and products produced to the extent feasible.
Keep abreast of the study undertaken by WESTDIV to determine the extent of the wetlands
located on the Base.
Review, as available, wetland delineation and accompanying information prepared by
WESTDIV. Ground-truth information, as appropriate.
Biotic Resources (Wetlands, Endangered Species Habitats, and Other Environmentally Sensitive
Areas)
Issues and Approach
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (1972) prohibits federal agencies from engaging in
actions that jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or that destroy or
adversely affect species' critical habitat. Under Section 7, federal project sponsors must enter into
formal consultation with the Service whenever federally implemented, funded or authorized actions
may affect listed species. Since NAS maintains a population of the California least tern (Sturnella
antillarum browni), a federally endangered species, it is required to consult with USFWS under this
Section ofthe Act. Consequently, agreements between the Navy and USFWS are in place and others
are being developed in an attempt to keep activities at the base from jeopardizing the continued
existence of the California least tern. According to the USFWS, the California least tern have
benefitted greatly from the application of specific management measures outlined in management
agreements between the Navy and the Service and elimination ofthese management measures could
jeopardize the continued existence ofthe species. Therefore, the USFWS is recommending that
when land at NAS is transferred, it be transferred with deed restrictions or other encumbrances in
order to continue protection and management ofthe least tern habitat.
A Cooperative Agreement for the Conservation and Management ofFish and Wildlife Resources is
typically required for lands under jurisdiction of the Navy. In California, the signatories on this
agreement include the U. S Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department ofFish and Game, and
the U.S. Navy. The overall goal ofthe agreement is to achieve the "protection, enhancement, and
management offish and wildlife resources". Its more specific function is to define the roles of
the signatories in implementing the wildlife section of the Natural Resources Management Plan
required for naval facilities. The issues identified and the agreements reached through this process
can play a key role in determining how the reuse plan may affect biological resources on the NAS
and what kind of resource management may be required of new land owners.
A key issue affecting all base closures and reuse plans in California, with respect to biological
resources, is the fact that most reuse efforts only consider effects on federally endangered or
threatened species, ignoring state listed or other species of Concern to the California Department of
Fish and Game; the agency responsible for protecting the state's biological resources. Plans are
finalized and agreements are in place but once the land is transferred from federal ownership, CDFG
often assumes the responsibility ofprotecting the biological resources ofthe site. CDFG maintains
jurisdiction over state-listed species through the State Endangered Species Act (1986) and over other
sensitive species through the California Environmental Quality Act (1973). If species ofconcern to
CDFG are not considered during the reuse planning effort, it can lead to conflicts with this agency
down the road.
Based on its recent experience with other reuse planning efforts, biologists on the EDAW team are
already familiar with the kind ofdata potentially available for the base and how to go about assembling
it. EDAW team biologists are also already aware ofthe types of agreements and programs the Navy is
required to undertake for the protection and management of natural resources and can seek these out
Dredging History and Permits
Issues and Approach
Dredging has been required to keep the NAS open for safe navigation. Knowledge of the dredging
history and water depths within the base will be critical, especially ifreuse activities include water-
related or water-dependent uses.
Method° lo
Evaluate existing studies and status ofdredging permits collected during previous phase.
Interface with MTC/BCDC/MULTITRANS to identify key issues that are being addressed in
the 1993 update ofthe San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and their implications for
NAS (new port site designation policies, policy redirection, opportunities and constraints
for civilian development).
Provide a brief analysis of existing infrastructure (backland areas, berthing capacity, on-site
utilities, raiUroad access), constraints (dredging requirements, adequacy ofland access, off-
site operating constraints due to load or height restrictions, known environmental concerns,
and the likelihood of sites being dedicated for competing land uses).
Provide a brief analysis ofberthing and shoreline protection requirements for development
of small craft facilities (recreational, work or ferry boats). Determine facility improvements
to support the small craft facility need and provide a preliminary cost estimate to make such
improvements.
Consider the need and develop an approach for dredging and dredge material disposal to
support potential dredging needs and provide a preliminary cost estimate to perform the
dredging.
Products
Dredging Technical Report
Geotechnical and Environmental Conditions (Other Than Hazardous Material Contamination)
Geotechnical Conditions
Issues and Approach
Large portions ofNAS are underlain by artificial fill materials placed along the margins of a much
smaller natural island. The fill materials are underlain by a thick sequence oflow-strength
unconsolidated sediments. Groundwater occurs at shallow depths within fill, bay muds, and Merritt
Sands throughout NAS. These conditions present significant geotechnical constraints on foundation
design. The island is susceptible to strong to violent groundshaking, amplified by the soft soil
conditions. Although engineering solutions have been developed to reduce the impacts ofthese
conditions on buildings, roadways, and utilities, recognition of the additional safety risks and costs of
development should be incorporated into the development ofthe Reuse Plan.
Using information gathered during the previous phase, all pertinent and available existing documents
on geotechnical (geologic, seismic, and hydrologic) conditions at Alameda NAS will be analyzed.
The focus ofthe evaluation will be placed on site-specific reports prepared for the facility as a whole
and specific project areas within NAS. However, available data and analysis for the region prepared
by government agencies and technical researchers, including the US Army Corps ofEngineers, US
Geological Society, California Division ofMines and Geology will also be evaluated.
Methodology
Available information on geotechnical and hazardous materials management at NAS will
be evaluated.
The geotechnical evaluation will present description and mapping of the geologic materials of
the site (including characterization offilled lands), surface soils, coastal flooding hazards
(including tsunamis), groundwater conditions, and seismic hazards (including liquefaction).
The analysis will discuss the possible planning implications ofgeotechnical conditions at
NAS, the ramifications of changes in building code jurisdiction (Navy vs. Uniform Building
Code), and typical building foundation requirements for the existing conditions.
Products
Geotechnical Conditions Technical Report and Maps
29
4. Determine any system improvements/repairs required to support the existing
buildings and provide a preliminary cost estimate to make such improvements/repairs
5. Determine from existing documented investigations the environmental conditions
and concerns which may affect the following: providing utility service to existing
buildings; installing service to future buildings; maintaining, improving, repairing or
demolishing existing utility systems within the Naval Air Station.
6. Meet with each utility service provider to determine what procedures and scope of
work will be necessary for service providers to assume responsibility and jurisdiction
over the facilities.
7 Discuss with the Navy and each utility service provider procedures by which
ownership/operation will change hands, and what the operating process will be during
the interim leasing period where the Navy continues to own the facility but a master
lease has been executed with the Reuse Authority so that private users can occupy the
Base.
Gas (Subtasks 1-7)
Potable and Fire Water (Subtasks 1-7)
Sanitary and Industrial Wastewater (Subtasks 1-7)
Storm Drains (Subtasks 1-7)
Telephone (Subtasks 1-7)
Cable TV (Subtasks 1-7)
Steam (Subtasks 1-7) and
8. Determine which facilities are connected to each ofthe two primary steam generating
plants.
9. Provide documentation on type of steam use (Process Steam, Space Heating,
Domestic Water Heating)
10. Prepare report on condition and capability of existing steam system, including both
plants, fuel system, distribution and condensate system, operation and maintenance
costs, and any required repairs/improvements necessary for continued operation and
a cost estimate to make them.
11. Report on capability of converting to natural gas hot water heat, if currently using
steam for space heat, and convert to natural gas heated domestic hot water.
Compressed Air (Subtasks 1-5)
Products
Utility Technical Study Report
Updated Existing Autocad Utility Drawings to Reflect Results ofUTS ,
Copy ofPWCSFB - "Mainsaver" Program
Copy ofPWCSFB - "Cubic" Program
Utility Distribution Systems
Issues and Approach
A detailed Utility Technical Study (UTS) was prepared for the various systems at NAS Alameda
by Bechtel National in 1985. The study provided an inventory of the (then) existing utility plant, its
condition and capacity to meet projected needs through 1994, and made recommendations for
needed improvements. The study included detailed maps ofthe various systems.
The existing UTS will be used as a starting point. The study is now nearly 10 years old and will
require updating. The updating will focus on Navy WESTDIV and PWC personnel familiar with the
various systems to determine changes in inventory, condition or capacity, and in particular to identify
improvement projects completed under the MILCON or 0/M programs. The updated information
will be the basis for the subsequent evaluation of reuse potential.
The evaluation of system capacity to support future uses under the Plan Alternatives (Phase 4) would
benefit from the use of computer simulation. The existing UTS capacity evaluations were based on
simplified manual methods and only selected portions ofthe various systems were considered.
Computer simulation will be used to evaluate the essential (electric, gas, water, wastewater and storm
drain) systems, relying on manual methods for the alternate (steam and compressed air) systems.
Since the computer simulation will be implemented, in any case, its application to support the interim
reuse strategy development should be cost effective.
Based on experience with utility systems evaluation at other military installations subject to closure,
key issues related to the preparation of a successful utility infrastructures transition plan will include:
On Base Systems designed and constructed to Military Public Works Standards, though
functional, may require substantial investment if required to convert to Civilian Public
Works or Public Utility Commission requirements.
Transition of ownership for various utility systems involves transfer of agreements/ contracts
between the service provider and the federal government, as well as the physical plant.
Correction of deferred maintenance and environmental regulation deficiencies for the older
systems can be a significant part of any transition plan investment program.
Methodology
Electric
1. Determine the size and capacity of the existing system, including whether or not it
is metered.
2. If the system is metered, determine if it is in compliance with state and local code
requirements. Provide a preliminary cost estimate to bring into compliance, or to
install metering according to state and local code requirements.
3 Provide a brief analysis of each system's capacity to support the existing buildings.
`')
Describe the federal screening and McKinney Act process in regard to NAS closure.
Review the status ofthe federal and homeless screening process. Identify agencies expressing
an interest in accessing property under excess and surplus property provisions. Quantify the
amount and location of housing likely to be reused for both processes.
Research and quantify the requirements for providing affordable housing as part ofthe
Redevelopment Authority.
Integrate work of the EBCRC homeless consultant to determine opportunities and
requirements. Evaluate feasibility ofproposed projects in light of specific sites, considering
transportation/accessibility, existing housing and services, and funding sources. Determine
the likely outcome of housing-related planning activities as they relate to overall base reuse.
Quantify the balance of housing remaining for poten tial reuse as market rate or other forms of
housing.
Products
Federal Screening and McKinney Act Process Technical Report
Toxic Contamination Conditions
Please refer to this subtask under Commercial and Industrial Buildings.
Federal Screening and McKinney Act Process
Issues and Approach
When the DoD no longer needs to retain real property at a closing base, the DoD is required to
dispose of the property in accordance with the prescribed screening process in the General Services
Administration property disposal regulations and the new expedited process authorized in Title
XXIX of 107 Stat. 1909, commonly called the Pryor Act. This screening process for real property
requires the DoD to identify first what it needs to retain. Any property excess to the DoD is then made
available to other federal agencies (property not needed by other federal agencies is then identified as
surplus and reported to the Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) for a
determination of suitability for homeless use and publication of such properties in the Federal
Register). The applicable regulations require the DoD and federal agencies to work with the local
redevelopment authority to provide early identification of property which will not be available for
rcdevelopment. The Navy has received a proposal from the U.S. Coast Guard confirming an interest
in 482 family housing units on NAS and the transfer ofthe Housing Office adjacent to the Marina
Village housing.
Following the review ofNAS by federal agencies, the Stuart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act encourages the use of surplus property by groups assisting the homeless. The City is currently
investigating the viability of a Master Lease arrangement for housing which could benefit both the
Coast Guard and homeless providers. Under McKinney Act conveyance, the property can only be
used for the homeless and only for a period oftwo years. Homeless providers under the McKinney
Act must be able to finance upgrades offacilities, pay a proportionate share of municipal service
costs, and fund its program operations. The reuse plan will need to acknowledge the federal and
homeless screening process and results must be incorporated as they become known.
Methodology
All known disposition requests for housing will be reviewed, including McKinney Act-related
requests, additional concepts arising from the EBCRC's homeless consultant (i.e., HomeBase)
services, and known Coast Guard requests for housing at NAS Alameda. The EDAW team will meet
with and/or review proposals for creation of a non-profit housing corporation, and determine
the viability and timing ofthis concept as it relates to overall reuse planning. In addition, the
relationships between these activities and the requirements to provide affordable housing that may
arise from creation ofRedevelopment Authority will be reviewed and analyzed. Also, ifthe concept
of creating a viable non-profit organization is not fully operational for purposes ofreview, as an
optional subtask, the EDAW team will be available to assist in writing the business plan or other
activities.
The following work will be conducted to determine the potential impact that the federal screening and
McKinney Act process will have on the future reuse ofhousing and other facilities on NAS:
PHASE 3 INTERIM REUSE STRATEGY
Following the information synthesis that will occur during the Conditions and Trends phase will be
perhaps the most critical phase ofreuse planning for NAS. The development of a strategy that
allows for interim phased reuse ofthe existing facilities while the Navy is still the primary tenant of the
property is an important challenge. Successful long-term reuse will be influenced by the momentum
gained in attracting tenants while the facility still retains a skilled workforce and positions itself for
base closure. The "selling" ofNAS Alameda will require a vibrant and healthy facility long before the
Navy's departure.
The critical decision point during this phase will be to either proceed with aviation and/or port
activities in a serious and committed mariner, or move forward with a mix of other land uses. The
amount of required acreage and associated physical and environmental concerns with either aviation
or port activities is significant. Interim lease agreements established by the Reuse Authority should
reflect the long-term use ofNAS.
The interim reuse strategy will investigate plans by other tenants such as the Coast Guard for
occupation ofhousing facilities, and tentative interest by the homeless providers for dwelling
units.
Primary products that will be generated during this phase include both the marketing and
implementation strategies necessary for tenant occupation, and how those tenants will affect and
be affected by the long-term reuse ofNAS Alameda.
Task 3.1 Development of Plan Principles & Preliminary Concept Plan Alternatives
Issues and Approach
Prior to the development of the alternatives, the consultant team will prepare a series ofPlan
Principles that will guide the physical layout of alternatives. The principles are intended to give the
public and Reuse Authority basic guidelines that should be considered before making any decisions
(eg. consideration of physical and regulatory constraints, economic and social characteristics, etc.).
The initial investigation into plan alternatives will be conducted concurrently with the development of
interim reuse strategies. The decision to lease buildings and/or land to potential tenants should be tied
to an early understanding ofthe larger picture. While the development of the alternatives will be more
fully detailed in Phase 4, the EDAW team and Reuse Authority should understand the long-term
implications associated with interim lease agreements.
Methodology
The EDAW team will prepare three "sketch" alternatives that will guide early decisions on
interim reuse strategies. The purpose ofthese sketch alternatives will not be to represent
the full range of community desires that will be expressed in Phase 4, but to address those
portions ofNAS Alameda which have opportunities for redevelopment in the 0-5 year time
frame. The analysis performed during this task will give the Reuse Authority options for
different types of tenants, and how the operations ofthose tenants may fit into a longer
view of full reuse.
Products
Plan Principles (at different scales produced in black and white and colored for presentation
use)
Three "Sketch" Alternatives (prepared at the base-wide scale depicting interim reuse
sites/opportunities, drawn loosely and colored for presentation and discussion)
Task 3.2 Interim Facility Reuse Strategies, Short and Long Term
Issues and Approach
Following the quick analysis of site opportunities on a base-wide scale, the Reuse Authority will focus
on individual buildings and sites which will become available through a Finding of Suitability to Lease
(FOSL). Critical information necessary to the Reuse Authority for making the early leasing decisions
will be physical and regulatory constraints associated with the provision ofutilities, availability of
parking and circulation issues with DOD tenants; ability to provide community services, conditions of
the structures deemed excess property by the Navy. Environmental issues of significance will include
hazardous and toxic materials contamination and protection ofbiological and historic resources.
Particular attention should be paid to building conformance with local codes and policies for disabled
access, and the associated costs of improvements.
The results of this analysis will be an identification of high priority sites that will be the focus of
early marketing efforts. The findings and recommendations ofthis task will influence greatly the
work performed in Tasks 3.3 and 3.4 (Fiscal analysis and Marketing Strategy).
Methodology
Based on information gained in Phase 2, each potential interim reuse site will be analyzed for the
following opportunities:
Availability of Specific Buildings: The consultant team will have identified during Phase
2, those buildings which will require structural and physical improvements necessary to bring
them into compliance with all local applicable codes.. Mapping ofthe data from Phase 2 will
show where and when specific facilities can be expected to become available for interim reuse.
Through the use of EDAW's GIS model, various interim reuse scenarios can then be explored
based on physical, operational, and economic factors. A demolition plan will be prepared that
illustrates those facilities that have no useful economic function.
Provision of Utilities: Prior to the transfer ofutilities from the DoD to the local providers, a
method of distributing service to non-DdD tenants will be essential. An overview will be
made by Moffatt and Nichol of the ability to meter the systems, to determine if capacity will be
affected by the intended reuse, and to discuss ways in which the utility service provider can
access and monitor the facility.
Provision of Community Services: The interim tenants will require the protection of health
safety and welfare provided to the rest of Alameda. Services such as police, fire, and
emergency medical must be made available. The consultant team will investigate agreements
made between local communities and the DoD on other bases for this essential service and
document the options available to the Reuse Authority,
Transportation and Parking Improvements- Circulation, access, and parking are potentially
difficult issues to resolve when security concerns must remain intact for the Navy's mission
prior to departure. Civilian tenants will have their own desires and needs, and the consultant
team will analyze any changes to the site to accommodate those users while maintaining free
traffic flow and parking for existing users.
Future access to NAS Alameda must be sufficient to attract and retain the types ofuses that
are desired. Access requirements can be defined as providing: a) reasonably direct and
convenient connections to the Island from the regional highway systems, b) reasonable access
to NAS from Alameda, Oakland, and nearby destinations, c) a reasonable internal circulation
system and parking capacity, and d) a variety of mode alternatives to the single-occupant
vehicle.
EDAW's traffic consultant will perform the following subtasks:
1. calculate the maximum peak hour number ofvehicles possible through the existing
gates, tunnels, and bridges with minor modifications.
2. Identify land use combinations which minimize peak period demand for traffic and
parking capacity.
3. Evaluate the existing mode split of persons travelling to Alameda and NAS.
Recommend reasonable future mode splits and vehicle occupancies based on an
effective TDM program that are consistent with Alameda CMA.
4. Identify future transit needs based on mode split findings; compare with Short Range
Transit Plan.
5. Model future growth in background traffic using the CMA model; have the CMA
perform two Interim runs calibrated to 1995 project volumes. Develop local area
model to "window" into CMA model to more easily test various land use and
circulation schemes.
6. Existing access requirements will be shown graphically and in tabular format, with
capacity thresholds identified for each gate for existing and modified conditions.
7 Identify existing access constraints in terms of vehicle delay, extent of congestion,
peak hour capacity, and operational constraints such as the drawbridge. Major routes
onto Alameda and into the NAS are congested during peak periods. While traffic
volumes will drop on some routes as the NAS is closed, overall congestion levels on
regional routes will probably remain about the same. As new uses are implemented on
the NAS, short term improvements may alleviate congestion until more permanent
measures are put in place.
8, Examine ability ofthe NAS street network to absorb vehicles:
a. Review existing access configuration at each entrance gate and determine
the feasibility of modifying/widening the channelization
Identify the location, extent, and duration of existing congestion onto and
out of Alameda
c. Evaluate existing signal coordination on major access routes
d. Identify the frequency of drawbridge openings and impact on traffic
e. Review the sufficiency ofparlcing facilities (location and inventory) to meet
Interim Use needs.
9. Identify the specific improvements required to the existing entrances, including:
a. Reconfiguring the Main, South, and East gates
b. Improved signal coordination
c. HOV lanes on major access routes
d. Reconfiguration of major intersections near the NAS
e. Intersection enhancements (i.e., new signals) on the NAS.
The need for capacity improvements will be based on anticipated peak hour traffic
volumes given an effective TDM program, transit service, and optimum mixture of
land uses, along with acceptable levels of service and delays per vehicle.
Identification of Geotechnical, Hazardous Materials, and Other Environmental Issues: The
interim reuse strategy will be most affected by the implications of schedules and level of
effort required for remediation scheduling. The EDAW team will incorporate consideration
ofthe locations and general human and environmental health impacts of properties presented
in the BCP and EBS and further developed by our analysis. If available, the CERFA
classifications for properties within NAS will be presented during this phase and areas that
will be most readily available for reuse will be identified. Areas affected by adverse
geotechnical conditions, and historical and biological resources will also be considered in the
development ofthe interim use strategy.
Identification of "High Priority Sites": The compilation ofthe above information will lead to
an identification of those sites which will lend themselves to early interim reuse.
Interim Reuse "Fit" with Long-Term Vision and Image: A general description will be
provided of the compatibility and/or desirability ofthe interim reuse plan with both the
vision and image that is established for the future reuse ofNAS Alameda.
The consultant team will also analyze the ability ofthe existing civilian workforce to
"relocate" on-site to employment offering compatible required skills.
Products
Narrative text describing interim reuse possibilities and the implications associated with utilities,
provision of community services, circulation, parking, building improvements and availability, urban
design image, and potential for existing civilian workforce to be accommodated. This text will be
combined with products generated in Tasks 3.3 and 3.4 as part of an:
Administrative Draft Report (20 copies)
Draft Report (50 copies)
Interim Reuse Final Report (300 copies)
Plan Graphics (depicting any changes necessary to utility systems, circulation systems, or
landscape and overall urban design)
Building Demolition Plan
Plan Graphic of "High Priority Sites" for Interim Reuse
Task 3.3 Operational and Financial Support Requirements
Issues and Approach
For this subtask, the EDAW team will incorporate assumptions regarding anticipated rent revenues,
building operating costs, subject properties, building improvement costs, and base-wide capital costs
arising from designated reuses on an interim basis into its proprietary financial model. This activity
will allow for testing the feasibility ofthe interim reuse strategies, identifying financing sources and
uses of funds, identifying gaps in the cash flow, and testing refinements to implement a successful
strategy.
Methodology
Develop operating and capital revenue and cost assumptions.
Refine financial model to reflect interim reuse strategy.
Analyze financial and operating implications ofinterim reuse strategy.
Recommend refinements.
Formulate operating plan based on above actions and prior tasks.
Products
Financial Analysis and Operations Plan (in narrative and electronic formats)
Schedule of Financing Activities Needed to Implement the Interim Reuse Plan
51
Task 3.4 Interim Reuse Marketing Strategy
Issues and Approach
The marketing strategy for interim reuse will depend in large part on the findings and conclusions
from the above activities. Economic specialists with the EDAW team (BAE, in conjunction with key
members of its group, Northbridge and Reece Wilson) will formulate a detailed marketing strategy
that identifies target industries and specific companies (to the extent possible), and recommends
marketing actions to reach those targets. The marketing strategy will also recommend responsible
parties, identify staffing needs, and describe the overall management of marketing for interim reuse.
Method° lo_ly
Review known target market segments and specific users identified during process.
Assess existing City and other resources available to implement marketing strategy.
Prepare strategic marketing plan including organizational and staffing recommendations.
Products
Marketing Strategy and Marketing Plan
PHASE 4 PLAN ALTERNATIVES
The development of overall land use and plan alternatives will occur throughout the early phases of
the planning effort, however, it will come into focus during this phase. The community will be
expressing their desires during the development of the interim reuse strategy and also during
meetings ofthe Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) through its Commission and sub-committees.
The BRAG has been meeting regularly for nine months discussing the issues and desires ofthe
citizens of Alameda. Following citizen input into the development ofthe interim reuse plan, the long-
term vision for NAS Alameda will be generated and documented throughout this phase.
Proposals have been put forward to the Reuse Authority and East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Commission (EBCRC) for an Alameda Science City and ACET (Alameda Center for Environmental
Technology). These proposals and others will be discussed openly and tested for their viability in
both the marketplace and physical manifestation. In addition, the results of the Seaport Plan as
updated by the Metropolitan Transportation commission (MTC) and the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) will be available for review and exploration ofpotential impact
on the alternatives. The alternatives analysis will also investigate the potential for continuation of
aviation uses at the NAS. The viability of either port or aviation uses will have a substantial impact on
how land uses are determined due to the obvious land requirements.
The consultant team will consider five distinct alternatives to test against a number of factors
described in Task 4.2.
Task 4.1 Plan Alternatives and Refinement of Plan Principles
Issues and Approach
The EDAW team will investigate five different alternatives based on input from the Reuse Authority
and BRAG. Each alternative will require a description ofthe concept and its vision, description of
goals and objectives, key actions and policies required to implement the plan, and information related
to the physical layout, land use, circulation, required infrastructure, and required community services
(police, fire, schools, etc.). The Plan Principles that were developed during Phase 3 will be revisited
and refined during this phase as the community interacts more closely with the consultant team in
identifying an urban design framework.
Methodology
Based within EDAW's GIS model ofNAS Alameda, colored plan graphics that illustrate the
intent of each alternative will be prepared. Tables will be prepared that document the land
account for each alternative (eg. acres per land use, net housing density per type, floor area
ratios per land use, amount ofroadway, percentage of open space, etc.). It is presumed
that the alternatives will undergo several iterations ofreview before the five plans emerge
as the alternatives that embrace the entire range offeasibility and financial viability.
Additional analysis will involve the investigation offinancial feasibility, level ofpublic
investment, employment generation, effects ofthe federal and state agency screening process,
environmental impacts, etc. for each alternative. The analysis discussed above will be
presented in the Plan Alternatives Administrative Draft Report.
Products
Five Color-Rendered Alternative Plans (developed within EDAW's GIS model at a scale
suitable for presentation)
Color Xerox Reductions ofPlans (for inclusion into the Report on Plan Alternatives)
Plan Principles (at an urban design scale in black and white freehand sketches, and colored
for presentations as necessary)
Task 4.2 Plan Evaluation
Issues and Approach
Each ofthe alternatives will be analyzed and rated for compliance with community overall goals
and objectives. A matrix will be prepared that evaluates each ofthe alternatives against factors
such as optimizing employment; response to market demand; level of community support; effective
use of facilities; level of environmental impact; optimizing public benefit conveyance; compatibility
with surrounding City of Alameda land uses; diversity ofuses; financial feasibility; and fulfillment of
social needs. The goal of this task will be to present a rationale for making an informed decision on a
preferred plan.
Methodology
The consultant team will determine if each alternative meets both qualitatively and
quantitatively the stated goals ofthe Reuse Authority.
For each alternative, a brief analysis of each utility systems' capacity to support the future
service levels will be analyzed; the capacity analysis will utilize computer simulation where
appropriate, and utility demand factors based on land uses identified in each plan.
Improvements to systems to support the new service levels will be discussed, and a
preliminary cost estimate prepared that documents the order of magnitude changes required.
For each alternative, a brief analysis of dredging requirements will be determined. The
approach for dredge material disposal and a preliminary cost estimate will be provided.
An analysis ofberthing and shoreline protection requirements under each alternative will
be determined if small craft berthing is included in the land use mix. Facility improvements to
support the need for small crafts and their associated costs will be analyzed.
Transportation implications ofland use alternatives will be evaluated for conformance with
City of Alameda and Alameda County CMA standards and policies, along with national
standards. This includes adequate parking and service levels for streets, and rail/freight
access for industrial/warehouse uses. Where transportation facilities are projected to operate
below acceptable thresholds, recommended improvements will be developed. The four most
significant ofthese are likely to be an expansion ofcapacity onto Alameda from 1-880, re-
habilitation of the rail facilities to accommodate containers, rehabilitated port facilities to
accommodate container or other shipping activities, and enhanced ferry service to San
Francisco and Oakland. The consultant team will investigate the following.
a. Use the CMA model to evaluate the long term need for and local/regional impacts of
building a new crossing from Oakland and 1-980 directly to NAS Alameda.
b. Develop concept diagrams ofcrossing options, including approaches, maximum
gradients, and connections to existing roadways.
c. Identify required vertical clearance to mean high/low water (U.S. Coast Guard).
d. Identify specific roadway improvements that would need to be accomplished on
Alameda and Oakland to accommodate any new crossing and additional traffic.
e. Evaluate the feasibility and impact of installing a toll crossing.
The need and cost effectiveness ofupgraded rail connections will be evaluated. Enhanced rail
connections onto Alameda may require a new drawbridge directly to the Southern
Pacific/Union Pacific yards across from the NAS. The existing drawbridge and Alameda Belt
Line at the southern end of Alameda are substandard to accommodate container train
activity. Concepts for a new drawbridge and local trackage will be developed, including
operational implications and alignment requirements. The consultant team will investigate
the following:
a. Inventory the existing Belt Line Railroad facilities in Alameda.
b. Evaluate the condition oftrack, drawbridge, switches, ties, ballast, drainage through
field observation and existing reports.
c. Evaluate need for rail freight service on Island for proposed land uses.
d. Evaluate potential of right ofway for bikeway, roadway, or parkway.
The need and cost effectiveness ofupgraded port facilities will be evaluated. Depending in
part on the outcome ofthe MTC Seaport Plan and other factors, the deep water facilities at
NAS Alameda may be required to continue as a maritime function, most likely container
facilities. the land side upgrading that would be required to make the port function
adequately, including new rail service, storage yards, and truck/rail interface points.
The need and cost effectiveness of enhanced ferry service will be evaluated. The MTC
Regional Ferry Plan completed in 1992 identifies the Alameda-San Francisco ferry corridor as
one ofthe most promising and fastest growing in the Bay Area. Recent and planned
improvements to the ferry terminal, additional high speed vessels, and shoreline protection
will enhance this service. The consultant team will investigate the following:
Using the CMA model, MTC model, and available O-D information, determine the potential
ridership of ferry service between Alameda, San Francisco, and Oakland.
a. Identify the number ofreduced vehicle trips; test Traffic Model.
b. Identify the potential landing sites, parking areas, and vehicle access routes.
c. Develop a service scenario (schedule), identify required equipment and capacity.
d. Develop order of magnitude costs and funding sources.
The need and cost effectiveness of expanded local and regional bus service will be evaluated
New and expanded bus service onto the NAS and to the ferry terminal will be evaluated using
the CMA and MTC models, experiences in comparable communities, and existing bus transit
patronage figures. Potential ridership will be quantified by: a) displaced vehicles and b) needs
for added transit capacity, new or expanded routes, and/or more frequent transit service.
Environmental impacts including wetlands, noise, air quality, endangered species habitat and
toxic contamination will be addressed for each alternative. The consultant team will also
address the effects of adverse geological conditions and historic resources preservation.
Adverse environmental impacts which are unavoidable under each alternative will be clearly
identified and explained.
Products
Plan Alternatives Administrative Draft Report (including all maps/diagrams necessary to
support the alternatives) (20 copies)
Task 4.3 Public Workshops
The EDAW team will attend and actively participate in public workshops and forums during the
alternatives generation process. During the four month process, our team will participate with the
BRAG Commission, including its sub-committees to gather input into the alternatives, and give
presentations back to the Commission at key points during the process. Several presentations will
be made to other public bodies such as the EBCRC for their recommendations and preferred
choices. The extent and timing ofpublic meetings will be developed further during the
Reconnaissance Phase ofthe project.
Task 4.4 Selection of a Preferred Plan
Following input from the community, the EDAW team will present the alternatives and selection
criteria matrix to the Reuse Authority for their discussion and selection of a Preferred Plan. By this
time, the Reuse Authority should have received feedback from other agencies and jurisdictions
regarding the Preferred Plan. A final report will be submitted to the Reuse Authority discussing the
alternatives and rationale for selection ofthe preferred plan.
Products
Plan Alternatives Draft and Final Report (50 copies)
PHASE 5 COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN
The final phase of work will be the preparation of the Community Reuse Plan based on selection of the
preferred alternative. The plan will conform to the local policies and guidelines the City of Alameda
has in effect for the remainder ofthe City, particularly the General Plan. It will address specific land
use densities, local and regional transportation facilities, community facilities, infrastructure,
incorporation ofjob development strategies, urban design principles and framework, and reference to
the schedule of remediation developed as part ofthe EBS.
Specific implementation actions for changes and upgrade ofmajor systems such as transportation and
utilities will be addressed. The financial implications to the City of Alameda and other jurisdictions
will be explained, and methods for plan implementation will be discussed. The City will want to
deliberately create the local financial techniques which can be relied upon over time to deliver
revitalization incentives and necessary supporting infrastructure as the framework for private
reinvestment. The cost to implement the plan will depend on the interest and financial health ofthe
private as well as public sector.
Task 5.1 Refine Preferred Plan
Issues and Approach
The input that is received from the community and Reuse Authority on the preferred alternative will
require refinement during the final phase. The consultant team will prepare a new plan graphic that
will be the basis for the text and recommendations in the Draft Community Reuse Plan.
Methodology
A color-rendered plan depicting full buildout ofthe site will be produced. Components of
the plan that will be addressed include land use, circulation, open space, and natural habitats
such as wetlands.
Products
Preferred Plan (at a scale suitable for public presentation)
Task 5.2 Prepare Draft Community Reuse Plan
Issues and Approch
The development of text and supporting drawings to the preferred plan will occur over the final
two months ofthe work program. Recommendations will be made regarding land use, urban design,
circulation, transportation, community facilities, utility systems; environmental and historic
resources, homeless programs, resources for job development, retention, and worker retraining,
hazardous and toxic materials contamination, health and safety concerns, community standards,
community goals achievement, local policy compliance, fiscal analysis and capital improvement
programming, recommendations for updating the Plan, methods for Plan implementation, and
phasing diagrams.
Methodology
A land use account will accompany the text that explains densities and intensities of use for
each land use category. Land uses will be described as they relate to the goals and objectives
ofthe community, their affect on surrounding land uses, and relationship to the Alameda
General Plan.
Urban design drawings will be prepared that illustrate concepts ofthe Preferred Plan.
These drawings will expand upon the principles developed during Phase 4, and illustrate
concepts for neighborhoods, landscape image, commercial/retail layouts, pedestrian/bicycle
systems, vehicular systems, public transit systems, access to open space, and others as
necessary. Urban design guidelines that address general building heights and massing, site
setbacks and coverage, and architectural character will be developed.
Community facilities necessary to support the plan will be shown and documented according
to their type and size. Facilities include schools, parks, recreational facilities, social services,
cultural facilities, libraries, and medical facilities. Recreation resources that could occur on
the property will be defined, and a program developed for their use, and a phasing plan
developed with respect to the other public infrastructure improvements. A "statement of
community standards" will be developed that addresses items such as community appearance,
view protection, and shoreline access. The preservation of Alameda's small town character
will be respected in the creation ofthe plan and in the community facilities provided.
Protection and reuse of environmental and historic resources will be addressed including
the protection of wetlands and other sensitive habitats. The Community Reuse Plan will
expand the evaluation of the hydrologic resources to identify major policies and
implementation measures to protect and enhance environmental resources.
A description ofthe existing biological resource conditions at the NAS and the details of
any existing agreements with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or other federal
resource agencies will be discussed. Based on the analysis of existing conditions, the
consultant team will identify the opportunities and constraints related to the biological
resources on the base and discuss these as they pertain to the Community Reuse Plan.
Policies and programs will be developed that address the protection of the California least tern
habitat and provide guidelines for long term management of the area; address avoidance of
wetland areas and other sensitive habitats; provide mitigation guidelines to address loss of any
sensitive biological resource; provide guidelines for identifying and reviewing impacts to
species of concern to CDFG; provide a framework for long term management of the
biological resources on the base with emphasis on threatened and endangered species. An
implementation program that identifies how each biological resource will be managed and
what entity is responsible will be developed.
Transportation and circulation improvements required as part of the implementation ofthe
Community Reuse Plan will address the following:
A capital improvement program will be performed for each of the recommended
improvements, including (a) new or upgraded signals, (b) upgraded intersections and
roadways, (c) upgraded railroad facilities, (c) new or upgraded bridges or tunnels, (d)
ferry equipment, terminals, parking, and service, (e) a new crossing, (f) rail service,
(g) new or expanded transit and shuttle service, and (h) any other program or facility
that is proposed.
2. Each improvement will be broken down by total capital cost based on the best local
unit costs available, operating and maintenance costs, phasing over time, year needed
for service, possible funding sources, administration, and other information. The
format will be similar to that used by the City of Alameda, Caltrans, and MTC so that
funding needs can be more readily identified, and inclusion on CIP, RT1P, and the
STLP facilitated.
3. A full list of required studies to implement the recommended projects will also be
developed, along with an overall phasing plan and estimated costs to complete
planning, environmental, and design studies.
Utility system improvements necessary to implement the Community Reuse Plan and their
associated cost will be documented. Improvements to all of the affected systems will be
discussed. An action plan that addresses dredging issues and disposal concerns and
associated costs will be addressed. The provision for marina facilities if required and the
associated costs will be documented. Phasing ofutility improvements will be presented and
tied to the capital improvement program.
The timetable for clean-up and implications ofthe toxic materials and hazards at the NAS will
be critical to the reuse process. The impact ofinvestigation and remediation of contaminated
lands at NAS will significantly affect the development and implementation of an effective
Community Reuse Plan. The consultant team will prepare a summary of the known and
suspected areas of contamination at NAS and implications on the implementation of the
planning process. This section ofthe Community Reuse Plan will present the most recent
available data on the extent and health effects of contaminated sites and the most current
estimates for the scheduling and scope ofon-going or proposed remedial activities.
The greatest challenge to the reuse ofNAS will be to define the potential funding mixes and
the probable partnerships necessary to finance public infrastructure improvements. The team
will develop a sound fiscal analysis and capital improvement program that projects the costs
ofimprovements and potential sources ofrevenue, both public and private. In addition,
specific administrative and operational frameworks that will bind all of the parties together
(e. g US Navy, Reuse Authority, private developers, etc.) will be addressed. A cost benefit
analysis will be prepared that identifies benefitting parcels or sub-areas for each cost item.
Benefit will be based on demand generation, as in the case of the utilities or traffic, land value,
or other factors as appropriate. Projects for which benefits extend beyond the Navy's
boundaries will be assessed appropriately.
An implementation program will be developed that is tied to a development strategy and
explains clearly the implementation mechanisms available to the Reuse Authority.
Development of phasing strategies related to site acquisition, interim and long-term
lease/ownership arrangements, and site management options will be reviewed. Discussion
will focus on available techniques for development such as redevelopment district, special
planning districts, assessment districts, revenue bonds, development fees, development
agreements, etc.
Included within the Community Reuse Plan will be a housing program that addresses the
needs of the homeless and meets the mandates of the McKinney Act. This program will be
tailored to meet the needs of the City of Alameda, and evaluated against the City's Housing
Element of the General Plan. In addition, the housing program will address regional needs for
market rate units and the linkage that is inherent between jobs and housing.
The Community Reuse Plan should be flexible and allow for updating over time. The City of Alameda
in conjunction with the Reuse Authority will continually be investigating all of the issues and subject
matter contained within this work program. Redevelopment Plans, Specific Plans, Sub-Area Plans
etc. may be on-going efforts in the years ahead. All of these efforts should reflect back on the primary
document, the Community Reuse Plan. Methods of replacing information in the document with new
material as it becomes known will be investigated, particularly the use of the Electronic Master Plan
format.
Products
Administrative Draft Reuse Plan (20 copies
Draft Community Reuse Plan (50 copies)
Task 5.3 Public Workshops
The consultant team will present the Community Reuse Plan at a series of public workshops that will
be identified during the Reconnaissance phase. Presentations to the Reuse Authority, the EBCRC,
and others will be made throughout the Final Phase.
Task 5.4 City/Reuse Authority Hearing and Adoption
The Draft Community Reuse Plan will be presented to the City of Alameda and Reuse Authority in
a public hearing format for adoption ofthe recommendations contained in the report.
Task 5.5 Preparation of Final Report
Based on any changes made by the City/Reuse Authority, a final report will be prepared and
submitted.
Products
Final Report (incorporating adopted changes) (300 copies)
C.5 SCHEDULE
The following diagram illustrates EDAW's schedule for the overall reuse planning effort. We
certainly consider the City's year-end 1995 completion date to be achievable.
SEO :Z I Lsh :N
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OFFICE MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Job Description
1. Executive Assistant to Executive Director of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
A. Maintain and coordinate schedule of Executive Director
B. Liaison between City Staff, Reuse Authority Members, EBCRC, County
officials, City officials, and Executive Director
C. Draft and edit correspondence and reports for Executive Director
D. Assist in procedures and drafting of Staff Reports for City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meetings
Office Budget Preparation and Reconciliation (Administrative Assistant)
A. Reconciliation of various budgets for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority office (OEA, City of Alameda, EBCRC)
B. Preparation of budget submittals for various budgets
C. Accounts Payable - preparation/coordination and approval of accounts payable
D. Preparation of various reports regarding various budgets
III. Staff Support (Office Manager)
A. Coordination of clerical support for Facilities Manager and Planner
B. Secretarial support for Management Analyst
Attachment E
IV. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Executive Assistant
A. Liaison between Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Members and Executive
Director
B. Preparation of agendas and info' Illation packets for monthly Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority meetings
C. Attendance of all Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meetings
including composition and publication of minutes of meetings
D. Staff support for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Members
V. Office Manager - Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Office
A. Management of all Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment office operations
B. Supervision of BRAG Secretary and Support Secretary
C. Coordination between Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and City operations
D. Implementation and maintenance of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority systems and procedures
Draft Scope of Work
Homeless Element
Alameda Naval Air Station
Reuse Plan
OBJECTIVES
To create a planning process regarding the homeless issue which is mutually beneficial
to the homeless community and the City of Alameda
• To assure that the Planning Team is fully aware of the needs and goals of the homeless
providers so that addressing those needs and goals will be integrated into the planning
process
• To assure that the homeless providers are provided with the information and technical data
regarding the NAS facilities and planning process necessary to provide valid input into
the Reuse Plan
• To create a "Homeless Element" of the Reuse Plan which is well integrated with the
overall Reuse Plan and which furthers the efforts of the homeless community
TASKS
Background
1. Gather and review available information regarding the NAS facilities.
2. Gather and review available information regarding property conveyance requests,
including the Home Base reports, and information regarding the U.S. Coast Guard and
Public Benefit Conveyance for Recreation and Educational Purposes requests.
3. Identify and hold individual meetings with key people involved with the homeless issue.
Ongoing
1. Participate in bi-weekly meetings of the Reuse Planning Team.
2. Attend regular meetings of the EBCRC Housing Committee.
3 Coordinate with the person to be hired by the County to coordinate county-wide base
closure issues as they relate to the homeless.
4. Meet with individual homeless providers, as necessary.
Attachment F
5. P. cipate in public meetings.
Technical Assistance
1. Meet/consult with individual members of the planning team regarding specific topics
relating to homeless issues.
2. Meet/consult with homeless providers regarding particular data and informational needs
and act as liaison with team regarding sarne.
Input to Planning Process
1. Review/analyze in formation from the point of view of the homeless issue as it is produced
by the
11
2. Write homeless sections of reports at each phase of planning process (Conditions and
Trends, Interim Reuse Strategy, Plan Alternatives).
3. Write Homeless Element of Reuse Plan and if legislation passes, assist in coordinating
with so as to obtain their approval.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda California 94501-5012
510. 263.2870
FAX 510. 521.3764
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 22, 1994
TO: Dave MacKinnon
Office of Economic Adjustment
FROM: Don Parker, Executive Director
D. Paul Tuttle, AICP Reuse Planner
Attachment G
SUBJ: Clarification of ARRA Consultant Expenses - $74,000 (FY 94-95) for continued
Environmental Planning Activities
The consultant scope of work includes four sub-consultants in the area of environmental analysis
and planning as part of the Alameda NAS reuse planning process. The total estimated budget for
the environmental planning activities is $28,000 in Fiscal Year 93-94 and $74,000 in Fiscal Year
94-95. The environmental sub-consultant activities are a critical part of the overall, comprehen-
sive reuse planning program that are not covered by existing Navy studies or other efforts by the
City, ARRA or the EBCRC.
The environmental sub-consultants activity encompass three major planning tasks across four
sub-disciplines. The first effort is a review of existing data and those studies under way by the
Navy (EBS Environmental Base Line Survey, Least Tern Study, etc.). This review includes the
interpretation and translation of findings into planning criteria, opportunities and constraints.
The second major planning task involves the development and analysis of alternative land use
scenarios, and an identification of potential impacts and mitigation measures. The third major
planning task involves the development of the interim reuse strategy and the final, preferred
reuse plan.
The sub-consultants activity also includes representation of ARRA and the City of Alameda in
negotiations with federal and state environmental agencies to determine the acceptable level of
mitigation and standards for the final reuse plan and in the processing of required environmental
permits (Air Quality Permits, Water Quality Permits, BCDC, Corps of Engineers, State Lands
Commission, etc).
Memorandum
August 24, 1994
Page 2
Each of the four sub-consultants planning tasks cover an environmental specialty area not dealt
with through existing offices in the Navy or the City. The level of review, analysis, and
interpretation requires a level of specialty and expertise not available through existing offices.
The four environmental specialty areas include:
Geotechnical Analysis, Soils and Hydrology - analysis of seismic response of local bay
fill and sub-surface conditions, overall geotechnical and stability of soil conditions,
hydrology, flooding and drainage on site, and development of planning and development
constraints (foundation design, load bearing requirements, subsidence mitigation, flood
mitigation, etc.).
Toxic Baseline Analysis - Review and analysis of existing Navy efforts (EBS &BCP) for
identification of toxic conditions and clean-up plans; interpretation and identification of
constraints for interim reuse strategy and long term planning. Transfer of building/site
clean-up costs estimates and schedule to overall building reuse financial operations and
management model, establishing the community's priorities for the clean-up effort, and
representing the ARRA's interests and perspectives in planning efforts.
• Species Habitat - Review and analysis of all biological studies and data; interpretation of
biological resources studies for implications on reuse planning alternatives; design of
alternative mitigation approaches for resource management and impact mitigation as part
of the overall reuse planning alternatives analysis, provide liaison on behalf of ARRA
with federal, state & local wildlife interests.
Environmental Permits/Codes - Identify and review federal and regional environmental
agencies/jurisdictions and permitting requirements of environmental resource agencies
including: Air Quality Management District, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission, California Department of Fish
and Game, California Office of Fish and Wildlife, etc. Analysis of and arrangement for
transfer of environmental permits from the Navy to ARRA (air, water, etc.). Assist the
City and Navy in development and coordination of EIS/EIR process.
cc: John Petrovsky, EDAW
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-Office Pvfemorandum
August 31, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change
to Bylaws Allowing Members of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority to Receive Meeting Compensation
Background:
On May 19, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) adopted
Bylaws. Subsequent to the adoption of the Bylaws, the ARRA staff in the proposed budget
submittal to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) included a line item to provide meeting
compensation for ARRA members. OEA rejected this budget request; however, should other
funding sources become available, the ARRA Bylaws must be amended to allow for the ARRA
members to receive meeting compensation.
Discussion/Analvsis:
The City Attorney drafted the following proposed amendment to the ARRA Bylaws:
3.07 Meeting Compensation
"Each member of the Governing Body shall receive $100.00 for each meeting of the Governing
Body which the member attends; provided that no member shall receive such fees for more than
two meetings in any one calendar month; and provided that there is a budget for such fees.
Fiscal Impact:
None. Meeting compensation will not be provided to members of the ARRA Governing
Body until such time as a source of funding for the compensation has been secured.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that ARRA adopt the proposed amendment to the Bylaws allowing
members of the ARRA to receive meeting compensation should a source of funding become
available.
Respect!,
ly s
n Parker,
DP:jm xecutive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
;Vaud Air Station
Postal Directory, 13Iti,4,
Alameda. CA 9450/-50/'
510-263-2870
FAX 510-521-3764
June 24, 1994
To: Evonne Chen
From: Julie Mantrom
Re: Completion of Federal Certifications
Attachment H
The City has executed and enclosed the following original certifications:
1. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
2. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
3. Certification Regarding, Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility. and Voluntary
Exclusion Lower Tier Covered Transactions
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Enclosures
cc: Bill Norton, City Manager
Heather McLaughlin, City Attorney's Office
May 31, 1994
The East Bay Conversion
and Reinvestment Commission
530 Water St.. 5th Floor • Oakland. CA 94607
(510) 834-6928 • Fax: (510) 834-8913 7-
RECEIVED
JUN - 3 1994
DALE CvOnYEPSION OFFICE
CIF/ Q ALAMEDA
To: Julie Mantrom
Fr: Evonne Chen
Re: Federal regulations for OEA Reuse Planning Grant #CL9405-93/94-01A
Attached are the remaining federal regulations pertaining to the City of Alameda's Reuse
Planning funds (the rest were mailed to you last week).
The City will need to complete and return the following enclosed certifications:
1. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
2. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
3. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion
Lower Tier Covered Transactions
Recycled
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION
1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant
agreement, the grantee is providing the certification set out
in the attached.
2. The certification set out in the attached is a material
representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when
OEA is determining whether to award the grant. If it is later
determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false
certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the
Drug-Free Workplace Act, OEA, in addition to any other remedies
available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized
under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS
A. Grantee certifies that it will provide a drug-free
workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that
the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession
or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's
workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against
employees for violation of such priorities:
(b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to
inform employees about --
(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free
workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation,
and employee assistance programs; and
(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees
for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be
engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the
statement required by paragraph (a):
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required
by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the
grant, the employee will --
(1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(2) Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute
conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later
than five days after such conviction.
(e) Notifying the agency within ten days after
receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or
otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction.
(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30
days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with
respect to any employee who is convicted --
(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such
an employee, up to and including termination; or
(2) Requiring such employee to participate
satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation
program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or
local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
•
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to
maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
B. The Grantee shall insert in the space provided below
the site(s) for the performance of the work done in connection
with this grant.
Naval Air Station
Street address
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
City and county
Alameda, CA 94501-5012
State and zip code
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
9
JUS
NT (OEA)
GUIDANCE ON:
GOVERNMENTWIDE
DEB INT • SUSPENSION (NONPROCUREMENT),
32 CFR PART 25, SUBP "TS A-E)
APPLIES TO: ALL GRANTS CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS UNDER GRANTS
OVER $25,000; AND ANY CONTRACT/SUBCONTRACT
(REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) UNDER WHICH THE CONTRACTOR/
SUBCONTRACTOR WILL HAVE A CRITICAL INFLUENCE ON OR
SUBSTANTIVE CONTROL OVER THE CONTRACT/SUBCONTRACT.
Certification Requirements
Applicant must sign and submit the Certification Regarding
Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary
Covered Transactions (Attachment A) to OEA prior to award of
grant. Applicant should read Instructions for Certification
(Attachment B) before signing Certification.
Grantee must provide the Certification Regarding Debarment,
Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier
Covered Transactions (Attachment C) and the Instructions for
Certification (Attachment D) to prospective contractors. DO NOT
SIGN AND RETURN THIS CERTIFICATION TO °EA. This Certificaticn
should be retained by you and prospective contractors and
subcontractors must sian and submit the Lower Tier Certification
(Attachment C) to the grantee prior to award of subcontract.
ProsPeccive contractor and subcontractor should read instructions
for Certification (Attachment D) before sianina Certification.
Retention Requirements
Grantee shall retain Contractor Certification(s) Recrardino
Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Excluson--
Lower Tier Transaction in their file.
Contractor shall retain subcontractor Certification( Regardina Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary
Exclusion--Lower Tier Transaction in their file.
The entire regulation on Debarment and Suspension, 32 CFR Part 25,
Subparts A-E, (pages 10-22 of Code of Federal Regulations) is
available, upon request, from OEA.
TTACEMENT A
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT
Certification Regarding
Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters
Primary Covered Transactions
This certification is required by the regulations implementing
Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, 32 CFR Part 25,
Subparts A-E Goyernmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement).
(BEFORE.COMPLETING CERTIFICATION, READ ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS)
(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of
its knowledge and belief that it and its principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from covered transactions by any Federal
department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period precedina this
application been convicted of or had a civil judament
rendered against them for commission of fraud'or a
criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attemoting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal,
State, or local) transaction or contract under a
public transaction; violation of Federal or State
antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement,
theft, forcer-v., bribery, falsification or destruction
of records, making false statement, or receiving
stolen proPerty:
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally
or civilly-charaed by governmental entity (Federal,
State or local) with commission of any of the offenses
enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification;
and
(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this
application had one or more public transactions
(Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or
default.
(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to
certify to any of the statements in this certification, such
prospective primary participant shall attach an explanation
to this proposal.
City of Alameda
Legal Name
na:e June 23, 1994
By Rill Nnrtnn, Cry MPriagpr
Name and Title of
Authorized Representative
\\s
1,N '
Sianaure c: Mthaniz
:7--pnrPsnr-aLT've
ATTACHMENT 3
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective
primary participant is providing the certification set out above.
2. The inability of a person to provide the certification
reauired below will not necessarily result in denial of
participation in this covered transaction. The prospective
participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide
the certification set out below. The certification or
explanation will be considered in connection with the department
of agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction.
However, failure of the prospective primary participant to
furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such
person from participation in this transaction.
3. The certification in this clause is a material
representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the
department or agency determined to enter into this transaction.
If it is later determined that the prospective primary
participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in
addition to other remedies available to the Federal Gove±nment,
the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause
of default.
4. The prospective primary participant shall provide
immediate written notice to the department or agency to whom his
proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary
participant learns that its certification was erroneous when
submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed
circumstances.
5. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended,"
"ineligible," 'lower tier covered transaction," "participant,"
"person," "primary covered transaction," "principal," "proposal,"
and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have meaflings
set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules
implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the Office
of Economic Adjustment (OEA) for assistance in obtaining a copy
of 32 CFR Part 25, Subparts A-E.
6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting
this application that, should the proposed covered transaction be
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier
covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended,
declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation
in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department
or agency entering into this transaction,
7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by
submitting this application that it will include the clause
titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -- Lower Tier Covered
Transaction," Provided by the department or agency entering into
this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier
covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier
covered transactions.
8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier
covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended,
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction,
unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A
participant may decide the method and frequency by which it
determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant
may, but is not required to, check the Non-procurement List by
contacting OEA at (703) 604-4656.
9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to
reauire establishment of a system of records in order to render
in aood faith the certification reauired by this clause. The
knowledge and information of a participant is not required to
exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in
the ordinary course of business dealings.
10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 cf
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a
Person Who is suspended, debarred, ineliaible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition
other remedes available to the Federal Government, the
department or aaency may terminace this transaction for cause of
default.
ATTACHMENT C
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT
Certification Regarding
Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion
Lower Tier Covered Transactions
This certification is required by the regulations implementing
Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, 32 CFR Part 25,
Subparts A-E.
(BEFORE COMPLETING CERTIFICATION, READ ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS)
(1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by
submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its
princinals is/are presently debarred, suspended, proposed
for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from narticination in this transaction by any Federal
department or agency.
(2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to
certify to any of the statements in this certification, such
prospective participants shall attach an explanation to this
proposal.
City of Alameda
LeTa Na.77e
June 23, 1994
Date
By
Bill Norton, City Manager
NaT.le an Tit/e
RePresentaci.ve
Signature of Au
Representative
horizd
ATTACHMENT D
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION
1. By sianing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower
tier participant is providing the certification set out above.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation
of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was
entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective
lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous
certification, in addition to other remedies available to the
Federal Government, the department or agency with which this
transaction originated may pursue available, remedies, including
suspension and/or debarment.
3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate
written notice to the person to which this Pr000sal is submitted
if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that
its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become .
erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
A. The terms "covered transaction," "debarment," "suspended,"
"ineliaible," "lower tier Cover transaction," "participant,"
"person," ""primary covered transaction," "principal," "proPcsal,
and "voluntary excluded," as used in this clause, have the
meaninas set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rues
implementinc Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to
which this Proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaininc a
cony of those reculations.
5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting
this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier
covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended,
declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in
this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or
agency with which this transaction originated.
6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by
submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled
"Certification Recording Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and
Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without
modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all
solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.
7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered
transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineliaibe, or
voluntarily excluded frOm the covered transaction, unless it knows
that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the
method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its
principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check
the Nonprocurement List by contacting 0EA at (703) 604-5676.
8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to
reauire establishment of a system of records in order to render in
good faith the certification required by this clause. The
knowledge and information of a participant is not reauired to
exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the
ordinary course of business dealings.
9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these
instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly
enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is
suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies
available to the Federal Government, the depart:ment or aaencv with
which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies,
including suspension and/or debarment.
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT
GUIDANCE ON:
NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING, 32 CFR PART 28
APPLIES TO: Grants Exceeding $100,000, and Contracts and
Subcontracts (Under Grants) Exceeding $100,000
Certification Requirements Prior to Award
Applicant must sign and submit Certification (Attachment A) that
no Federal Funds will be paid for lobbying.
Applicant must submit Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, SF-LLL
(Attachment B), if any non-Federal funds are planned to be paid
for lobbvina. Negative report NOT REQUIRED.
Applicant and contractor must agree to include the language of
this Certification in all contracts and subcontracts (under
grants) which exceed $100,000, and the contractor and
subcontractor must certify and disclose accordingly.
Disclosure Recuirements During Award
Each Person (granee, and contractor and subcontractor under a
grant) must submit a Disclosure F,epert, at the end of each
calendar guarter in which there occurs any eent that reguires
disclosure cr that materially affects the accuracy cf the
information contained in env Disclosure For previously filed by
such person. An event that materially affects the accuracy of the
information reported includes:
(1) A cumulative increase of $25,000 or more in the amount
paid or expected to be paid for influencing or
attempting to influence a covered Federal action;
(2) A change in the person(s) or individual(s) influencing
or attempting to influence a covered Federal action; or
(3) A change in the officer(s), employee(s), or Member(s)
contacted to influence or attempt to influence a covered
Federal action.
Submission Requirements
Applicant must submit Certification, and Disclosure Form, if
required, to OEA prior to award of grant.
ATTACHMEN7 A
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT
Certification Regarding Lobbying
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative
Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge
and belief, that:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid
by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing
or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,
a Member of congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding
of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the
making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment,
or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been
paid or will be paid to any oerson for influenoina or attemotina
to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Conaress, an officer or employee of Conaress, or an embIoyee of
MerCe of Congress, in connection with this Federal canta-t,
grant, loan, Cr cooberatiVe aareemenc, the undersianed sha
complete and submit Standard Form-ILL, Disclosure Form to 7.eocrt
Lobbying, accordance with its instructions,
3. The underaned sham' reauire that the language o= hiS
certification be included in the award documents for all
subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and
contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and
that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon
which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or
entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite
for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section
1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the
required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not
less than $10,000 and not-more than $100,000 for each such
failure.
City o
Alameda
Leaa/ Name
June
L7a:e
994
Bill Norton Cit.., Mana e
Name and Title of
Authorized Rep.reSefl
Live
F.epresentazve
NOTE FOR LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Grantee should xerox copy of the Lobbying
Certification and Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
Report to give to any contractor or subcontractor
for an award exceeding $100,000. Grantee is
required to maintain the signed Certification from
contractor/subcontractor in the arantee file.
Grantee is recruired to forward to the Office of
Economic Adjustment all completed Disclosure of
Lobbying Activities Reports.'
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter-Office Memorandum
August 31, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change
to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Bylaws Regarding
the Appointment of the President of the Board of Education of the Alameda
Unified School District to be a Non-voting, Ex-officio Member of the ARRA
With One Non-voting Proxy to be the Vice President of the Alameda Unified
School District
Background:
On August 8, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) adopted
a motion to appoint the President of the Board of Education of the Alameda Unified School
District (AUSD) to be a non-voting, ex-officio member of the ARRA with one non-voting proxy
to be the Vice President of the (AUSD). The ARRA requested the City Attorney prepare an
amendment to the Bylaws to allow for the ex-officio membership on the ARRA of the AUSD
representative.
Discussion/Analysis:
The City Attorney drafted the following proposed amendment to section 1.03 of the
ARRA Bylaws to add a new section 1.03(a) to read as follows:
(a) Non-Voting, Ex-officio Member. The President of the Alameda Board of
Education of the Alameda Unified School District shall be a non-voting, ex-
officio member of the Authority. If the President of the Alameda Board of
Education is unavailable, his or her proxy shall be the Vice President of the
Alameda Board of Education. Non-voting, ex-officio members of the Board shall
be entitled to participate in the discussions and meetings of the Authority and
shall conduct themselves according to the rules of the Authority except that they
are not entitled to vote on matters before the Authority and are not entitled to fees
for attending meetings.
CORRFJSPOND I-NCE
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
510 -263 -2870
FAX 510- 521 -3764
August 19, 1994
The Honorable John Dalton
Secretary of the Navy
Office of the Secretary
Navy Department
Washington, D.C. 20350 -1000
Dear Mr. Secretary
On behalf of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA "), the local
agency responsible for managing reuse and redevelopment of Naval Air Station Alameda ( "NAS
Alameda "), please consider this a formal request to defer final determinations on all outstanding
property conveyance requests at NAS Alameda until the local Community Reuse Plan has been
completed. It is our opinion that such a deferment is essential to the successful reuse and
redevelopment of NAS Alameda, and would be of mutual benefit to both the local community
and the Department of Defense.
Several conveyance requests for NAS Alameda property are currently pending (see
attached map). First, the United States Coast Guard has requested 582 units of housing. A final
determination on this request is expected by December 5, 1994, (see attached letter). Second,
the Department of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, has expressed interest in
approximately 970 acres of property. A final determination on this request is anticipated by
December 27, 1994, (see attached letter). Third, public benefit conveyances have been
requested by local recreation and education agencies. No timeline for final determinations on
these requests has been established yet. Finally, several homeless assistance providers have
made preliminary expressions of interest as part of the initial McKinney Act process. These
homeless assistance providers are likely to submit formal requests to the Department of Health
and Human Services for McKinney Act conveyances. It remains unclear when a final
determination on these requests may occur, since legislation in Congress may incorporate the
homeless assistance requests into the local reuse planning process. In any event, final
determinations on many of the foregoing property conveyance requests could potentially occur
prior to completion of the Community Reuse Plan, anticipated in December 1995.
Secretary of the Navy
August 19, 1994
Page 2
The local reuse and redevelopment planning process for NAS Alameda is managed by
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. The ARRA was formed in April 1994, and
is being formally recognized by the Department of Defense as the official local redevelopment
authority. Following routine organizational matters, one of the first actions of the Governing
Board of the ARRA was to select a reuse planning consultant. The consultant team has since
begun work on the Community Reuse Plan, and expects to complete the planning process by
December 1995, (see attached schedule). The ARRA feels that this prompt initiation of reuse
planning efforts demonstrates a good-faith commitment to address the property conveyance
requests made prior to formation of the ARRA.
Despite this early start to reuse planning, the ARRA believes that coordination of existing
property conveyance requests with the Community Reuse Plan is critical to the successful reuse
and redevelopment of NAS Alameda. The analyses and information that will be generated
through the planning process are essential to an informed decision about these property
conveyance requests. For instance, the reuse planning process will assess maintenance and
operations, utilities, infrastructure, jurisdictional, and public service issues that may significantly
affect those agencies and homeless assistance providers who are seeking property conveyances.
More important, the reuse planning process will carefully balance local interests with those of
the Department of Defense, other federal agencies, state and local agencies, and homeless
assistance providers. The advantages of this cooperative process would almost certainly be lost
if final property conveyance decisions are made before completion of the Community Reuse
Plan.
Failure to integrate the current property conveyance requests into the reuse planning
process will directly affect important land uses at NAS Alameda. For example, the Department
of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service request for a California Least Tern habitat
could potentially preclude any other use of the nearly 600 acre airfield. In addition, early
determination of the United States Coast Guard housing request may limit opportunities to utilize
nonprofit management of housing maintenance and operations functions by the Coast Guard.
Decisions of this magnitude should obviously be made after all relevant information is disclosed
in the reuse planning process.
It is imperative that the Department of Defense and the local community work
cooperatively to assure that property conveyances are made with all available information and
in a coordinated fashion. It is, in fact, not inconceivable that all of the potential property
conveyances could be accommodated into a comprehensive reuse plan for NAS Alameda. This
can only be accomplished, however, by deferring final determinations on the current property
conveyance requests until the Community Reuse Plan is completed.
Secretary of the Navy
August 19, 1994
Page 3
The importance of allowing the reuse planning process to proceed before final
determinations on property conveyance requests cannot be overstated. For both the Department
of Defense and the local community the benefits of cooperative reuse and redevelopment
planning are clear, as are the potential failings of premature, uninformed decisions.
Consequently, we urge that you defer final determinations on the outstanding conveyance
requests for NAS Alameda property until the Community Reuse Plan has been fully developed.
We appreciate your attention to this very important matter, and would be grateful for
your help in ensuring a base reuse process that is advantageous to all parties, a model for base
conversion and reuse nationally, and is consistent with the President's Five-Point Plan for rapid
economic development in base closure communities.
If the ARRA can provide any additional information, or if you have any questions, please
contact me at (510) 263-2870.
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP:jo:eb
Attachments
cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Representative Ronald Dellums
Representative George Miller
Representative Nancy Pelosi
Mr. William Perry, Secretary of Defense
Mr. Bob Bayer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reinvestment and Closure
Mr. Josh Gotbaum, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security
Mr. Robin Pirie, Assistant Secretary of Navy for Installations and Environment
Mr. William Cassidy, Deputy Secretary of the Navy for Conversion and Redevelopment
Rear Admiral Ernest F. Tedeschi, Commander, Naval Base San Francisco
Captain Terry Dillon, Commanding Officer, WESTDIV
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
,Ii:11
•
, I
111111
; ; I
1;11)
I ) ;
1 t; I
, :•`,.14, •
! .
I I
, ,. i . I, „ , : ' I 1 , •I ',:'' i',, ,L !I j .,
ii „1
L.7,-.:;,,,
-1
1
'
i. :1 .:•.,....,ii-- ......,
1,1
- -
1-
w
w
Ct
UJ
Z
W
>
Z
.
bJ
a_
0
0
I a
1.1_1-1 1-1.1.1 I I I I-1-1 I>II-1 I 111:131.H1.1s1f1 1.I.'
JUN 15 '94 12:10PN WESTDI 9B P.1/1
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAv
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
200 5TOVALL STREET
ALEX,I•NORIA. V• 22ms2-2aoo
0 5 MAY 1994
From: Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
To: Commander, Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
Subj: POSTPONEMENT OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS FOR NAVY HOUSING AT
NAVAL AIR STATION, ALAMEDA
Ref: (a) ..City of Alameda, California, ltr of 20 Apr 94
(b) Section 2904(b)(5)(B) of the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510)
1. Reference (a) request is approved and an extension is granted
until 6 November 1994 for receipt of the response from the City
of Alameda. Please ensure that the Reuse Committee is timely in
providing its response.
2. Final determinations under reference (b) will not be required
by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion &
Redevelopment) until at least 5 Dec-ner
. KANE
ection
JUL 05 '94 09:32RM WESTDI
From:
To;
Subji
Ref:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL FACILITIES SNOINCLAINQ CONNA■.0
700 IlrOVALL grAgg.
ALE*ANOAIA. VA 12332-2300
P.1/1
AM 12g4
Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Commander, Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
POSTPONEMENT OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS FOR TRANSFER OF 970
ACRES OF LAND, NAVAL AIR STATION, ALAMEDA TO U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(a) City of Alameda ltr of 18 May 94
(b) Section 2904(b)(5)(3) of the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (PL. 101-510)
1. Reference (a) request ia approved and an extension is granted
until 28 November 1994 for receipt of the response from the City
of Alameda. Please ensure that the City is timely in providing
itzs response.
2. Final Determinations under reference (b) will not be required
by thG Deputy Assistant Secrecar1 of thejlavy (Conversion &
Redevelopment) until at least 27 Pece '1994_
/
HN JJ KANE
Real Estate Operations DiVision
o
0
tro
0
•ir
iw,AIWOFIARELTORs
ae-
'ea °acre
2,:uqkis ce-
.2rc-e!ar,.
A,ar
E• en
EAST BAY REC1AI. PARK DISTRIC
July 26, 1994
Commander (Code 241)
Attn: Ms. Beverly Freitas
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.
-2-
We appreciate your assistance in this regard, and please
contact us if you have any questions regarding our
proposal.
Very truly yours,
Rec eatio Ma ger, City o
ed (510) 748-4569
nified School District
(510) 337-7060
CAA.
General Manager, East B
y Regional Park District
(510) 635-0135
cc: Mr. Pete Sly, National Park Service
Mr. William Norton, City Manager, City of Alameda
Mr. Dennis Chaconas, Superintendent,
Alameda Unified School District
Mr. Don Parker, Base Re-Use Coordinator,
City of Alameda
Mr. George Hoops, Dept. of Education
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Attachments - Map of Subject Area and Concept Paper
EAST BAY REciiCAA1 PARK DISTRICT
July 26, 1994
Mr. Pete Sly
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
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.
We appreciate your assistance in this regard, and please
contact us if you have any questions regarding our
proposal.
Very truly yours,
• fh
(.,1 r/ /'
Manager, City .49(f Alameda (510) 748-4569
A ameda Unified School District
(510) 337-7060
Gene'ra-1---Manaci-dr",-- Eat-BaY Regional Park District,
(510) 635-0135
cc: Mr. William Norton, City Manager, City of Alameda
Mr. Dennis Chaconas, Superintendent,
Alameda Unified School District
Mr. Don Parker, Base Re-Use Coordinator,
City of Alameda
Mr. George Hoops, Dept. of Education
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Attachments - Map of Subject Area and Concept Paper
6(■\10)0FMRECI()RS
-.1c!
3.0"
EAST BAY REGioNAL PARK DISTRICT
July 26, 1994
U.S. Department of Education
Attn: Mr. George E. Hoops
Federal Real Property Assistance Program
Jackson Federal Office Building
915 Second Avenue, Room 3364, Code 10-9070
Seattle, Washington 98174-1099
Subject: Expression of Interest for Facilities
at Alameda Naval Air Station
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 re-use is
completed.
-2-
We appreciate your assistance in this regard, and please
contact us if you have any questions regarding our
proposal.
Very truly yours,
, City
Supe
loka
Ttb
Bay Regional Park District
(510) 635-0135
(510) 748-4569
ified School District
(510) 337-7060
cc: Mr. Pete Sly, National Park Service
Mr. William Norton, City Manager, City of Alameda
Mr. Dennis Chaconas, Superintendent,
Alameda Unified School District
Mr. Don Parker, Base Re-Use Coordinator,
City of Alameda
Mr. George Hoops, Dept. of Education
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Attachments - Map of Subject Area and Concept Paper
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.
Accordinctly, 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:
-2-
Gymnasium, with three hardwood floor basketball courts
and two volleyball courts, as well as considerable
portable seating capacity (the two volleyball courts may
also be used as additional basketball courts)
Olympic-size swimming pool (in same structure as
gymnasium);
Bowling alley
600-seat Movie Theater
Lighted softball diamond
Locker rooms and extensive exercise rooms and equipment;
Officer's Club, including meeting rooms of varying sizes,
as well as well-equipped cooking-and dining facilities;
Lighted tennis courts;
Outdoor swimming pool;
Administrative Headquarters;
Living quarters - a wide range of accommodations;
Child development center and chool;
Soccer field and picnic areas.
B. The Park, Recreation, and Ooen Space Potential. Public
utilization of these portions of the Alameda Naval Air Station
could be accomplished in a minimal time period. (The
exception to this might be the outdoor swimming pool,
currently out of service and in need of repairs. Sufficient,
well-equipped facilities already exist and are in place to
provide extensive local and regional park and recreation
services for the residents of Alameda and other nearby
communities. By making these excellent improvements available
for immediate, positive use, much would be accomplished to
offset the negative social impact of the base closure. The
following facilities and services would be provided at the two
areas.
1. Shoreline Park. The park, on the south side of the base,
along the Bay perimeter, is sufficiently isolated from
the massive areas of base improvements (e.g., shops,
hangars, storage areas, etc.). All portions of the
proposed shoreline park are contiguous to each other;
thus the general public could effectively use all of the
existing facilities, and programs can be introduced to
create a total shoreline recreation program, at a site
with uniquely attractive views. The facilities and
activities could include:
Small craft (boating) instruction;
Scuba and related underwater recreation
instruction;
Interpretive programs related to a shoreline
environment; these could serve the general public
as well as school groups;
-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 coulc: 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
-4-
Enlisted Quarters, bowling alley, movie theater, child
development center, Miller-Sweeney School, and hospital
could provide a much needed Regional Education Center for
the East Bay. Because the indicated facilities are all
relatively contiguous to each other, and are separated
from base service structures and activities (shops,
storage areas, etc.), they form what could be a
functional community education center facility that could
provide the following potential program:
Meetings and receptions, with food service, could
be provided.
The gymnasium/swimming pool/exercise room could be
programmed for utilization by community
participants, but appropriate scheduling would be
developed so that these facilities could be
utilized also by the general public. Also, the
facilities would be made available to school
districts as the site for culminating events (e.g.,
basketball playoffs and/or championship games).
In the current facilities, programs that could be
housed represent a wide variety of adult education,
community college, and recreational programs.
A regional education center could also provide
science/high tech education, performing arts, and a
vocational training center.
Experimental programs focusing on specific areas of
interest, i.e., environmental, sports, science,
would be appropriate.
The existing hospital facilities could provide one-
stop medical center for youth and families, along
with health education programs and vocational
training opportunities.
Building floor plan of current facilities allow for
small group instruction in such areas as parenting,
child care, bilingual education, and literacy
programs.
The existing dormitory and residential facilities
could be utilized, as is, for education
participants or resident educational camps. (These
may require repairs prior to use.) The Alameda
School District has expressed specific interest in
a science camp facility.
Selected areas of the existing administrative
headquarters could also be used as a conference
center headquarters and message center.
The Officer's Club swimming pool (outdoor) and
tennis courts could be used by conference
participants. General public utilization of the
recreation facilities could be scheduled.
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
-6-
urban areas, there is visible evidence that parks and
recreation is a major contributor to a community's economic
good health.
In general, these positive economic factors are as follows:
Availability of well maintained, properly equipped
park and recreation facilities have the effect of
increasing property values in adjacent communities.
Various studies of individual communities (Boulder,
Colorado; Philadelphia, Pa; Boise, Idaho;
Sacramento, CA; Akron, Ohio, etc.) all demonstrate
significant property value increases for lands near
public park and recreation facilities.
The presence of park and recreation facilities in a
community has a significantly positive impact on
the businesses located there, and in addition,
tends to attract additional profitable business
ventures. The nature of the park and recreation
activity requires significant expenditures for park
and recreation equipment, materials, and services,
and the multiplier effect of these considerable
expenditures then contributes to increasing related
demand for other community-based services.
National studies have concluded that parks and
recreation expenditures represent a major, vital
percentage of the total economic activity
throughout our country.
A well-rounded parks and recreation proaram
creates, directly and indirectly, a positive job
impact. Recreation programs reauire skilled
leadership, in order to serve all segments of our
diversified urban society. The well-used parks and
recreation facilities call for personnel in order
to provide the kinds of services our citizens
require, i.e., well-maintained, attractive, and
safe. The proposed park and recreation program, as
described in this concept paper, would
significantly directly increase the number of jobs
available in the community, and in addition, the
positive overall economic impact would indirectly
also contribute to job creation.
In this discussion of economic issues, it is important to
note, also, that the availability of a well-maintained,
effectively.operated park, recreation, and open space complex
can have a visible positive effect in attracting to an area
the kinds of economic development facilities and activities
which are vital to a community's overall well-being.
-1-
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.
CONCEPTUAL NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ALAMEDA
NAVAL AIR STATION CONVERSION
As an integral part of the decision making process toward
converting the Alameda Naval Air Station property to a non-military
asset to the community and region, it is critical that existing and
potential natural resources are given proper consideration in
making ultimate land use decisions.
A portion of the island facility is currently in open space
providing important wildlife habitat, including:
Rocky inter-tidal habitat along the shoreline.
Deep water habitat directly offshore and within the enclosed
embayments (e.g. Seaplane Lagoon and Bay, shipping channels
and berths).
Extensive seasonal wetlands (on either side the length of the
runway).
Muted tidal wetlands (restricted tidal exchange).
Associated uplands habitats including the state's most
significant least tern colony on the airport runway.
Each of these habitat areas provide important nesting, feeding,
roosting and refugia for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic life
identified in biological assessments of the facility.
Currently, natural resources management by the Navy has been
limited to maintenance of the landscaping in developed areas and
intensive management of the least tern colony. Considerable
opportunity exists for focused management and enhancement of the
other habitats listed above. Specifically, a management and
enhancement plan for the seasonal and muted tidal wetlands would
improve the habitat characteristics and include control or
elimination of nuisance public health conditions such as prolific
mosquito production that currently occurs in these somewhat
degraded habitats. Wetlands have been characterized as being the
"kidneys of the Bay," not only providing diverse wildlife habitat
(including endangered species) and nursery areas for Bay fishes,
but also are effective removers of toxic pollutants that would
otherwise pollute the Bay. A specific management plan to protect
the California brown pelican (endangered species) roosting area
along the outer breakwater also should be developed. All of the
habitats lend themselves well to educational and interpretive
programs included in any open space management of the area.
Currently, the intensive management of the least tern colony is a
major resource focus that includes maintaining the area virtually
free of terrestrial predators and maintaining the weed-free
visually open characteristics surrounding the colony site. The
future open space management will require continued responsible
management of the colony (130 breeding pairs in 1992) which
accounts for about 109r, of the total breedina 'copulation of
-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
lair Urltii
•-wl in,•ww
•:J:Gililt■ttl
••Lill! *. /iitl• all
+allat2 liltitli
/riitrc/IlusIi
•w1;c1lt1w•1•- '" " r i
titllaiitutii
1!1!16 /.IrtL'lliwt rsY.l' +'
tltltll /it■i■rt "�'•�"'"
lwi&EIIIUiittit i
iinge!A larn asaiiwwi illit
�asr #wa•waww• ■tl. .•.» ...
atralawwwMrillwn wall.
.20. ..wwww■r/Ifnl� wawa ' • r1 al
. sigalawnarsv.u, ,. �� _ , i ii
AI I + - -
F•1!t! 11j 'i1fIM
�www "'a1tP
is. mtww
++ •gym •
Mr
i It foal.
r wlhIlowwti liR/ilitmi trs*t� ll
ii •S i .Jllulillf
tI Wwwih •.J;.i I,.
•►'liir'.l►".Jwlll .r.
ww..ttt•atrllli�Nlt#
ir+:rw7ll= �r.tlUCiwl#
riruiw'illwwrl +ll
{ ■ r#wr /••I„11in :w
rtl +.
I