1995-01-04 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, January 4, 1995
5:30 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon
recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your
name. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority
meetings.
17.
ROLL CALL
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of December 7, 1994.
AGENDA ITEMS
A. Selection of Chairperson "Governing Body".
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Resolution Adopting,
by Reference, Section 15000 et. seq. "State CEQA Guidelines ", and As They May be
Amended from Time to Time, for the Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and Designation of the Executive Director of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as the Authorized Representative of the ARRA to
Administer Specific Functions of the CEQA Guidelines, and to Make All Necessary Permit
Applications to Federal, State, and Regional Agencies, for Projects under the Jurisdiction
of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
C. Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Funding Status and Recommendation
of Certification of Negative Declaration for the NAS Alameda Sewer Forced Main
Improvement Project and Funding Status.
D. Approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for the Former Chair of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr.
E. Approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for the Former Member of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Richard Roth.
III. ORAL REPORTS
F. Approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for the Former Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Don Parker, of tit.,
A. Oral Report from the Executive Director Reporting on the EDAW Trends & Condit'
Report for Naval Air Station Alameda. cons
B. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on Reuse Authority
Staff Activities.
C. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Rear
BRAG Vision Statement. ) g long the
D. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Homeless Consultant Process.
E. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Schedule of Future Public
Hearings and Meetings for the Community Reuse Plan.
F. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Status of AEG Leasing.
G. Oral Report (and action, if necessary) from ARRA Member Appezzato Regarding Proposal
for Retention of Home Porting of Carriers (CNN's) and Other Base Reuse Opportunities
at NAS Alameda.
Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the Governing
Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.)
g •)
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
VI.
ADJOURNMENT
* * * * *
* Note:
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Elizabeth
Brydon, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request
an interpreter.
* For persons with hearing difficulty, a FM amplifying li g s y in stem is available in the Council
Chamber.
* Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is
available.
* Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
* Audio and Video Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
* * * * *
MINUTES
OF THE .
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 1994
5:30 p.m.
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr. presiding.
I. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Al
DeWitt, Alternate for Councilmember Arnerich; Mayor Ellen
Corbett, City of San Leandro; Mr. Mark Friedman, Aide to
Supervisor Don Perata, District 3; Councilmember Karin Lucas,
City of Alameda; Vice -Mayor Richard Roth, City of Alameda;
Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional
District; Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr., City of Alameda;
Ex= officio Alternate, Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School
District; Ex- officio Alternate Helen Sause, Base Reuse Advisory
Group; Absent: "Lil" Arnerich, City of Alameda;
Councilmember Dezie Woods- Jones, City of Oakland.
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 2, 1994
Councilmember Appezzato moved to approve the minutes of the meeting
of November 2, 1994. The motion was seconded by Vice -Mayor Roth and
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
II. AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Report from the Executive Director Recommending that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Accept the P & D Aviation Report and Discontinue
Further Marketing Studies on Use of the NAS Alameda Airfield as a Civilian
Operated, Non -FAA Funded Enterprise.
Mr. Parker reported on the background of the recommendation by stating that the
Reuse Authority staff is recommending not to undertake an additional consultant
study focusing on marketing of the aviation airfield dependent uses at this time.
He emphasized that the staff was not recommending preclusion of any interest
for aviation- related uses that may appear through the process of the marketing
interim use of the base.
Mike McClintock reported on the summary of P & D Aviation's findings. In
final summary, he stated that in light of prospective regional air space problems,
loss of the air traffic control tower, major obstructions to air navigation and lack
of an identifiable market need, further consideration of civilian aviation use of
NAS Alameda appears unwarranted.
Councilmember Lucas asked if other competing facilities were visited in the
recent report.
Mike McClintock stated that as described in the report Mather Air Force Base,
which has an 11,300' long runway, 200' wide, with 15 large hangars capable of
accommodating a KC -135 or Boeing 707 size aircraft, has had no success in
attracting the types of aviation oriented businesses that Alameda would hope to
attract to NAS.
Vice -Chair Roth asked if consideration was made of any of the surrounding
neighborhoods and their desires regarding an airport.
Mike McClintock stated that the P & D Aviation report was a technical study
only and did not deal with issues concerning neighborhood perception of the
airport.
Alternate Al DeWitt stated that he felt it was too early to make a decision on the
possibility of airfield use.
After further discussion, Mr. Parker stated that, for clarification, the Reuse
Authority has not ruled out the possibility of airfield use, but for the present, has
decided not to pursue a marketing study.
Chair Withrow stated that the Reuse Authority needs to get on with the process
and begin making decisions.
2
Councilmember Lucas stated that the Reuse Authority needs to focus on what is
feasible for the site and, according to the P & D Report, airport use is not
feasible. The need is to focus on what is realistic and get the process going.
Speakers:
Doug deHaan, Base Reuse Advisory Group Member, added additional background as to
why this issue was before the ARRA. He stated that because all of the facts are not
available at this time, he recommended any decision be held in abeyance until further
infoiniation comes forward so that future avenues are available.
Richard Nevelin, BRAG and EBCRC Committee member, stated that if the Wildlife
Proposal goes forward and is approved, the only thing that would be possible as an
economic use is a runway easement through the wildlife refuge for light traffic.
Councilmember Lucas moved and Vice -Mayor Roth seconded a motion to accept
the recommendation of staff. The motion was passed with 7 ayes and 1 naye (Al
DeWitt).
B. Report from the General Counsel Requesting Authorization to Obtain Insurance
Coverage for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
Assistant General Counsel, Heather McLaughlin stated that the action was
required in order that the ARRA can obtain insurance coverage to protect the
Authority and its employees in case of accidents or workers' compensation
problems. The Office of Economic Adjustment has agreed to fund the monies
necessary to obtain this insurance.
Mayor Corbett moved to approve the recommendation of staff. The motion was
seconded by Mark Friedman and passed unanimously by voice vote.
C. Report from the General Counsel Recommending Approval of a Resolution
Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority.
Assistant General Counsel, Heather McLaughlin stated that in order to comply
with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), the ARRA must adopt a
conflict of interest code.
Mark Friedman moved to approve the recommendation of staff regarding the
adoption of a conflict of interest code. The motion was seconded by Mayor
Corbett and passed unanimously be voice vote.
3
D. Resort from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of an Amended
Interlocal Agreement to Allow the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Commission to Continue Funding the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Project Planner (Management Analyst) and Administrative Aide (Secretary)
Positions Through June, 1995.
Councilmember Lucas moved to approve the interlocal agreement. The motion
was seconded by Vice -Chair Swanson and passed unanimously by voice vote.
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Service
Agreement with the City of Alameda.
Vice -Chair Roth moved and Mark Friedman seconded a motion to approve the
service agreement. The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change
to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Bylaws Regarding the
Appointment of a Member of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG),
Appointed by BRAG, to be a Non - voting, Ex- officio Member of the ARRA With
One Non - Voting Alternate to be Appointed by BRAG and Other Future Non -
Voting, Ex- officio Members and Their Alternates' Appointments (Amendment of
bylaws requires the vote of five (5) members, three (3) of which must be Alameda
City Council Members)
Vice -Mayor Roth moved to approve the proposed change to the Bylaws. The
motion was seconded by Mayor Corbett and passed unanimously by voice vote.
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Oral Report from Chair of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG)
Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities.
Helen Sause reported that the appointment to the Reuse Authority was Lee Perez,
and herself as his alternate. She reported on the following BRAG activities:
assessing community goals, principles and strategies for development of the base,
interfacing with what the consultant is doing will be presented at a public forum
at the end of January 1995; an adoption of a formal vision statement by the
BRAG; the community survey has had over 1000 returns, tabulations
forthcoming; consideration of historic preservation issues; and the future
implementation of the final reuse plan.
B. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding the Status of the Request for
Coast Guard Housing.
Don Parker reported that the Reuse Authority has not received any official word
from the Navy on whether the Coast Guard request for 582 housing units has
been granted.
4
C. Oral Report from Executive Director Informing the Members of His Resignation
from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
Don Parker reported that on November 8, 1994, he tenured his resignation as
Executive Director of the Reuse Authority effective January 7, reflecting that he
will be in attendance at the next meeting of the ARRA to be held on Wednesday,
January 4, 1995.
He stated that he has come to appreciate the complexity of the base conversion
process and the gravity that it has on the community and surrounding region and
thanked the Reuse Authority for the opportunity.
Chair Withrow stated that Don Parker has made a tremendous contribution to the
City of Alameda and the surrounding communities with the Marina Village
development and with the Reuse Authority. He wished Don the very best in his
future endeavors.
Vice -Chair Swanson added that many communities around the nation have
stumbled in starting up the complicated process of base conversion, but that
because of Mr. Parker and his representation locally and nationally and the
reputation developed among those in Washington, D.C., others admire the fact
that the Reuse Authority has been able to iron out any impediments and move
forward in a very constructive way.
Councilmember Appezzato stated, "A job well done." He added that Don Parker
has given the Reuse Authority a solid framework and structure from which to
begin. He stated that he had never met a finer professional in the field than Don
Parker.
Vice -Mayor Roth stated that it has been a great pleasure to work with Don
Parker.
Mark Friedman stated that the job undertaken was an extremely difficult one
requiring a balancing of competing interests and concerns which Don Parker did
with a patience and grace greatly appreciated. He added that Don has set a very
good tone for the operation of the conversion process.
Mayor Corbett thanked Mr. Parker for his work and that she appreciated his
tenacity in attempting to get in touch with newer members and verifying that all
members have the information required to do their jobs on the Authority.
Vice -Chair Swanson recommended that a resolution of appreciation be done for
Don Parker at the next meeting.
5
D. Oral Report from Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on Reuse
Authority Staff Activities.
Mr. Parker gave an update on the following issues: interim leasing, utilities,
financial support for implementation, and state lands.
E. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority.
Mr. Parker reported on the following items for the next agenda: election of
ARRA Chair, Resolution adopting CEQA procedures, oral report on homeless
process, oral report on schedule of future public hearings and meetings of the
Reuse Authority.
Mark Friedman requested that a resolution of appreciation be done at the next
meeting for Mayor Withrow and Vice -Mayor Roth for their many hours of
dedication and service to the community.
Ex- officio Member Helen Sause requested that the BRAG vision statement be on
the next agenda.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Speakers:
Bonnie Moore, resident of the City of Alameda, thanked Don Parker for his work on
base conversion bringing class and style to everything he does. She suggested that the
City make him an honorary citizen of Alameda and added that she liked the idea of
Mayor Withrow applying for the Executive Director position.
Neil .Patrick Sweeney, resident of the City of Alameda, recognized the positive,
professional contribution of Don Parker stating that the City could not have selected a
better person. He added that the staff of the ARRA should be retained and that they are
very much appreciated.
Doug deHaan, resident of the City of Alameda, stated that marketability and marketing
are two different things. He stated that when you lose your quarterback (Don Parker)
and coach (Bill Withrow) at the same time, it becomes difficult. He also discussed the
history of the base conversion process. He thanked the people who would not be in
attendance at the next meeting.
Richard Nevelin suggested that displaced base workers and their employment be linked
with in -kind contributions as volunteers and suggested that Doug deHaan be asked to
serve as interim Executive Director until a new Director is found.
6
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Councilmember Appezzato thanked Mayor Withrow and Vice -Mayor Roth for their many
contributions to the base conversion process.
Vice -Chair Swanson stated that he has enjoyed working with Mayor Withrow and Vice -
Mayor Roth and has appreciated the fine relationship between the Mayor and
Congressman Dellum's office.
Mayor Corbett thanked Vice -Mayor Roth and Mayor Withrow for their leadership and
thanked them for being an advocate for the City of San Leandro.
Ex- officio Member, Helen Sause, on behalf of the BRAG thanked Mayor Withrow and
Vice -Mayor Roth for their leadership, dedication and service to the community.
Mayor Withrow stated that he has enjoyed the process from the standpoint of challenges
and the interaction with the people and stated that he was not going to retire into the
shadows, but will assume a more subdued role. He thanked everyone for their support.
Vice -Mayor Roth thanked everyone for their support. He stated that he has alot of pride
and satisfaction in seeing the BRAG operate and was happy to be a part of creating the
BRAG and Reuse Authority.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Withrow at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Brydon
Secretary
7
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum •
DATE: December 27, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker
Executive Director
RE:
Background:
Selection of Chairperson of the "Governing Body"
On April 5, 1994, the City of Alameda and the County of Alameda both approved the .
formation of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ( "Governing Body ") through a
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the purpose of establishing a public entity for assuring
the effective transition of the Alameda Naval Air Station from federal ownership to local
ownership. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides for the selection of a Chairperson
and Vice - Chairperson of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
On November 8, 1994, elections were held in the City of Alameda for the positions of
Mayor and Councilmembers. As a result of these elections, the position of Mayor of Alameda
will be filled by fainter Councilmember, Ralph Appezzato, replacing Bill Withrow, and the
position of Councilmember will be filled by Mr. Al DeWitt, replacing former Councilmember
Richard Roth.
Discussion/Analysis:
Because of these replacements due to elections, it is necessary for the "Governing Body"
to elect a new Chair.
Pursuant to Section VIII.F. (Meetings of the "Governing Body" - Chairperson) of the
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, the Chairperson of the "Governing Body" shall be selected
by the members from amongst themselves. The term of office of the Chairperson shall be one
year.
Pursuant to Section VIII. C.8. (Meetings of the "Governing Body" - Voting) of the Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement, a vote of 5 members of the "Governing Body ", three of whom
shall be representatives of the Alameda City Council, is required to take action on the selection
of the Chairperson of the "Governing Body".
Honorable Members of the December 27, 1994
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that, at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, the membership elect a new Chairperson pursuant to the process
outlined in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP /eb
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter -Office Memorandum
DATE: December 28, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
k'ROM: Don Parker
Executive Director
SUBJ.: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Resolution
Adopting By Reference Section 15000 et. seq. "State CEQA Guidelines," and As
They May Be Amended from Time to Time, for the Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and Designation of the
Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as the
Authorized Representative of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
to Administer Specific Functions of the CEQA Guidelines, and to Make All
Necessary Permit Applications to Federal, State, and Regional Agencies for
Projects Under the Jurisdiction of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
Background:
State law requires that each public agency is responsible for complying with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and the State CEQA Guidelines. The
CEQA regulations and guidelines are prescribed by the State Secretary for Resources and
prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research (copy of CEQA guidelines available for
review in the City Clerks' office, City of Alameda).
The purposes of CEQA are to:
(1)
Infoun governmental decision - makers and the public about the potential,
significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly
reduced.
(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes
in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measure when the
environmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the
project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are
involved.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 28, 1994
Page 2
Discussion/Analysis:
A "Public Agency" includes any state agency, board, or commission and any local or
regional agency, as defined in the CEQA Guidelines. It does not include the courts of the state.
This tenu does not include agencies of the federal government (Section 15379). Thus, the
ARRA is a "Public Agency" which requires compliance with CEQA and the CEQA guidelines.
Federal Government projects or actions are governed by the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA). The Navy is processing both CEQA and NEPA reviews for the NAS
Base Closure and the Community Reuse Plan by conducting a joint Environmental Impact Report
(CEQA requirement) /Environmental Impact Statement (NEPA Requirement). ARRA staff is
working with the Navy (Engineering Field Activity WEST) in this process.
CEQA review and documentation must be completed for all ARRA actions, or projects.
A Project is prescribed by state law (Section 15378). A "project" has been interpreted to mean
far more than the ordinary dictionary definition of the teini.
(a) A "Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in
a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately, and that is any of
the following:
(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not
limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or
grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and
amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of
local General Plans or elements there of pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65100- 65700.
(2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part
through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, Loans, or other fowns
of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(3)
An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
(b) A Project does not include:
(1)
Anything specifically exempted by state law.
(2) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 28, 1994
Page 3
(3)
Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for
supplies, personnel - related actions, emergency repairs to public service
facilities, general policy and procedure making (except as they are applied
to specific instances covered above)
(4) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a
particular community.
(5)
The closing of a public school and the transfer of students to another
school where the only physical changes involved are categorically exempt.
Many of the actions by the ARRA are considered a "Project" under CEQA and require
confoimance to the CEQA process. ARRA projects will include adoption of the interim reuse
strategy, adoption of the Community Reuse Plan and approval of interim and long term leases
for the reuse of existing facilities. All of these actions are subject to CEQA review. The recent
NAS Alameda sewer force main improvement is an example of a project which was reviewed
by the ARRA staff for CEQA confoiniance at the direction of the ARRA. From time to time,
in the future, additional "projects" will require additional compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
guidelines.
Fiscal Impact:
The CEQA process will require staff time to review and process CEQA documentation
for all projects sponsored by or approved by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
Costs for CEQA review and documentation (exemptions, negative declarations, and EIRs) should
be charged to applicants for projects or redevelopment and reuse proposals, interim lease
proposals, and other reuse projects at a rate equal to the staff time to process CEQA review.
(See rates identified on the separate attachment).
Costs of CEQA documentation for ARRA- initiated projects will vary depending on the
extent of each project. Some projects will require staff time to process CEQA "Categorical
Exemptions" and "Negative Declarations ". Other projects will require additional funds to
prepare and approve an "Environmental Impact Report". Each Environmental Impact Report
could cost anywhere from $24,000 to $750,000 or more depending on the size and intensity of
the project.
Thus, the fiscal implications of CEQA requirements could be substantial, especially
during the early stages of the redevelopment process when funds in the ARRA general fund are
limited or non - existent. Potential sources of funds include grants to Economic Development
Administration (EDA), the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), the State of California, and
ultimately the general funds of the ARRA.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 28, 1994
Page 4
Projects initiated by ARRA requiring funds for Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's)
will be identified and submitted to the ARRA for direction prior to initiation of the project.
Conclusion:
State law is unambiguous and clear. The ARRA is required to comply with CEQA
procedures when the agency proposes to carry out or approve an activity. Each public agency
is required to adopt objectives, criteria and specific procedures consistent with CEQA and these
Guidelines for administering its responsibilities under CEQA, including the orderly evaluation
of projects and preparation of environmental documents. In adopting procedures to implement
CEQA, a public agency may adopt the State CEQA Guidelines through incorporation by
reference.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve a
resolution adopting by reference Section 15000 et. seq. State CEQA Guidelines ", and as they
may be amended from time to time, for the implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and designation of the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority as the Authorized Representative of the ARRA to administer
CEQA guidelines, and make all necessary permit applications to Federal, State, and Regional
Agencies for projects under the jurisdiction of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
DP /eb
Attachments:
Respectfully submitted,
Don Parker
Executive Director
Recommended Resolution
Proposed Fees
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT FEES
Staff time shall be charged at 200 % of the highest hourly rate per position T & M =
Time and Materials. Deposit is in addition to the basic fee.
TYPE OF PERMIT
FEE
DEPOSIT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1.
Categorical Exemption (includes $25.00
Alameda County Clerk Fee)
$76.00 flat
2.
Initial Study
$202.00 + T & M
$500.00
3.
I
Administrative Charge on outside preparation
of Initial Study or EIR.
25% of Contract
Cost
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE SECTION 15000 ET.SEQ. "STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES" AND AS THEY MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO
TIME, FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION . OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) OF 1970, AND DESIGNATION
OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES, AND TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES FOR PROJECTS
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
WHEREAS, the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 requires
each public agency is responsible for complying with the CEQA and CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, each public agency is required to adopt objectives, criteria, and specific
procedures consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines for administering its
responsibilities under CEQA, including the orderly evaluation of projects and preparation of
environmental documents; and,
WHEREAS, Federal, State, local and regional agencies including but not limited to; the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, East
Bay Municipal Utilities District, and the California Department of Fish and Game require permit
applications and approval for projects within their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Federal, State, local and regional agencies require evidence be provided of
the authority for peunit applicants to sign documents and act on behalf of their designated
agency, corporation, board or other legal entity, in the form of an adopted resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Bylaws of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority designate
the Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as the official
representative of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and has general supervision
over the administration of Authority business, affairs, and employees pursuant to the Joint
Powers Agreement and in accordance with all applicable laws;
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular meeting,
assembled on the day of , 1995, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Date:
Elizabeth Brydon
Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter- Office Memorandum
December 30, 1994
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Don Parker
Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director of the Funding Status and Recommending
Certification of Negative Declaration IS -94 -001 for the NAS Alameda Sewer
Force Main Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND:
At its regular meeting on October 25, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority directed the Executive Director to make the necessary Army Corps of engineers
applications and take all actions necessary to successfully accomplish the NAS Sewer force main
sizing project. (see attached staff report, October 5, 1994 and October 25, 1994).
Staff made applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, and prepared the Initial
Study (IS -94 -001) for the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main improvements. Copies of all
applications and the Initial Study are available for review at the ARRA Office and at City Hall
at the Alameda City Clerk's Office. The Army Corps of Engineers will be processing a separate
environmental review consistent with the federal law (National Environmental Policy Act,
NEPA)
The purposes of the Initial Study (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063 Title 14) are to:
(1) Provide the Lead Agency (the ARRA) with information to use as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare and EIR or a Negative Declaration.
(2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency (the ARRA) to modify a project, mitigation
adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify
for a Negative Declaration.
(3) Assist in the Preparation of an EIR, if one is required.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 30, 1994
Page 2
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project.
(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative
Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
The Initial Study was prepared by the ARRA staff and notification of the ARRA's intent
to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project was published in local newspapers, posted at
Alameda City Hall and the ARRA Office, and mailed directly to property owners contiguous to
the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072). The Review period was from November 21,
1994 to December 21, 1994.
ANALYSIS:
The Army Corps of Engineers is relocating the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda sewer
force main across the Oakland Inner Harbor Estuary as part of the Port of Oakland Inner Harbor
deepening project. The sewer replacement project provides a unique opportunity for the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to provide adequate sewer capacity for the future
redevelopment of NAS at a lower cost. It would be cheaper and more cost effective to expand
the sewer force main size (from 16 inches to 22 inches) while the sewer line is being relocated
by the Army Corps of Engineers. By increasing the size of the sewer line segment across the
harbor now while the sewer line is being relocated, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) and the federal government can save over two million dollars in construction
costs in the future.
ARRA staff has had several meetings with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review
the process for submitting applications for an environmental review. The Port of Oakland
participated in these meetings. It was determined at these meetings that the ARRA would make
applications for Corps of Engineers and BCDC permits for the sewer improvements. At that
time, the Port of Oakland representative, Ralph Gin, stated they would support the ARRA's
applications.
Since those initial meetings, the Port of Oakland has reversed its support and now is
opposed to the increase in the size of the sewer force main ( see letter dated December 12, 1994
to Dennis Drennan, page 3). A simple change in the Port Commissioners' ordinance could
authorize a 22 inch diameter sewer line within the proposed sewer easement.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 30, 1994
Page 3
COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY (IS -94 -001):
California Department of Fish and Game
The ARRA Office received comments on the Initial Study from two agencies during the
circulation of the Initial Study for this project:
United State Department of the Interior, Department of Fish and Wildlife Service
The federal Department of Fish and Game provided the ARRA Office with a list of
listed, proposed and candidate species that may be present in the project area. This information
may be helpful in preparing the biological assessment for this project. A full biological
assessment was prepared as part of the previous EIR's /EIS's for the NAS Sewer replacement
project. No additional impacts are anticipated in conjunction with increasing the diameter of the
sewer main 6 inches for this section of the NAS sewer force main.
Port of Oakland:
The Port of Oakland identified five issues in response to the ARRA initial study.
1. The Port of Oakland identified the alignment of the sewer line shown on the vicinity map
is not consistent with the alignment proposed by the Corps of Engineers.
The vicinity map is general in nature and not an engineering drawing. The
accompanying detailed engineering drawings from the Corps of Engineers shows the
alignment as proposed. No additional continuation of the enlargement is proposed
beyond the corps of Engineers project is intended.
2. The Port of Oakland asked to be listed as a responsible agency and requested the ARRA
apply for appropriate Port of Oakland permits for the increased sewer size of 6 inches.
The Port of Oakland attended numerous meetings with the ARRA staff and the Army
Corps of Engineers and indicated that no Port Permits were required. This is a new
request of the Port. Staff will contact the Port Authority and determine what
appropriate permits are required.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 30, 1994
Page 4
3. The Port of Oakland believes the dredging estimates are not accurate and the disposal site
is not identified.
Increased dredging volummes are an "estimate." The volume may very depending on
the accuracy of the dredging equipment. What is needed is approximately 6 inches of
additional depth. If an accurate cross section can be created with 6" of tolerance the
total amount of additional dredged material would be approximately 560 cubic yards.
The disposal site will be determined by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps
of Engineers project manager indicated that given the amount of back fill and cover over
the proposed sewer line replacement (4' of sand and 3 1/2 feet of stone) a full six inches
of dredging may not be necessary for any structural purposes.
4. The Port of Oakland asked for clarification on the growth inducing impacts of the
proposed sewer line.
As stated correctly, the project itself is not growth inducing. Substantial improvements
in the overall sewer system will be required at the Oakland Navy Depot connecting the
to main East Bay Mud sewer lines, to accommodate future growth at NAS Alameda.
Future improvement, is needed, will be evaluated in the EIR/EIS for the community
Reuse Plan.
5. The Port of Oakland requests that all property owners and Port of Oakland tenants
continuous to the project be notified by mail as required by CEQA Guidelines. The Port
asked that the Port's tenants at the northern end of the sewer project by notified.
Recent changes in the CEQA Guidelines were adopted July 8, 1994. These are the
guidelines recommended to be adopted by the ARRA at its regular meeting of January
4, 1995. Revised Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines does not require notices to be
mailed to owners or occupants of property contiguous to the project. Direct mailing is
only one of several options for providing notification.
The ARRA staff was unaware of any tenants contiguous to the project. The Union
Pacific Railroad and the State Lands Commission, among others, were notified by mail
(see attached mailing list). Notification was also provided to the Port of Oakland. No
other comments were received from any other federal, state or local jurisdictions
notified.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 30, 1994
Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT:
Cost for Corps of Engineers applications is $100.00. Application fees will be paid from
the ARRA office budget. Cost of BCDC permits is $150.00. Costs of Port of Oakland permits,
if required is unknown at the time of writing this staff report. ARRA staff will report on these
fees at the ARRA meeting.
Funding for enlarging the sewer force main replacement six inches is estimated at
approximately $150,000 by the ARRA Civil Engineers and approximately $300,000 by the
Corps of Engineers staff. Funding is now being sought through an EDA grant. EDA requires
a 25% cash match for all construction projects. City of Alameda City Manager would provide
the matching funds of approximately $75,000 from the City of Alameda sewer funds. Fees have
recently been increased.
EDA has recently indicated that $300,000 can not be transferred to the Corps of
Engineers because EDA, a federal agency does not have a Memorandum on Understanding
(MOU) with the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Corps does not won the sewer line.
ARRA staff has asked for Congressional assistance and help from the Secretary of Defense for
processing the ARRA' s grant application in a timely manner to meet the Corps of Engineers
deadlines.
Without additional assistance, grants, or permit approvals from the Corps of Engineers,
the Port of Oakland, and BCDC, the proposed sewer improvements to enlarge the NAS Alameda
sewer force main in conjunction the Auiny Corps of Engineers project will not be possible.
Thus, a future sewer improvement project for NAS Alameda will be required at greater cost,
additional peiniit applications, and additional costly dredging and potential greater environmental
impacts. Costs for future sewer improvements are estimated at over $2.5 million for
construction with an additional unknown time and costs for processing new permits.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 30, 1994
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority open the public
hearing, receive public testimony on the proposed Negative Declaration, IS -94 -001, and approve
the proposed resolution in the Attachments for the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main
Improvements.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP /erb
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution for Negative Declaration
2. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Comments
3. Port of Oakland Comments
4. Port of Oakland Letter to Dennis Drennan
On file at ARRA Office:
5. Historical Resources Information System Review
6. Initial Study IS -94 -001
7. ARRA Staff Report, October 5, 1994
8. ARRA Staff Report, October 25, 1994
9. Initial Study Mailing List
cc: Port of Oakland
Corps of Engineers
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS 94 -001, FOR THE
NAS ALAMEDA SEWER FORCE MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is the Local Reuse
Authority recognized as the responsible agency under the Federal Base Closure and
Realignment Act for the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda; and,
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment,Authority is responsible for
the administration of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970
and is required to administer the adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures
consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines under CEQA, including the orderly
evaluation of projects and preparation of environmental documents; and,
WHEREAS, a proposed Negative Declaration on the proposed NAS Alameda Sewer
Force Main Improvements was circulated for public comment between November 21 and
December 21, 1994; and
WHEREAS, several Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Environmental
Impacts Reports (EIRs) have been prepared on previous dredging project in Oakland
Harbor, California (Corps of Engineers [COE] 1979, 1984, 1988; Port of Oakland [Port]
1988, 1989); and,
WHEREAS, a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement for the Oakland Harbor Deep -Draft Navigation Improvements (SCH
91073031) was issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Oakland and
certified by the Army Corps of Engineers on , 1994 which address environmental
issues for the NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main relocation project; and,
WHEREAS, written comments were received from the following agencies: United
States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service California and the Port of
Oakland, and the issues raised were responded to in the staff report for the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority meeting of January 4, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority held a public hearing
on this Negative Declaration on January 4, 1995, and examined pertinent maps, drawings,
and documents and has considered the following written comments and testimony received
during the public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority has made the
following findings:
In Reply Refer To:
1- 1 -95 -SP -218
United States Department of the Interior RECEIVED
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DEC 1 9 1994
Ecological Services
Sacramento Field Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room E -1803
Sacramento, California 95825 -1846
Mr. David Paul Tuttle, AICP
Reuse Planner
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, California 94501 -2870
Subject:
Dear Mr. Tuttle:
9ASCITY NOF 'CE
ALAMEDA
December 9, 1994
Species List for Proposed NAS Alameda Sewer Force Main
Crossing Increase, Under Oakland Inner Harbor Estuary,
Alameda County, California
As requested by letter from your agency dated November 15, 1994, you will find
enclosed a list of listed, proposed and candidate species that may be present
in the subject project area (see Enclosure A). This list fulfills the
requirement of the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide a species list
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, (ACT).
Pertinent information concerning the distribution, life history, habitat
requirements, and published references for the listed species is available
upon request. This information may be helpful in preparing the biological
assessment for this project, if one is required. Please see Enclosure B for a
discussion of the responsibilities Federal agencies have under Section 7(c) of
the Act and the conditions under which a biological assessment must be
prepared by the lead Federal agency or its designated non - Federal
representative.
Formal consultation, pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.14, should be initiated if you
determine that a listed species may be affected by the proposed project. If
you determine that a proposed species may be adversely affected, you should
consider requesting a conference with our office pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.10.
Informal consultation may be utilized prior to a written request for formal
consultation to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to a
listed species. If a biological assessment is required, and it is not
initiated within 90 days of your receipt of this letter, you should informally
verify the accuracy of this list with our office.
We have included the candidate species that may be present in the project area
(see Enclosure A). These species are currently being reviewed by our service
and are under consideration for possible listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate species have no protection under the Endangered Species Act, but are
included for your consideration as it is possible that one or more of these
candidates could be proposed and listed before the subject project is
completed. Should the biological assessment reveal that candidate species may
be adversely affected, you may wish to contact our office for technical
assistance. One of the potential benefits from such, technical assistance is
that by exploring alternatives early in the planning process, it may be
possible to avoid conflicts that could otherwise develop, should a candidate
species become listed before the project is completed.
We appreciate your concern for endangered species. If you have further
questions, please call Laurie Stuart Simons of this office at (916) 978 -5408
extension 330. If you have any questions regarding wetlands, contact Mike
Aceituno at (916) 979 -2113.
Sincerely,
o . ,/gry,a
Joel A. Medlin
Field Supervisor
Enclosures
ENCLOSURE A
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CANDIDATE
SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN. THE AREA OR MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROPOSED
NAS ALAMEDA SEWER FORCE MAIN CROSSING INCREASE,
UNDER OAKLAND INNER HARBOR ESTUARY,
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(1- 1 -95 -SP -218, DECEMBER 9, 1994)
Listed Species
Fish
winter -run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (E)
tidewater goby, Euclyclogobius newberryi (E)
Birds
California least tern, Sterna antillarum (— albifrons),browni (E)
Mammals
San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica (E)
Proposed Species
Amphibians
California red - legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (PE)
Candidate Species
Fish
green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris (2R)
longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys (2)
Reptiles
northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata (2)
southwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata pailida (2)
Mammals
Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa phaea (2)
Pacific western big -eared bat, Plecotus townsendii townsendii (2)
greater western mastiff -bat, Eumops perotis californicus (2)
San Francisco dusky- footed woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes annectens (2)
San Joaquin Valley woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes riparia (2)
Point Reyes jumping mouse, Zapus trinotatus orarius (2)
(E) -- Endangered (T)-- Threatened (P)-- Proposed (CH)-- Critical Habitat
. (1) -- Category 1: Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient
biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or
threatened,
(2)-- Category 2: Taxa for which existing information indicated may warrant
listing, but for which substantial biological information to support a
proposed rule is lacking.
(1R)- Recommended for Category 1 status.
(2R)- Recommended for Category 2 status.
(.)-- Listing petitioned.
( *) -- Possibly extinct.
ENCLOSURE B
FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER
SECTIONS 7(a) and (c) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
SECTION 7(a) Consultation /Conference
.Requires: 1) Federal agencies to utilize•their authorities to carry out
programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2) Consultation with
FWS when a Federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species
to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence.of listed species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The
process is initiated by the Federal agency after determining the action may
affect a listed species; and 3) Conference with FWS when a Federal action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result
in 'destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. •
SECTION 7(c) Biological Assessment - -Major Construction .Activity
1
Requires Federal agencies or.their designees to prepare a Biological
Assessment (BA) for major construction activities. The BA analyzes the
effects of the action2•on listed -and proposed species: The process begins
with.a Federal agency requesting from FWS a list of proposed and listed
threatened and endangered species. The BA should be completed within 180 days
after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable).
If the'BA is'not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the list, the accuracy
of.the species list should be.informally verified with our Service. No
irreversible commitment'of resources is .to be made during the BA process which
would foreclose reasonable and prudent alternatives-to protect endangered
.species: Planning,' design, and a dministrative.actions may proceed; however,
.no construction may begin.
We recommend the following for inclusion in•the BA: an on -site inspection of
the area affected-by the proposal which may include a detailed survey of the
area to determine if the species or suitable habitat are present; a review of
literature and scientific data to determine species' distribution, habitat
.needs, and other biological - requirements; interviews with experts, including
those within-FWS, State conservation departments, universities and others who
'may have data not yet published in scientific literature; an analysis of the.
effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and
populations, including consideration Of indirect effects of the proposal on
the-species and-its habitat; an analysis- of alternative actions considered.
The BA should document the results, including a discussion of study methods
used, any problems encountered, and other relevant information. The BA should
conclude whether or not a listed or.proposed species will be affected. Upon
completion, the BA should be forwarded to our office.
jA construction project (or other undertaking having similar physical
impacts) which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment as referred to in NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)C).
2 "Effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects on an
action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of
other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action.
.DEC 19 '94 08 :40AM PORT OF OAKLAND ENVIRON DEPT
PORT OF OAKIAND
December 16, 1994
Mr. Don Parker
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
•SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY, SEWER LINE EXPANSION
P.2
Dear Mr. Parker:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration and Initial
Study for the proposed sewer line expansion. We have several outstanding
questions and concerns regarding the proposed project.
1. The proposed alignment of the sewer line shown on the unnumbered vicinity
map attributed to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is not consistent
with the alignment proposed by the Corps of Engineers and evaluated in the SEIRJS
for the Harbor Improvement project, nor is it consistent with the latter
unnumbered detailed figures. The vicinity map, also does not indicate the linear
extent of the proposed enlargement. Our understanding of the Corps' project is
that the pipeline replacement will extend into the Union Pacific (UP) I_itermodal
yard on the north side of the Estuary and have minimal impacts upon UP
operations. Is the vicinity map in error, or does the Authority propose to
relocate the pipeline as well as enlarge it? The realignment and any
continuation of the enlargement beyond the terminus of the Corps' project would
appear to have greater impacts upon UP operations than the alignment proposed and
evaluated by the Corps. The additional impacts were not evaluated in the SEIR/S,
nor have they been addressed in the Initial Study, and they may be significant.
2. The Port of Oakland should be listed as a responsible agency under CEQA
under Section 1.4 of the Initial Study, as authorization will be required from
the Port to perform construction within the Port area. For most applicants a
Port construction permit typically takes four weeks (provided CEQA has been
adequately addressed). For information about a Port permit, please contact Joe
Marsh at (510) 272 -1361. If any approval will be required- from the East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), or the State Lands Commission, they should
also be listed as a responsible agencies.
3. We believe the estimate of the increase in dredging volume required for the
project is incorrect. Please note that the entire cross section shown on the
last Figure of the Initial Study will have to be lowered at least 6 inches, not
just the portion under the pipe itself. Our estimate of the increase in dredging
volume is slightly over 600 cubic yards (not 22 cubic yards as stated in Section
2.4). The Initial Study should identify the disposal site proposed for this
material, and evaluate the anticipated impacts. Please note that Alameda will
be responsible for obtaining whatever permits are required to dredge and dispose
of this added material.
4. We infer from the discussion on growth inducement that the proposed project
in itself is not growth inducing because substantial additional improvements of
the sewer system would be required to accommodate growth, and that those
1
530 Water Street I Jack London's Waterfront x P.O. Box 2064 • Oakland, California 94604 -2064
Telephone (510) 272 -1100 r Fax (510) 272 -1172 w Cable address, PORTOFOAK, Oakland
DEC 19 '94 08 :41RM PORT OF OAKLAND ENVIRON DEPT
P.3
Plan for NAS Alameda. �edPlease notify us if. this conclusion is� not mc Reuse
correct.
5. Have all the parties that may be affected by the proposed project have
been notified of the proposed action. Please note that Section 150 72 of the
State CEQA Guidelines has recently been amended to require that notice that a
Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption is required to be sent to both
owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project. In this case, the
notice should be sent to at least both the EBMUD' and the Union Pacific Railroad,
the Port's tenant at the northern end of the sewer project, and possibly the
State Land Commission if State tidelands would be affected.
Editorial Comments,
1. Although the Supplemental EIR /S for the Oakland Harbor Deep -Draft
Navigation Improvements project evaluated the option of transport of a small
portion of the dredged material to a landfill, as stated in Section 2.4 of the
Initial Study, that option is no longer under consideration.
2. The Navy has been granted an easec1 Dt by the City of Alameda for the
portion of the sewer .line located on Alameda property. The Initial Study
(Section 1.4) incorrectly describes the agreement as a lease.
Please keep us informed of the resolution of the issues raised here, and of the
proposed date of approval of the Negative Declaration.
Sincerely,
J- es McGrat
U Environmental Manager
cc: Jake Harari, Corps of Engineers
Lars Foreman, Corps of Engineers
C : \WP51 \FILES \CEQA \94168.00M
2
.a_G• J_V• �'T 1J• VV
�.1
1...1 17 wt..,J 1 1N1 -1-1LA I...J 11 11 L.■\ S — t-
PORT OF OAKLAND
Sender's Tel. No. (510) 272 --1227
8enderos Fax No. (510) 039 -5304 '
December 12, 1994
Dennis Drennan
Director
Real Estate Division
Naval Facilities Engineering command
P. O. Box 727
San Bruno, CA 94066
Dear Mr. Drennan:
I am writing to express my concern and to request 70ux
cooperation regarding the Oakland Dredging Project. This project
is of critical national as well as regional and local importance.
As President Clinton has stated, we need to get on with it.
On November 21, 1994, the city of Alameda provided to William
R. Carsillo a draft Lease for construction of a new Navy. -sewer °line
on the Alameda side of the Oakland Inner Harbor. The City of
Alameda's Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin infori«ed us
last Thursday that she had not received to date any response from
the Navy. The attached letter of December 9, 1994, from Mr.
Carsillo, states that the form of the lease offered by Alameda is
not acceptable. I would very much appreciate your assistance in
seeing that the Lease negotiations are promptly concluded and that
the Navy provides the Port a license to enter upon both the leased
land and the Navy's adjacent uplands so that the Port can then
provide the coLps an authorisation to enter.
The Port is required under its Project Cooperation Agreement
( "PCA ") with the Azmy Corps of Engineers to provide an
authorization to enter to all lands, easements and rights of way
necessary for the project prior to the Notice to Proceed to the
Corps' contractor for the project. The Notice tsz Proceed is
expected to be issued on January 4, 1994. The authorization
required from the Port includes a right -of -entry toe • areas
rpgi 4 ,... c' replace thA�' ; wer line for the Navy. The Port is very
concend' whether the Navy is prepared to cooperate to meet the
time requirement. , ; i,.
t. L C, .'
530 Water Street it Jack London's Waterfront at P.O. Box 2064 m Oakland, Callfomia 94804 -2064
• Telephone (510) 272 -1100 ■ Fax (510) 272 -1172 at Cable address, PORTOFOAK, Oakland
Dennis Drennan
December 12, 1994
Page 2
The Port on November 4, 1994, provided to Mr. Carsillo a draft
,A0AX.entiovhe
new Navy sewer line on the Oakland side of the
pAkv.IAner.,•.Harbor- Despite repeated efforts we did not receive
anything from Mr. Carsillo until last Friday, December 9.. Mr.
Carsillo's attached letter raises several issues with the Port's
form.:of Easement for the new Navy sewer line. The Port is willing
to grant a peLmanent replacement easement for that portion of the
sewer- pipe line within Port jurisdiction (Item (3) a. of attached
letter) , even though Alameda's lease for the sewer line in Alameda
will be for a term not exceeding 50 years. The Port, however, is
not willing to provide an easement for a 22 inch diameter sewer
line for the following reasons (Item (3) b. of attached letter);
1. The Port is required only to provide a replacement
easement for the existing 16 inch diameter sewer line;
2. The dredging project EIR /EIS covers replacement of the
exl t ing 16 inch diameter sewer line not the installation
O.aa 22 inch diameter sewer line; and
3. The Board of Part Commissioners' ordinance authorizes
only a 16 inch diameter sewer line.
With respect to Item (3)c of the attached letter, Mr.
Carsillo may not fully understand the subject paragraph of the
easement. All this paragraph states is that until such time as the
newz16••inch diameter sewer line installation is completed, the Navy
does not have to give up its current easement rights nor does it
#ave rights to enter the replacement easement area. The commitment
to replace the Navy sewer line is a part of the aforementioned PCA
document. The Navy loses nothing unless and until the sewer line
is completed and operational.
With respect to Item (3) d of the attached letter, language has
been- :.added . to the draft easement to emphasize that the Navy will
bear -no.. .;costs in connection with the •installation of the
replacement l ine .
With respect to Item (3) e of the attached letter (reference to
lease instead of easement) the Port has no objection to changing
this typographical error.
With respect to Item 4 of the attached letter the Port is
willing to add language that the Navy will quitclaim its original
easement rights when installation of the new sewer line is
completed to.the satisfaction of the Navy.
•
Dennis Drennan
December 12, 1994
Page 3
Attached is a revised copy of the Port's proposed. replacement
easement together with red-lined copy showing the changes discussed
above.
Your cooperation in helping the Port and the Corps meet their
mission is greatly appreciated.
Attachments
y yours,
es W. Foster
Deputy Executive Director
cc & att.: William R. Carsillo
oc:
Lt. Col. Walsh
Rick Ferrin
Rob Andrews.
Terry O'Rourke
Thomas D. Clark, Esq.
4mmmmuumummummammmmummuksw,--
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
COMMENDING E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE ALAMEDA REUSE
AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS THE FIRST CHAIRPERSON OF THE ARRA AND
AS CITY OF ALAMEDA COUNCILMEMBER AND MAYOR
TO ALL LET IT BE KNOWN that for his record of active participation on community affairs
over many years, and as the first chair person of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, E.
WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. has earned the affection and admiration of this community and ARRA staff;
and
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. was first elected to the Alameda City Council March
7, 1989, and served as Councilmember from April 18, 1989 until he was elected Mayor on March, 5,
1991, serving as Mayor from April 1, 1991 through December 20, 1994; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure, E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. has served on numerous agencies,
including, among others; the Alameda County Waste Management Authority; Metropolitan Transportation
Commission; Alameda County Congestion Management Agency; East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Commission; Alameda County Mayors' Conference; Alameda County Economic Development Advisory
Board; The Alameda Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; and the Alameda County
Transportation Authority; and
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. should be congratulated on his efficient response to
base closure and reuse issues between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
representatives of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, NAS Alameda and NADEP
Alameda; and
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR.'S accomplishments deserve recognition and
commendation, among these are his roll in establishing the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Base Reuse Advisory Group; and
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. served as the first chairperson leader and spiritual
guide of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. has encouraged and supported community programs
and patriotic affairs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
does hereby express its sincere appreciation for his contributions of time, effort and experience for the
benefit of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
acknowledging his unbounded energy, resourcefulness and unselfish dedication to the community, does
hereby congratulate E. WILLIAM WITHROW JR. on his years and service to the community and
extends its deepest gratitude for his many labors on behalf of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, friends
and admirers throughout the community and the Bay Area extend E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. their
congratulations and best wishes for continued good health, success and happiness.
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
COMMENDING RICHARD A. ROTH FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS A
MEMBER AND AS CITY OF ALAMEDA COUNCILMEMBER AND
VICE MAYOR
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY records its
appreciation for the years of service faithfully rendered by RICHARD A. ROTH as Vice Mayor
and Councilmember of the City of Alameda and member of the ARRA;
WHEREAS, RICHARD A. ROTH was first elected to the Alameda City Council March
5, 1991 and served as Councilmember from April 16, 1991 until December 20, 1994; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure, RICHARD A. ROTH has served on numerous agencies,
including, among others; the City Airport Advisory Committee, the Alameda Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners, the Industrial Development Authority, the Public Improvement
Corporation, the Community Improvement Commission, the NAS Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, Alameda, County Land Use Commission and the East Bay Conversion and Reuse
Commission; and
WHEREAS, RICHARD A. ROTH'S accomplishments deserve recognition and
commendation, among these are his role in establishing the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Base Reuse Advisory Group; and
WHEREAS, RICHARD A. ROTH has encouraged and supported community programs
and patriotic affairs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority does hereby express its sincere appreciation for his contributions of time, effort and
experience for the benefit of the City of Alameda.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
acknowledging his energy and resourcefulness, does hereby congratulate RICHARD A. ROTH
on his years and service to the community and extends its deepest gratitude for his many labors
on behalf of the ARRA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
friends and admirers throughout the community and the Bay Area extend RICHARD A. ROTH
their congratulations and best wishes for continued good health, success and happiness.
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
COMMENDING DONALD PARKER FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TO ALL LET IT BE KNOWN that for his record of dynamic and effective leadership
of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Donald Parker has earned the affection
and admiration of his staff, surrounding communities and county; and
WHEREAS, Donald Parker was the first Executive Director of the city of Alameda's
Base Conversion Office serving from August 1993 through May 1994, was appointed by
Alameda City Manager to serve as Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority from May 1994 through January 1995; and
WHEREAS, Donald Parker established the procedures for the Joint Power Agreement
establishing the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority which is now a model for
other communities affected by Base Closure; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure, he successfully attained federal grants to fund the Base
Reuse effort, and began the comprehensive Base Reuse Study to create an Interim Reuse
Strategy and Long Teiui Base Reuse Plan; and
WHEREAS, Donald Parker demonstrated his legislative expertise resulting in the
Federal Government amending the McKinney Act to make it more amenable to all parties
involved in base closure; and
WHEREAS, through his leadership and consensus building efforts was able to
coordinate and focus the efforts of the many diverse civilian and military groups involved in
Base Closure such as the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission, the Base
Reuse Advisory Group, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda Naval Aviation Depot, Engineering Facility Activity
West, San Francisco Public Works Center, Commander Naval Base San Francisco, Bay Area
Base Transition Office; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude for his
contributions of time, effort, and expertise for the benefit of the City of Alameda, City of
San Leandro, City of Oakland, and County of Alameda.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, staff members, and his many friends and supporters throughout the area extend to
DONALD PARKER their congratulations on a job well done and best wishes for continued
good health, success, and happiness.
CORRESPONDENCE
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
510- 263 -2870
FAX 510 -521 -3764
December 23, 1994
Mr. Joshua Gotbaum
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security
Room 3D814
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301 -3300
Re: Interim Final Rule Amendments (32 CFR Parts 90 and 91)
Dear Mr. Gotbaum:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Interim Final Rule
Amendments related to "Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance"
(32 CFR Parts 90 and 91). These comments are provided on behalf of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA "). The ARRA is the entity responsible for developing and
implementing the local reuse and redevelopment plan for the Naval Air Station, Alameda ( "NAS
Alameda "), and Naval Aviation Depot, Alameda ( "NADEP Alameda "), referred to jointly
throughout this letter as NAS, Alameda. Our comments offer a proposal for a "joint venture"
relationship between the federal government and the ARRA that could serve as a national
economic model for other communities affected by base closure.
NAS Alameda and NADEP Alameda are located almost entirely within the City of
Alameda, California. These military facilities, in combined land area, comprise approximately
one third of the City's entire land mass. In addition, both bases employ large numbers of City
residents. Closure and redevelopment of military facilities in Alameda will have an enormous
fiscal impact on our city, a city which, like others in California, is already struggling with
economic adversity. Current financial challenges have forced the City to leave large portions
of its capital improvement program unfunded. The City government has had to adopt a four -day
work week in order to conserve scarce financial resources. Moreover, the City continues to
have difficulties meeting the matching grant requirements of the Office of Economic Adjustment
( "OEA "). The impact of base closure and redevelopment on our community will, therefore, be
especially significant in light of the City's present economic situation.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense December 23, 1994
for Economic Security Page 2
Clearly, the City of Alameda has no significant financial resources to bring to the base
closure process. Alternatively, it has a precarious financial situation that, if further jeopardized,
might have serious repercussions on the economic well being of the community.
The condition of the bases in Alameda also makes our circumstances uniquely
burdensome. Presently, there is no apparent reuse potential and no significant ready market
for either military facility. Unlike the Presidio of San Francisco, for instance, there is no
organization or agency with immediate existing reuse intentions. In addition, the large number
of single - purpose buildings and buildings not meeting appropriate civilian building and safety
code standards makes our redevelopment scenario more difficult. Large sums of money, which
the City does not have or expect to have, will be necessary to upgrade, modify or demolish these
nonconforming buildings. Finally, the utilities and other physical infrastructure of the bases are
dated and need repair or replacement to meet required standards.
With the condition of the base as a backdrop, there is also the absence of a supportive
private or public lending community. It is unlikely that private lenders or public bond
underwriters will come forth until the environmental clean -up of major portions of the base have
been completed and market absorption has been established. Consequently, the City of Alameda
and the ARRA faces the prospect of a tremendous financial burden without any available lending
resources.
Because of the aforementioned hardships facing the Alameda community, and
furthermore, due to lack of available financial resources, the success of the base conversion
process depends entirely on a close working relationship between the ARRA and the federal
government. The new framework put forth in the revised rules significantly improves the
potential for such a relationship. Now what is needed is a more precise definition of the roles
and relationships between the federal government and the local reuse authority.
The following is an outline of the type of relationship that will be required in order for
base conversion to be successful at the Naval Air Station, Alameda. The federal government
must recognize that it is the only available lender of any scale to support this process at the
outset. Therefore, it will be key that the federal government provide the initial financial
resources to sustain the continuous use and occupancy of the base. The seed money would be
required to upgrade infrastructure, to demolish economically obsolescent structures and to
support negative operating cash flows during the early years. This financial role is a fairly
typical role played in large scale private development by equity partners. By making this
investment, the federal government assures that it ultimately will receive some value for the land
and marketable buildings. The seed money provided by the federal government would be
considered a loan that would be repaid over time. As infrastructure improvements are made and
as the physical landscape is put in a condition that is more acceptable, increased market potential
would be created for the base. It is also anticipated that the environmental condition of the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense December 23, 1994
for Economic Security Page 3
base would be remediated to an acceptable condition so that the lending community could
participate in the economic development process. Thus, over time, the following revenues
would be generated that could be considered as resources to repay the federal loan.
First, positive net operating cash flow may be generated by the reuse of the existing
physical assets. This assumes that a market will develop for these resources and that rapid
conversion can take place so these assets do not deteriorate before they can be put to use.
Second, as the environmental conditions are remediated and as markets can be demonstrated,
it is anticipated that the lending community would become involved. The likely form of initial
involvement would be to supply public improvement bonds or Mello Roos bonds that would
serve as resources to repay the federal government for its investment in infrastructure
improvements. Third, as large sites are cleared of existing economically obsolescent buildings,
remediated to acceptable levels and supplied with infrastructure, they will be made available for
sale to the development community. This also assumes that these sites will have achieved the
necessary zoning and entitlement status to make them acceptable candidates for development.
As sales would be made by the ARRA, the net sales proceeds would also be used to repay the
federal loan. [The relationship described above is somewhat typical of joint ventures created
between development entities and equity partners on large scale private developments.]
The net result of the relationship described between the federal government and the local
reuse authority (the ARRA) is to create a win -win situation as opposed to an inevitable lose -lose
situation if this relationship does not exist.
It is realistic to assume, in the case of the Naval Air Station, Alameda, that due to the
current condition of the physical assets, there is no residual land value or perhaps even a
negative value. As previously described, an investment must first be made in remediating the
land, demolishing unusable facilities, and supplying acceptable infrastructure before positive
values can be achieved. By making the "seed money" available, the federal government assures
itself of recapturing both its investment and ultimately a substantial value for the land. In
addition, the federal government also assures that economic development will take place, jobs
will be created, and federal income taxes will be generated.
This scenario also creates a win situation for the local and regional community.
Naturally, if there is no utilization and development of the property, the local community will
suffer not only due to its loss of jobs, but also because of the drain on the financial resources
of the community. On the other hand, with development, there will be the creation of jobs and
economic opportunity that will result in the community generating property taxes, sales taxes,
and administrative fees.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense December 23, 1994
for Economic Security Page 4
The basic revision we suggest is that the conveyance procedures embrace a "joint
venture" type relationship between local communities and the federal government. Such an
arrangement best acknowledges the reality that only the federal government can assist local
communities in initially financing the cost of base reuse and redevelopment and by making this
initial loan, it can be assured that it will receive an ultimate return on the land. At the same
time, however, this joint venture type of process would permit local communities to return, over
time, the benefits of local economic development and job creation.
The suggestions put forth in this letter offer a dramatic departure from current thinking.
To carry out this concept, it is suggested that the Naval Air Station be treated as a national
demonstration model. This status would fulfill a pledge already given by President Clinton. We
look forward to working with you to consider such an arrangement.
V ry truly your
Don Parker
Executive Director
DP /eb
cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums
The Honorable William Cassidy
Bill Norton, Alameda City Manager
Captain Terry Dillon, Real Estate Division
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Members
Carl Anthony, East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission