1996-01-31 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda High School Cafeteria
West Wing
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
Alameda, CA
Wednesday, January 31, 1996
5:30 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the
rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points
presented verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings.
I. ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 3, 1996
B. Approval of Additions to Minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 1, 1995 and December 6,
1995.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Request to the Office of Economic Adjustment.
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Selection of Moffatt & Nichol Engineers to
Prepare a Detailed Condition Survey and Master Plan for the NAS Utility Systems and Authorize the
Executive Director to Execute a Contract.
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to Represent the
ARRA and Apply for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant.
III. ACTION ITEMS
F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption by Resolution of the NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan.
ilk Printed on recycled paper
1
G. Presentation by Will Travis, Executive Director of BCDC and Report from the Executive Director
Recommending the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Bay Conservation
Development Commission Port Priority Designation on the 220 -Acre Northern Runway Area of NAS
Alameda.
IV. ORAL REPORTS
H. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the ARRA on BRAG
Activities.
I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on
1. Special Legislation
2. Update on Interim Lease Activity
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter over which the Governing Body has
jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.)
VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Note:
* . Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Margaret Ensley, ARRA
Secretary, at 263 -2870 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
* Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
* Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
* Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
2
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'
Wednesday, January 3, 1996
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
I. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice -Chair
Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City of
Alameda; Alternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of
Oakland; Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda (replaced by Alternate
Tony Daysog at 6:34 p.m.); Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro;
Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for
Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda
County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (replaced by Alternate David Brown at 7:25
p.m.); Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG);
Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District.
Absent: None.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 1, 1995 and December 6, 1995.
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Selection of
DRI/McGraw Hill for the Alameda Science and Technology Center Feasibility Study and
Authorization for the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute the Contract.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Request for Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of
Alameda Naval Air Station to the Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES).
Member Chan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Corbett seconded the
motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote - 9.
III. ACTION ITEMS
Due to the minor nature of item III.G., ARRA Executive Director Kay Miller requested that it be
moved to the top of the Action Items agenda.
G. Recommendation from the BRAG Modifying Language to Chapter 1.0 ( Introduction) and
the Goals and Objectives (Goal B2: Enhance Employment Opportunities and C1: Housing
Opportunities).
Alternate Alves made a motion to change the wording on Goal Cl, Objectives: "Expand housing
opportunities toiuclude home ownership by low income households." Member Chan stated that
this had been voted on at the last meeting. However, the minutes for the December meeting did not
Ito Printed on recycled paper
include a detail of votes taken on individual wording changes. Member Arnerich stated that this
issue had already been approved and should not be revisited. Member Mannix stated that this would
constitute a dual vote and that the tapes should be checked to clarify the issue. Member Corbett
requested that in the future, every vote should be recorded in the minutes. Alternate Alves stated that
his recollection was that they had approved "housing opportunities," and he was asking specifically
that they include "home ownership opportunities." Alternate Brooks stated that the ARRA could
avoid a potential conflict with two votes by specifying that the intent is to include opportunities for
home ownership for low income households and to put in whatever language was passed at the
previous meeting if it reflects that language, and if it does not, to add that language. Chair
Appezzato directed ARRA staff to handle it. Alternate Alves withdrew his motion.
A motion was made to adopt the BRAG modifying language by Member Mannix and seconded
by Member Corbett. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 9.
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Transportation,
Open Space and Conservation, and Health and Safety, and Implementation Elements
(including Strategy and Financial Analyses, Homeless Assistance Component [with Legally
Binding Agreement], and Implementation Action Plan) of the Long -Range Community Reuse
Plan.
Chair Appezzato asked if there were any speakers to the issue; there were none. Paul Tuttle, Planner,
was introduced. A Speaker's Slip was then submitted by Tony Daysog.
Speaker:
Mr. Daysog asked for clarification on page 9 -26, where it lists property taxes as a revenue source for
the Alameda City General Fund. He asked if all of the property taxes and tax increments that come
as a result of property taxes, go to the Redevelopment Agency or the ARRA and not to the Alameda
General Fund. Chair Appezzato pointed out four areas that addressed this question: (1) the bottom
of page 9 -15, "If the base is designated as a Redevelopment Project Area, a portion of the increase
in property tax revenues ... will go to the. designated redevelopment agency "; (2) page 9 -17 "One
of the key criteria for determining how the project area will be established will be whether or not the
legislative authority will allow the City of Alameda to retain some of the tax increment to pay for
ongoing municipal services "; (3) Page 9 -24, paragraph 9 -5, "All future development, regardless of
whether the tenant/property owner is a private entity, a nonprofit organization, or a public agency,
should pay a fair share of the costs in a manner consistent with applicable laws ... "; and, (4) page
9 -4, third paragraph, "... all nonprofit entities who will occupy space at the Base have agreed to pay
an ongoing public assessment in lieu of property taxes." Chair Appezzato further stated that the
City Council, hopefully, will have the authority to take allocations from the tax increment and apply
it to the General Fund. Mr. Daysog then asked a question on the line on page 9 -15, "... a portion
of the increases in property tax revenues...." His question was "Is not the property tax increment
really equal to the property taxes in the case of the Base redevelopment ?" Chair Appezzato stated
that it starts at the base line and the base line is zero on the date you establish; the increment begins
after that date.
Planner Paul Tuttle then introduced the Transportation element. Member DeWitt asked to vote on
the elements separately and Chair Appezzato stated that was the intention.
2
A motion was made by Member DeWitt to endorse the Transportation element of the Reuse
Plan. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous voice vote - 9.
Chair Appezzato complimented the staff and consultants on the easy -to -read form and the content
of the Plan. He then stated that the present figures indicate that a 3 percent revenue surplus over
expenses is very low and 10 percent is a goal that we must strive for.
Chair Appezzato pointed out that on page 6(c) of the draft LBA (Legally Binding Agreement), "(1)
signing" should have been "(1) signage." Page 12 and 13, where it specifies notices to the ARRA,
the HCD, the Collaborative, etc., he requested the addition of the Alameda City Manager. Member
Arnerich advised there is now a street address for the Housing Development Manager on Webster
that can be inserted into the LBA on page 13.
Paul Tuttle introduced the Open Space and Conservation element, stating that due to the shutdown
in Washington, D.C., the exact size of the Wildlife Refuge has not been determined. The element
was written without specifying its exact size but, in any case, would be no smaller than 398 acres.
Chair Appezzato asked if there were any speakers on this issue. Since there were none, he opened
the issue for Commission discussion. Member DeWitt voiced his concern with the amount of land
being put into Public Conveyance (47 %). He pointed out in the President's five- points for base reuse,
economics was the main area. He further stated that as the plan now stands, the revenue surplus is
only 4 percent over expenses and as such, is a risk for the taxpayers. Member DeWitt further stated
that this plan, with its large number of public conveyances, does not meet the goal of providing an
economic benefit to this City. Therefore, he will oppose any public conveyances unless he is shown
they will not be a burden on the taxpayers of the City. Member Arnerich stated that he agreed with
Member DeWitt on the amount of acreage being taken at the Naval Air Station and that the Wildlife
Refuge should be kept at 398 acres (100 acres more than the Alameda Golf Course) to ensure that
while wildlife is protected, the economic benefits are viable to the City. Chair Appezzato reminded
the Commission that this has been a two -year process and all of these issues have been addressed.
Alternate Brooks reminded the ARRA that there had been an Audubon study that concluded that a
Wildlife Refuge would generate revenue for the City. Member Corbett added that it was not proven
that the 4 percent profit margin resulted from the amount of property being set aside and that the
open space and shoreline in Alameda is an important part of the City's image. Dena Belzer, a
consultant from BAE (Bay Area Economics), stated that the numbers are speculative and based on
a 25 -year build out. She stated that the Wildlife Refuge was not factored into the 4 percent figure
and the remaining property conveyances are subject to in -lieu fees for ongoing public services.
A motion was made by Member Mannix to endorse the Open Space & Conservation element
of the Reuse Plan. Member Chan seconded the motion and it passed with the following voice
vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1- Member DeWitt.
Planner Tuttle introduced the Health and Safety element, including two issues that were being added
from the Planning Department: Airport Operations & Safety and Noise.
A motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy to endorse the Health and Safety element of the
Reuse Plan. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed a unanimous voice vote - 9.
3
Planner Tuttle introduced the Implementation element. On the discussion regarding infrastructure
financing, Member Chan stated that, at her request, the County Economic Development staff has
offered to do a joint workshop with ARRA on all facets of infrastructure financing. This suggestion
met with approval. Chair Appezzato endorsed the idea of a special financing workshop before final
decisions are made.
On page 9 -24 and 9 -25, Member Chan requested the following addition: "... consistent with
applicable law, future ARRA policy."
Alternate Alves stated that on page 9 -21, it refers to selling single family units to raise funds, yet the
single family, 2- bedroom bungalows are being allocated to the Homeless Collaborative. Planner
Tuttle said that the section refers to the `Big Whites," the one -acre sites. Alternate Alves asked if
we were committing to the specific units now. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that the specific parcels were
approved in the Property Disposal element that was approved previously.
Mr. Tuttle added that along with policies that deal with the homeless, this Implementation section
included the draft Legally Binding Agreement. Executive Director Miller added that this is a specific
requirement for submitting the plan to the Navy and requires approval by HUD as meeting the needs
of the homeless. The Chair asked Executive Director Miller if she foresaw agreeable resolution to
the last Legally Binding Agreement with the Homeless Collaborative on the BOQ. She responded
that the issue concerns a request from Operation Dignity for the BOQ; however, the BOQ is an
integral part of the Pan Pacific University PBC. The Enlisted Quarters and individual housing units
will not meet their needs and Staff is working with the Homeless Collaborative to explore: the
options. One option is to start a dialog with HUD (Housing and Urban Development) to help fund
an off -site facility to meet their needs.
A motion was made by Member DeWitt to endorse the Implementation Strategy element of
the Reuse Plan with the addition of Member Chan's requested three words, "future ARRA
policy" to page 9 -25. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous
voice vote - 9.
Planner Tuttle explained that the Implementation Action Plan segment was a summary of all the
other policies from each section. Alternate Daysog suggested enhancing the role of the private sector
in meetings with the county, city, and utility sectors. Chair Appezzato stated that the utilities had
held several major meetings already. There would also probably be meetings as a follow -on to
Member Chan's suggested workshop.
Member Corbett cited page 10 -26, item (j), "The marketing of NAS Alameda must occur within the
broader context of an economic development strategy for the City of Alameda." She requested the
addition of the words "and the County of Alameda" to the end of the sentence. Member DeWitt
concurred.
Member DeWitt moved to endorse the Implementation Action Plan element of the Reuse Plan.
Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes:
I - Alternate Daysog.
4
Chair Appezzato complimented everyone on a job well done, including the BRAG. Alternate
Daysog asked for a point of clarification. He asked if the previous vote was to add the words "and
the County, of Alameda" or to vote on the entire Implementation Action Plan. The Chair answered
that the vote was on the entire Implementation Action Plan and included the three words that
Member Corbett requested. Alternate Daysog then changed his vote from No to Aye. The
motion passed with a unanimous voice vote - 9.
The Chair again complimented the BRAG, citing that the countless hours they had put in had made
the ARRA Governing Body's job much easier.
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval, in Concept, of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Budget Request to the Office of Economic
Adjustment.
Executive Director Miller stated that this budget proposal was for about $2 million. She then
detailed new budget items. In response to a question from Chair Appezzato on the time line, the
Executive Director explained that by the end of January, OEA will respond with their approval or
disapproval of these various items. At the January 31 meeting, the Governing Body will be asked
to take action on the final budget. She further explained that Staff would be applying for a grant
from the State of California for $100,000 to help defray the matching requirement. For a $2 million
OEA grant, the City match is 25% or $500,000. This $100,000 would reduce the match to $400,000.
Speaker:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, asked that we declare war on environmental toxic cleanup
at NAS Alameda and request funds as soon as possible to contract with several different cleanup
companies by parceling the base and having crews work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and pay
bonuses for early completion.
Tony Daysog, Alternate for Member Arnerich, stated that many in the business community feel that
too much of the City's monetary resources are going into the base conversion to the detriment of the
economic development of the remainder of the City of Alameda. He asked that the budget not be
voted on but instead, be returned to Staff to prioritize the top three or four budget items for funding.
He felt that with the budget crisis deficit at $250,000, the $400,000 asked of the City in match, both
in money and in -kind services, was too much.
The Executive Director pointed out that the current match was $440,000, a large part of which was
in -kind City staff services, including BRAG members' time. Alternate Daysog indicated that he
understood, but in -kind staff services put toward base conversion mean that plans for the other
districts of Alameda are set aside. Alternate Brooks stated that it would be a problem not to proceed
because it is not possible to return to OEA in six months and request additional funds. She asked
what budget items Alternate Daysog thought were unnecessary because she thought every item on
the list needed to be done in the next twelve months. Alternate Daysog felt that Staff should
determine what should be deleted. Member DeWitt stated that it was essential that we keep working
as long as financial support was available from the federal government.
5
Gail Greely, Ex- Officio, AUSD, voiced the school district's frustration that the school district has
applied to OEA for funding but had been repeatedly denied.
A motion was made by Member Mannix recommending approval, in concept, of the ARRA
budget request to the OEA. Alternate Leonhardy seconded the motion and it passed with the
following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1- Alternate Daysog.
F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Direct Staff to Prepare
Initial Background Reports Necessary to Initiate the Formation of a Redevelopment Project
Area for NAS Alameda and to Prepare Special Legislation Necessary to Establish the Project
Area.
Executive Director Miller stated that the consultants had recommended the formation of an RPA
(Redevelopment Project Area) in the Implementation Strategy. An RPA, with its possibility of tax
increment financing as a financing mechanism, is one of the financing tools that every base in the
State of California has relied on. She further stated that this request was to endorse taking the first
steps to look at the possibility of forming an RPA. She stressed that this does not commit the ARRA
to the development of an RPA. Alternate Brown recommended that Staff work with City, County,
and School District personnel; the Executive Director advised him that the intent was to do so.
Alternate Daysog requested that on page 3, the second bullet of the staff report, "Allow for a portion
of tax increment proceeds to be used to pay for essential fire and police services" be changed to add
the words "school district." Chair Appezzato said he could not support that request. Dena Belzer
of BAE stated that the school district would be made whole for any loss in revenue.
The Executive Director explained that the process of forming an RPA takes from twelve to eighteen
months or more and the base needs to be established as early as possible.
A motion was made by Member Corbett to direct ARRA staff to take the first steps to prepare
the initial background reports and special legislation necessary to establish a Redevelopment
Project Area. Member Mannix seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous voice vote
- 9.
IV. ORAL REPORTS:
H. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the
ARRA on BRAG Activities.
Lee Perez, BRAG Chair, reported that there would be a Public Workshop on January 11, 7:00 -9:00
p.m. in the Cafeteria of Historic Alameda High School. He then complimented the eleven
Chairpersons of the various BRAG committees, Alice Garvin, and all of the members of the BRAG
who have spent a tremendous amount of time and done exemplary work.
. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on:
Executive Director Kay Miller reported that: (1) the Seaport Advisory Committee would be meeting
on January 4 and she would be requesting that the Port Priority designation be removed from 220
6
acres along the Estuary; (2) Captain Christensen will brief the ARRA on the additional military
housing request at the March 6 meeting; (3) Current lease negotiations included an offer to UARCO
and CARSTAR and staff was awaiting their response; active negotiations were underway with
Giannotti; (4) The MARAD (Maritime Administration) ship currently berthed at the NAS pier is
being done under an MOU with the Navy and the ARRA does not receive any monies from its
berthing. As quickly as the Navy no longer continuing military need for those piers, the ARRA will
enter into a lease agreement with the Navy and in turn, with MARAD, to begin generating revenue;
(5) A February meeting has not yet been scheduled. A decision will be made at the January 31
meeting whether or not a meeting is needed in February.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMEND
Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, complimented the ARRA on a job well done. He then
commented that a previous proposal that mothballed ships be divided between Alameda NAS, Mare
Island Naval Shipyard, and Hunter's Point had been rejected by the BRAG. He suggested that as
a courtesy, Mayor -elect Willie Brown be advised that Mare Island and Hunter's Point could divide
the ships 50 -50.
Richard Nevelyn, Hornet volunteer, requested that more copies of the entire agenda packet be
available at the ARRA meetings and that 10 -20 binders be available at the community workshop.
Member Corbett reminded all that there are copies available at the local libraries. Chair Appezzato
requested that more copies be available.
Ann Mitchum, BRAG participant, related a problem she encountered at a BRAG meeting. Chair
Appezzato directed Ms. Mitchum to meet with Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin after the
meeting to discuss the situation.
Bill Smith stated that he wanted to back up Ms. Mitchum in her complaint. He then discussed his
support of electric bikes and the need for additional copies of the complete agenda packet at the
ARRA meetings.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
GU-IL .tk-41-11
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
7
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
January 24, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Margaret E. Ensley
ARRA Secretary
SUBJECT: Additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 1, 1995 and
December 6, 1995.
At the regular meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority on January 3, 1996,
Mayor Corbett requested that the minutes reflect any item on which the ARRA takes a vote. In
order to rectify the lack of specificity in the November 1 and December 6, 1995 minutes of votes
taken on individual wording changes to the Reuse Plan, I hereby submit minutes for those meetings
with those changes added.
For your convenience, I have used italics on the new sections and placed a vertical line to the right
of each area so added.
Respectfully submitted,
OAX/tg. J.'s-417
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
/mee
tot Printed on recycled paper
APPROVED ADDITIONS TO THE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 1, 1995
The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
I. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th
Congressional District; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Jay
Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Councilmember
"Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda (replaced by Alternate Tony Daysog at 9:00 p.m.);
Alternate Garry Loeffler (left at 9:00 p.m.) for Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San
Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for
Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Alternate Mark Friedman (left at
6:40 p.m.) for Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors,
District 3; Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group
(BRAG); Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
Absent: None.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of October 5, 1995.
A motion was made by Member Mannix to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Alternate Loeffler. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
8. Noes: None. Abstentions: 1 - Member Arnerich
III. ACTION ITEMS
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Introduction,
Goals and Objectives, and Disposition Strategies Elements of the Long -Range
Community Reuse Plan.
Executive Director Kay Miller stated that the ARRA was being presented with one of the
most complex and critical decision chapters of the entire Reuse Plan —the Disposition
Strategy.
D. Paul Tuttle, ARRA Planner, stated that the BRAG had approved the Introduction,
Goals and Objectives, and Disposition Strategies elements with the following five
changes: (1) replace references to "Alameda West" with "the western portion of
Alameda "; (2) delete any reference to women as a minority or disadvantaged group in the
Goals and Objectives; (3) In sections on Goals and Objectives, Housing, and Jobs, delete
any reference to cultural and ethnic diversity and put it in the beginning as one strong
statement; (4) various editorial changes; and (5) add an implementation goal that the plan
would be a guide for future development and that no changes would occur to the plan
its 4 Printed on recycled paper
unless there was a full public review process. Staff has a sixth recommendation that the
BRAG Vision Statement be added in the Introduction as part of the Goals and Objectives.
In response to a request from the Chair if any commissioners had any difficulty with the
BRAG changes, Greg Alves voiced a concern about a section of the Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space section F, page 13. He requested the terminology be changed to read
"protect appropriate portions of the bay shoreline as naturrd/landscaped open space."
He then pointed out page 14, under "Conserve and protect vegetation, wildlife, and water
quality resources" Goal G2 Objectives, he would like to see the following change:
"create, designate a wildlife refuge park within the western part of the western section."
Member Mannix pointed out that on housing objectives, page 10, goal C1, Objectives, the
second bullet closes out "... as much as possible considering the need to provide a mix
o f housing types" and p a g e 11, second bullet f r o m the t o p , " ... a mixture of housing
densities." He requested that a reference be included to "housing consistent with current
standards as contained within the Alameda Municipal Code" to clear up vagueness
regarding density. ARRA Assistant General Counsel Heather McLaughlin stated that it
would be clearer to refer to the Charter. Member Mannix agreed.
Alternate Friedman voiced his concern that the BRAG had removed the reference to
women as a minority because economic discrimination continues against women.
ARRA Executive Director Miller suggested that the BRAG changes be voted on and then
each of the sections separately. Alternate Leonhardy asked that the BRAG suggestions
be considered separately, as there were some he did not agree on. He asked if BRAG
Chairperson Lee Perez could comment on the reasoning behind the changes, it might
clear up questions.
To a question from Chair Appezzato asking what exactly was being voted on, Paul Tuttle,
ARRA Planner, requested that the ARRA endorse the Introduction section of the plan with
the Goals and Objectives— including the BRAG changes and modifications as well as
changes from the ARRA. It was decided to go page by page.
BRAG Recommended Change #1: The first BRAG change dealt with changing "Alameda
West" throughout the text to the "western portion of Alameda." This was done due to
community input that the title "Alameda West" was an inappropriate name for the
neighborhood.
The recommendation was accepted by a unanimous voice vote.
BRAG Recommended Change #2: Pages 9 and 10 in Land Use, Economic Employment,
and Housing sections, the BRAG recommended that women be deleted as a minority
group. After discussion by governing body members, a motion was made by Member
DeWitt and seconded by Member Mannix to accept the BRAG 's recommendation to strike
the category "women" as a minority group.
The motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 3. Noes: 6.
BRAG Recommended Change #3: In sections on Goals and Objectives, Housing, and
Jobs, delete any reference to cultural and ethnic diversity, instead placing one strong
statement at the beginning of the document as well as the Housing and Employment
2
Opportunities sections. Alternate Friedman stated that he could not support removing
it without seeing what the replacement would be. Alternate Leonhardy stated that he
could not support taking it out anywhere. Vice -Chair Swanson requested that the
proposed replacement statement be brought to the ARRA as well as the statement the
BRAG proposed be stricken. Chair Appezzato directed the BRAG to bring back specific
language for consideration.
BRAG Recommended Change #4: Editorial changes, commas, misspellings, etc. Chair
Appezzato stated that there was approval for those items.
BRAG Recommended Change #5: Add a goal dealing with implementation —that the plan
be followed in all implementation documents including zoning, redevelopment activities,
and that no changes would occur to the plan unless there was a full public review
process. Chair Appezzato, with informal agreement from the ARRA, asked that language
also be brought back for review.
Staff Recommended Change #6: The BRAG Vision Statement be added in the
Introduction as part of the Goals and Objectives. Chair Appezzato, after asking if there
was any dissent and receiving none, stated that the BRAG Vision Statement should be
added to the Introduction.
Speakers:
Tony Daysog stated that in the public there are some people who would like to see very
strong statements in the Community Reuse Plan regarding low income, disadvantaged,
women, and handicapped individuals. Second, he asked how the ARRA voting occurs if
three commission members or councilpersons vote one way and six vote the other way.
Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin cited that in the previous motion where three
persons voted to strike the category "women" as disadvantaged and six voted to leave it
in, the majority rules. Vice -Chair Swanson added that certain items require a minimum
of three councilpersons but that item was not one of them.
Chair Appezzato opened up the comments from the governing body on the first twenty
pages only. Alternate Friedman suggested going page-by-page.
Page 1 -7: No comments /suggestions.
Page 8, Land Use - Chair Appezzato stated that he wants to insure that the provisions of
Measure A and its intent are written into the Land Use and Housing sections and that we
need a plan for marketing the available homes at NAS. Executive Director Miller stated
that we have just received $50, 000 to do an interim marketing strategy and in February
we will request funds in our budget submittal to OEA for a marketing plan for the entire
base.
Page 10, Goal B2, Enhance Employment /Reemployment Opportunities - Alternate
Leonhardy suggested that under the second from the last bullet point, the language be
changed to read "Encourage and provide incentives to businesses which provide
employment and training for members of the homeless communities consistent with the
homeless strategy and standards of reasonableness developed in conjunction with the
3
Homeless Collaborative of Alameda County." After discussion, Alternate Leonhardy
decided not to make a motion. Third bullet: "including low income people, handicapped,
etc." Alternate Friedman asked to add "unemployed citizens who might not. `be
homeless. " After discussion, a motion was not made.
Chair Appezzato suggested that since the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) may
acquire several public conveyances on the base, the School Board might consider
transferring the Mastick Senior Center to the City of Alameda. Ex- officio Greely stated
that the School Board had considered it at their last meeting. She felt the request was ".
.. that we should trade something we own that is valuable to which we have clear title for
something that you don't own and for fees that you can't charge us." Ex- officio Greely
assured the Chair that she would take the request back to the Board for further
consideration.
Goal El, first bullet, "Assign priority to the needs of local schools in use of existing
educational facilities.... " Member DeWitt was concerned with the word "priority" due
to economic considerations. Chair Appezzato requested Member DeWitt come back with
specific language to be considered. Planner Tuttle pointed out that the bullet related
specifically to the two existing educational facilities; namely, a child care center and the
Miller School site that are now slated to be transferred to the school district. Vice -Chair
Mannix suggested that under the Objectives, potential sites for future schools relative to
the potential housing development should be identified. Chair Appezzato directed
Executive Director Miller to take note of that comment.
Page 12, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space - Chair Appezzato commented that the plan
contains 44 percent open space and final negotiations with Fish & Wildlife are not
complete, but the wildlife refuge will be between 400 -600 acres.
Page 13, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Objectives, bullet two - Alternate Alves
made a motion to make following change: "Develop and [p]rotect appropriate portions
of the Bay shoreline as natural/ landscaped open space." Member DeWitt seconded the
motion. The motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 3. Noes: 4.
Page 14, Goal G2 Objectives, fourth bullet - Alternate Alves requested the following
change: "Create /designate a wildlife refuge /park within the western part of the
installation, consistent with other goals regarding economic development and balanced
land use planning." There was no formal motion and second. One member abstained
and the rest indicated they had no objection.
Chair Appezzato made a general comment to Executive Director Miller that we must
ensure that the Navy /federal government provides the funds to clean up NAS Alameda.
Executive Director Miller stated that Chapter 8, the Property Disposal Strategy, would
be presented by Dena Belzer of BAE (Bay Area Economics). She further stated that they
would be looking at the particular properties that were going to the homeless as they
proceeded to lay out the Disposition Strategy. Ms. Belzer proceeded to review the tables
in Chapter 8 regarding property transfer mechanisms, property requests, recommended
conveyance mechanisms, etc. She then stated she was going to go through, in some detail,
4
the tables with the actual parcels. Member Arnerich asked that the commission move on
the items. Ms. Miller stated that this was probably the most complex part of the entire
document as it is the ARRA 's recommendation to the Navy as to how they dispose of every
single parcel on the base.
To Vice -Chair Swanson's inquiry on how long the rest of the presentation was, Ms. Belzer
answered that the BRAG went through every table and the recommendations by type of
recommendation. Member DeWitt asked who ultimately decides whether it is going to be
a public conveyance, etc. Ms. Belzer answered that the ARRA will submit a recommended
Reuse Plan. Ultimately, the Department of the Navy has the ability to decided who will
actually get the property. This decision is incorporated into the Record of Decision
(ROD) which will come out at the time of the certification of the final environmental
impact statement. The ROD addresses property disposal and environmental cleanup.
Based on President Clinton's Five -Point Plan for Economic Development in 1993, much
more weight is given to the opinions and desires of the local communities than previously
incorporated into the Department of the Military's particular decision process.
Therefore, it was vitally important to be sure that the ARRA agrees to this strategy. Ms.
Belzer then outlined the Public Benefit Conveyances on Table 5 recommended for AUSD,
the City of Alameda Parks & Recreation Department, and East Bay Regional Parks
District.
Alternate Alves requested that they go through each individual agency's request and point
out the parcels on the map. Alternate Leonhardy asked if we were just approving the
mechanism or also approving the specifics /building numbers. Ms. Miller answered
that —based on the ARRA 's approval in concept of each applicant, applying the PBC
criteria (adopted by the ARRA), and the results of the Screening Committee of BRAG
members, staff, and consultants, —the recommendations for specific parcels had been
made and they would be approving specific conveyances.
Member DeWitt stated that Fish & Wildlife was asking for too much land. Dena Belzer
stated that they would vote tonight on the strategy for conveyance, not the acreage; on
other conveyances, they were asking that the ARRA approve both the conveyance
mechanism and the specf c property that was to be transferred.
Planner Paul Tuttle pointed out areas on the map and Dena Belzer pointed out the PBC
parcels slated for Alameda Unified School District at NAS Alameda and the FISC
property. Executive Director Miller explained that all of the public benefit requestors had
agreed to the proposed strategies, with the exception of AUSD 's request for Bldg. 522,
which they want to have reconsidered.
Ms. Belzer and Planner Tuttle then pointed out the City of Alameda Parks & Recreation
Department and East Bay Regional Parks District conveyances. Alternate Alves objected
to the shoreline property near the lagoon slated for EBRPD as it was outside the Public
Trust and could be developed with housing. Member DeWitt agreed that any property
that could be of economic benefit should be kept. Executive Director Miller stated that
the conveyance was consistent with the Goals and Objectives just adopted to preserve
shoreline views and that Staff was attempting to trade that land into the Trust to free up
some other parcels.
5
Public Comment:
Don Peterson of the Jack London Soccer League discussed developing 50 acres of badly
needed soccer fields at NAS Alameda. Kay Miller urged them to work with the Parks and
Recreation Department to meet their needs. Vice -Chair Swanson suggested that staff
work with the Soccer League to explore an interim lease arrangement.
Bill Smith spoke on several issues, including manufacturing, the Bay Trail, and electric
vehicles.
John Brauer of the Homeless Collaborative stated that the Legally Binding Agreements
insuring adequate lease terms must be signed before the Homeless Collaborative will
endorse the final base reuse plan.
Ardella Daily, AUSD, expressed the District's thanks to the BRAG for their work on the
public benefic conveyance process.
John Fee, Economic Subcommittee, requested an area for goats and ostrich rides and
voiced questions regarding different aspects of the plan.
It was decided to separate the AUSD and Parks and Recreation PBCs for voting purposes.
A motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy and seconded by Alternate Loeffler to
approve the Public Benefit Conveyance to the AUSD. Member DeWitt asked whether or
not it included the FISC property. He was informed by Executive Director Miller that the
recommendation included the FISC property. The motion carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 1— Member DeWitt.
A motion was made by Member Arnerich and seconded by Member Mannix to approve
the Public Benefit Conveyance to the Alameda Parks and Recreation Department.
Alternate Alves requested that a friendly amendment be made to reduce the area along
the lagoon shoreline to only 100 feet —the same as the rest of the shoreline —so the rest
could be developed because it is outside the Public Trust. Member Arnerich declined to
incorporate that amendment into his motion. The motion carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: 2— Member DeWitt and Alternate Alves.
A motion to accept the Introduction and Goals and Objectives was made by Alternate
Leonhardy and seconded by Alternate Loeffler. The motion carried by a unanimous voice
vote.
Chair Appezzato asked if any commissioner wished to have any item voted on separately.
There was no response and the Chair stated he would accept a motion on the remainder
of the Disposal Strategy.
A motion to accept the remainder of the Property Disposal Strategy was made by Member
DeWitt and seconded by Member Mannix. Alternate Alves asked for more information
on the RV park planned by EBRPD. Executive Director Miller pointed out that the RV
park was considered necessary for financing the whole parks program. It would be taken
as an Economic Development Conveyance, so that in the short -term the Parks
Department could use it for RVs but the EDC conveyance mechanism would, at some
6
future date, allow the ARRA to convert it to another use. Member Arnerich counseled that
Alameda should receive a fair share of the income from the RV park.
Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin asked that the motion be amended to delete the
parcel numbers in Table 7 under Fish & Wildlife to ensure consistency. The motion was
so amended and it carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 1— Alternate
Alves.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of a Proposal to Lease
Portions of the NAS Alameda Piers for Docking of the Hornet Aircraft Carrier as a Private
Museum. [Tabled from October 5, 1995 meeting.]
After discussion, a motion was made by Member DeWitt and seconded by Alternate
Leonhardy to endorse the concept of the Hornet Foundation with the leasing issue to be
addressed at a future time when all the data is available. The motion passed unanimously.
IV. ORAL REPORTS:
D. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the
ARRA on BRAG Activities.
BRAG Chair Perez stated they are working on the reuse plan elements as they become
available. The next community meeting has been moved to January so that the
community can view the complete plan.
E. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on ARRA Staff Activities.
1. The ARRA staff is working to address all the directives and questions on the Plan
expressed by both the ARRA Governing Body and the BRAG.
2. A letter has been sent to the three communities that participate in the ARRA
Governing Body(the cities of San Leandro and Oakland and the County of Alameda)
to solicit financial assistance to help fund an Urban Land Institute (ULI) panel to
evaluate the Long -range Community Reuse Plan.
3. Talks continue with BCDC on Port Priority Designation.
4. Discussions with State Lands Commission continue.
5. The Coast Guard housing request is being addressed in the Disposition Strategy.
6. While lease negotiations with AEG did not result in a lease, it was felt that we
"fought the good fight." Within the next two weeks the CALSTART lease will be
signed and we are in active negotiation with UARCO, PIVCO, and Francis Plating.
7. The MBE /WBE update requested by Vice -chair Sandre Swanson has been
completed and disseminated to the ARRA.
8. There is a formal request from the Maritime Administration to reopen the federal
screening process and allow a federal conveyance of the pier space at the FISC
Annex. They also plan to request all of the pier space at NAS Alameda. The ARRA
staff will be requesting that the ARRA Governing Body not support reopening the
screening because this property has a commercial reuse value; however, we would
like to continue negotiations on leasing them the space.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Barbara Baack, the Naval Air Museum, thanked the Governing Body for consideration of their
proposal and expressed the hope that they would receive a 50 -year lease with a clause for
renewal.
Bill Smith discussed the fact that NAS is a very valuable base.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Tony Daysog requested that two items be agendized for the next meeting: (1) the McCain
Feinstein legislation, its status in Congress, and whether it should be applied to FISC; and (2)
an update on the capital impact fee and public service assessment fee and the legal premises
upon which they can be charged.
Vice -Chair Swanson announced that the ARRA and the BRAG and other groups working on
the conversion would be receiving invitations shortly for an event on November 10 to celebrate
CALSTART's signing the first lease on the base. The celebration will include an electric car
demonstration.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4. J-),‘)..L
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
8
APPROVED ADDITIONS TO THE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 6, 1995
The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Mayor Appezzato presiding.
L ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Vice -
Chair Sandre Swanson, 9th Congressional District; Vice -Mayor Charles Mannix,
City of Alameda; Alternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr.,
City of Oakland; Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of
Alameda; Alternate Garry Loeffler for Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro;
Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for
Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda
County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (replaced by Alternate Brown at 7:22 p.m.);
Alternate Helen Sause for Ex- officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse
Advisory Group (BRAG); Ex- officio Member Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School
District (arrived at 5:54 p.m.; departed at 7:35 p.m.)
Absent: None.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Adoption of Resolution Regarding Conflict of Interest Statement Required in Connection
with the Economic Development Administration Grant to the Alameda Center for
Environmental Technology (ACET).
After discussion, a motion was made by Vice -Mayor Mannix to adopt the Resolution.
The motion was seconded by Alternate Loeffler and passed by a unanimous voice vote.
III. ACTION ITEMS
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Land Use, City
Design, and Parks & Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools, and Cultural Facilities
Elements of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan.
Discussion on Land Use Element:
Page 2 -15, second paragraph from the bottom: "At build out, the Main Street Neighbor-
hoods could be composed of 300 town home units in the existing Navy Marina Village and
approximately 1,570 new dwelling units." Alternate Alves asked if there would be 1,570
new units from the ground up. EDAW Consultant Jonathan Stern answered yes, that
presently there are a total of 1,000 units, including the 300 Marina Village units. The
remaining 700 units would be replaced and an additional 570 new units over the present
total would be built. Mr. Stern was asked to clarify this in the final plan.
Page 2 -23, paragraph 2 -40: "Develop a plan for siting, financing and phasing of a new
Alameda - Oakland bridge or tunnel access." Alternate Alves asked when this was
It i Printed on recycled paper
envisioned. Mr. Stern stated that at build out, the area would be most marketable with
another bridge or tunnel. Executive Director Miller stated that staff has had discussions
with the EBCRC regarding regional issues such as transportation access and the EBCRC
has expressed a willingness to direct funds toward a study.
Page 2 -8: Alternate Alves requested a change to: "... retail stores, department stores,
motels/hotels, offices." Mr. Stern said that it must match the City's General Plan
requirements for zoning Mr. Alves said it could be worded "motels/hotels, consistent
with the General Plan." To Member DeWitt's question on whether it was consistent with
the General Plan, Chair Appezzato remarked that the General Plan can be changed too.
ARRA Planner Paul Tuttle stated that there will be some modifications to the General
Plan next year in the areas of housing and parks and recreation. No formal action was
taken.
Table 1 -2 following page 2 -9: Alternate Alves stated he was uncomfortable with 105
acres being slated for the golf course, as golf courses need 125 -150 acres. As the wildlife
refuge area is not yet set, Mr. Stern was asked to change the "105" acre designation to
"TBD" (to be determined).
Page 2 -15, Main Street Neighborhood: Alternate Alves asked what was being done with
the Navy housing that is currently standing. Planner Tuttle answered that some will be
leased to homeless providers, some will be replaced, and Pan Pacific would like to
purchase the "big whites." Executive Director Miller said that would be addressed more
completely at a future date.
Page 2 -13, policy 2 -1: "Up to 325 low -to- medium income rental units may be built in
Alameda as multi family housing as replacement units for the low cost units lost when the
Buena Vista Apartments were converted to market -rate housing in 1988." Alternate Alves
asked if we had to be specific about the number of low income housing. Assistant General
Counsel McLaughlin said that corrections would be made in accordance with Measure
A. Planner Tuttle cited the Guyton settlement and that the City must have the ability to
meet that requirement. Chair Appezzato pointed out that the sentence read "built in
Alameda" not just "NAS."
Page 2 -18, paragraph 2 -19: Alternate Alves made a motion for the following change:
"Expand housing opportunities to include home ownership for households in all income
groups." Alternate Loeffler seconded the motion.
The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2 - Member DeWitt,
Member Mannix.
Page 2 -22, middle of 2nd paragraph: "Shoreline activity will include water - oriented
commercial uses such as a [ s i c ] retail, restaurants, and other supporting uses ... "
Alternate Alves felt that the word "will" sounded like a commitment and should be
changed to "may" or "could" No formal action was taken.
2
Page 2 -25, first sentence: "Housing in the Marina area will be limited to the eastern
shores ... " Alternate Alves stated that he didn't remember agreeing to this and was
uncomfortable with it. He asked that the words "eastern shores" be deleted. Planner
Tuttle explained the intent was to specify "eastern" rather than the "western" shoreline
which was in the Tidelands Trust. Mr. Stern stated that this means the whole eastern
half, that the western area was too close to the wildlife. The informal consensus was that
the wildlife refuge is the western portion and "eastern shores" designates east of the
Marina. No formal action was taken.
Page 2 -26, policy 2 -46: "Encourage industrial and marine - related industrial uses on the
western shore of the marina." Alternate Alves suggested the phrase be added, "so long
as they do not impact the San Francisco water views along the eastern shore. " Planner
Tuttle said that there is action in Design Elements about preserving views and Member
Mannix felt there was too much fine-tuning. Member DeWitt suggested the height of the
buildings be worked out with the Planning Board and Planning Department. No formal
action was taken.
Discussion on Parks and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and Cultural Facilities
Element
The following comments and suggestions were made without formal action.
Chair Appezzato cited page 6 -9 and pointed out an inconsistency in the stated 1,420 units
above existing units not matching the 1,570 units stated in the Land Use element. He also
pointed out that while page 6 -15, policy 6 -26 encourages the development of senior
centers at NAS, Alameda already has a senior center.
Page 6 -2, Table 6 -1: Alternate Alves asked that the 90- 120 -acre commitment for "Golf
Course /Developed Recreation" be deleted. Page 6 -3 at the bottom under "Shoreline
Park" states, "This greenway consists of 16 acres along the northern edge of the
Northwestern Territory on the shore of the Oakland Alameda Estuary." Alternate Alves
asked that wording be added that the western shore would be developed into a park to
take advantage of the views. He added that the description would correlate with the map.
Alternate Daysog stated that 1,400 additional new units of housing are a lot and he asked
when would we assess EIR impacts and modify the numbers. Jonathan Stern answered
that this estimate was based on the Land Use Plan; transportation impacts and fiscal
drains had been considered. Planner Tuttle advised that the EIR and EIS would consider
this.
Public Comment:
Susan M. Hone of the Audubon Society stated that the Audubon Society supports setting
aside 500+ acres for the Least Tern.
Judy Pollard, an Alameda resident, stated she supports setting aside at least 500 acres for
the Wildlife Refuge.
3
Tim Little of the Rose Foundation/ARC Ecology applauded the environmental theme in
the proposed plan. He then discussed a November 28 letter to the Honorable Ronald
Dellums signed by 24 environmental groups that outlines the economic and community
benefits and the widespread support for a Wildlife Refuge at NAS Alameda.
Mike Warburton of the Public Trust Working Group voiced a concern about the
possibility of the Public Trust being extinguished. He further stated that the public has
ownership of these lands, Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) recipients cannot be taxed
to pay for the infrastructure, and the views must be protected. Mayor Appezzato assured
Mr. Warburton that the Trust was not going to be extinguished and the PBCs are not being
dealt with lightly; however, the question remains of how to raise the revenue to pay for
the infrastructure.
Susan M. Withrow, an Alameda resident, stated that the Wildlife Refuge should be no less
than 500 acres and a golf course has no place near the refuge.
Sherri E. Withrow, a 32 -year Alameda resident, spoke in support of setting aside 500 -700
acres for a Wildlife Refuge.
Bill Smith, representing Virtual Agile Manufacturer, spoke in favor of alternative
transportation methods.
Arthur Feinstein of the Golden Gate Audubon Society spoke in favor of the Wildlife
Refuge, pointing out that among numerous other benefits, it would save on infrastructure
costs.
Bonnie J. Bone, a 10 -year Alameda resident, related her experiences in Chicago with
prairie transfoiniation and encouraged the ARRA to give the maximum space to the
Wildlife Refuge.
Tom Okey of the Conservation Science Institute related . the final results of the public
survey titled "Community Rates of Approval of Proposed Land Use Alternatives for NAS
Alameda" and left copies with the ARRA Secretary for interested persons.
William Smith of the Sierra Club voiced his group's support for the maximum amount
of land in the Wildlife Refuge.
A motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Vice -Mayor Mannix to approve
the Land Use, City Design, and Parks & Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools, and
Cultural Facilities Elements of the Long -Range Community Reuse Plan. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Interim Leasing
Principles, Policies, and Procedures.
4
After intensive discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by
Alternate Daysog to add a provision to ensure that any lease that generates income of less
than 50 percent of fair market value has to have prior approval of the ARRA Board. The
motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 2– Alternate Alves and Alternate
Daysog. Noes: 7.
A motion was then made by Vice -Mayor Mannix and Alternate Loeffler to endorse the
Interim Leasing Principles, Policies, and Procedures. The motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2— Alternate Alves and Alternate Daysog.
D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Oppose the Request for
Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda to the
Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD).
After discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy to oppose the request for
federal transfer of certain portions of NAS Alameda to MARAD. Vice -Mayor Mannix
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the ARRA Oppose the Request for
Federal Transfer of Certain Portions of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) to the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD).
After discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Leonhardy to oppose the request for
federal transfer of certain portions of FISC to MARAD. Vice -Mayor Mannix seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously.
F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Request for Federal Transfer of Certain Portions
of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Alameda Annex to the Army Air Force
Exchange Service (AAFES).
After discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember DeWitt to oppose the request for
federal transfer of certain portions of FISC to AAFES. Alternate Alves seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
IV. ORAL REPORTS:
G. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the
ARRA on BRAG Activities.
Helen Sause, Vice -Chair of the BRAG, reported on the BRAG's concern that the financial
impact of the present plan is only 1.4% and the BRAG would like to see a better margin
of error. She further reported (1) as there is an additional military housing request at
NAS, the BRAG is concerned that they should be shopping on the Alameda economy and
not at military stores; (2) there will be an ongoing need for citizen participation on some
level; and, (3) she assured those present that the BRAG is in favor of the wildlife refuge.
5
H. Oral Report from the Executive Director on Various ARRA Activities:
Kay Miller, ARRA Executive Director, reported on the following subjects: (1) McCain/
Feinstein legislation is pending; (2) a legal opinion on charging a capital impact fee to
PBCs has been referred to the ARRA General Counsel's office; (3) Heather McLaughlin,
Asst.. General Counsel and Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner have been conducting monthly
meetings with State Lands; (4) there will hopefully be a decision by the Fish & Wildlife
service on the size of the Wildlife Refuge by January; (5) there has been an additional
request for military housing (500 units in East Housing) that will require a presentation
to the BRAG and the ARRA; (6) monies are available to hire Tom Iacafano of MIG to
research a framework for future citizen participation; (7) the BCDC Port Priority
designation for areas of NAS Alameda will be opposed at the Seaport Advisory meeting;
(8) the Board will be furnished with a current lease negotiation listing on a regular
basis — National Airrrrotive and Francis Plating are currently good lease prospects, as is
Nelson Marine; and, (9) a recommended consultant to conduct the Science City Feasibility
Study will be proposed at the January meeting.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith discussed alternative transportation and other unrelated issues.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Greg Alves thanked Mayor Appezzato and Kay Miller for going to Washington D.C. and voiced
his appreciation for their interactions with him.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Mayor Appezzato at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i/
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
6
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
January 24, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
ARRA Executive Director
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Budget Request to the Office of Economic
Adjustment.
Background:
On January 3, 1996, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) approved in concept
a draft budget proposal submitted to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) for the next ARRA
fiscal year (February 1996 through January 1997). At the time this staff report was prepared, the
ARRA staff was still negotiating with OEA on the budget items and dollar amounts. The proposed
dollar amounts have been included in this report, and the total proposed OEA budget request is
$1,982,492; however, the ARRA will not have OEA's amendments to the ARRA's proposed budget
until the ARRA meeting on January 31, 1996.
Discussion/Anaylsis:
In January 1996, the ARRA will complete the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) Community Reuse
Plan for submission to the Navy. Last year the ARRA took on the added responsibility of closing
a second military base, the Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), in addition to Alameda
NAS and the tenant command Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP). Early reuse planning for Alameda
FISC began during the last quarter of the previous fiscal year, and should be completed early in the
next fiscal year.
The closing of a second and separate military facility, FISC, has added significantly to the ARRA's
workload. Now the ARRA must deal with an entirely separate cast of base closure personnel for
FISC. EFA West has appointed a separate Base Closure Manager and the FISC has set up a separate
Base Closure Office with its own environmental and base closure personnel. This means that the
ARRA has to learn different procedures and sometimes even different philosophies regarding tours,
leasing, environmental studies and cleanup, etc. Dealing and meeting with two separate
bureaucracies for two separate closing military facilities is extraordinarily time consuming.
to Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 2
Next, the ARRA must begin detailed planning for implementation of the NAS Community Reuse
Plan, and preparation of the economic development conveyance and port conveyance applications
for both the NAS facility and the FISC facility. It is our intent to do these activities concurrently as
much as possible. However, that may be difficult given different screening and closure time lines.
The ARRA must have adequate resources necessary for the added responsibility of another closing
base; therefore, the ARRA is requesting an additional staff person to assist the ARRA's Facilities
Manager with both NAS and FISC. It will be the responsibility of that individual to become as
familiar with the FISC properties and their drawdown and cleanup schedule, as we have become with
the NAS property.
The following budget requests were submitted to OEA:
• ARRA PERSONNEL $535, 309
Current staff and a new Assistant Facilities, Manager position
• OFFICE EXPENSES $60, 031
• TRAVEL $20,000
• ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Accounting, Insurance, ARRA Legal Counsel $64, 482
• ARRA MEETING EXPENSE $5,670
• OUTSIDE LEGAL $100,000
• FISC $60,000
Reuse planning for FISC began in the Fall of 1995. OEA provided funding for the
Reconnaissance Phase, Conditions and Trends Report, Development of an Interim Reuse
Strategy, and Alternative Analysis. The ARRA requests funding to complete the final phase
of the reuse planning for FISC and, preparation of a final plan document which meets the
State of California General Plan guidelines.
• MARKET ANALYSIS FOR NAS AND FISC $60,000
A market analysis is needed to include the following potential NAS /FISC markets: light
industrial, research and development, warehouse /distribution, water - oriented specialty retail
and residential (single- and multi - family, lease vs. ownership, market -rate, and affordable),
commercial/retail uses connected to marina/port uses, offices, etc. The market analysis will
focus on both short- and long -term uses. The scope of work of the study will include, but
not be limited to:
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 3
1) Defining the market area.
2) Competitive supply, demand, and vacancy rates in the market area.
3) Current rental and sales prices.
4) Absorption rates (current demand estimates).
5) Typical user types, special needs, and space requirements.
6) Price sensitivity (rents, energy incentives, free equipment).
7) Typical assessments, taxes, and CAM charges.
8) Public sector incentives (if any).
9) Special advantages and disadvantages of specific sites and uses.
10) Marketability for particular uses.
11) Demand forecast by use types.
12) Current recommended lease rates.
• DETAILED PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR NAS AND FISC $145,000
The Detailed Development Plans provide for more detailed and specific site planning and
design of selected areas identified as early opportunities for redevelopment in the NAS
Alameda Community Reuse Plan's implementation program. The development plans are the
next level of detail for specific areas. The Community Land Use Plan identifies five major
sites for early reuse and redevelopment — the Inner Harbor, the Northwest Territories, two
sites in the Northern Waterfront, and a portion of the Central Core. Early redevelopment of
these sites is necessary to help pay for the infrastructure improvements, building demolition,
and redevelopment efforts in other locations on the base.
• HOUSING REVITALIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY $45, 000
The Community Reuse Plan specifies what housing will be conveyed to the homeless and
the Coast Guard, and generally outlines where the community envisions housing at NAS
Alameda. The Community Reuse Plan does not make a recommendation or study in great
detail the future use of existing NAS housing. Therefore, the ARRA requests funding to
retain a consultant for a housing market and management study specific to the existing NAS
Alameda housing. The study will look at the 341 units within the main gate area, the 590
units in East Housing, and the 582 units presently requested by the Coast Guard, should their
request fail to materialize. The study will also consider cost of upgrading existing housing
versus demolition; advantages of rental vs. sale; and options for property management.
• BUILDING UPGRADE AND DEMOLITION STUDY $65, 000
The ARRA requires a detailed survey of leasable buildings to determine shell upgrade
requirements and costs in advance of entering into interim leasing negotiations. Our recent
experiences with AEG and CALSTART proved that substantial upgrades were required for
both tenants' facilities. These upgrades are the responsibility of the building owner.
ARRA's approach was to require that the cost of these upgrades be advanced by
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 4
the tenant and reimbursed through rental rebates. Precise information regarding the extent
of these upgrades would be very useful to have in advance of entering into interim leasing
negotiations. This work effort will provide such information for all leasable properties.
Detailed infoliiiation is also required on the scope of work and projected cost of demolition
of buildings that are not to be incorporated in the interim leasing effort. Scope of work
information is essential to the preparation of RFPs for the demolition of these buildings.
Accurate cost projections are needed to analyze the feasibility of redeveloping these sites
following demolition.
• TECHNICAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, BUSINESS PLAN $135, 000
AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE FOR NAS AND FISC
An Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) is one of several methods established by the
Interim Final Rule required by Section 2903 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 to transfer property on closing military bases. The ARRA intends to apply
for an EDC. The disposition strategy component of the Reuse Plan outlines the acreage and
specific parcels which the ARRA intends to apply for under the EDC.
• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS /BUSINESS PLAN FOR PORT CONVEYANCE $35,000
Not much is known yet about how this type of conveyance will work or how it needs to be
documented. However, since the ARRA has elected to pursue this avenue of conveyance,
staff has estimated the cost for a port conveyance assuming an economic analysis and
business plan are necessary for the ARRA staff to prepare the port conveyance application.
• APPRAISAL FOR PUBLIC TRUST $65,000
The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over Public Trust property, and 85 percent of
NAS falls within Public Trust jurisdiction. The ARRA cannot use the trust land for any use
not consistent with Public Trust Law, and some proposed uses in the Community Reuse Plan
are inconsistent with Public Trust Law. The ARRA has decided to identify lands at NAS to
trade out of Public Trust for base lands now in Public Trust. The State has its technical staff,
attorneys, and consultants to help the State in its negotiations with the ARRA on this issue.
However, Public Trust Law allows that the acreage in the swap need not be commensurate,
but the value must be commensurate. Since this is the avenue the ARRA has chosen to
pursue, State Lands Commission has informed the ARRA staff that if the ARRA needs an
appraisal done on both the lands proposed to be traded out of the trust as well as the property
to be put into the trust, that it is the ARRA's responsibility to pay for the appraisal. This is
not a State mandate, but something the ARRA must have done to protect its interest in
negotiations with State Lands.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 5
• REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FORMATION $185, 000
Conversion of NAS Alameda represents an enormous challenge with regard to financing the
management, operations, public services and capital improvements required to implement
the Community Reuse Plan. Successful reuse depends on significant capital investment in
the early years after closure, when the tax base is small and public revenues low. No matter
what the cost of infrastructure at NAS Alameda, it is a virtual certainty that there will not be
enough money from either private or public sources to do everything that is needed as soon
as everyone would like.
Since the timing and feasibility of reuse options will be impacted by the ability to finance
operations and infrastructure /capital improvements, there are significant legal and
programmatic reasons for the ARRA to form a redevelopment project area for NAS Alameda
utilizing California Community Redevelopment Law or special legislation as many
California bases have done. Probably the most powerful reason for forming a redevelopment
project area is the potential of tax increments as a source of funds for infrastructure and
development financing. The Reuse Plan recommends the formation of a Redevelopment
Area.
• DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED $50, 000
LONG -TERM MARKETING PLAN /MATERIALS
Implementation of the long -term reuse and redevelopment plan for NAS and FISC requires
development of a detailed marketing strategy and supporting materials. In particular, creative
approaches must be formulated to attract private sector real estate developers to participate
in redeveloping the major project areas identified in the Reuse Plan. These include the Inner
Harbor R &D- oriented business park, the marina - oriented redevelopment around the Seaplane
Lagoon, the light - industrial project area on the north end of the runways, and the office/R &D
development planned for the FISC property. Separate strategies and supporting materials will
need to be developed to market each of these areas. These materials will focus on the
specific opportunities available in developing each project area and provide essential
background information. The material will need to be designed and packaged for brochure,
video, and trade show presentations. The design and format will need to be of a quality that
will attract the attention and interest of sophisticated private sector developers. Customized
packets may also be developed for target user groups.
• WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN $60, 000
To protect the California Least Tern, an endangered species that nests on approximately four
acres at NAS Alameda three months of the year, the Reuse Plan dictates that a significant
portion of the NAS airfield will be set aside for a Least Tem refuge. By Spring 1996, Fish
and Wildlife must develop a Wildlife Management Plan to be used as
additional support for the EIR/EIS and Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation and
non jeopardy decision. The ARRA and the community want to ensure that the
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 6
Management Plan and the commitment of federal funding is sufficient to make the wildlife
refuge a success as well as create an attractive amenity to the community in support of the
base reuse effort. Portions of the Wildlife Refuge, such as the trail system, will be managed
by the local Alameda Recreation and Park Department and the East Bay Regional Park
District. In addition, the plan envisions a cooperative agreement for the planning, design,
and construction of appropriate barriers for the Least Tern nesting habitat that includes an
environmental lagoon filtration system and moat to be used for storm water retention, storm
water runoff filtration, and as a habitat barrier to predators. Therefore, the ARRA needs to
be involved in the preparation of the Management Plan, and requests funding from OEA to
pay for a part of the cost of the Management Plan's preparation. Fish and Wildlife would pay
for the other half, but the ARRA proposes to share control over the Plan's components and
direction. Working with Fish and Wildlife, the ARRA will develop a Request for Proposal
and scope of work to go out to bid for the proposed work.
• SECTION 7 CONSULTATION $10,000
This is a continuation of the ARRA's contract with Zander and Associates. Section 7 of the
federal Endangered Species Act requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on any project that could result in harm to a federally - listed endangered species. Here at
NAS Alameda, the Least Tern is listed as an endangered species. This process involves the
review of all projects, biological assessments, and negotiations on ways to eliminate or
minimize effects on the listed species. This process culminates in the Fish and Wildlife
Service issuing a Biological Opinion based on upon the design of the project ( "Non jeopardy
Opinion ") needed to proceed with the proposed project at NAS. The ARRA consultant is
retained on a time and materials basis to attend meetings with representatives of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Department of the Navy, and other special interest groups. The goal
of this task is to assist the Navy, the ARRA and Fish and Wildlife Service to produce a
biological assessment and craft a Non jeopardy Opinion that adequately considers future
reuse without imposing an unrealistic burden on economic redevelopment of NAS Alameda.
• PROPERTY ENGINEERING SURVEY $32,000
The ARRA must have a survey of NAS property boundaries for the entire site. This is
essential to identify the exact size and location of property for legal descriptions and
ultimately property transfer. This information is required to complete the EDC; therefore,
it must be completed as soon as possible. The ARRA will develop a Request for Proposal
and scope of work to go out to bid for the proposed work.
Honorable Members of the January 24, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 7
• PARCEL AND STREET RIGHT OF WAY (R. O. W) SURVEY $250, 000
As the future property owner, the ARRA will be responsible for providing a legal
description of street right -of -ways, easements, and parcels within the site for property
transfers through sale and /or lease. This subdivision parcel map and legal descriptions
of parcels will also be necessary for all conveyance transfers, including federal transfers,
public benefit conveyances, and homeless conveyances. To complete the transfer of
parcels, a site survey and subdivision map of properties . will be prepared, including a
subdivision map of parcels, street rights -of -way, easements, and a legal description of
parcels for recording with the Alameda County Recorders Office. Parcel boundaries and
descriptions will be completed for property conveyance transfers and other larger parcels
for future redevelopment. The ARRA will develop a Request for Proposal and scope of
work to go out to bid for the proposed work.
Fiscal Impact /Budget Consideration:
As with previous grants, the ARRA would have to provide the local 25 percent OEA matching
requirement. Utlizing OEA's match formula, to receive $2 million, the total project
cost— including match —must be approximately $2,666,667. Therefore, the ARRA's actual local
match requrement to receive $2 million in OEA funds is $666,667. This is a very significant
match requirement for the ARRA. The ARRA can apply for up to $100,000 to the California
Defense Adjustment Matching Grant program; however, competition for the the state matching
grant program is much greater with the addition of the 1995 base closures, and unfortunately the
state guidelines have been changed to favor recent base closures vs. reuse authorities in their
second or third year of reuse planning.
Recommendation:
Pending the outcome of OEA's changes to the ARRA budget —which will be reported to the
ARRA at its meeting on January 31, 1996 —it is recommended that the ARRA endorse the
ARRA budget request to the OEA, and authorize the ARRA's Executive Director to execute the
grant agreement.
Sincerely,
kti
Kay Miller
ARRA Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
January 24, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director talk_ —
SUBJECT: Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Selection of Moffatt &
Nichol Engineers to Prepare a Detailed Condition Survey and Master Plan for the
NAS Utility Systems and Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Contract.
Background
A key to the implementation of both interim reuse and long -term redevelopment at NAS is the
upgrade, replacement, and expansion of the base's existing substandard utility systems. These
systems include water, sanitary sewer, drainage, gas, electric, telephone, and cable TV. While
preliminary analysis of these systems was performed as part of the EDAW work effort, only cursory
information was provided as to the current condition of the systems. Obtaining such infounation
requires extensive field surveys which were beyond the scope of work in EDAW's contract. This
information is essential to the preparation of a detailed Capital Improvement Program, cost estimates
and financing and implementation strategies. It is also critical to quantifying the value of the systems
to allow negotiation for transfer of system ownership from the Navy to the public utility companies
and the City.
The Federal Office of Economic Adjustment and the City of Alameda have each committed
$200,000 toward the cost of the study. An additional $200,000 (in a combination of cash and/or staff
assistance) has been pledged by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), PG &E, and the
Bureau of Electricity (BoE). A Utilities Steering Committee composed of representatives of the
City, the utility companies, the Navy Public Works Command and the ARRA was formed to develop
a detailed scope of work for this study, interview and select a consultant, and oversee the work effort.
In response to the ARRA' s newspaper advertisements and direct contacts with potential consultants,
Requests for Proposals (RFP) were issued to over twenty engineering firms during mid- November.
In early January, proposals were submitted by three well - established East Bay civil engineering
firms. Following Steering Committee interviews with all three firms, the consultant team lead by
Moffatt & Nichol and including Harris Associates, YEI Engineers, and Versar, Inc. was selected.
This team demonstrated excellent management and technical skills, extensive experience and a clear
and precise work plan to achieve the study goals. The Moffatt & Nichol team had previously
provided engineering services in support of the EDAW planning effort. Approximately 17% of their
contract budget will be allocated to minority -owned sub - consultants. It is estimated that the study
will take approximately eight months to complete.
111
tut: Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the January 24, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
Budget Considerations/Fiscal Impact
As mentioned above, this project is being funded by grants from the Office of Economic Adjustment,
the City of Alameda, and the participating utility companies. The only expense for the ARRA is in
staff time required to oversee the consultant effort, coordinate Utility Steering Committee activities,
and manage the contract.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the ARRA endorse the selection of the Moffatt & Nichol team and authorize
the Executive Director to execute a contract with Moffatt & Nichol to proceed with this study.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/EL /jcb /mee
UsA___.1
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum
January 24, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller, Executive Director Vfi
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorizing the ARRA
Executive Director to Represent the ARRA and Apply for the California Defense
Adjustment Matching Grant.
Background:
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has applied to the Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA) for new grant funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996. OEA has a 25
percent local match requirement for grant funding. The California Defense Adjustment
Matching Grant Program operated by the California Trade and Commerce Agency has limited
funds available to provide a portion of the matching grant funds required of local communities
seeking federal funding for defense - related economic adjustment strategies and programs. The
attached resolution authorizes the ARRA's Executive Director to represent the ARRA and apply
for the state matching grant money.
Discussion:
For Fiscal Year 1995/96 the California Trade and Commerce Agency received $1 million for
the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program. All 1991, 1993 and 1995
California BRAC closure facilities may compete for this funding. The funding is being made
available through two competitive rounds of $500,000 each. The maximum amount any
community may apply for is $100,000.
Under the program guidelines, the ARRA was not eligible to apply for the fall solicitation
because it was operating under a budget amendment from a grant awarded in November 1994.
The ARRA's recent budget request to OEA for FY 1995/96 makes the ARRA eligible to apply
for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program spring solicitation.
Unfortunately, the state selection guidelines favor recent base closures versus reuse authorities
in their second or third year of funding; therefore, approval of the ARRA's grant application is
not a certainty. In 1993/994, when the ARRA received its funding from OEA through the East
Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission, the ARRA did receive a matching grant from
the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program. In 1994/1995 the California State
Legislature did not provide funding for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant
Program, but fortunately the program was funded again in the 1995/1996 California State
budget.
Honorable Members of the Page 2
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 24, 1996
Fiscal Impact /Budget Consideration:
To receive OEA funds, OEA requires the ARRA to provide a 25 percent local match; however,
the 25 percent match is based on the total project cost. Utilizing OEA's match formula, to
receive $2 million, the total project cost — including match —must be approximately $2,666,667.
Therefore, the ARRA's actual local match requirement to receive $2 million in OEA funds is
$666,667. This is a very significant match requirement for the ARRA. The ARRA can apply
for up to $100,000 from the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant; however, the state
program has very limited funds, and will be extremely competitive with the 1995 base closures
in addition to the 1993 and 1991 base closures.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the ARRA adopt the attached resolution authorizing the ARRA Executive
Director to represent the ARRA and apply for the 1996 spring solicitation of California Defense
Adjustment Matching Grant Program.
Sincerely,
V,i U411J
Kay Miller
ARRA Executive Director
Attachment: Resolution
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Resolution No.
AUTHORIZING THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO REPRESENT THE ARRA TO APPLY FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEFENSE ADJUSTMENT
MATCHING GRANT
WHEREAS, California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program operated
by the California Trade and Commerce Agency is designed to provide a portion of the matching
grant funds required of communities seeking federal funding for defense - related economic
adjustment strategies and programs; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is eligible to
compete against the other California 1991, 1993 and 1995 BRAC closure bases for up to
$100,000 of the available $500,000 in the 1996 spring solicitation round of the California
Defense Adjustment Matching Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the California Trade and Commerce Agency requires the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority authorize application to the California Defense Adjustment
Matching Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the California Trade and Commerce Agency requires the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority authorize its Executive Director to represent the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority concerning the California Defense Adjustment Matching
Grant Program application and the grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority that the ARRA Executive Director is hereby authorized and
empowered to apply, approve, sign and execute in the name of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority any documents necessary for applying to receive funding under the
California Trade and Commerce Agency's California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant
Program.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in regular meeting assembled
on the day of , 1996, by the following vote to wit:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstentions:
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Date:
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
January 24, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption by Resolution of the
NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
Background:
Over the last three months, each element of the Community Reuse Plan has been reviewed and
approved by the ARRA Governing Body. All of the requested changes have been made to the draft
product. All the chapters have been corrected, reformatted, and consolidated into the Public Review
Draft Document (sent under separate cover). The purpose of this public review draft is to provide
the ARRA one final review and reading of the plan, to make any minor or policy corrections or
additions, and approve the plan for transmittal to the Department of the Navy. This is the last phase
in the development of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
The Community Reuse Plan is not a City General Plan nor a zoning map for the NAS Alameda and
FISC sites. The Community Reuse Plan is a legal document necessary to meet the Federal
Requirements for base reuse and transfer of NAS property to the local reuse authority, (the ARRA),
other federal agencies, and public benefit recipients. The Community Reuse Plan outlines the
community's intentions for reuse and redevelopment of the NAS and FISC sites and serves as the
basis for the Navy's EIR /EIS, its Record of Decision (ROD) for base transfer, the City of Alameda's
General Plan changes, formation of a Redevelopment District, and as a guide for interim reuse of
existing buildings.
Land use regulatory authority rests with the City of Alameda. While the Reuse Plan is not a General
Plan, the Community Reuse Plan does serve as a guide for changes to the City's General Plan and
land use regulations. Major changes or amendments will be required to the Alameda General Plan
and the Alameda Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. These
regulations will have to be adopted through a City of Alameda planning process after completion
of the EIR/EIS and the Navy's Record of Decision (April 1997). The Alameda Planning Department
has begun to schedule these additional work tasks over the next two years. The City General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance are the legal documents that establish property development entitlements
(allowable uses and development intensities) that provide assurances to property owners on the
legally permitted uses for the redevelopment and reuse of individual parcels at NAS and FISC sites.
tot Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 2
The Community Reuse Plan also serves as a basis for the EIR/EIS conducted by the Navy that will
be completed within one year. Concurrently, the ARRA and other local agencies and nonprofit
organizations (City of Alameda, ARRA, Alameda Unified School District, etc.) must prepare and
submit the appropriate conveyance applications (Public Benefit Conveyance, Economic
Development Conveyance, Port Conveyance) for transfer of the parcels identified in the plan. After
completion of the EIR/EIS the Secretary of the Navy will make a final Record of Decision on the
disposition of the federal property taking into account the Community Reuse Plan, the findings of
the EIR/EIS, and the conveyance applications.
Upon ARRA's approval of the Community Reuse Plan, the plan document and an accompanying
appendix including background reports, agendas, and legal notices will be forwarded to the
Department of the Navy for approval. To ensure the ARRA has complied with all the requirements
of the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the ARRA's Homeless
Submission to include attachments documenting the ARRA's actions related to the homeless.
These documents will be included in a Technical Appendix to the Homeless Submission. The
Technical Appendix (over two inches thick) will include: ARRA and BRAG meeting notices,
agendas, staff reports and minutes, information on homeless requests and accommodations, legal
notices, information on briefings and tours for the homeless, and the draft Legally Binding
Agreement the endorsed by the ARRA at its January 3, 1996 meeting. A copy of the Technical
Appendix is available at the ARRA office for review.
Discussion:
At the time this Public Review Draft Plan was compiled, two unresolved land use issues remain
dealing with the land use designation for the NAS airfield area: (1) the size of the Fish and Wildlife
Service Wildlife Refuge and (2) the BCDC/MTC Port Priority Designation.
Fish and Wildlife Service Request. The community plan designates approximately 390 acres of dry
land (and 375 acres of water area) for open space and wildlife habitat uses with the remainder of the
airfield (see attached table) designated for development, including open spaces for recreational uses,
trails, parks, and habitat (approx. 143 acres), and an additional area (approx. 200 acres) for a mixed -
use development for foreign trade and commerce including light - industrial, office, R &D type uses,
and supporting warehousing and commercial uses. This plan was presented by the BRAG to the
community in September and endorsed by the ARRA in December.
Due to the federal government shutdown related to the federal budget negotiations and the `Blizzard
of 96" in December on the East Coast, the Fish and Wildlife Service staff (a nonessential service)
have not been at work. ARRA's request involves four outstanding issues:
1. The exact size and configuration of the Fish and Wildlife Service request for a wildlife
refuge and the size and configuration of the remaining development areas.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 3
2. A commitment from the Fish and Wildlife Service to participate in the preparation of a
Wildlife Management Plan.
3. A commitment from the Fish and Wildlife Service on the amount of financial resources
that can be provided to improve and maintain the size of refuge requested and to protect
the endangered species.
4. Approval of the conveyance mechanism for transferring the property to the City of
Alameda and an agreement with Fish and Wildlife Service for the management of the
refuge.
The most critical issue to finalize at this stage in the planning process is item 1, the size and
configuration of the wildlife refuge and the size and configuration of the adjoining development site.
All the other issues could continue to be resolved with the Department of the Interior over the next
six to nine months and included in the Wildlife Management Plan.
In response to the ARRA's request, the Portland Regional Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service
have had several discussion with ARRA staff. The Regional Office stated that the size of the
Wildlife Refuge would be determined by the type and extent of predator control that will be created
at the site. The predator control program needs to be developed in consultation with predator
management experts, the Navy, the ARRA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife
also indicated that their office would begin the Section 7 consultation process immediately with the
Department of the Navy and the ARRA to resolve the predator control program and size of the
wildlife refuge.
The results of the predator management program will be incorporated into the Wildlife Management
Plan and the EIR/EIS. In this way the final Reuse Plan would be modified based upon the EIR/EIS
findings and mitigations and receive a positive finding in the Section 7 consultation process.
The ARRA staff and the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that the Community Reuse Plan should
define the Wildlife Refuge as:
"...no less than 390 acres (land area) and no more than 526 acres, with the exact size and
boundary of the Refuge to be determined by further scientific studies and the development of
an acceptable predator management program in order to preserve the Least Tern."
The Regional Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service also agreed that the property ownership issue,
the management plan, and the Wildlife Refuge financing all would be negotiated with the ARRA
and the Navy in the next few months.
The BRAG also reviewed this issue at their regular meeting of January 17, 1996 and made the
recommendation that a major portion of the property be transferred to Fish and Wildlife Service for
wildlife habitat/refuge and a portion of the property be transferred to the City of Alameda and
managed as a wildlife habitat by Fish and Wildlife. In the future, if the City's portion of the habitat
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 4
is no longer required for protection of the Least Tern, the property would revert to the City (see
attached BRAG recommendations).
Staff recommends that the ARRA approve the Community Reuse Plan with the size of the refuge as
no less than 390 acres (land area) and no more than 526 acres, with the exact size and boundary
of the refuge to be determined by further scientific studies and the development of an acceptable
predator management program in order to preserve the Least Tern.
BCDC Port Priority Designation. The BCDC (Bay Conservation Development Commission) is
a regional agency established by federal and state law to regulate land uses in the San Francisco
Bay and the waterfront properties along the shoreline (100 feet inland from mean high tide).
BCDC's responsibilities are to conserve the bay tidelands, shores, and bay waters and to regulate
development on waterfront lands, including port development. As part of their planning
responsibility, BCDC in association with MTC is preparing an update to the regional San
Francisco Bay Seaport Plan. The purpose of this plan is designate land for port uses to meet
projected future demand.
On January 4, 1996, the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (advisory to the BCDC & MTC)
voted (11 to 2) to lift the Port Priority Designation from all of NAS Alameda and the FISC
properties except for 220 acres on the northwestern end of the NAS Alameda airfield (the
Northwest Territories). Port Priority Designation would place these 220 acres into a "land bank"
for potential container port uses 20 years into the future. Port Priority Designation restricts reuse
of the designated site for container port uses only. Some interim uses may be allowed subject to
BCDC approval. Interim use buildings and other structure would be demolished if future port
construction is necessary.
ARRA was asked to advise BCDC on the feasibility of Port Priority Designation (container port)
on NAS properties after completion of the Base Reuse Alternatives Analysis and Community
Reuse Plan. Upon completion. of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, BCDC would
reconsider any port designation on the site. However, the port planning effort has been delayed
and the Reuse Plan will be acted on prior to action by BCDC and MTC. BCDC will have a
public hearing on the Seaport Plan and vote in April. Later, the MTC will take formal action on
the plan.
Based upon ARRA's consultant studies, ARRA and BRAG meetings, and public input, ARRA
staff has consistently recommended that all port priority designations be removed from the BCDC
Port Plan for NAS Alameda and the FISC sites (see attachments to Staff Report M.G. on Port
Priority Designation). BCDC should remove the Port Priority Designation from Bay Area Seaport
Plan to be consistent with Federal Base Closure Policy, the Regional need for job creation, the
Federal Endangered Species Act, and the President's Five -Point Plan for early and rapid reuse and
redevelopment of closing bases.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 5
BRAG reviewed the BCDC Seaport Advisory Committee actions at the regular meeting of January
17, 1996 and recommended the ARRA support the removal of the BCDC Port Priority
Designation from all land at NAS Alameda and the FISC sites.
Staff recommends that the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan be adopted as recommended, and
that ARRA further request BCDC and MTC eliminate all Port Priority Designations at NAS
Alameda and the FISC sites from the Bay Area Seaport Plan (see Staff Report III. G. on Seaport
Planning).
BRAG Recommendations:
The Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) presented the Community Reuse Plan at a
special Community Town Meeting on January 11, 1995 at the Alameda High School. Following
the Town Meeting, the BRAG reviewed the Public Review Draft Plan at their regular meeting of
January 17, 1995. Based on comments received at this town meeting and further BRAG
deliberation, the BRAG recommends additional changes to the Community Reuse Plan. BRAG
recommendations are organized into two types: first, editorial changes and corrections and
clarifications, and, secondly substantive policy changes.
Staff f recommends the editorial changes and corrections to text and maps be accepted by the ARRA.
These changes will be made to the final plan document (see attachments).
The three substantive changes recommended by the BRAG include: 1) an additional policy on the
Fish and Wildlife habitat property disposal issue; 2) an additional financial policy to pursue a goal
of a 10% net positive fiscal balance for the City of Alameda; and, 3) an additional policy "to
aggressively pursue removing all obstacles for housing in the Northwest Territories." (A short
review of these policy recommendations is attached.)
Staff recommends that the ARRA approve the first two policy additions recommended by the
BRAG. However, staff recommends that the third item on housing policy not be considered. The
BRAG's proposed housing policy goes beyond the language and strategy agreed upon with the
State Land Commission office adopted by the BRAG and the ARRA in December.
Alameda County Waste Management Authority Recommendations:
Following the BRAG's two meetings, staff of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
contacted the ARRA staff and requested adding a policy to the plan encouraging recycling of
building materials as part of the building demolition process. Recycling of building materials (and
airfield runway materials) has been an ongoing part of the ARRA's strategy for financing of
building demolition. In many cases building demolition costs can be reduced significantly by
allowing contractors to retain all the income derived from recycling materials. In many cases this
is how airfields, highways, and building demolition contracts are structured.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 6
Staff recommends that this additional recycling policy can be easily added as part of the editorial
changes and corrections to the final plan document (see attached policy recommendation).
Fiscal Impacts:
Approval of the Plan is the first step in process of base conversion of NAS Alameda and FISC.
Ultimately, implementation of the final plan will have a very large fiscal and economic impact on
the City of Alameda and Alameda County. The consultants' Fiscal Impact Analysis indicates that
the proposed land use plan would ultimately (at full build -out) have a net positive fiscal balance to
the City of Alameda (approximately 4.3 %). This analysis uses conservative assumptions for build -
out levels and service costs and is calculated on a very general or aggregate land use level. The
conclusions of this analysis indicate that the proposed land uses would pay for the overall costs, on
an annual basis, of public services provided by the City of Alameda in the long run. However, the
analysis also indicates that this net positive balance allows for only a 4.3% surplus in revenues to
pay for expenses. A more detailed analysis will be prepared during the implementation stage with
a more detailed picture of the costs- revenue balance. (In recommending approval of this element,
the BRAG noted that this surplus margin is too low and that the ARRA should strive to maintain at
least a 10% surplus of revenues in planning the base.) Staff also believes that maintaining a stronger
fiscal balance is a worthy goal. Some of the factors that will influence this financial picture include:
the type and intensity of industrial development that is attracted to the base, the cost of parks and
recreation programs and the ability to share these costs with Pan Pacific University, the amount of
assistance the City receives for infrastructure improvements through grants and development
projects, and the potential retail sales tax generated from point -of -sale industrial development.
While the plan provides for a positive balance in the long run (at ultimate build -out), in the short run
(5 -10 years) infrastructure development and public service costs will most likely outreach the City's
and the ARRA's ability to pay them. In particular, the up -front costs for providing necessary
infrastructure improvements to the old systems (streets, electric, gas, storm drainage, water, sewer)
and the near -term police and fire protection service costs exceed the ability of local government to
pay for these services. Thus, a critical part of paying for these services is developing a reuse strategy
that stages development in phases over a longer period of time.
Sale of some sites in the early phases may provide additional funding to help pay for necessary
infrastructure improvements and community facilities (parks, fire station, community arts center,
etc.). In addition, the potential early development occurring at the base would have a dramatic
impact on the ability to pay for needed services.
A summary of the financial analysis indicates that the total infrastructure improvement costs are
approximately $185,000,000 (note: this is adjusted down from the original estimate of $217,000,000
which was based on the Preferred Alternative Plan and included more development areas). The total
infrastructure costs include over $4,790,000 for capital improvements in the first five years and
another $71,000,000 million in cyclic replacement costs over the next 10 -15 year period. Other
capital costs for infrastructure improvements over a 20 -year period are estimated at $107,307,000
(all figures are in 1995 dollars).
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 7
The implementation element (Chapter 9) of the Community Reuse Plan outlines a "financing
strategy" and identifies other potential financing mechanisms to help offset the projected cost of
services and infrastructure improvements typically paid by local taxes. The financing strategy is a
general policy document. Further details and implementation mechanisms will be outlined in the
next phases of the reuse planning process and the ARRA application for an Economic Development
Conveyance (EDC). The EDC is scheduled to be completed in 1996 and will include a market
study, a business plan, a more detailed phasing plan, and details of implementation mechanisms.
The costs for infrastructure improvements to be covered by the City of Alameda or the ARRA could
be paid for through a number of financing mechanisms. It is anticipated that a large portion of the
needed development costs would be financed through standard redevelopment mechanisms —paid
for by redevelopment project bonds and through the sale or lease back of property and buildings to
new business and the use of tax increment financing (TIF). However, the most significant financial
burden on the City of Alameda and the ARRA will be the financing of infrastructure improvements
(building demolition, utilities and building improvements for lease) and public services (police and
fire) in the near term (first five years) when the City and ARRA have the least resources to pay for
these expenses. It is critical that a Redevelopment District be formed and sites identified for early
sale and redevelopment by the private sector. However, even if staged over the next fifteen years,
it will be difficult to pay for infrastructure improvements without significant assistance through state
or federal aid (EDA Grants, federal guaranteed loans, or state revolving loans).
Ongoing more detailed planning and implementation tasks will include the foiniation of a
Redevelopment District for NAS Alameda (FISC is already within an existing City Redevelopment
District) and the development of the Economic Development Conveyance application (EDC). The
EDC will include a market study, detailed development plans for selected early development sites,
a cash flow model for redevelopment, and a more detailed business plan for the EDC application.
In addition, the ARRA will undertake a Port Development Application for the NAS piers and new
marina area which will include further market and business plans for this portion of the site.
Furthermore, a detailed infrastructure analysis and phasing plan now underway will be completed
in the next fiscal year.
If in preparing the EDC application and business plan it is determined impractical to redevelop the
site under current financing mechanisms, staff will provide alternative directions and
recommendations to the ARRA for disposition of the base property.
Environmental Review:
Approval of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan does not constitute a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft is part of an ongoing feasibility and
planning study for the reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda for possible future actions (Navy's
ROD, City of Alameda General Plan Changes) and is, therefore, "statutorily exempt" under CEQA
Guidelines (Article 18, Section 15262). The Navy will prepare, in cooperation with the ARRA and
the City of Alameda, a joint EIS/EIR on the recommended Community Reuse Plan. Findings and
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 8
conclusions of the EIS/EIR will inform the Secretary of the Navy's Record of Decision and serve
as the basis for the .City of Alameda's General Plan Update.
Every effort has been made to prepare a Community Reuse Plan that incorporates potential
environmental impacts into the draft plan document thus creating a "mitigated plan." Additional
changes may be necessary as recommended as mitigations in the EIS/EIR. These changes could be
incorporated in the Navy's ROD and the City of Alameda's General Plan changes.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the ARRA adopt, by resolution, the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
and give any appropriate recommendations or directions to the staff, the consultant team, and the
BRAG for changes, alterations, and additions for inclusion in the final Community Reuse Plan
Document.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DP /dpt
Attachments:
Table 1. Summary of Fish and Wildlife Refuge Development Options
Recommended Editorial Changes, Corrections and Additions
Letter from AUSD with Recommended Changes
Substantive BRAG Policy Recommendations
Wildlife Habitat Map - BRAG Recommendation
Staff Recommended Substantive Text Changes and Additions
Letter fromAlameda County Waste Management Authority with Recommended Changes
Draft Resolution
Public Review Draft NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan (previously sent)
C : \Ofce \Pauldocs\ARRA\Memo96 \mem 12 -26.95
0
0
4-Ca
a)
TD
>0
0
to.)
0
"C.)
(f)
4(5 E
as
a al
.0
(i)
>3
• 0 co
x
• -a 2
E
Eoc
• 4-
c.) 2
C/)
7173
§ Car
ot5
a)
0
LL.
C >
r
Development Areas
• 0 LC)
Cr) Cr)
LO LO CO
0)N
Lx-) co
10
co
C
0
10
Cs4
0
Cr)
CO
(1 '
0
-r) a) 0 -0
—rr,
c
a) E 0) 0
a) 4.4.-. , .: ......
co
a) a) T = i5 4-*
a as a) co E c:
.c00 , H
-
4- 2 .4--, u j • a a. a. w -0
C: < (9 -.,
0 — t.i., =
E c aj" co al
-0 CL a.) u) -c-n. u)
--. ca co co co — ......
-o Ct.
- J On u) -di 0 ,73 Es cc)
="... a) >co c) 0) 0...
u) a co
c a) 46 CI 0
o o_
0 o I--- tm
10
0
c
•
a)
•0.
c)
co
'Total Development Area
CC)
0
Total Air Field Area
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 9
L RECOMMENDED EDITORIAL CHANGES, CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.
Both the BRAG and staff recommend the following editorial changes, corrections, and clarifications
to be made to the Plan text and maps. These include adding Councilman Mannix's name to the list
of ARRA members, adding the address and telephone numbers of the ARRA offices, City offices,
and the Consultant team, and other non - policy corrections. These minor changes are outlined below.
1. School Policy: A number of changes to text on Page 6 -11 will be made clarifying the funding
of school facilities.
Policy 6 -19
Policy 6 -21
The Alameda Reus and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) working with the
Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) will identify an appropriately sized
school site for future school enrolment needs generated from additional
housing created through the reuse and redevelopment process at NAS
Alameda. The identified future school site will be transferred to AUSD at a
nominal cost agreeable to by both parties (to cover permit processing,
engineering, surveying and other real estate transfer costs) - at such time as
the need arises, and AUSD can pay at such time funds as are available for the
construction of new school facilities.
An appropriately sized site and location for future AUSD offices, teacher
training, and adult education service will be identified at NAS Alameda. A
future office site will be transferred to AUSD —at a nominal cost agreeable
to both parties (to cover permit processing, engineering, surveying and other
real estate transfer costs) —at such time as there is a need for such facilities
and AUSD can pay at such time as funds are available for the construction of
the facilities.
2. Interim Reuse Policy: BRAG requested that the Interim Reuse Policy approved by the ARRA
(November 1995) be included in the Reuse Plan. This policy will be included in the Interim Reuse
Strategy which is appended to the Community Reuse Plan.
3. Parks and Recreation Definitions: The BRAG recommends that the definition of Parks and
Recreation uses be amended to include:
Recreational facilities such as meeting and conference facilities, club houses, educational centers,
and recreational buildings such as pools, recreation halls, gyms, and incidental storage and
maintenance facilities.
These additional park uses will be added as allowable use for the open spaces and recreational
facilities in the Northwest Territories (page 2 -25) and in the definition of park and recreation uses
definitions (pages 6 -1, 6 -2).
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 10
5. Map Changes: A number of the maps, including finalization of the illustrative diagram, will
be corrected.
6. Existing Zoning Defined: Change zoning category on page 10 -6 from -R-2- to R_4.
7. Corrections to Educational Sections:
Page 6 -9, Table 6 -2: "Total AUSD Capacity" should read 6,293; 2,365; 3358; 12,016.
Page 6 -11 and 6 -19, Policy 6 -19: The word site should be changed to siteasl.
Pages 9 -3 and 9 -4: Add the sentence: AUSD is also interested in the reuse of any sports and
recreational equipment and other equipment useful to the district's activities.
Alameda Unified School District
We Serve Children
MEMORANDUM
To: P ;w1 Tuttle
From: Ardella Dailey
Re: C amments on Public Review Draft, Community Reuse Plan
Date: January 19, 1996
cc: Jonathan Stern, EDAW
Superintendent's Office located in:
Historic Alameda High School
2200 Central Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
(S10) 337.7060 Fax (S10) S22 -6926
Dennis K. Chacona.s, Superintendent
Paul: Following are AUSD's concerns and some suggested minor revisions for the "Parks
and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and Cultural. Facilities" and "Implementation
Strategy" sections.
p.6 -9, Table 6 -2: The first line of the table ( "Total AUSD Capacity ") should read 6293;
2365; :358; 12,016.
p.6 -11, School Policies 6 -19: This policy should include the possibility that more tha.,i one
school site will be needed. The word "site in line 3 of 6 -19 should be changed to "site(s),"
or the words "or sites" should be inserted; the same changes should apply to line 5 of 6-
19.
pp.9 — 9-4: In the section on "Community Use" of equipment and personal property,
child care equipment is currently AUSD's only specified interest. I suggest adding a
sentence noting AUSD's potential interest in sports and recreational equipment and other
equipment useful to the district's activity on the base.
There is an additional important comment: it is necessary to state once again that AUSD
cannot support the repeated inclusion of assessment or in-lieu fees as a financing
mechanism as it is being applied to public schools. I know negotiations in this area are
continuing, but it is not acknowledged as an issue in the reuse plan -- why?
"Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future. " J. F. Kennedy
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
II. SUBSTANTIVE BRAG POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
January 24, 1996
Page 11
BRAG recommends the following substantive Policies be added to the Community Reuse Plan.
1. Wildlife Refuge: BRAG recommends the addition of a policy concerning the use and
disposition of property for the Fish and Wildlife refuge areas.
Pages 5 -6 of the Open Space and Conservation Element and
Pages 8 -7 to 8 -9 of the Property Disposal Strategy
A). Set aside 35 acres of wetlands as a wildlife refuge and the approximately 90 acres of adjoining
grasslands in the NAS western dump site and the southern runway wetlands site in conjunction
with the water areas of approximately 375 acres to be reserved for a refuge with a ship/boat
access easement for the deepwater channel, providing a total of 505 acres of wildlife refuge.
That the nesting areas harboring the California Least Tern, approximately 254 acres, is to
be transferred to the ARRA as an economic benefit conveyance for the purpose of working out
a management plan for the California Least Tern with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure
maximum utilization of the NAS lands.
CI That a minimum of 350 acres be designated for reuse in accordance with the Community Reuse ,
Plan which includes a recreational/buffer zone use adjacent to the California Least Tern.
2. Financial Projections: The BRAG is concerned that the financial analysis projects only a 4.3%
reserve in tax revenues at full build -out of NAS Alameda. BRAG also felt that a minimum of 10%
projected reserve would be a safer margin for planning purposes and that this financial margin
should be stated as a goal or policy of "economic sustainability." Thus, the BRAG recommends the
addition of a new Fiscal Policy related to creating and maintaining a net fiscal surplus of City
revenues for the project area at NAS Alameda and the FISC sites.
Page 9 -22
9 -12
To the greatest extent possible the ARRA should seek to maintain a positive fiscal balance
where annual surplus revenues exceed expenses within the reuse area by at least 10 %, and
preferably more.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 12
3. Housing Northwest Territories: BRAG recommends the addition of language to the land use
element to "aggressively pursue removal of all obstacles for the development of residential uses in
the Northwest Territories."
Page 2 -26
2 -50 If at some future date the lands subject to the public trust are found not to be useful or
susceptible for use for public trust purposes, they may be exchanged for land of equal or
greater value which is useful for public trust purposes, or for a deposit in the Kapiloff
Land Bank Fund (Public Resource Code Section 8600 et seq.), and thereby freed of the
public trust, so that they may be available for non -trust purposes, including, but not
limited to, residential use.
2 -51 ARRA shall aggressively pursue removal of all obstacles for the development of housing
in the Northwest Territories.
^|-| | |'|`|~|^|^!•| 1 |-J~|'|^| |'\^\'\2|o|"|,|k|o|'!^\"\N, •
"
Mop Dote: 14 April 1994
NAVAL AIR STA11ON / PORTIONS OF ALAMEDA, CA
_
_
_ •
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1•1 1•1•1•1•1•1•1•1'1•1•1•1'111,111,1t1,1,10:
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 13
III. STAFF RECOMMENDED SUBSTANTIVE TEXT CHANGES AND ADDITIONS:
1. Updates to the Implementation Strategy - Homeless Assistance Element: A number of recent
changes have occurred in the options to provide for homeless needs regarding the Operation Dignity
housing request. Operation Dignity requested use of the Bachelor Officers Quarters (BOQ) for reuse
as veterans housing. ARRA staff recommends the following text changes be added to the
Community Reuse Plan document.
Page 9 -20 Addition of the following alternative:
6. Since the ARRA endorsed the Homeless Assistance Element of the Implementation Strategy
at its meeting January 3, 1996, other opportunities have developed tCalifornia
sut the tut the 125
barracks units for Operation Dignity at NAS. The State
Oakland have asked Operation Dignity to take over the operation of the Aztec SRO (Single
Room Occupancy) Hotel in Oakland, including site control. This acquisition, combined with
the high vacancy rate of SRO units in the area, makes federal funding for construction of new
SRO units in lieu of 125 barracks units at NAS Alameda unlikely.
Operation Dignity also owns property in Oakland that could be used to develop
approximately 45 new units as family housing others have ndcat d these new units would{' .
Community Development Department
provide for approximately the same number of residents as 125 barracks units at NAS
Alameda. With the recent acquisition of the Aztec SRO Hotel and the proposed new
construction. Operation Dignity would be able to offer a full range of housing opportunities
and support services - not just for single men. but also for families of homeless veterans.
Operation Dignity and the Homeless Collaborative are in the initial stages of developing
construction and program cost estimates to construct the 45 units. They estimate the costs
to be approximately $4 million. The Homeless Collaborative and the ARRA are seeking the
majority of funding for this project from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and the Veterans Administration. The remaining project costs could possibly be
covered from the Alameda County HOME fund allocations and CHODO (Community
Housing Development Organization) fund allocations.
2. Homeless Process Overview: The Homeless Assistance Element (in the Implementation
Strategy) will be updated to reflect the above changes and the ARRA's approval of the Homeless
Assistance Element at their meeting on January 3, 1996 including the Implementation Element
(with the Disposal Strategy and Financial Analyses), the Homeless Assistance Component (with
Legally Binding Agreement), and the Implementation Action Plan. The date the ARRA approves
the Community Reuse Plan it will also be incorporated into the Homeless Assistance Element.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 14
3. Alameda County Waste Management Authority Recommended Changes and Additions: The
Alameda County Waste Management Authority reviewed the Public Review Draft Plan and
recommended adding the following policies to the Community Reuse Plan dealing with recycling
of building materials during demolition (see attached letter). ARRA staff concurs with these
recommendations.
Page 1 -17
1 Interim Reuse Goal Ki: Page 1 -17
Obj ectives:
Continue to assess building suitability and ensure maximum reuse /salvage and recycling of building
materials prior to or in conjunction with demolition of buildings that are not economically viable for
interim reuse.
2. Equipment and Personal Property: Page 9 -1
Equipment and buildings that are determined not to be reusable should be processed or dismantled
for maximum salvage and recycling prior to or in conjunction with demolition and prior to disposal
in landfill sites. (Italics added by ARRA staff).
3. Interim Reuse Strategy: Add the following policy.
All demolition should be conducted to maximize recycling and all possible higher uses other than
landfill disposal.
' 01%24 '96 16 :15
ID :WASTE MGt1T AUTHORITY FAX:510 -614 -1698 PAGE 1
alarnedacounty
WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Sc.
SOURCE REDu rION AND R,F.CYC.UNG BOARD
January 24, 1996
Kay Miller, Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Sent Via TeleFax
To: (510) 521 -3764
Dear Ms. Miller:
The Alameda County Waste 'Management Authority [Authority] is a joint powers agency
representing the County of Alameda, each of the 14 cities within the County, and two
sanitary districts in the County. The governing board consists of elected officials from each
member agency. As the agency tasked with preparing and implementing the Countywide
Integrated Waste Management and Hazardous Waste Management Plans for Alameda
County.. the Authority has an interest in coordinating and assisting its member agencies in
developing General Plan consistency with regard to waste management planning. These
Plans as well as the Source Reduction and Recycling Plans adopted by each municipality as
required by state law, carry forth State mandates to reduce waste going to landfill by. 25% by
1995 and 50% by the year 2000: In addition, they seek to establish a "hierarchy" of waste
management practices in order of priority:
Source Reduction (avoiding the creation of waste)
Recycling and Composting
Environmentally Safe Transformation and Landfill Disposal
Upon receiving a copy of your Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda on Monday,
January 22, 1996, we have reviewed it and find it comprehensive in scope and generally
foresighted with respect to having goals of minimizictg waste and pollution in
new development.
The following is to call your attention to some areas of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse
Plan that we recommend be included as appropriate waste management practices associated
with the base conversion.
1) Under the Objectives for Interim Reuse (page 1 -17), the fourth objective
would incorporate the waste management practices "hierarchy" if it read: " • Continue to
assess building suitability and ensure mAxim recycling
are not economically
building
materials prior to or in conjunction with demolition of buildings that
viable for interim reuse."
777 Davis Street, Suite. 200, San Leandro, CA 99577 • (510) 614-1699 • FAX (510) 614-1698
printed on recycled paper
0124 '96 16 :16
ID :WASTE MGM AUTHORITY FAX :510- 614 -1698
Comment Letter to Kay Miller, Executive Director, ARRA
re: NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, January 1996
page 2
PAGE 2
2) It should be clearly noted as a Policy
�he1ib 9ldinges that
Equipment and Personal Property and Building Demolition equipment and
are determined not to be reusable should be processed lstion und, prior to disposal. This should
and recycling prior to or in conjunction with demolition s and
also be included as an Implementation Action in Section 10 under both Equipment
Personal Property and Building Demolition.
3) It should also be noted in the Interim Reuse Strategy t than landfill demolition
should he
conducted to maximize recycling and all possible higher uses of
Such a policy and implementation action would be
be incorporated consistent with
into the marketing strategy
to reduce building/infrastructure costs and could se reuse, special purpose or
for all buildings (whether designated for general purpose
& Demolition
Enclosed are copies of the Reuse and Recycling Directory f or Construction
Materials and the Alameda County Recycling Guide te which tend the �TeateT� Bay Area.
variety of materials and/or equipment throughout
These guides are produced and are available from our ag agency in gs�hlns for ourtuse and
distribution to contractors to be used in base con P
publications, we will have a comprehensive resource guide le on ofe esource effi ient build g
building processes -- Building Less Waste, and a com p
materials, definitions, criteria and descriptions to supplement standard building materials
specifications -- GreenSpec, available for distribution later this year.
Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to avail yourselves of the resources our
agency may have to offer in the challenge of coordinating S h f base conv costae pr oc ss.
If you have any questions about our recommendations, please
here at the Authority.
Sincerely,
Karen Smith
Executive Director
Enclosures (To follow in mail)
cc: City of Alameda Waste Management Program
Oakland Base Reuse Authority
East Bay Conversion & Reinvestment Commission
1Wata\progsliwmp\alrccom.doc
renvclpd caner
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
January 24, 1995
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Bay Conservation Development Commission
Port Priority Designation on the 220 -Acre Northern Runway Area of NAS Alameda.
Background:
BCDC (Bay Conservation Development Commission) is a regional agency established by federal
and state law to regulate land uses in the San Francisco Bay and the waterfront properties along the
shoreline (100 feet inland from mean high tide). BCDC's responsibilities are to conserve the bay
tidelands, shores, and bay waters and to regulate development on waterfront lands, including port
development. As part of their planning responsibility, BCDC in association with MTC is preparing
an update to the regional San Francisco Bay Seaport Plan.
On January 4, 1996, the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (advisory to the BCDC & MTC)
voted (11 to 2) to lift the Port Priority Designation from all of NAS Alameda and the FISC properties
except for 220 acres on the northwestern end of the. NAS Alameda airfield (the Northwest
Territories). Port Priority Designation would place these 220 acres into a "land bank" for potential
container port uses 20 years into the future. Port Priority Designation restricts reuse of the
designated site for container port uses only.
ARRA was asked to advise BCDC on the feasibility of Port Priority Designation (container port) on
NAS properties after completion of the Base Reuse Alternatives Analysis and Community Reuse
Plan. Upon completion of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, BCDC would reconsider any
port designation on the site. However, the port planning effort has been delayed and the Reuse Plan
will be acted on prior to action by BCDC and MTC. BCDC will have a public hearing on the
Seaport Plan and vote in April. Later, the MTC will take formal action on the plan.
Discussion
Based upon the ARRA's Alternates Analysis and Marina/Port Study, ARRA staff has consistently
recommended that all port designation be removed from NAS Alameda and the FISC sites. A copy
of these letters is attached. Port Priority Designation should not be indicated for the 220 -acre
northwestern site for a number of major reasons as summarized below:
411V .
Printed on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1996
Page 2
1. Conflicts with Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Requirements. Port designation is detri-
mental to the Least Tern habitat and is inconsistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Office recommendations. The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that
port uses on this site may render a "jeopardy decision" for the NAS Community Reuse Plan.
Thus, the Federal Endangered Species Act takes precedence over the Port Priority Designation.
This is the same reason that BCDC recommended port designation be removed from all
wetlands at NAS Alameda. Port uses are incompatible with a Wildlife Refuge for the following
reasons:
a. Large port cranes and overhead container conveyances (240 feet high) would impact the
wildlife habitat by providing perch sites for predators.
b. Lighting for port development and cranes would adversely impact the wildlife habitat areas
by lighting adjacent nesting areas at night, creating additional visibility for night predators
such as owls, stray cats, rats, etc.
c. Port uses would attract predators such as feral cats, rats, ravens, gulls, etc. that would
endanger the wildlife.
2. Faulty Port Demand Assumptions. The Port Cargo Forecast assumptions used as the basis
of future container port demand projections are fundamentally flawed and inaccurate. The
ARRA's Marina/Port Consultant estimated that port demand could be accommodated with
improvements at Oakland's Intermodal Terminal and Port.
3. Excessive Operating Expenses. Development of a port at NAS Alameda would add shipping
costs for the additional movement of containers across the estuary that would make any port use
noncompetitive and uneconomical to operate.
4. Detrimental to Regional Economic Needs. "Land banking" NAS property for speculative
needs 20 -25 years in the future would severely impact base reuse potential and negatively
impact the regional need for jobs and economic development, particularly in the East Bay,
Oakland, the City of Alameda, and Alameda County. The larger regional need to replace jobs
lost due to base closure is critical. Planning for a single special use or special interest such as
port demand does not consider the needs of the region from a comprehensive and more balanced
perspective. Regional planning must strike a balance between the needs of one special interest
and the comprehensive needs of the whole community. The regional economy is driven by a
full range of industries that must be balanced with housing, homeless, parks, recreation, and
open space needs.
5. Port Designation is Inconsistent with the Federally Mandated Community Reuse Plan.
The NAS Community Reuse Plan is a comprehensive plan that tries to balance a number of
regional and local goals and objectives. The plan is based upon President Clinton's Five -Point
Plan for early and effective reuse of closing bases. The federal government has charged local
communities with the responsibility of defining a plan with the major objective of replacing
Honorable Members of the January 24, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
jobs lost due to base closure. "Land banking" federal property for a projected future port use
is inconsistent with the needs of the region.
6. Minimal Landside Access. Existing rail and truck access to Alameda is severely constrained.
To operate a port effectively would require an additional bridge or tunnel for truck and/or rail
access. Costs for an additional bridge or tunnel (estimated at $300 to $700 million) could not
be paid for by port development. Even a crane over the estuary is projected to cost $150
million. In short, port development is not feasible due to limited access. This is the same
reason that BCDC recommends container port designation be eliminated from the City of San
Francisco and Vallejo's Mare Island, as well as other portions of NAS Alameda.
7. Land Use Compatibility Conflicts. Port use and development of the northern waterfront site
is incompatible with the planned surrounding land use in the area. Use of large overhead cranes
and a conveyor spanning the Oakland/Alameda Estuary would be a visual blight to surrounding
areas and would not be compatible to the surrounding land uses at NAS Alameda and Oakland.
Port uses would create additional traffic, noise, and congestion that would severely impact
surrounding residents and reduce the reuse and redevelopment potential of other areas at NAS
Alameda.
8. Bay Conservation and Open Space Conflicts. The Community Reuse Plan designates major
portions of the Northwestern Territories for open space, recreation, and shoreline trails and
access along the Bay. Port Priority Designation is inconsistent with BCDC's own conservation
and open space goals in the San Francisco Bay Plan.
9. Port Management Conflicts. Management and operation of five container docks could not
compete with the Port of Oakland. Any port development at Alameda would be required to be
operated by the Port of Oakland. Management of five container berths in Alameda could not
be efficiently managed by the Port of Oakland if a major portion of the revenue must be shared
by the City of Alameda/ARRA. In short, the Port of Oakland could not pay the additional lease
costs for operating a port in Alameda.
10. Excessive Port Development Costs. Costs for port development at NAS Alameda would be
excessive and make any potential port operation of five container berths uneconomical.
Excessive port development costs include additional dredging, port construction, bridge access
development or truck and/or trains, and added costs for a high -span container bridge or
conveyor.
11. Port Operational Conflicts. Development of five new container berths at Alameda would
require widening the Oakland/Alameda Estuary by dredging the north runway area,
approximately 60-400 feet south, to create a new port. This area of the runway is the most
stable of the fill sites at NAS Alameda. The northwestern runway area was once a long sand
spit leading to the bay. The additional widening of the estuary would only create a one -way
channel for ship access into the Port of Oakland. The new wider container ships will be
required to enter the port facilities one at a time, making access to any port terminal less than
efficient.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Summary.
January 24, 1996
Page 4
Based upon this analysis, staff believes that the possibility of a future container port at NAS Alameda
is incompatible with our Land Use Plan, detrimental to the Least Tern habitat, of questionable
necessity, and likely infeasible. For all the reasons stated, staff recommends continued opposition
to the Port Priority Designation at NAS Alameda.
Environmental Review:
Opposition of the Port Priority Designation in the San Francisco Bay Port Plan does not constitute
a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BCDC has prepared an
environmental assessment on the Port Plan's update which the staff is now reviewing. BCDC has
determined in their environmental review that the Port Priority Designation is a project creating no
adverse environmental impacts (Negative Declaration) and that a full environmental impact
statement is not necessary to prepare. ARRA staff is preparing a letter in response to the proposed
negative declaration addressing the issues which should receive a full environmental impact analysis
prior to Port Priority Designation.
A full EIR/EIS (Environmental Impact Report/Envrionmental Impact Statement) is being prepared
by the Navy as part of the base closure process. One of the alternatives that will be evaluated will
be designation of 220 acres for port uses.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the ARRA Governing Body oppose, by motion, the San Francisco Bay
Seaport Plan's Port Priority Designation for the 220 -acre site on the northwestern end of NAS
Alameda and request that BCDC and MTC eliminate all Port Priority Designation from NAS
Alameda. Further, the ARRA Governing Body should direct the Executive Director to communicate
the ARRA's position to the BCDC and MTC Boards.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DP /dpt/mee
Attachments: Letters
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
510- 263 -2870
FAX 510 -521 -3764
December 11, 1995
Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue, Ste. 2011
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Committee Members:
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), the entity charged with redeveloping
the Naval Air Station at Alameda (NAS Alameda) is opposed to the port priority designation being
recommended for 220 acres at NAS Alameda along the estuary for five container berths. The ARRA
is finding it extremely difficult to come up with a redevelopment plan for NAS Alameda that is
financially feasible and economically viable. The proposed port designation further inhibits our
ability to move forward with viable redevelopment by requiring that we delay development of the
220 acres until further studies can be done on the feasibility of berths at NAS Alameda.
The 220 acres primarily referred to as the Northwest Territory in our reuse plan is land that has early
rather than later redevelopment potential for the ARRA for the following reasons:
• The property is one of the "cleaner" environmental sites on the base. The environmental
contamination is quite benign compared to other base locations and the Navy is taking steps to
remediate the contamination before their departure in 1997. Having an environmentally clean
site allows the Navy to make an early conveyance of this property to the ARRA for
redevelopment.
• Because this property is on the current airfield, it is largely free of buildings and thus provides
one of the few sites on the base that could accommodate new construction.
As Mayor Ralph Appezzato, the Chairman of the ARRA, advised you at the last Seaport Advisory
Committee meeting, we are already severely limited in the ways in which we can develop the base.
Approximately 80 percent of the base is subject to the Tidelands Trust which, as you know, dictates
the allowable types of uses. Further, the presence of the Least Tern, an endangered species, is
dictating that the majority of the acreage on the airfield be designated as a wildlife refuge. After all
the conveyances to federal, public, and nonprofit agencies, less than half the base property is
available for taxpaying, revenue - generating redevelopment.
The ARRA asks you to consider this and the following arguments in deliberating your
recommendation regarding the port priority designation at NAS Alameda.
It • Printed on recycled paper
NAS Alameda Port Planning Issues December 11, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
1 Minimal Landside Access
Access for a new seaport at Alameda is severely constrained and lacks the required
characteristics of a container terminal project (see page 17, Draft Seaport Plan). The existing
tubes to the island are at capacity and there is no direct connection to the highway system. There
is no rail access to the site. Construction of a required new access (bridge) is not funded and is
not a priority on any regional transportation plans. Funding for such projects is becoming
increasingly scarce. Furthermore, construction of an automated, high -lift container mover has
not been designed for a span the size of the Oakland Alameda Estuary and the cost of such a
system has not been shown to be economical or cost - effective for only five berths.
2. Conflicts with Fish and Wildlife Service Requirements
Seaport uses (cranes, towers, and lighting) on the northern runway are not compatible with the
Fish and Wildlife Service request to develop a bird sanctuary on the southern portion of this site.
In addition, the Endangered Species office of the Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that port
uses would be incompatible with efforts to save the endangered Least Tern and such a
designation would result in their rendering a "Jeopardy Decision" as it would jeopardize the
existence of a federal endangered species.
3. Land Use Compatibility Conflicts
Development of a port in Alameda would conflict with surrounding land uses. The adjacent land
uses proposed for NAS Alameda include a major new university, parks, and recreation uses, and
mixed use commercial/residential, office and light industrial use areas. Does the proposal take
in the proposed sports complex area?
4. Conservation and Open Space Conflicts
Uses for the runway area at NAS Alameda include major regional parks and recreation,
conservation and open space, and Bay Trails to provide access to San Francisco Bay, the
Oakland/Alameda Estuary, and wetland areas on the site consistent with BCDC's Coastal Zone
Management Goals.
5. Historic District Conflicts
The eastern areas adjacent to the NAS Alameda runway are designated as an Historic District,
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. A container port on the northern
runway would conflict with historic preservation goals. No portion of a container port should
intrude into this Historic District.
6. Detrimental Economic Impacts
The economic impacts to the City of Alameda would be severe if land were "banked" for port
purposes. This would result in a loss of potential job generating development and other uses that
could offset the cost of short- and long -term City services and infrastructure improvements.
NAS Alameda Port Planning Issues December 11, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
7. Inconsistent with Community Reuse Plan
Continued Port Designation on any part of the NAS Alameda site is inconsistent with the
Community Reuse Plan and with President Clinton's stated goals for early and effective reuse
and redevelopment of base closure sites. Port Designation would "land bank" NAS Alameda
property for more than twenty years for an uncertain future port demand. The NAS site is needed
for early and economical sustainable reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda. The site is
designated in the preliminary Community Reuse Plan for early reuse potential for light industrial,
office and research, and development of international trade and commerce.
8. Port Management and Operation Conflicts
Port management and operation of five container berths at NAS Alameda would not be cost
competitive with existing port facilities in the region and in particular the Port of Oakland. ` The
Port of Oakland has indicated no desire or willingness to share with the City of Alameda
operation of only five additional container facilities at NAS Alameda. It would appear that no
agency or entity has the ability to raise the funds to build and operate five terminals at NAS
Alameda because any proposed port in Alameda would require financing of costly overhead and
infrastructure costs associated with this site.
9. Excessive Port Development Costs
Costs for port development of NAS Alameda would be excessive and make any potential port
operation of only five container berths uneconomical. Excessive port development costs include
dredging, port construction, bridge access improvements ($300 million —four traffic lanes, plus
a light rail lane capability), and management and operation costs that would make a new
container port impractical.
The ARRA thanks you for your consideration of our arguments against the port designation. Further,
we ask you to weigh the difficulty we face in trying to recover from the economic losses sustained
from the closure of NAS Alameda. Delaying the use of 220 valuable acres seems to us imprudent,
especially when future development of a container port appears so remote.
Sincerely,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM:mee
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, California 94501 -5012
510. 263.2870
FAX 521.3764
November 16, 1994
Jennifer Ruffolo
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Thirty Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2011
San Francisco, California 94102
Re: Priority Seaport Designation - NAS Alameda
Dear Ms. Ruffolo:
It is our understanding that at the last Seaport Planning Advisory Committee meeting, the
staff was directed to study two additional alternatives for Seaport Priority Designation at the
Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. The two alternatives include: extending the Priority Seaport
Designation approximately 1,000 linear feet further east than the current proposal along the
Oakland/Alameda Inner Harbor Estuary; and secondly, extending the Priority Seaport
Designation approximately 2,400 linear feet to existing on base navy housing area.
Both these alternatives would severely impact the planning for the future reuse and
redevelopment of NAS Alameda and limit Alameda's efforts to meet the goals of the President's
five point program for fast and effective reuse of closing bases. Sea Port Priority Designation in
these additional areas would have four major impacts on the reuse of NAS Alameda. Port
Priority Designation:
1. Reduces the interim and long -Willi reuse potential of NAS;
2. Impacts on the historic district at NAS;
3. Eliminates the major access to NAS along Main street; and
4. Impacts the reuse potential of existing housing areas at NAS.
Limiting Reuse Potential
Port Priority Designation would severely impact both the interim reuse and long term
redevelopment potential of NAS Alameda. One of the major goals of the President's Base
Closure process is to quickly replace the jobs lost at NAS Alameda. Port Priority Designation
would hinder redevelopment for those lands designated as port priority for an uncertain future
port demand. Extending this designation further east along the estuary would not allow for the
redevelopment of existing facilities for many of the educational, community, and recreational
facilities proposed for these areas. In particular, port uses are not compatible with the reuse of
existing facilities for local community uses such as the gymnasium and swimming pool, ball
BCDC
November 16, 1994
Page 2
fields, and the Officers' Club. Port uses and the required "layout" space would require removal
of all these important community facilities.
Impacts on Historic District
Presently, the area south of the NAS Main Gate is identified as a historic district which
may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The historic district comprises the
buildings, open spaces, and street system in the central core of the NAS and the on -base officer
housing adjacent to the core area. Many of the proposed uses for the redevelopment of the core
area would preserve the historic character of the area with the existing structures reused for
office, educational, and community uses.
Port priority designation would prevent the reuse of this area. Port uses and development
of the associated "lay -out" spaces would destroy the historic character of the area by the
elimination of streets, open spaces, and buildings.
Impacts on Major Access
Main Street along the Oakland/Alameda Estuary is a major entry and access roadway to
the north end of NAS. The City of Alameda's General Plan provides for additional future street
improvements through the Mitchell Mosely Extension. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) planning team is looking at improving access to NAS Alameda with
additional connections to Oakland from Main Street and the Mitchell Mosely extension. Without
these additional street improvements, successful redevelopment of NAS would be unlikely. Both
Port Designation alternatives you are studying would eliminate the potential for future access
along Main Street and the Mitchell Mosely extension.
Impacts on NAS Housing
All the existing housing areas on NAS Alameda are being considered for reuse in the
NAS reuse planning effort. The on -base housing is being considered for reuse by local housing
groups and the City of Alameda as a non - profit housing authority. Any port uses in or adjacent
to these areas would be incompatible with the residential character of the housing uses. Port uses
in these areas would be detrimental to the active reuse of these neighborhoods and future
residents.
BCDC
November 16, 1994
Page 3
In conclusion, the alternatives for extended Port Priority Designation on the NAS
Alameda site would not be in the best interest of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and the goals for the timely reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda in keeping
with the President's five point plan and the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1993. If you
have any questions in this regards please contact D. Paul Tuttle, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Planner at 510 -525 -8405.
Sincerely,
Don Parker
Executive Director
cc: William C. Norton, City Manager
Colette Meunier, Planning Director
DPT:dpt
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
510. 263.2870
FAX 510. 521.3764
September 12, 1994
Mr. Robert R. Tufts, Chair
Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102 -3686
Re: Priority Port Designation, NAS Alameda
Dear Mr. Tufts:
I am writing in response to your request for comments concerning the designation of Port
Priority Use in the revised San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. It is our understanding that the
Seaport Planning Advisory Committee will be considering at its September 13, 1994 meeting the
removal of Port Priority designation from all of NAS Alameda except for 198 acres in the north
west portion of the base in the revised plan. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
supports removal of the Port Priority Designation from NAS Alameda, and would support
designation of the North West 198 acres as temporary Port Priority Use subject to BCDC and
MTC reconsideration of the designation once the Reuse Plan is completed.
The present Seaport Plan, adopted in 1988, designates all of the Naval Air Station
Alameda, the Naval Air Depot, Oakland Supply Center (Alameda Annex), Alameda Gateway,
and Encinal Teuininal areas for Port Priority Use. At their September 7, 1994 meeting, the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority passed a motion in support of deletion �f Port
Priority Use designation from the Naval Air Station Alameda, and requested that the Port Priority
Designation on the remaining 198 acre, north -west portions of NAS Alameda be reconsidered
after completion of the NAS Alameda Reuse Plan. Removal of Port Priority Designation of
other City of Alameda sites is being considered by the Alameda City Council and is presented in
a separate letter.
The President of the United States, when he announced his Five Point Plan for base
closures, and when the U.S. Congress enacted the Pryor Amendment, made it clear that the
foremost priority of the base reuse process is rapid job creation and economic recovery for
affected communities. To assure that this policy goal is met, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is working closely with all federal, state, regional and local
agencies to develop and implement a meaningful local community redevelopment plan. This
plan will comprehensively evaluate the unique economic, social and environmental constraints
and opportunities facing affected East Bay communities. The reuse plan will be the guiding
Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
September 12 ,1994
Page 2
framework for the entire base reuse process. Thus, it is imperative that Port Priority designation
of any portion of NAS Alameda be carefully considered as part of the comprehensive reuse
planning process.
The ARRA is committed to consider all reasonable proposals for reuse of NAS Alameda
through the reuse planning process. The community reuse plan is scheduled to be completed in
December of 1995, and submitted to the Department of Defense for approval in early January,
1996. It would be appropriate to remove the Port Priority Use designation from NAS Alameda,
temporarily designate Port Priority on the 198 acre north -west portion of NAS Alameda, and
reconsider this designation after the ARRA reuse plan is completed.
Reconsideration of the Seaport Priority designation of NAS Alameda is warranted
because of a number of major development constraints:
1. Freight Access. To be economically viable and competitive, a new container facility
should have direct rail access for freight to the proposed port. The present Alameda Belt Line,
which extends to the Naval Air Station, contains numerous difficult curves and crossing through
heavily developed residential and commercial areas on Alameda Island. Furthermore, the
existing tracks are in poor condition (rated Class C) and usage of the Alameda Belt line has
declined in operation. It would be impractical to use this rail line for heavy freight service
required for a seaport. The City �f Alameda is also developing reuse strategies that assume
ultimate elimination of this rail service in the area.
The latest report by MultiTrans on "Military Base Opportunities and Constraints for
Civilian Seaport Development," recognizes that vehicular access is severally constrained.
Access to Alameda Island via the Webster Street tunnels operate at Level of Service "F" (at or
'above capacity) during peak periods. As reuse of NAS Alameda proceeds, the level of service of
the tunnels is not anticipated to decline. The reuse planning process will provide additional
traffic generation and impact analysis as part of an alternatives analysis.
The MultiTrans report suggests a high - clearance, two lane vehicular bridge to provide
freight access in the corridor connecting Main Street with I -980. The cost of this bridge is
estimated at over $120 million dollars and such a bridge could be supported solely by seaport
facilities (see MultiTrans. Military Base Evaluation. July 1994, Page 56). 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 he considerably higher than assumed by MultiTrans study. In addition, cost estimates do
not account for land costs required for construction. In summary, port designation would only
be feasible if and when a new bridge were built connecting NAS Alameda with Oakland on the
Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
September 12 ,1994
Page 3
east side of the inner harbor. Costs of this new connection are not adequately considered in the
Capital Improvements of the study (see MultiTrans, Military Base Evaluation. July 1994, Page
38 -39).
2. Dredging Costs and Associated Environmental Clean -up. The MultiTrans study
assumes considerable dredging and reconstruction of the seawalls, relocating the existing dike
150 feet further inland along the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel for the proposed six container
berths at NAS Alameda. Construction of these berths and dredging does not adequately address
the toxic clean-up required'in this location. Early reports from the Navy suggest that much of the
proposed site contains contaminated soils. Thus, port designation for this location should be
reconsidered, once the final Navy Environmental Baseline Survey is completed and the toxic
clean-up issues is more adequately addressed.
3. Conflicts with Fish and Wildlife Requests. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service has
submitted a request for all 900 acres of the NAS Alameda Air field for a wildlife refuge, pursuant
to the federal military base closure and property disposal process. Thus, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife conveyance request conflicts with the proposed Port Priority designation. A major
purpose of the ARRA reuse planning process is to negotiate between conflicting land use
requests to determine the highest and best use for the property in order to meet the President's
Five Point Plan for military base conversions.
4. Conflicts with Adjacent Land Uses Proposals. A number of property conveyance
requests have been submitted to the appropriate federal agencies and the Department of Defense.
Many of these requests overlap the proposed Port Priority Designation area of NAS Alameda or
are adjacent to the proposed port use. These property conveyance requests include; school and
educational uses, parks and recreation uses, McKinney Act Homeless Housing uses, and high -
tech research and development uses. These proposed property conveyances are incompatible
with the proposed port uses and would be several impacted by an adjacent container facility and
the associated truck and rail traffic. As with the Fish and Wildlife request, the reuse planning
process is intended to mediate between conflicting proposals and uses to determine the highest
and best use for the site.
5. Airfield Reuse Potential Foreclosed. The existing airfield is still being considered as
one potential reuse option in the reuse planning process. 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 feasible; however, some aviation facilities may be
preserved and their activities continued. Further market studies would provide a greater
indication of interest in these facility. Thus , the reuse planning process has kept the airfield
reuse option open for further consideration.
Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
September 12 ,1994
Page 4
In summary, removal of the Seaport Priority designation from NAS Alameda is supported
by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. Seaport designation has deterred the
realization of economic potential on other sites in Alameda. Holding large areas of land for an
uncertain long term demand for container facilities would foreclose immediate redevelopment
potential necessary to meet the President's Five Point Plan for economic stimulation of the local
economy. The reuse planning process has been developed to help identify the highest and best
use for NAS Alameda. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority requests that the
Seaport Advisory Committee, BCDC, and MTC reconsider the Port Priority Designation on the
north -west 198 aces site after completion of the Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
Sincerely,
-11111-
Olf/
V
David Louk, Acting Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
cc: BCDC •
MTC
EBCRC
ARRA
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Thirty Van Ness Avenue • Suite 2011 • San Francisco, California 94102 • (415) 557 -3686 • FAX: (415) 557 -3767
COMMISSION ROSTER
Robert R. Tufts, Chairman
Jackson , Tufts, Cole & Black
650 California Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 433 -1950
Appointed by:
Governor Deukmejian on 08/15/83 and
reappointed by Governor Wilson on
on 01/19/93
Alternate: Thompson
Angelo J. Siracusa, Vice Chairman
Bay Area Council
200 Pine Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104 -2702
Telephone: (415) 981 -6600
Appointed by:
Governor Deukmejian on 08/15/83 and
reappointed by Governor Wilson on
on 01/19/93
Alternate: Dowall
Jean Auer
City of Hillsborough
1325 Avondale Road
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Telephone: (415) 340 -8166
Alternate to Barrales
Appointed by:
San Mateo Board of Supervisors
on 01/04/95
Ruben Barrales
County of San Mateo
County Government Center
401 Marshall Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: (415) 363 -4570
Commissioner
Appointed by:
San Mateo Board of Supervisors
on 01/12/93
Alternate: Auer
Natalie Bayton
City of Oakland
505 14th Street, #601
Telephone: (510) 238 -3266
Alternate to Corbin
Appointed by:
Association of Bay Area Governments
on 03/16/95
Arthur Bruzzone
Sorel Investments
1728 Union Street, #311
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 441 -4499
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Governor Wilson
on: 01/19/93
Alternate: (Vacant)
James Burroughs
Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 653 -5656
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Resources Agency
on: 01/20/94
Alternate: Phillips
Michael James Cale
County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive, Room 100A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: (707) 527 -2241
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Sonoma Board of Supervisors
on: 10/22/91
Alternate: Tim Smith
Alan Carlton
715 Santa Ray Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Telephone: (510) 652 -8658
Alternate to Pachl
Appointed by:
Senate Rules Committee
on: 09/11/87
Eric Carruthers
1527 Hicks Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
Telephone: (408) 297 -7797
Alternate to McKenna
Appointed by:
Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
on: 04/23/91
Colleen Casey
Worker's Compensation Appeals Board
45 Fremont Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 975 -0777
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Governor Wilson •
01/19/93
Alternate: (Vacant)
Wilma Chan
County of Alameda
Administration Building
1221 Oak Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272 -6693
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
on: 01/24/95
Alternate: (Kelly)
Rosemary Corbin
City of Richmond
114 Crest Avenue
Richmond, CA 94801
Telephone: (510) 235 -5779
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Association of Bay Area Governments
on 01/25/88; reappointed 01/01/94
Alternate: (Bayton)
-2-
Betsey Cutler
City of Mill Valley
P.O. Box 1029
Mill Valley, CA 94942
Telephone: (415) 388 -8998
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Association of Bay Area Governments
on 05/26/92; reappointed 01/01/94
Alternate: Hayes
David E. Dowall
180 Avenida Drive
Berkeley, CA 94708
Telephone: (510) 339 -1625
Alternate to Siracusa
Appointed by:
Governor Deukmejian on 12/13/85 and
reappointed by Governor Wilson
on: 01/19/93
Keith G. Eickman
1907 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA 94131
Telephone: (415) 621 -7344
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Speaker of the Assembly
on 08/10/93
Alternate: (Vacant)
Vince Ferriole
County of Napa
1195 Third Street
Napa, CA 94558
Telephone: (707) 253 -4386
Alternate to Rippey
Appointed by:
Napa Board of Supervisors
on: 01/07/91; reappointed
on: 01/05/93
Calvin Fong
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
211 Main Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 744 -3036 Ext. 233
Commissioner
Appointed by:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
on: 04/04/89
Alternate: Rakstins
-3-
Gary Giacomini
County of Marin
Administration Building, Suite 315
Marin County Civic Center
San Rafael, CA 94903 -4193
Telephone: (415) 499 -7331
Alternate to Rose
Appointed by:
Marin Board of Supervisors
on: 01/19/93
Gordon Gojkovich
County of Solano
580 West Texas Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Telephone: (707) 421 -6120
Alternate to Kondylis
Appointed by:
Solano County Board of Supervisors
on 01/19/95
Terence Hallinan
City and County of San Francisco
401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 308
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 554 -7766
Commissioner
Appointed by:
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
on: 01/08/95
Alternate: (Vacant)
William G. (Jerry) Hayes
City of Benicia
City Hall
250 East L Street
Benicia, CA 94510
Telephone: (707) 642 -8935
Alternate to Cutler
Appointed by: •
Association of Bay Area Governments
06/18/92; reappointed 01/01/94
Robert C. Hight
State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202
Telephone: (916) 574 -1800
Commissioner
Appointed by:
State Lands Commission
on: 05/26/94
Alternate: Valentine
Craig S. J. Johns
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May
1999 Harrison Street, 26th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 466 -6836
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Regional Water Quality Control Board
on: 02/09/94
Alternate: Snyder
Stan Kawczynski
City of Sunnyvale
456 Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088 -3707
Telephone: (408) 773 -8880
Alternate to Morrison
Appointed by:
Association of Bay Area Governments
on: 02/18/93
Judy A. Kelly
County of Alameda
2616 Charleston Street
Oakland, CA 94602
Telephone: (415) 744 -1162
Alternate to Chan
Appointed by:
Alameda County, Board of Supervisors
on: 04/25/95
Willie Kennedy
City and County of San Francisco
401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 308
San Francisco, CA.94102
Telephone: (415) 554 -5734
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Association of Bay Area Governments
on: 01/17/91; reappointed 10/29/92
Alternate: Teglia
Fred Klass
Department of Finance
915 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 324 -0043
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Department of Finance
on: 04/14/93
Alternate: (Vacant)
10/27/95
Barbara Kondylis
County of Solano
41 B Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
Telephone: (707) 553 -5363
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Solano County Board of Supervisors
on 01/19/95
Alternate: Gojkovich
Norman LaForce
City of El Cerrito
City Hall
10890 San Pablo Avenue
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Telephone: (510) 215 -4300
Alternate to J. Smith
Appointed by:
Contra Costa County
on 02/07/95
Dianne McKenna
County of Santa Clara
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: (408) 299 -2323
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
on: 01 /08/85
Alternate: Carruthers
Gus Morrison
City of Fremont
39100 Liberty Street
P.O. Box 5006
Fremont, CA 94537 -5006
Telephone: (510) 494 -4811
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Association of Bay Area Governments
on: 02/18/93
Alternate: Kawczynski
Jim Pachl
6064 Monroe Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
Telephone: (510) 987 -7500
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Senate Rules Committee
on: 07/15/87
Alternate: Carlton
-4-
Peter Philips
Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 653 -9714
Alternate to Burroughs
Appointed by:
Resources Agency
on: 12/05/91
John Pimentel
Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency
801 K Street, Suite 1918
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 323 -5413
Alternate to Reid
Appointed by:
Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency
on: 09/10/93
Arijs A. Rakstins
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
211 Main Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 744 -3258
Alternate to Fong
Appointed by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
on: 09/09/92
Maria Rea
EPA - Region 9 (W -3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 744 -2005
Alternate to Rosenbloom
Appointed by:
The Administrator, U.S. EPA
on: 09/26/94
Jeff Reid
Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency
801 K Street, Suite 1918
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 323 -5410
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency
on: 09/10/93
Alternate: Pimentel
Mike Rippey
County of Napa
1195 Third Street
Napa, CA 94558
Telephone: (707) 253 -4386
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Napa Board of Supervisors
on: 01/05/93
Alternate: Ferriole
Annette Rose
County of Marin
Administration Building, Suite
Marin County Civic Center
San Rafael, CA 94903 -4193
Telephone: (415) 499 -7331
Commissioner
Appointed by:
Marin Board of Supervisors
on: 01/19/93
Alternate: Giacomini
Jeff Rosenbloom
EPA - Region 9 (W -3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 744 -1962
Commissioner
Appointed by:
The Administrator, U.S. EPA
on: 09/26/94
Alternate: Rea
-5-
Peter Snyder
Regional Water Quality trot Board
2101 Webster Street,x4 ite 500
Oakland, CA 946
Telephone: (51286 -0533 74
Alternate t Johns �w
Appoi ed by:
Reg oval Water Quality Control Board
on: 01/19/95
Roberta Teglia
City of South San Fra
315 P. O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Telephon) (415) 877 -8500
Altern ti to Kennedy
Ap fnted by:
sociation of Bay Area Governments
on: 11/19/93
Jeff Smith
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 108A
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (510) 646 -2080
Commissioner
Appointed by
Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors
on 02/07/95
Alternate: LaForce
Tim Smith
County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: (707) 527 -2241
Alternate to Cale
Appointed by:
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
on: 01/10/89; reappointed 7 /16/91
David A. Thompson
Jackson, Tufts, Cole & Black
650 California Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415)433 -1950
Alternate to Tufts
Appointed by:
Governor Deukmejian on 8/15/83 and
reappointed by Governor Wilson
on: 11/19/93
Michael Valentine
State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202
Telephone: (916) 574 -1850
Alternate to Hight
Appointed by.;
State Lands Commission
on: 6/10/94
10/27/95
S
-6-
Vacancy
Commissioner
Appointee of Governor
Alternate to Bruzzone
Appointee of Governor
Alternate to Casey
Appointee of Governor
Alternate to Eickman
Appointee of Speaker of the Assembly
Alternate to Hallinan
Appointee of San Francisco Board of
Supervisors
Alternate to Klass
Appointee of Director of Finance
Legislators
Assemblyman Dominic L. Cortese
State Capitol, Room 4149
Sacramento, CA 95814
nt /7/Q5
INTERIM LEASE PROSPECTS
Potential Tenant
Building
No.
Area
(sq.ft.)
Bldg.
Vacancy
Date
Offer
Submitted
by ARRA
Offer
Countered
by Tenant
6/1/96
Yes
Yes
Nelson Marine
167
55,450
UARCO
24
25
47,250
37,000
Now
Yes
Yes
CARSTAR
24
25
15,750
18,500
Now
Yes
Yes
Newly formed plating company
32
56,640
Now
No
No
Tower Aviation
530
82,250
Now
Pending
No
National Airmotive
360
180,000
Now
No
No
Real Estate Development Co.
360
180,000
Now
Pending
No
GRIDCORE
530
82,250
Now
No
No
PIVCO
39
110,000 ,
6/1/96
No
No
Quality Assured Products
11
400A
107,000
60,000
1/1/97
Pending
No
BART
41
118,000
9/1/96
No
No
Kaiser Aerospace
40
118,000
9/1/96
No
No
ACET
21
66,000
Now
RFP Pending
Any Location (movie production)
21
66,000
Now
Helicopter Adventures
21
66,000
Now
Giannotti
113
13,100
Now
Pending
No
Dynamic Business Development
(boat construction)
66
55,450
3/1/97
No
No
S.F. Foreign Trade
169
170
21
87,000
91,800
66,000
4/1/97
Pending
No
Bay Ship & Yacht
166
55,450
3/1/97
No
No
ta�0 Printed on recycled paper
1/31/96
Potential Tenant
Building
No.
Area
(sq.ft.)
Bldg.
Vacancy
Date
Offer
Submitted
by ARRA
Offer
Countered
by Tenant
Defense Accounting and Finance
Service (DEFAS)
6 (FISC)
100,000
Now
No
No
MARAD
Piers 1, 2, 3
168
117,000
1/97
Pending
No
Moore & Sons Trucking
1 (FISC)
80,000
Now
No
No
EnviroRents
22
66,000
1/96
Pending
No
John Berry Organization
4 acres
vacant
property at
FISC
None •
Pending
No
to Printed on recycled paper
2 1/31/96
CORRESPONDENCE
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
510- 263 -2870
FAX 510 -521 -3764
January 4, 1996
The Honorable Barbara Lee
Chair, Select Committee on Defense Conversion
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249 -0001
Dear Assemblywoman Lee:
I have reviewed your letter which describes the infrastructure bond financing you are considering
for closing military bases. We believe it is very farsighted and would certainly support you in your
efforts to pass the bill in the Legislature and support it on the November election ballot.
Local community redevelopment authorities grappling with how to finance the enormous
infrastructure, demolition, and site improvement costs would welcome the availability of low interest
loans with deferred payments. Your proposed legislation recognizes the need for low interest loans
and the fact that it may be a long time before these properties generate sufficient revenues to begin
repayment on these loans.
I have enclosed an Infrastructure Capital Costs Summary which attempts to quantify the
infrastructure, demolition, and remodeling costs associated with the Reuse Plan we expect to submit
to the Navy at the end of this month. I believe these staggering capital costs are reflective of the
situation we all face in military base redevelopment.
Please let us know how we can support you and your colleagues in this effort and what additional
information you require in making the case for the need for state - backed bond financing. We look
forward to working with you on this initiative.
Sincerely,
44,u Vui luhY
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Encl.
cc: ARRA Governing Body w/12 -19 letter from the Hon. Barbara Lee
Printed on recycled paper
Infrastructure Capital Costs Summary
January 2, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Project Amount
Infrastructure
Gas System $21,050,000
Electrical System $29,950,000
Storm Drainage $22,897,000
Waste Water - Sewer System $9,517,750
Potable Water System (EBMUD) $8,250,000
Streets & Roadway System $76,084,648
Private Roadway improvements $16,487,064
Subtotal
Other Improvements **
Building Demolition
Building Remodeling
Subtotal
$184,236,462
$2,051,044
$19,390,402
$21,441,446
Total $205,677,908
Notes: * Costs based upon the Draft Community Reuse
Plan - Land Use Element.
** Costs based upon the Interim Reuse Strategy
All costs in 1995 dollars.
January 2, 1996
c:motusl23r4ldoc\infrast.wk4
DRA5
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
DEFENSE CONVERSION
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
, RAMENTO, CA 94249-0001
OFFICE PHONE: (916) 445 -7442
DEFENSE CONVERSION HOTLINE:
1 -800 -337 -5600
soeinhig
anlifi iiin 7Etgielaturt
SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFENSE CONVERSION
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BARBARA LEE, CHAIR
ASSEMBLYMAN MICKEY CONROY, VICE -CHAIR
December 19, 1995
Ms. Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
NAS Base Conversion Office
Postal Director, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
RECEIVED
DEC 2 8 1996
SASE COIVERSION OFf!CE
CIT.( OF .k AL t-
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
DEFENSE CONVERSION
Barbara Alby
Marguerite Archie - Hudson
Joe Baca
Tom Bates
Debra Bowen
Valerie Brown
Tom Hannigan
Phil Hawkins
Paul V. Horcher
William J. "Pete" Knight
Steve Kuykendall
Juanita McDonald
Bruce McPherson
Jim Morrissey
Richard Rainey
Ted Weggeland
Dear Ms. Miller:
As Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Defense Conversion, I am considering introducing
a bond act to provide funds for infrastructure on closing or closed military bases. I would appreciate
knowing (1) your thoughts on this idea; (2) whether your agency would likely support such
legislation; and (3) the amount of funding that your agency might utilize under such a program. I
would appreciate receiving your response by January 5.
PROPOSAL:
A bill would be introduced in the Legislature by a bipartisan group of legislators proposing to place
a bond act before the voters at the November 1996 election. The Governor would be asked to be one
of the bill's sponsors. Bond revenues would be used to provide loans to local base reuse entities for
infrastructure improvements, which would be broadly defined as roads, water, sewer, building code
upgrades, structure demolition, etc.
Local base reuse entities would decide when to apply for state loans and for what projects. The
application would have to specify how the loan would be paid if the project is successful and how
the loan would be paid if the project was not successful. Presumably, local base reuse entities would
only propose projects where there was a high likelihood of revenues being sufficient to repay the
cost of the project. Where requested, the local reuse entity could defer paying principal and interest
for up to five years, i.e., until project revenues begin accruing. This would be accomplished in a
mariner that is similar to the financing of a large building where it will take several years of
construction before there are tenants to help repay the loan.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
510- 263 -2870
FAX 510 -521 -3764
January 4, 1996
The Honorable Barbara Lee
Chair, Select Committee on Defense Conversion
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249 -0001
Dear Assemblywoman Lee:
I have reviewed your letter which describes the infrastructure bond financing you are considering
for closing military bases. We believe it is very farsighted and would certainly support you in your
efforts to pass the bill in the Legislature and support it on the November election ballot.
Local community redevelopment authorities grappling with how to finance the enormous
infrastructure, demolition, and site improvement costs would welcome the availability of low interest
loans with deferred payments. Your proposed legislation recognizes the need for low interest loans
and the fact that it may be a long time before these properties generate sufficient revenues to begin
repayment on these loans.
I have enclosed an Infrastructure Capital Costs Summary which attempts to quantify the
infrastructure, demolition, and remodeling costs associated with the Reuse Plan we expect to submit
to the Navy at the end of this month. I believe these staggering capital costs are reflective of the
situation we all face in military base redevelopment.
Please let us know how we can support you and your colleagues in this effort and what additional
information you require in making the case for the need for state - backed bond financing. We look
forward to working with you on this initiative.
Sincerely,
lw lJ..01L,1
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Encl.
cc: ARRA Governing Body w/12 -19 letter from the Hon. Barbara Lee
•� $ Printed on recycled paper
Infrastructure Capital Costs Summary
January 2, 1996
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Project Amount
Infrastructure
Gas System $21,050,000
Electrical System $29,950,000
Storm Drainage $22,897,000
Waste Water - Sewer System $9,517,750
Potable Water System (EBMUD) $8,250,000
Streets & Roadway System $76,084,648
Private Roadway Improvements $16,487,064
Subtotal $184,236,462
Other Improvements **
Building Demolition $2,051,044
Building Remodeling $19,390,402
Subtotal $21,441,446
Total $205,677,908
Notes: * Costs based upon the Draft Community Reuse
Plan - Land Use Element
Costs based upon the Interim Reuse Strategy
All costs in 1995 dollars.
January 2, 1996
cNotusi23r4\doc\infrast.wk4
°Rol
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
DEFENSE CONVERSION
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
1CRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001
FICE PHONE: (916) 445 -7442
DEFENSE CONVERSION HOTLINE:
1- 800 - 337 -5600
cAose ttIiXg
«uIif irnia 7Ergislature
SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFENSE CONVERSION
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BARBARA LEE, CHAIR
ASSEMBLYMAN MICKEY CONROY, VICE -CHAIR
December 19, 1995
Ms. Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
NAS Base Conversion Office
Postal Director, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear Ms. Miller:
RECEIVED
DEC 2 8 1996
BASE lC POV ALA4 EnAF10E
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
DEFENSE CONVERSION
Barbara Alby
Marguerite Archie- Hudson
Joe Baca
Tom Bates
Debra Bowen
Valerie Brown
Tom Hannigan
Phil Hawkins
Paul V. Horcher
William J. "Pete" Knight
Steve Kuykendall
Juanita McDonald
Bruce McPherson
Jim Morrissey
Richard Rainey
Ted Weggeland
As Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Defense Conversion, I am considering introducing
a bond act to provide funds for infrastructure on closing or closed military bases. I would appreciate
knowing (1) your thoughts on this idea; (2) whether your agency would likely support such
legislation; and (3) the amount of funding that your agency might utilize under such a program. I
would appreciate receiving your response by January 5.
PROPOSAL:
A bill would be introduced in the Legislature by a bipartisan group of legislators proposing to place
a bond act before the voters at the November 1996 election. The Governor would be asked to be one
of the bill's sponsors. Bond revenues would be used to provide loans to local base reuse entities for
infrastructure improvements, which would be broadly defined as roads, water, sewer, building code
upgrades, structure demolition, etc.
Local base reuse entities would decide when to apply for state loans and for what projects. The
application would have to specify how the loan would be paid if the project is successful and how
the loan would be paid if the project was not successful. Presumably, local base reuse entities would
only propose projects where there was a high likelihood of revenues being sufficient to repay the
cost of the project. Where requested, the local reuse entity could defer paying principal and interest
for up to five years, i.e., until project revenues begin accruing. This would be accomplished in a
manner that is similar to the financing of a large building where it will take several years of
construction before there are tenants to help repay the loan.
Ms. Kay Miller
Page Two
December 19, 1995
Loan requests would be forwarded to the existing state Defense Conversion Council, which has both
state and local representatives. The State Treasurer's Office would prioritize the requests according
to which are the most financially secure. The Council would determine which projects have the
greatest likelihood of creating the most employment per dollar invested. The Council would meld
the two priorities and approve the loans. The State Treasurer would sell the bonds and provide the
revenues to the local base reuse entities.
ADVANTAGES AND RISK:
The principal advantages to the local reuse entities would be:
1. State general obligation bonds obtain the lowest interest rate.
2. The bundling of many projects from around the state would reduce the administrative costs
of issuing bonds.
3. The State Treasurer would administer the bond sale, a function that the State Treasurer's
Office has a great deal of expertise in doing. This would reduce the necessity of local reuse
entities issuing their own bonds, thereby leaving the (typically small) reuse staffs to focus on
reuse.
4. The deferral of principal and interest would be advantageous because most projects won't have
immediate revenue sources.
To the extent possible, the financial risk would remain with the local reuse entity and would not be
shifted to the state. It is thought that the bond measure would not be approved by the Legislature
or the voters if the State General Fund was left to carry the risk.
I look forward to your response. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
io
BARBARA LEE, Chair
Assembly Select Committee on Defense Conversion
BL:cm:lg
'01/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
TELEPHONE.
(510) 4(5.4494
(510) 208-4502 (1)1REcT)
ALAN WALTNER PAGE 02/12
LAW OFFICES OF
ALAN C: WALTNER
1786 FRANKLIN STREET, EIGHTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94012
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Postal Directory, Bldg 90
NAS Alameda
Atlantic Ave. & Main Street
Alameda, CA 94501-5012
FACSIMILE
(510) 405-0248
(510) 208-4881.1
January 26, 1996
Re: NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan
Dear Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority:
Our firm represents the Golden Gate Audubon Society
("Audubon") in connection with pending proposals for reuse and
redevelopment of the Alameda Naval Air Station ("ANAS"). These
comments are submitted on the January, 1996, Community Reuse Plan
Public Review Draft ("Reuse Plan") for the ANAS, focusing on
issues raised by the limited area devoted to the preservation of
habitat for the endangered California least tern.
Specifically, Audubon demands that the entire refuge site'
proposed in September 1994 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
("FWS") for an Alameda National Wildlife Refuge ("FWS Refuge
Site") be set aside for habitat preservation purposes. "Why
Establish the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge? A Proposal by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," September, 1994 ("Refuge
Proposal").
The Refuge Proposal set forth a number of reasons why the
full FWS Refuge Site is necessary to support the recovery of the
California least tern. As recognized in the_Refuge Proposal,
"Alameda NAS supports one of the world's largest breeding
colonies (254 birds in 1993) of the endangered California least
tern. This site represents the only significant colony north of
Santa Barbara, producing 10 percent of the total population's
young each year." The site is also important for endangered
brown pelicans and hosts the largest nesting colony of Caspian
terns on the pacific coast. The FWS Refuge site proposal was
1The Fish and Wildlife Service proposal includes a 595 acre
land portion with approximately 400 acres of tarmac and paved
runways, 140 acres of grassland, and 55 acres of wetlands. The
proposal also includes a 118 acre open space/grassland
conservation easement, and 37,5 acres of bay waters.
01/29/1996 11:51 5104656248 ALAN WALTNER PAGE 03/12'
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page 2
based upon the need to provide a sufficient buffer to ensure
• •
minimal human disturbance and limited encroachment by future
development. Specifically, FWS found that: "The open grassland
and tarmac surrounding the colony provide a habitat for
jackrabbits, ground squirrels, and mice, which in turn.provide a
source of food for large predatory birds, who also prey on least
Lern chicks. WiLhout this food source, the chicks could become a
target for avian predators." Refuge Proposal at 3.
As noted in a January 18, 1996, letter from seven scientific
experts on the California least tern, "The site at NAS Alameda
represents essentially the entire breeding population of least
terns in the San Francisco Bay area . . . Clearly, the site at
NAS Alameda has played a critical role in the recovery of
California least terns." This letter again notes the importance
of alternative predator-supporting habitat which "channels
predators away from terns . . " It concludes: "[T]he
continued success of this site is crucial to the continued,
recovery of the endangered California least tern. We contend
that any significant change to the current configuration of the
airfield and adjacent open areas may irrevocably affect the':
success and perpetuation of the NAS Alameda least tern colony,
potentially jeopardizing recovery for this endangered
subspecies." (Emphasis Added).
Nonetheless, the Reuse Plan leaves open the potential for
development on more than 200 acres of the FWS Refuge Site, as
well as the 118 acre open space/grassland buffer area proposed by
FWS. The Reuse Plan designates this area as the "Northwest.
Territories," proposed for development with a mix of light
industry, a golf course and4..elated facilities, and approximately
29 acres of open space.
For the reasons discussed below, we believe that this
designation fails to implement the primary. task of the Reuse plan
-- to present and consider "the constraints which challenge
successful development" of the site, specifically constraints
under the laws that ensure preservation of the full habitat area
necessary to support the recovery of the California least tern,
among other habiLaL, open space and recreational values. In
order to provide a more accurate basis for future reuse planning,
the document must be amended, at the outset, to include the full
FWS Refuge Site. Put in the terms of the Reuse Plan, the
cnnstraints of the currently proposed "Northwest Territories"
should be acknowledged by designating that entire area as a
01/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
ALAN WALTHER . PAGE -04/12
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page 3
portion of the "Wildlife Preserve" subarea in the plan.' .
As you know, under the Military Base Reuse Authority Act,
Government Code S 67800 et seq. ("MBRAA"), several substantive
environmental obligations are established or confirmed. First,
MBRAA directs that "Any reuse and development of the military
base should to the maximum extent possible maintain and protect
the unique environmental resources of the state." Government
Code S 67801(d)-. Here, unless the full FWS Refuge Site is
designated as wildlife preserve, this directive will not have
been satisfied.' Special provisions of CEQA applicable to base
reuse plans also make clear that; "All subsequent development at
the military base or reservation site shall be subject to all
applicable federal, state, or local laws, including, but not
limited to, those relating to air quality, water quality,
traffic, threatened and endangered species, noise, and hazardous
u.r.. toxic wastes, aubstances, OL maLeLials." Public Resuurces
Code S 21083.8.1.(e).
Here, the proposal to develop the "Northwest Territories"
rather than preserving them as wildlife habitat runs afoul of
several environmental laws. To begin, the entire Reuse Plan must
be supported by an adequate environmental impact report, which
has not yet been prepared. Constraints under the federal
endangered species act would likely bar transfer of the property
by the Navy for the currently proposed development purposes.
Similar limitations are faced under state law, including the
constitutional public trust doctrine and California endangered
species act. Both separately and together, these constraints
will likely prevent development of the Northwest Territories
portion of the site These constraints should be acknowledged
and incorporated into the plan at the outset, with the full FWS
'In addition, the reuse plan in several locations
contemplates potential reduction of the wildlife refuge area
and/or more intensive uses of the refuge in the event that.
recovery efforts for the California least tern fail. E.g., Reuse
Plan at 5-5. However, the proposed refuge area is not
constrained solely by the least tern habitat needs, but by public
trust, habitat use by other species, open space and other
considerations. The provisions in the plan providing for
reversion of portions of the refuge area must be eliminated.
MBRAA provides that: "In preparing,
adopting, reviewing, and revising the reuse plan, the board shall
be consistent with approved coastal plans, air quality plans,
water quality plans, spheres of influence, and other countywide
or regional plans required by federal or state law . . .
Government Code S 67840(c).
01/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
ALAN Wa..TNER
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page 4
PAGE 05/12
Refuge Site included in the proposed wildlife preserve. Failure
to do so risks continuing controversy and delay of the entire
base conversion. These constraints are discussed in greater
detail below.
CEQA Obligations
The most glaring problem with the proposed Reuse Plan is the
failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), specifically the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR"), before adoption of the plan. The Reuse Plan
indicates that: "The preferred land use plan chosen for NAS
Alameda is described in this document . . . ." Reuse Plan at 1-4
(Emphasis Added). Yet completion of an EIR is not contemplated
for at least a year. Reuse Plan at 1-5. The rationale for this
appears to be the argument that adoption .of the plan is not a
•CEQA "approval," which instead would occur only when the City
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are adopted. Id. This
argument is legally incorrect.
Under the guidelines implementing CEQA, project "approval"
is defined to be "the decision by a public agency which commits
the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project
intended to be carried out .by any person. . . ." Title 14,
California Code of Regulations ("Guidelines-), Section 15352.
The Reuse Plan recognizes that: "While the Community Reuse plan
is not a General Plan, it does serve as a guide for changes to
the City's General Plan and land use regulations." Reuse Plan at
1-5. In fact,' under Government Code S 67840.1, cities are
required to submit a general plan implementing the reuse plan,
and under Section 67840.2, the ARRA board is Lo approve the plan
or portions thereof; "if the board finds that the portions of the
general plan or amended general plan applicable to the territory
of the base meet the requirements of this title, and are
consistent with the reuse plan." Otherwise, the general plan
submitted by the city is refused certification. Id•4
Thus, the adoption of the Reuse Plan commits ARRA to .a
definite course of action" and reflects a project approval
triggering an EIR requirement. The failure to prepare an EIR in
'The reuse plan likewise states that: "All actions taken to
further the reuse of NAS Alameda should comply with the adopted
goals and objectives of the Community Reuse Plan." Reuse Plan at
10-6.
o1/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
LAN WALTNER PAGE e6/12
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page 5
advance of the Reuse Plan approval violates CEQA.5 Moreover, an
environmental impact report is expressly required for all base
reuse plans, regardless of any exceptions or exemptions that
otherwise might apply to the activity. Public Resources Code $
21151.1(a) (4).'
As recognized by the Supreme Court. in No Oil, Inc. v. City
of Los Anceles, 13 Cal.3d 68, 88 (1974), EIRs "should be prepared
as early as feasible in the planning process to enable
environmental considerations to influence project program and
design . . .-. See also CEQA Guidelines S 15004(b)(1); Stand
Tall On Principles v. Shasta High School, 235 Cal.App.3d 772, 780
(1991). Given the momentum to the planning process resulting
from the Reuse Plan, and the project "approval" that will result
from adoption of that plan, an EIR is required now, rather than
later.
Among the key requirements in CEQA is the requirement that
environmentally preferable alternatives be found infeasible
before they are rejected. Specifically, whenever significant
‘5Under special CEQA procedures that apply to base reuse
Plans, a federal EIS non the closure and reuse" of the base may
be used, following specified procedures, as the draft
environmental impact report on the reuse plan. Public Resources
Code S 21083.8. However, the Draft Environmental Impact
statement, Candidate Base Closures/ Realignment San Francisco Bay
Area, 1990, (•DEIS"), covered only the closure and not the reuse
of the ANAS„,and therefore does not qualify for this procedure.
Specifically,with regard to endangered species impacts, only the
beneficial impacts of closure (reduced pollutant runoff„ 'etc.)
were considered and no adverse impacts of reuse were evaluated.
DEIS at A-119., The base closure EIS expressly deferred
consideration of endangered species impacts from reuse proposals
to a future document. DEIS at A-119 ("If impacts to threatened
and endangered species are expected as a result of future uses of
naval facilities, such impacts and corresponding mitigation
measures would be addressed in NEPA documents that would be
prepared for specific reuse of the facility.") In any event,
Public Resources Code s 21083.8 confiLms that, even where the
special procedures are followed, "the environmental impact report
for the reuse plan shall be completed in compliance with this
division."
68tatutory provisions peLiaitting the preparation of the EIR
after the redevelopment plan only pertain to specified base
closures that do not include the ANAS. Health and Safety Code §S
33320.7, 33492.94.
01/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
ALAN WALTNER PAGE 07112
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page 6 •
environmental impacts' are identified in an EIR, Public
Resources Code $ 21081 requires one of the following findings:
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or .
incorporated into (the] project which mitigate or
avoid the significant environmental effects
thereof as identified in the completed
environmental impact. report.
(c)
* * *
Specific economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
Here, the designation of the full FWS Refuge Site as a
wildlife preserve is feasible and therefore is required under
these "action forcing" provisions of CEQA.
Obligations Under the Federal Endangered Species Act
Three independent obligations under the federal Endangered
Species Act ("ESA") apply to the ANAS closure and reuse
activities -- first, the affirmative obligations of all federal
agencies to implement programs to conserve endangered species
under.. Section 7(a)(1), second, a federal agency consultation
requirement under; Section 7(a)(2 ),`and'third, the prohibition on
taking endangered species under Section 9, except as may be
permitted under Section 10. The Section 7 obligations attach
federal agency; actions, such as the proposed transfer of the
property for reuse purposes, the ;Section ` 9 `.prohibition and,'
Section 10 permitting, {requirements' ",'apply. ° "to all persons or'-
entities involved inthe development of the property.
As discussed in Carson-Truckee Water Conservation Dist. v.
Watt, 549 F.Supp..,7 04.(E.D. Cal. 1983), affirmed 741 F.2d 257
(9th Ci,r. 1984), all federal agencies are obligated to undertake
affirmative actions to conserve and assist the recovery of
endangered species under Section 7(a)(1). This affirmative
conservation duty is defined under the ESA as -- "the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which
the measures provided pursuant to (the ESA] are no longer
to
'Under the.CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, a significantYeffect
on the `environment would result from ,a -project that would .'
"Substantially :affect a rare'or endangered species of animal or
plant or the habitat of the species."-
01/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
ALAN WALTNER PAGE 08/12
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page 7
1•
•
necessary." 16 U.S.C. S 1532(3). The Section 7(a)(1) obligation
is independent and in addition to the consultation requirement
under Section 7(a)(2) discussed below. The Navy must implement
this obligation in its various decisions regarding the reuse of
the ANAS; we believe that Section 7(a)(1) prohibits the Navy from
transferring any of the FWS Refuge Site for development purposes.
ESA Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation by Federal
agencies with FWS to "insure that any action authorized, funded,
or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification' of
habitat of.such species which is determined by the Secretary,
after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to.be
critical . . In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph
each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data,
availablc." 16 U.S.C. S 1536(a)(2) and (3)." The base
transfer action by the Navy must comply with these requirements.
As discussed above, FWS has already recommended designation of a
wildlife preserve much larger than proposed in the Reuse Plan.
Designation of a smaller area could prevent FWS from issuing a
no-jeopardy opinion to the Navy and therefore delay the overall
base transfer process.
In addition to the Section 7 obligations of federal
agencies, all individuals and entities undertaking the
'This term is defined in the regulation to mean "to engage
in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the
survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing
the reproduction, numbers, or distributidel of that species." 50
c.F.R. S 402.02.
'This is defined in the regulations as !,!ia direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical
habitat of both the survival and recovery of a listed species.
Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features
that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical."
50 C.F.R. S 402.02.
"The consultation process centers around a biological
assessment. 50 C.F.R. s 402.12. The purpose of the biological
assessment is to "evaluate the potential. effects of the action on
listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical
habitat and determine whether any such species or habitat are
likely -to be adversely affected by the action . . ." 50 C.F.R. S
402.12(a).
81/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
ALAN WALTNER
Alameda:Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
a
January 26, 1996
Page 8
development of those portions of the site important to endangered
species must comply with the takings prohibitions and permitting
requirements of ESA Sections 9 and 10. Prohibited taking
includes habitat modification, as well as harassment." Given
the importance of the Northwest Territories to the survival and
recovery of the California least tern, a Section 10 permit would
likely be required for any development in that area.
California Endangered Species Act Obligations
PAGE 09/12-
As you know, California has its own Endangered Species Act
("CESA") found at Fish and Game, Code S 2050 et seq. CESA
establishes a policy that state agencies not approve projects
which "would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species." or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued
existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent
alternative available consistent with conserving the species or
its habitat which would prevent jeopardy." Fish and Game Code §
2053.- All state agencies making decisions regarding the project
must carry out this affirmative obligation. In particular, the
State Lands Commission must comply with this requirement in
addressing the public trust issues discussed below. Since =a
reasonable and prudent alternative exists that would preserve the
full refuge site proposed by FWS, any state agency approvals must
under this affirmative obligation conform to this full acreage
needed by the California least tern.
Impairment of the Public Trust from Habitat Destruction
As recognized in the Reuse Plan at page 2-25, "Currently the ,theNorthwest.,Territories is under public trust
jurisdiction. The northwest -point, a:200 foot strip along the
northern waterfront, and the wetlands area are the only'portions-.:
of this area that are not in the public trust.""
"The ESA regulations define the term harassment broadly to
mean "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates
the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an
extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns
which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or
sheltering." 50 C.F.R. S 17.3.
'The California least tern is listed as endangered a t 14
C.C.R, S 670.5.
13While we disagree with the suggested exclusion of the
wetlands from public trust protection, we agree that the
Northwest Territories remain subject to the public trust. City
k1/29/1996 11:51 5104656248
ALAN WALTNER
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page •9
PAGE 10/12
It is by now well established that the public trust
protects environmental values. Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6
Cal.3d 251, 59-60. [98 Cal.Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374] ("There is a
growing public recognition that one of the most important public
uses of the tidelands -- a use encompassed within the tidelands
trust -- is the preservation of those lands in their natural
state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific
study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and
habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the
scenery and climate of the area.") The public trust encumbers
even a fee title granted by the State, and trust values cannot be
impaired to serve non-trust objectives. City of Berkeley iv.
Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 515, 521 [162 Cal.Rptr. 327, 606
P.2d 362]. This encumbrance is often referred to as a public
trust easement or servitude. Public agencies responsible for
administering trust properties have an affirmative duty to
"preserve, so far as consistent with the public interest, the
uses protected by the trust." National Audubon Society v..
Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d. 419, 446-47 [189 Cal.Rptr.. 346,
658 P.2d 709]. Agencies also have "an affirmative duty . . to
protect public trust uses whenever feasible . . " Td.
As acknowledged in the Reuse Plan, the proposed light,
industrial park and golf course do not serve public trust
purposes and are not allowed on trust lands unless the public
of Alameda v. Todd Shipyards, 632 F.Supp. 333 (N.D.Ca. 1986),
modified at 635 F.Supp. 1447; Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d at 261
("Reclamation with, or without prior authorization from the state
does not ipso...facto terminate the public trust nor render the
issue moot."). This is particularly true where the trust values
sought to be protected at this site (habitat use by endangered
birds) are still present and have never been eliminated.
Similarly, since the current uses of the property are being
abandoned in their entirety by the Navy, and_since the habitat
trust values still remain on the property, this situation does
not present issues of fairness and reliance such as those faced
in City of Berkeley Y. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 515, 534
[162 Cal.Rptr. 327, 606 P.2d 362], which led to the Court to
limit the "retroactive" application of this rule. ("In the
harmonizing of these claims, the principle we apply is that the
interests of the public are paramount in property that is still
physically adaptable for trust uses, whereas the interests of the
grantees and their successors should prevail insofar as the
tidelands have been rendered substantially valueless of those
purposes.") Indeed, during its tenure, the Navy actively
preserved and promoted the trust habitat uses of the site, as it
arguably was required to do under its ESA Section 7 obligations,
discussed above.
1
Nk
.01/29/1996 11:51 5104656248 ALAN WALTNER
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 26, 1996
Page 10
PAGE 11/L2
trust is extinguished. The plan therefore proposes that the
public trust servitude over the Northwest Territories be ;I
extinguished through land trades. What this proposal ignores is
the fact that the trust values in the Northwest Territories
(habitat areas necessary for endangered and other species) ,cannot
be replicated elsewhere. As a result, no trade that preserves
this unique trust resource is. possible. The Reuse Plan must
recognize this constraint by designating the entire Northwest
Territories as a portion of the wildlife preserve in the proposed
plan.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the Northwest Territories
area designated in the Reuse Plan is extremely constrained from a
regulatory standpoint and likely cannot be developed as proposed.
At a minimum, pursuit of the proposed light industrial andgolf
course developments in this area will result in substantial
controversy and delay that could well spill over to affect:the
entire base transfer process. Audubon requests that you
acknowledge these constraints at the outset and designate the
entire Northwest Territories area as a portion of the wildlife
rcfugc. In any event, action at this time is premature until an
EIR has been prepared for the full reuse plan.'
We appreciate your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
an Waltner
cc: Alameda Mayor Ralph Appezzato
Alameda Councilman "Lil" Arnerich
San Leandro Mayor Ellen Corbett
Alameda Supervisor Wilma Chan
Alameda Councilmember Karin Kucas
Albert. DeWitt
Sandre Swanson
Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris
"On a procedural level, we request to be placed on the
mailing list for all notices from your office regarding this
project, including but not limited to all hearing notices,
notices of preparation and notices of determination for th6 base
reuse plan and implementing activities, and notices required
under special provisions of law such as Public Resources Code §
21063.6.1.
016 -55? -7343 OEA WESTERN REGION 493 P01 JAN 31 '96 12:49
OEA Fax Messages
Date:
TO:
FROM:
Jan. 29, 1996
Kay Miller, ARRA
Mark Braly, Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of
Defense, Sacramento (916)557 -7365 fax (916)557 -7343
SUBJECT: ARRA (NAS Alameda) Grant Request
The request for funding was approved tentatively (and subject to some further review) :3:: detailed
below.
Budget Item,
Request 2/1/96
thru 1/3/97
Recommend comment
personnel (current 7: ED,
arimin. analyst, planner,
fac. manager,
board/ofce.ragr. two
clerks) *
office expense **
travel
535,309
535,309
60,031
50,031
20,00
admin services
64,482
approved, with the understanding again that staff
must take over some of the work which you propose
to contract out to consultants. Note that -lie 3%
increase can't be applied to people who :an already
at the top of their equivalent GS level.
some of the committee felt that even this level of
funding was excessive and out of line wi th other
locations. We will check the latter. Could you give
us further breakdown on what the expen, u: consist
of?
10,000 committee wanted to cut this back. It might help to
give us detail about travel you plan.
39,482 We can't support the in -house counsel, L ut you can
count it as in -kind local match.
ARRA meet expenses
legal
5,670
100,000
5,670 okay
50,000 This reduced amount is allowable if expuuditures are
consistent with policy, which we will db cuss with
you
FISC annex
market analysis for
NAS /FISC
60,000
60,000
60.000
30,000
detailed plaa
development for
NAS/FISC
housing revitalization
feasibility sandy
145,000
0,000
45,000
building uppade an
demolition study
65,000
okay -.
we reviewed your detail on marketing w tk done to
date; we recognize it is new work but w.3ink staff
should do more of it than you proposed.
your proposed level of detailed study ge's into the
implementation area; this funding level i s similar to
what we have funded elsewhere
0 exactly how many units ARRA. will have;
responsibility for and the nature of their
responsibility is not yet clear
0 gets into implementation; grant has aka: c'y funded
what is needed for planning
*Includes new Assistant Facilities Manager position.
* *$10,000 less than 1995 funding level
916 -557 -7343 OEA WESTERN REGION
technical support for
EDC application
2
493 P02 JAN 31 '96 12:50
eon. analysis/BP for
port conveyance
135,000
50,000
appraisal for public trust
redevelopment area
planning
35,000
0
65,000
detailed long -term mkt
planning/materials
wildlife mgt. plan
185,000
.150,00
50,000
0
Section 7 consultation
property engineering
survey
60,000
30,000
I0,000
parcel and street ROW
survey
support for school
district
TOTAL
32,000
0
ARRA was under the impression that a much more
elaborate application would be needed than the Navy
anticipates. EFA reps. participated with ARRA staff
and OEA in a teleconference on how the •3rocess will
work. Recommended amount consistent with policy.
what will be required for this application is
unknown; we think staff can do it
we don't see the need for it at this time.
our figure is closer to what we have paid . :1sewhere;
but we need to check this out
Premature. Your NAS/NADEP plan not ;het
approved by Council and PISC not completed
recognizing the need for some expert support
combine with item above
EFA West is doing now
250,000
0
40,000
0
2,022,492
1,060,010
After discussion with EFA West, OEA feels that the
request is in excess of what would be needed; that
current Navy records are probably sufficient for what
will be needed, and that it is premature to go beyond
that at this time
many federal, state and local agencies have a role in
supporting ARRA's reuse efforts; OEA is not
authorized and does not have the resources to fund
all of these efforts. With regard to impaci on the
school district please see Dave MacKinnon's letter to
Carl Anthony dtd 18 Nov. 94
$1,060,010 total reduced grant award recommended by OEA.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES, CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan - January 1996
Staff Recommendation
I. Outstanding Land Use Issues
A. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Approval
B. BDCD Port Priority Designation Not Recommended
II. Editorial Changes and Corrections and Clarifications Approval
III. Substantive Comments and Recommended Changes Approval
A. BRAG Recommendations
1. Wildlife Refuge disposition Defer
2. Financial projections - 10% surplus goal Approval
3. Housing in Northwest Territories Not Recommended
B. Alameda County Waste Management Authority
1. Goals and policy on recycling
of demolished buildings
C. AUSD (Letter)
1. Editorial changes
2. Clearly state limits of fees not paid
for by school district
(No language recommended)
Approval
Approval
Not Recommended
D. 'ARRA Staff Recommended Changes
(Homeless Assistance Element)
1. Operation Dignity - Veterans' housing request Approval
2. Additions to homeless process Approval
identifying dates of ARRA actions
IV. Late Comments
A. State Land Commission Changes (Letter)
1. Clarifying policy language on
State Land Commission and public trust issues
Approval
B. Audubon Society (Letter)
1. Place all airfield into Refuge Not recommended
2. EIR legal comments - action cannot be taken Not Applicable
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
c: \office \pauldocs \plan\planadop.96
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PETE WILSON, Governor
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
10o HOWE AVE. SUITE 100 -SOUTH
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825-8202
(TDD/TT) 1- 800 - 735 -2929
(916) 574-1940
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda Naval Aix Station
Postal Directory Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
RE: Proposed Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda
January 31, 1996
File Ref.: W25109
Dear Kay:
Thank you for meeting several months ago with me and others from the State Lands
Commission regarding public trust land title at NAS Alameda_ Paul Tuttle of your staff and
Heather McLaughlin from the City Attorney's Office have since met regularly with us to discuss
public trust title as it impacts the transfer of land and future uses of land at the facility. Several
weeks ago, we presented an outline of the procedural steps of a title settlement concerning public
trust lands at NAS Alameda.
Our position has consistently been that the public trust title issue can be resolved at NAS
Alameda using legal authority which the Legislature has conferred upon the State Lands
Commission. The background information regarding this and the methods which can be utilized
are set forth in our letter to Ms. Vilardi of the City Attorney's Office dated September 8, 1995.
The consistent advice provided has been that the wisest course of action is to protect the public
trust in NAS Alameda to the fullest and to foster public trust land .uses to the maximum extent
possible. Then, if there are remaining parcels not necessary for public trust purposes, they can be
considered for land exchange. This advice follows the direction of case law, which is that
government's first obligation is to protect its interest in sovereign tide and submerged lands.
Additional flexibility is provided by concepts such as interim leasing, which this Commission
adopted in the case of the AEG lease to put the property to immediate use. Unfortunately, the
AEG transaction was not consummated, apparently over a disagreement regarding rental rates.
Our meetings with your staff have focused on which trust lands should remain so and
which trust lands can be considered for trust termination if sufficient lands of equal value can be
identified and made new trust lands subject to the grant to the City of Alameda. NAS Alameda
is noteworthy because the vast majority of it is public trust land granted to the City of Alameda.
As we have pointed out, this situation requires that the waterfront areas which are not already
Kay Miller
Page 2
January 31, 1996
subject to the trust be used for exchange land and committed to the maximum extent possible to
public trust uses:
Our advice has been that the landownership pattern following settlement should show
that all lands useful or susceptible of use for trust purposes remain in the trust and are put either
to trust uses or interim non -trust uses subject to the requirements which we have discussed. It is
expected that the lands in which the trust would be terminated would be most of the developed
land on the interior and all of the existing housing, with existing housing being the first land
considered for trust termination. In cooperation with your staff, joint directions for appraisals to
be undertaken by the City are now being developed so that we may know the comparative land
values of the property which would come in to and out of the trust.
It has been emphasized to us in negotiations that the land use designations for various
areas as shown in the reuse plan will be refined in the subsequent general plan amendment and
special plans. Nonetheless, it is important to comment to the Community Reuse Plan, and
especially to those aspects of it which might impact land title resolution later. We have the
following comments regarding the Plan.
1. Page 1 -9, Goal A -1. The goals and objectives discussion of the public trust issue
(second bullet at the top of the page) should be amended to make clear that public trust uses have
first priority in trust property. This is consistent with the later discussion of the issue at Page 2-4.
Public trust uses include a wide range of activities, many of which generate well-paid jobs. We
suggest that this goal be rewritten to read: "Give first priority to public trust uses on lands which
are subject to the public trust, which uses can achieve other important economic, social, cultural,
and environmental goals and objectives."
2_ Page 2-4, The Public Trust Doctrine. We recommend that the third paragraph of
this discussion be expanded to address how land exchanges are achieved through agreements.
We suggest the addition of the following language to the end of this paragraph: "Land exchanges
are accomplished through written agreements, in this case, among the City of Alameda, the State
of California, and the United States. As a part of terminating the trust in specified lands, the
City of Alameda and the State of California would need to make findings that those lands are not
necessary for public trust purposes."
3. All areas along the northern waterfront in which the trust does not exist should be
retained for exchange. Figure 8 -1 on Page 8 -18 now shows Pan Pacific University occupying
land to the edge of the northern waterfront. The Figure should be corrected so that the maximum
amount of non -trust land along the waterfront will be available for exchange into the trust.
4_ Pages 8 -13 and 8 -14. The Plan is inconsistent in that it calls for the East Bay
Regional Parks and U.S. Fish and Wildlife areas to be deeded to the City of Alameda because
those areas are (or will become) trust lands, while not requiring conveyances to tie City in other
trust areas. For example, see Table 8 -7 on Page 8 -12, which shows the ARRA as the recipient
of a port priority conveyance. The Plan should note there is a tension between the federal
Kay Miller
Page 3
January 31, 1996
conveyance programs and the fact that the United States holds the property subject to the trust.
This issue exists in most of the property and should be resolved in a settlement among the City of
Alameda, the State, and the United States. Through such a settlement, lands will be freed of the
trust as other lands of equal value are made subject to it. We have discussed with your staff the
procedural outline of such a settlement and look forward to a meeting with the Navy on. the
subject.
5. The Illustrative Plan, Figure 2 -3. We understand that this depiction of uses is
V illustrative only and not a commitment to land uses. However, we are concerned about how the
drawing could be interpreted. The Illustrative Plan shows what appears to be solid housing along
the east side of the marina. This is a critical area given that some of the land here is not subject
to the trust and is near water, making it useful to the trust and good property to receive in
exchange for the termination of the trust in lands elsewhere. We have been informed in our
meetings that final development of this area and the area to the north of the marina will be for
mixed uses, dockets of housing. i s CTm3 s n • . • • ear . re i e t a • di.. ' • • •,•
h v d ...�.., vw •. �� n� * t a p e �n: o.
rte.,,•f i
it re ti„, '�► . The same issue exists with housing near the East Bay Region -
site_ The maximization of housing there will later reduce the bank of non -trust land which could
be useful to trust purposes such as water - oriented industry and recreation.
6. Policy 2 -28 found at Page 2 -20 states that land to be used by East Bay Regional
Parks for visitor- serving purposes can later be converted to housing. This specific property is not
V subject to the trust now and is useful for exchange. If it is ultimately dedicated to housing or
other non -trust uses, it will not be available for exchange into the public trust, thus reducing
opportunities to terminate the trust elsewhere.
7. Regarding the Northwest Territories, Policy 2 -50 is a general statement supplied
by this Commission which addresses the requirements of an exchange of trust land. As we have
advised, given possible uses of the Northwest Territories for activities ranging from bird habitat
to dredge spoils placement to hotel development, it does not appear that the finding in 2-49 is
\ \ currently supportable. Policy 2-49 also does not consider interim leasing of trust lands for non-
trust uses, as would be considered elsewhere at NAS Alameda. Interim leases bring land back
into early re -use. At the same time, they preserve the land for later trust uses should economic or
other conditions change.
8. Page 8 -2.: We do not object to transfer of some existing housing to the Coast
Guard, should it overlap onto trust lands. Todd Shipyards appears to allow the United States to
ansfer property to its own agencies.
9. Page 10 -8, section 2(e). The BCDC staff recommendation that 220 acres in the
Northwest Territories remain in port priority designation reflects one of the possible trust uses of
the property. Port facilities could be for container cargo delivery or other port purposes, as
ultimately determined.
2
S0'd 1U101
Kay Miller
Page 4
January 31, 1996
10. Also related to the same section, though not mentioned there. We have heard
proposals regarding the placement of dredge spoils in the Northwest Territories, another trust
Iuse of the property. The Land Use Element for the Northwest Territories or other appropriate
sections of the Plan should be expanded to deal with spoils placement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We continue to believe that public trust title
can be administered at NAS Alameda in a manner which puts the property to early reuse and will
work with you towards that end. If experience on the other bases is a guide, issues such as toxic
clean -up and poor infrastructure have the most dramatic effect, restricting both non -trust and
trust development.
(it - 2c1,1( ,1,
Sincerely,
Jane Sekelsky •.l
Chief, Division of Land Management
cc: Ralph J. Appezzato
Mayor, City of Alameda
Robert C. Hight
Executive Officer, State Lands Commission
Carla J. Caruso
Deputy Attorney General
Heather C. McLaughlin
Assistant City Attorney
Arc Ecology
833 Market Street, Suite 1107, San Francisco California 94103
Phone 415.495.1786 Fax 415.495.1787 E -mail Arc @igc.apc.org
Comments
on the
"NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan"
Submitted to the
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
by
Arc Ecology
1/31/96
Introduction
Given the Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority's (ARRA)
financial and time constraints in meeting federal requirements for a
document which sets forth plans for base reuse, we accept the ARRA's set of
reuse proposals as a reasonable vehicle to move forward with
creating /implementing a sustainable reuse vision for Alameda Naval Air
Station (ANAS). For purposes of submittal to the Navy, it appears adequate,
particularly since the Department of Defense (DoD) has not articulated
specifications about what a reuse plan should contain.
One primary reason the ARRA's set of proposals should go forward at
this time is the pressing need to secure adequate funding for full toxic
cleanup. The DoD has established submittal of reuse plans as a threshold step
for funding legally - mandated toxic cleanups. Without commenting on the
justification for establishing that threshold, the ARRA's ability to compete for
federal conversion - and clean up money clearly hinges on the receipt of this
plan by the Navy. ' Since the DoD is deliberately underfunding their own
clean up projections nationwide, the ARRA's desire to get as close to the head
of the line as possible is understandable.
A Sustainable Vision
The primary purpose of the ARRA's reuse proposal for the Alameda
NAS is to articulate a long -term vision to guide reuse and redevelopment.
Many have contributed their time, talent and energy to this effort. Many
more would like to. Over a year ago, the Environmental Network for
Military Base Closures submitted to the ARRA a Statement of Environmental
Principles for Military Base. Closures. These Principles represent a consensus
statement on behalf of over 40 conservation, environmental ' justice,
sustainable development and labor organizations. The Principles have
formed the basis of our analysis, and are included in these comments by
reference.
The Principles express four fundamental areas of consensus amongst
the environmental community:
• Stakeholder Participation
• Natural Resource Conservation
• Comprehensive Bioregional Planning
• Full Toxic Cleanup
As an overall blueprint, the proposals contained in the "NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan" begin to address these issues, and make some
important commitments towards achieving these four thresholds steps to
sustainable military base redevelopment. In particular, we express our full
support for the following directives within the proposed plaza, and urge the
1
ARRA to instruct staff to fully analyze the extent to which the specific
features of the proposed plan can be expected to advance these goals:
• Reducing personal automobile use in favor of public transportation
options.
• Facilitating full toxic clean up.
• Establishing a network of greenbelts, parks & open spaces.
• Recognizing society's legal and moral obligations to the homeless.
• Creating a viable Wildlife Refuge.
• Recognizing the need to plan for increases in the school population.
• Building a civilian- economy job base.
• Maintaining Alameda's unique character by integrating new
neighborhoods into the existing city fabric.
• Preserving scenic vistas.
These goals are crucial to sustainable conversion, and healthy
communities. Moreover, they are touchstones of common agreement
around which divergent interests can cooperatively work towards successful
reuse and redevelopment.
Applying CEQA to the "NAS Community Reuse Plan"
The first step in analyzing this set of reuse proposals is to clarify
terminology. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires
that an Environmental Impact Report be completed and certified before a
reuse plan may be adopted.1 Thus, although the ARRA's submittal satisfies
the DoD's vague requirements for a "reuse plan", it may not be used as a land
use plan until it has undergone environmental review and been modified
accordingly. The Navy will utilize the current set of ARRA reuse proposals
as a preferred alternative for analysis in the coming EIR /EIS. Through the
environmental review process, this preferred alternative, as well as other
alternatives, will be analyzed for their potentially adverse environmental
impacts. The final reuse plan may contain elements of these other
alternatives, and will contain as yet unspecified mitigation measures. 2
The following comments on the ARRA's preferred alternative for
NAS Alameda anticipate issues that will be raised during the environmental
review process. The comments focus on the deficiencies as they relate to
CEQA only. While it is not intended as a comprehensive review of all CEQA
issues related to the, plan, nor do we suggest that separate, but equally
important National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) questions should be
ignored, these comments are intended as an early submittal of scoping
1 CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section 21061.
2 ibid, Section 21002, "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available." See also Section 21000
(a), "Such a report shall include a detailed statement setting forth...mitigation measures?
2
comments in anticipation of the coming scoping notice for a joint EIR /EIS.
We ask that these comments be treated as advance scoping comments, and
that the issues raised be fully explored in the EIR /EIS.
CEQA Tests for Compliance with other Federal & State Laws
In its present form, the preferred alternative proposes several major
activities or developments which are in conflict with existing law.
Furthermore, in almost all cases, the basis for population, jobs, housing, and
traffic estimates are entirely absent. The preferred alternative must explain
the methodological basis for the sweeping assumptions which drive the
development proposals. As submitted, the preferred alternative for NAS
Alameda will require significant mitigations. The following discussion
highlights some of the most glaring deficiencies.
Endangered Species Act
The US Fish & Wildlife Service has submitted a request to the
Secretary of the Navy for a federal transfer of 595 land acres on the NAS for
the purposes of protecting and enhancing "a unique assemblage of habitats
and species recognized as...biological resources of regional and national
significance. "3 In addition to the direct transfer of the refuge proper, Fish &
Wildlife also seeks placement of a conservation easement on 188 acres of
open space /grasslands immediately to the north. In the words of the Service,
the proposed boundaries would provide, "a sufficient buffer to ensure
minimal human disturbance and encroachment by future development. "4
Since filing the, original request, federal biologists in the Fish &
Wildlife Service have informally expressed their opinion that a minimum of
500 acres must be set aside as a Wildlife Refuge to ensure the survival of the
California least Terns.5 Any proposals short of this minimum would likely
result in a jeopardy opinion and legal challenge by Fish & Wildlife under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which requires federal agencies to
ensure that any action, authorized, funded or carried out by them does not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical
habitat.6
The federal biologists' opinion is buttressed by local wildlife biologists
whose expertise is recognized by both the Navy and the Oakland Airport
Authority by virtue of their contracts to manage tern nesting sites at the air
station and nearby Oakland Airport. They strongly recommend that the
3 US Fish & Wildlife Service, "Why
4 ibid.
5 As reported by ARRA staff to the
6 Endangered Species Act of 1973
Public Law 100 -478)
Establish the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge ", 1994
BRAG's Fish & Wildlife Working Group and to the ARRA.
(16 USC 1531 -1543, 87 stat., 884, as amended in 1988 by
refuge should include all areas historically used by the least tern.? This limits
the impact of predators on the colony since it allows the terns to "scatter"
when threatened, and is consistent with the philosophy expressed in the
current tern management plan. They also counsel that nearby undeveloped
areas (including the grassy areas to the north of the runways) be left
undisturbed to provide alternate foraging for predators. Additional
development near the refuge could also degrade near -shore water quality and
impact foraging, both for terns and predators. Advantages the Alameda
colony enjoys over other colonies in California are the amount of room the
terns have to scatter and the absence of nearby development. These two
factors help explain why the Alameda colony is the most successful in the
state.
Additionally, although it does not expressly recommend the specific
number of acres required, the Navy's own least Tern Study warns that any
development on the western portion of the base will have unpredictable
results, and points out that tern sites in urban areas are extremely vulnerable
to locally - common predators such as domestic cats, kestrels and crows.8
Although the study, by design, does not make statistical analysis of direct
relationships between surrounding land uses and the success or failure of
tern colonies, it does offer important guidance. For example, the study points
out that predatory birds have used man -made structures as far as 1 km distant
from nesting sites to launch devastating attacks on tern colonies.9
Although the preferred alternative leaves the final size of the Refuge
an open question, a clear bias has been expressed towards a refuge no greater
than 400 acres.10 Given the weight of expert opinion, we do not understand
how this scaled -down refuge will still meet the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act. The final reuse plan must include a refuge large
enough to protect the terns. We urge a conservative approach that resolves
uncertainties by minimizing changes to the current habitat.
7 Leora Feeney, personal communication, 1/19/96.
8 Caffrey, "Characteristics of the California Least Tern Nesting Sites Associated with
Breeding Success or Failure, with Special Reference to the Site at the Naval Air Station
Alameda ", 1995, p. 35.
9 ibid, p. 29
10 For example, while the 12/27/95 "Report from the Executive Director Recommending
Endorsement..." reassures us that the final refuge will be "not less than 390 acres," no
specific commitments to that acreage are made in the text of the "NAS Alameda Community
Reuse Plan" itself. Several ARRA board members have stated on the record that even 390
acres is too large. Furthermore, although the "plan" stipulates that the Fish & Wildlife
Service will make determinations on "final size, ownership, and management" of the refuge
(see policy 5 -7, p. 5 -5), the ARRA's proposed budget for 1996 contains $70,000 for
consultants to argue the ARRA's viewpoints in coming consultations over the refuge with
Fish & Wildlife. If the ARRA intends to accept the federal regulators' pending ruling
regarding the refuge's size and ownership, why is it gearing up for a dispute?
4
Migratory Bird Act
The entire airstrip area is a haven for dozens of species of migratory
birds. Some of these species are described in the preferred alternativell. A
fuller description can be found in the Audubon Society's Symposium
Proceedings12. Establishing a formal wildlife refuge will likely encourage
additional migratory birds to rely on the refuge for habitat. However, the
reuse plan articulates an "exit strategy" whereby the refuge area could be
subject to development in the event that "the refuge area in [sic]
no longer needed for endangered species habitat protection "13. This exit
strategy could severely impact the ability of these migratory birds to continue
to find needed habitat.
Under CEQA and NEPA, the full impacts of the exit strategy must be
explored.
Pryor Amendment /Federal Property Disposal Act
The preferred alternative recommends that the ARRA should acquire
Wildlife Refuge land through an economic development conveyance and
then lease the land to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This sequence is
inconsistent with the laws that govern the disposition of federal property.
Federal law clearly requires the federal government to ensure that it
has no continuing need for a property prior to offering it to public or private
parties. The 1990 Base Closure Act (including the Pryor Amendment)
incorporates the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
which clearly states that the Defense Department must offer its excess
property to other federal agencies before it can designate the property as
surplus and available for conveyance. The DoD is obligated to transfer excess
property to other executive agencies if they are proposing land uses that are
consistent with General Services policy. This policy holds that the
paramount consideration is the validity and appropriateness of the proposals'
requirements.14
The economic development conveyance is, in - contrast, a method for
spurring employment and economic opportunity. Although the Refuge will
11 "NAS Community Reuse Plan ", 1995, p. 5 -3
12 Golden Gate Audubon Society, "Alameda Naval Air Station's Natural Resources and Base
Closure" (1994), Appendices A - C.
13 "NAS Community Reuse Plan ", p. 5 -4.
14 See 41 CFR Subpart 101 -47.2. & Section 101- 47.203(d) "Transfer of the property to
executive agencies shall be made when the proposed land use is consistent with the policy of
the Administor of General Services."
indeed create modest amounts of income and employment15, these are not
the primary objectives of the Wildlife Refuge. The regulations that
administer the Pryor Amendment are, in addition, unambiguous that the
economic development conveyance vehicle is a last resort mechanism, to be
used only when "other surplus property disposal authorities for the intended
land use cannot be used to accomplish the necessary economic
development. "16
Furthermore, The Transfer of Certain Real Properties for Wildlife
Conservation Purposes Act of 1948 provides for transfering property without
fee to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for
migratory birds, or to a state agency for wildlife conservation purposes.17
Air Quality & Traffic
The present plan raises at least two major questions under the Clean
Air Act, both relating to increased emissions due to projected increases in
vehicular traffic.
First, the plan envisions construction of an additional vehicle crossing
over (or under ?) the Oakland Estuary. However, the location, capacity and
type of crossing to be constructed is left to the imagination. Thus, it is
impossible to project vehicle trips, and resulting emissions and other
negative effects to I -80, downtown Oakland, and Alameda to estimate
negative impacts as mandated by CEQA. In addition to air quality, these
negative impacts may include demolition for entrances and exits, increased
traffic, and blocked views. Since the major financing required for the new
crossing is not identified, and remains entirely speculative, it is critical for an
alternative plan which does not include such additional capacity to be
reviewed under CEQA.
The second question involves increases to traffic volume generated by
leasing of base facilities. An active marketing effort has already begun with a
goal of leasing existing facilities to commercial tenants. Although not clearly
articulated in the plan itself, this leasing program appears to be based on the
assumption that any new land uses will continue current uses; so they should
not generate additional environmental impacts. However, this argument
overlooks the fact that a large proportion of Navy workers did not commute
to the facility, since they were already housed on or near the base.
15 Golden Gate Audubon conservatively estimates that the Refuge would add at least
$10,000,000 year to the Bay Area economy in visitor revenues. See Hrubes, "The
Potential Economic Benefits of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge ", 1995.
16 Final Rule: Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (Pryor
Amendment Administrative Regulations), 60FR37337, Section 91.7(e)(2)
17 16 USC 667b -667d, 62 stat. 240, as amended by Public Law 92 -432.
6
Additionally, the Navy staggers work hours for civilian employees to reduce
peak hour traffic effects. In contrast, many civilian employees of prospective
ventures leasing space may commute from longer distances, potentially
resulting in significantly increased levels of traffic and automobile- related
pollution.
Although Arc Ecology and the members of the Environmental
Network strongly support interim leasing of these facilities, leasing decisions
by the ARRA must be scrutinized under CEQA.
Environmental Cleanup
The discussion of the environmental cleanup process included in the
Land Use Element of the preferred alternative is poorly organized and
astonishingly incomplete. It is presented as simply another regulatory
framework issue.18 While agreeing that a significant regulatory framework
exists, this is far too narrow a view. The related issues of environmental
degradation of the site and the DoD's problematic stance on cleanup funding
both deserve full attention because of the enormous threat they present to
implementation of the. plan and the public health.
Specifically, the preferred alternative must include the following
elements:
1) An Overview of the Toxics Problems at Alameda NAS, including:
• The 24 sites under investigation.
• The interim remedial actions at 5 sites planned /begun in 1995.
• Contamination of soil and groundwater with acetone, chlorinated
solvents, cyanide, benzene and other petroleum hydrocarbons,
ethylbenzene, heavy metals, herbicides, pesticides, methylene chloride,
PCB's, VOC's, semi- VOC's, toluene, and xylene.19
• Costs which have been incurred to date and projections of full costs
required for legally - mandated cleanups. Costs of $29.5 million have
been incurred through 1994. All but $5 million of that has been spent
solely on studying the problems. The DoD estimates that an additional
$77 million will be required between 1995 and 2006 to complete
cleanup.20
18 "NAS Community Reuse Plan ", p. 2 -4.
19 US Department of Defense, "Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Annual Report to
Congress for FY 1994 ", p. A -15
20 ibid, p. 8 -1 -43
2) A Discussion of the Federal Underfunding of the Cleanup Process:
The DoD is programing only $2 billion to cover the $3.1 billion it
estimates will be needed to clean up bases closing as a result of the first three
rounds of BRAC (Alameda NAS is in round III). The Navy's Regional office,
EFA West, has estimated that Alameda's actual funding in fiscal year 1995
was only 55% of what was planned. Their fiscal year 1996 figures show that
Alameda has a gap of more than $50 million between the amount required
and the amount funded. 21
3) Relationships Between Toxics Problems, Cleanup Levels, and New
Land Uses:
The underfunding of cleanup is a serious problem for the City of
Alameda because the surplus federal land cannot be conveyed to new owners
until the cleanup remedy is set in place. So long as the Navy retains
ownership of the -NAS land, developers will find it difficult to obtain
financing for development, nor will the property generate taxes that can
leverage redevelopment debt or help defray costs of public services.
In the absence of adequate cleanup funding, the Navy has begun to put
pressure on local reuse authorities to maintain land uses in their plans
corresponding to the Navy's land uses. In Alameda, this means that the
Navy would prioritize funding for cleanup to industrial rather than
residential or commercial levels. This will severely impact present and
future flexibility in land use planning.
Public Trust Doctrine
The preferred alternative makes passing reference to the applicability of
the Public Trust doctrine to portions of the base. In fact, approximately 80% of
the base is situated on Public Trust lands22. However, many of the proposed
reuses, both interim and long term, are not consistent with established Public
Trust uses. Public Trust uses recognized by the State Lands Commission
include waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, ecological habitat
protection, water - related recreation, open space and the preservation of land
in its natural condition.23 The non - compatible uses proposed in the ARRA's
preferred alternative include residential housing, a university, and general
commercial activity.
21 US Department of Defense, "Future Year Defense Programs"
22 As determined by State Lands Commission and delineated in a map circulated by ARRA to the
Environmental Network for Military Base Closures. Some Public Trust advocates argue that
the actual Public Trust lands are even more extensive.
23 State Lands Commission, "The Public Trust -Your Rights to Enjoy California's Waterways"
8
Portions of the preferred alternative slated for development in conflict
with the Public Trust Doctrine include:
Northwest Territories
All of the proposed uses for the Northwest Territories, with the
exception of parks /open space, would encompass non -Trust activities and
therefore must either be substantially modified or removed from the
northern shoreline area and relocated to areas not subject to the Public Trust.
Generally, we recommend removing the projects entirely, since they also
conflict with the establishment of the US Fish & Wildlife Service National
Wildlife Refuge.
Additional approaches toward a solution which would begin to address
Public Trust issues -- although not, we stress, issues related to the Endangered
Species Act and the Migratory Bird Act -- would refocus proposed uses to
clarify that only Trust- compatible uses would be permitted. For example, the
category "light industry ", which would include almost 1,000,000 square feet of
business park on 75 acres of largely Trust land24, is overly broad and does not
specify how the focus of the business park's activities would be compatible
with the Public Trust. In order to retain these proposed activities at this
location, enforceable mechanisms must be specified to ensure that land uses
remain compatible with the Trust within the broad categories proposed.
Of course, the alternative of a land exchange may exist as well. In a
land exchange, the Public Trust may only be extinguished on a parcel of land
in exchange for placing land of equal or greater value into the Trust. To
pursue this alternative, proposed exchanges must be specified, so that their
environmental impacts may be reviewed.
Marina
Construction of 384 dwelling units is proposed on 35 acres.25 Yet the
entire acreage is currently within Public Trust boundaries established by the
State Lands Commission and residential housing is universally recognized as
an impermissible Trust use. The only way to reconcile this huge gap between
the housing as proposed and existing law would be -a land exchange. Yet,
although land exchanges "from the land - locked core of the site to other non-
trust lands "26 are clearly contemplated, no trades are proposed.
24 "NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan ", Chapter 2, table 1 -1.
25 ibid, table 1 -1.
26 ibid, p. 2-4
Civic Core
Many non -Trust uses, including Pan Pacific University and residential
housing, are proposed for this area. Again, the only way to accommodate
such development is to identify land of equal or greater value which is
suitable for trust purposes, and negotiate a land exchange.
Leasing
Throughout the preferred alternative, leasing of buildings and acreage,
both interim and long -term is discussed. Authority to grant 25 year leases
with subsequent 25 year extensions is claimed.27 However, the terms of
renewal need to be specified. If the lessee has an option to renew, the lease is,
in fact, a 50 year lease -- far too long to qualify as a temporary activity. We
suggest that 15 year leases, with renewal based, among other considerations,
on future review of the overriding Public Trust considerations, would be
more appropriate.
We support active leasing efforts in order to help mitigate short -term
economic effects of base closure and to allow temporary continuance of
established, economically viable, non -Trust uses while preserving the
permanent Trust status of the land. However, the term of these leases is
crucial. The ARRA must take care to ensure that these long -term leases with
roll -over provisions do not collapse into permanent attempts to circumvent
Public Trust requirements.
Phased Trades
Further questions arise about the concept of "phased trades" -- that is, a
series of land exchanges implemented over time to facilitate non -trust uses
on land which is presently designated as trust land.28 If the plan permits
non -Trust uses on Trust land, it must specify the exchanges that will enable
the planned uses. Since all of these trades will be necessary to facilitate final
build -out of many of the projects outlined in the plan, they must be presented
as a whole for CEQA purposes, or else the EIR will be unable to evaluate the
cumulative impacts of the proposed development. Anything short of a full
discussion of the needed trades would constitute piecemealing of the plan --
clearly disallowed under CEQA.29
Land Exchanges
Although the preferred alternative recognizes conflicts between the
Public Trust Doctrine and many proposed land uses, it does not identify these
27 ibid, p. 2 -4
28 Although not submitted as part of the written plan, "the phased trade" concept has been
articulated by ARRA staff to members of the Environmental Network for Military Base
Closures. To the extent that the "phased trade" concept is part of ARRA's implementation
strategy, it must be subjected to full environmental review.
29 CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section 15378, subd, (a).
10
conflicts, nor does it suggest how to resolve them. Instead, the reader is left
with a vague generalization about "maximize(ing) .trust values by shifting
Public Trust Designation. "30 But, on the same page, the plan cheerfully
reports that "the ARRA is actively pursuing the public trust issues with the
State Lands Commission." The reader can only infer that a more detailed
strategy exists, outside of the public view, but providing the basis for these
discussions.
CEQA compliance demands public review of specific exchanges or
other mechanisms which will be used to preserved the trust. The analysis
must also justify that these proposed exchanges can reasonably be expected to
win State Lands Commission approval. (ie -- The lands to be exchanged out
of the Trust are no longer of Trust value, and the lands to be exchanged into
the trust are suitable for Trust purposes, and of equal or greater value than
the lands where the Public Trust would be extinguished.)
Land exchanges which seek to remove the Trust from waterfront
property are seldom granted. According to the State Lands Commission:
"The lands from which the State's sovereign interests are to be removed must be filled,
reclaimed, and excluded from public waters. They must not be useful or susceptible of
use for public trust purposes. It is difficult to make this finding with regard to
waterfront and near -water properties." (emphasis added)31
Seaport Designation
The preferred alternative makes passing recognition of the fact that the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has designated the
"northwest territories" with a "Port Priority" designation. But, the
developments proposed for the area, which include parks, a golf course, and
unspecified light industry are almost wholly inconsistent with that
designation. Interestingly, in a plan which is driven by the economic needs of
the City of Alameda, potentially significant, revenue - generating activities
compatible with the seaport designation, Public Trust requirements, and the
needs of the Wildlife Refuge (such as tipping of dredge spoils) are ignored.
The preferred alternative must specify how these built -in conflicts with
the Port Priority Designation will be resolved.
Dredge Disposal in Northwest Territories
Earlier in the development of the preferred alternative, seaport -
oriented development for the northwest territories was considered and
rejected, largely due to adverse traffic and economic forecasts. However, the
30 "NAS Community Reuse Plan" , p. 2 -4
31 9/8/95 letter from State Lands Commission to Alameda City Attorney.
11
analysis did not include the feasibility of using the northwest territories as a
dredge disposal /treatment area. As a dredge disposal site, the northwest
territories offers potentially significant advantages to the ARRA and
Alameda. These include:
• Potentially significant revenues from tipping fees charged for off -base
dredge spoils. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to calculate
potential revenue from tipping fees, they could be quite large. For
example, the current costs of barging dredge spoils range from $5 /cubic
yard at the Alcatraz disposal site to $20 - $100 /cubic yard at offshore
sites.32 Alameda could charge fees which are competitive with these
costs.
• Reduced hauling fees for disposal of dredge spoils or other materials
generated during implementation of the reuse plan, since the
northwest territories would be closer than any other disposal site.
• Avoidance of tipping fees for dredge spoils or other materials generated
during implementation of the reuse plan.
The potential for developing the northwest territories as a dredge
disposal area should be considered in one of the alternatives during
environmental review.
Housing Density
Both within the context of CEQA, and also in the coming marketing
studies, the alternative of increasing housing density in portions of the
redevelopment area should be examined. If built into the overall plan,
increased housing density in selected areas could:
• Make public transportation options more successful.
• Maintain Alameda's pedestrian- friendly character.
• Increase opportunities for home ownership.
• Increase housing opportunities for people of all income levels.
• Reduce development pressure on open space.
Citizen Participation
The following section relates problems to date with the ARRA's citizen
participation process in the hopes that recognition of these problems can not
only help the ARRA comply with CEQA, Brown Act, and Public Trust
mandates, but can aide future efforts to implement a plan which truly reflects
community input and . can garner full community support.
The ARRA's citizen participation process for the development of the
NAS Reuse Plan was entrusted to the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG).
The BRAG consists of several issue - oriented committees, each chaired by a
32 Save San Francisco Bay Association, personal communication, 1/5/96.
12
voting member of the BRAG. As the environmental community focused its
primary advocacy efforts around the creation of the Wildlife Refuge, a
number of issues related to the BRAG's mishandling of public input came to
the surface. These problems were articulated in detail in written
communication to the BRAG Chair.33 The letter protested the open hostility
shown by BRAG members to the opinions of many citizens in Alameda and
throughout the region who support creation of the Refuge,34 documented
serious deficiencies regarding compliance with the Brown Act, and suggested
that the BRAG would be unable to build crucial community consensus
around the plan if they were unable to seriously consider opinions other than
their own. Although denying fault, the BRAG did immediately improve the
public's access to some documents.
The problems articulated in the letters were not isolated incidents, but
part of a pattern of rejection of community input by both the BRAG and
ARRA. In December of 1994 , Arc Ecology and the Environmental Network
delivered a detailed Statement of Environmental Principles for Military Base
Closures to the ARRA. It was explained that the Principles were the result of
a six month collaborative process involving over 40 conservation,
environmental justice, sustainable design and labor organizations,
representing combined memberships of hundreds of thousands of persons in
the Bay Area. The Principles were submitted in direct response to the
ARRA's Board's request for public input, and were hand delivered to the
consultant charged with compiling public input. However, the Public
Involvement Report (March 1995) offers no recognition of this significant,
and early, policy statement from the environmental community. Similarly,
the report ignores receipt of companion Environmental Principles drafted by
the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission.
In fact, at the time of its presumed adoption on January 31st, 1996, the
"NAS Community Reuse Plan" as a whole will have only been out for public
review for' scant four weeks, although individual chapters were released
previously on a piecemeal basis. Since the chapters cross- reference each other
in forming an integrated whole, adequate opportunity for public review has
only begun.
33 See 11/15/95 letter from Arc Ecology to BRAG Chair Lee Perez. For a fuller flavor of the
pattern of institutional confusion over Brown Act compliance, see also 3/3/95 letter from
the Rose Foundation to David Louk, Interim Executive Director of the ARRA. Both letters are
incorporated in these comments.
34 See 11/15/95 letter. In fact, the letter points out that an overwhelming majority of
Alameda residents support creation of the full Wildlife Refuge, both in surveys conducted by
the BRAG and in independent surveys conducted by local environmental organizations.
13
Scoping Comments
In closing, thank you for the consideration of these comments. We
hope that they will be of assistance as the ARRA begins to modify its
proposals in light of their environmental impacts. Additionally, in
anticipation of the upcoming environmental review process, we request that
the forthcoming Scoping Notice be sent to all of the endorsers of the
Statement of Environmental Principles for Military Base Closures, as these
organizations have all evidenced a strong interest in the environmental
issues related to the preferred alternative. A list of endorsers is attached to
the Principles. Contact names and addresses for most have already been
furnished to the ARRA. However, we would be happy to resupply the list.
Please direct such a request, or other inquiry or response to:
Tim Little
Arc Ecology
833 Market St., Ste: 1104
San Francisco, CA 94103
14
Alameda Peace
Environmental Network
Alamedans for a
Civilian Economy
Arc Ecology
Architects /Designers/
Planners for
Social Responsibility
Asian Pacific
Environmental Network
CAREER PRO
Center for
Economic Conversion
Communities for a
Better Environment
Clean Water Action
Ecology Center
Golden Gate
Audubon Society
Greenbelt Alliance
Greenpeace
San Francisco
National Economic
Development Law Center
Natural Heritage Institute
Natural Resources
Defense Council
Public Trust
Working Group
Rose Foundation
San Francisco Baykeeper
Save San Francisco Bay
Association
Sierra Club Bay Chapter
Swords to Plowshares
Urban Ecology
Jrban Habitat Program
11/28/95
The Hon. Ronald Dellums
United States Congress
2108 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515 -0509
Dear Congressman Dellums,
We write to ask your full support for the establishment of the
Alameda National Wildlife Refuge by public benefit conveyance to the
United States Fish & Wildlife Service. The Refuge must include
sufficient acreage to protect habitat for the endangered California least
Tern, encompass sensitive wetlands, and provide shoreline access for
residents and visitors alike. The Refuge is projected to net millions of
dollars in economic benefits to both the City and County of Alameda,
and enjoys the widespread support of local residents.
Economic' Benefits
Creation of the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge provides a unique
opportunity to enhance the successful conversion of the Alameda Naval
Air Station (ANAS) by establishing the City of Alameda and the
converted navy base as a major tourist destination. Tourist revenues to
the City of Alameda are projected to be over $3,000,000 /year. The
projected economic benefit to the region as a whole is over
$15,000,000 /year. t
The Refuge, unlike any other development proposals for the
western portion of the ANAS, does not require expensive up -front
infrastructure investments for streets, or electrical, water and sewage
utilities. The ARRA has estimated that the savings associated with
establishing the refuge range from $18,000,000 to $447,000,000 on
utility infrastructure costs alone, while street improvement savings range
from $9,000,000 to-$379,000,000.2 In addition to saving potentially
hundreds of millions of dollars in street and utility pre- development
costs, the Refuge proposal projects less traffic impacts to the City of
Alameda than any other alternative under consideration. The Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority's (ARRA) consultants project that,
2
The Potential E.conomic Benefits of the Proposed Alameda National
Wildlife Refuge: An Overview ", Dr. Robert Hrubes, Golden Gate Audubon
Society, 1995. The study bases its estimates on attendance records
from existing refuges in the Bay Area and nationally, visitor
expenditures records- published by the Fish & Wildlife Service and USDA
Forest Service, and tourist statistics compiled by the San Francisco
Convention and Visitors Bureau.
"Community Reuse Plan, Phase. IV, Analysis of Alternatives ", Table 5 -1,
Technical Results Matrix, EDAW, 1995. The Phase IV analysis compared
five different reuse alternatives, including one based on the Fish &
Wildlife Service's refuge proposal.
1
5337 Colleae Avenue Ste 112 nAklan,4 r` ,Ifi"t, OAQ1 O icin‘cco ,. ,
at maximum build out, most other development alternatives would require the construction
of a new bridge crossing, at a cost conservatively estimated at over 5500,000,000 -- in
words of the lead consultant, "a show stopper. "3
Additionally, although the dollar costs have not yet been quantified, establishing the
refuge avoids potentially enormous seismic stabilizing costs on the western airstrip's
artificial fill. For comparison, at neighboring Treasure Island the costs of seismicly
stabilizing the landfill interior and perimeter are estimated to be $325,000,000.4
Public Trust
Unlike many other development proposals for the western portion of the ANAS,
the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge is wholly compatible with the Public Trust. As you
know, the Public Trust Doctrine guides redevelopment of many of the closing Navy
facilities in the Bay Area, since these bases have been built, at least in part, on former
tidelands. We believe it is crucial that development proposals for ANAS and other bases be
compatible with the Public Trust.
Endangered Species
Establishing the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge will recognize the fact that
several endangered and threatened species, including the California least Tern, Brown
Pelican, Harbor Seals, and Peregrine Falcon already make their homes on the western
portion of the navy base. Conveyance of this valuable & sensitive habitat to the US Fish &
Wildlife Service will help ensure the survival of these species whose endangered or
threatened status has already been recognized by the federal government. Furthermore, .
establishing the Refuge will ensure that other species, while not currently on the
endangered or threatened list, continue to find appropriate habitat in the midst of the Bay
Area's urban sprawls
In order to provide adequate habitat for the California least Terri, federal wildlife
biologists have determined that the Refuge must, at a minimum, encompass 498 dry acres
and 375 submerged acres.6 Conveyance of this requested acreage to the US Fish &
Wildlife Service not only provides the best opportunity for the survival of the terns, but it
frees up the remainder of the base, 1319 dry acres including the FISC Annex site, for other
development opportunities.
Community Support
Widespread public support for the establishment of the Alameda National Wildlife
Refuge has been quantitatively demonstrated several times over the last year. Support has
been documented in surveys conducted by the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG)7; in
3 John Petrovsky. EDAW, as reported to both BRAG & ARRA during May /June 1995 public
meetings.
4 "Treasure Island Reuse Plan ", ROMA Design Group, 1995
5 see "Alameda Naval Air Station's Natural Resources and Base Closure: A Scientific
Symposium ", Appendix A, 1994, for a partial list of reptiles, mammals, birds & fishes of
the ANAS.
6 As reported by ARRA staff member Paul Tuttle at the November 1, 1995 ARRA public
meeting.
7 "Navigations ", Volume 11, Issue I, January 1995 cites two surveys. The NAS Alameda
Community Survey reports 83% of respondents in favor of "retaining and enhancing natural
features and resources ". When asked for their long -term vision for primary reuse options,
the number one choice of respondents was Park/Recreation Areas (42 %), followed by the
2
an independent survey conducted by the Conservation Science Institutes; by over 1000
signatures on a petition supporting the Fish & Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuge
Proposal9; by public comment at the BRAG's September 9th public forum; and by public
testimony recorded at the October 5,1995 ARRA meeting, as well as several other ARRA
and BRAG meetings.
Establishing the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge provides a solid win for
everyone concerned with the successful and sustainable reuse of the Alameda Naval Air
Station. The Refuge provides clear environmental and economic benefits, and and
provides a focal point for broad community support for the entire reuse planning process.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and for your leadership in
sustainable military conversion. We would be willing to meet with you to discuss in detail
the benefits of establishing the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge, and look forward to
your response and support for the Refuge.
Sincerely,
Saul Bloom Tim Little Dr. William 1. Smith
Arc Ecology Rose Foundation Sierra Club Bay Chapter
Ruth Gravanis Arthur Feinstein Michael Clossen
Public Trust Working Golden Gate Audubon Center for. Economic
Group Society Conversion
Michael Lozeau
San Francisco Baykeeper
Chris Clark
Ecology Center
Paul Okamoto
Urban Ecology
Greg Thomas
Natural Heritage Institute
Heather McCulloch Roberta Hough
National Economic Alameda Peace
Development Law Center Environmental Network
number two choice, a Nature Refuge (37 %). The second, more informal survey was
conducted at a November, 1994 public workshop. Workshop participants chose "maintain and
enhance wildlife habitat including wetlands, shoreline areas and endangered species habitat,
in particular the least tem habitat" as their number one issue to be addressed in the
Community Reuse Plan.
8 The CSI survey was mailed to over 31,000 residences im Alameda. As reported to the ARRA
on October 5th, 1995, 81% of the respondents favor the creation of a National Wildlife
Refuge on the 700 acre western' portion of the base, 67% opposed siting new industry at
that location, 68% opposed creating a golf course there, and 77% opposed construction of
more neighborhoods in place of the refuge. Interestingly, the closer the respondents lived to
the base, the more they favored open space uses as opposed to other development options.
9 Signatures supporting the Fish & Wildlife Service's original. request for 595 dry acres of
refuge were collected by Sierra Club & Audubon Society volunteers in the City of Alameda
and Alameda County during September 1995, and were presented to the ARRA on October 5,
1995.
3
ARC ECOLOGY
ARMS CONTROL RESEARCH CENTER
833 Market Street, Suite 1107, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 495 -1786 Fax: (415) 495 -1787
11/15/95
Mr. Lee Perez
Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group
29 Seabridge
Alameda, CA 94502
Dear Mr. Perez,
A number of environmental organizations have asked me to contact .you regarding
concerns about the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group's (BRAG) treatment of
community input and commitment to open democratic process.
In a narrow sense, the problem concerns the open hostility of some BRAG
members to the opinions of the many citizens in Alameda and the region who favor creating
the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge, especially one Large enough to meet threshold
habitat requirements as delineated by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. The
BRAG members' opposition flies in the face of widespread public support which has been
quantitatively demonstrated, several times over the last year. In surveys conducted by the
BRAG1; in an independent survey conducted by the Conservation Science Institute2; by
over 1000 signatures on a petition supporting the Fish & Wildlife Service's National
Wildlife Refuge Proposal which were delivered to the ARRA on October 5,1995; by
public comment at the BRAG's September 9th public forum; and by public testimony .
recorded at the October 5,1995 ARRA meeting, as well as several other ARRA and BRAG
meetings.
The widening gap between BRAG members and demonstrated public support for
the Refuge suggests that the BRAG may not be meting its responsibilities to function as a
liaison between the public and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA).
We hope that you, as Chair, can work with other members of the BRAG to help them
understand that their role is to provide the decisionmaldng body, the ARRA, with
information and recommendations which accurately reflect and integrate public viewpoints.
2
"Navigations ", Volume II, issue I, January 1995 cites two surveys. The NAS Alameda
Community Survey reports 83% of respondents in favor of "retaining and enhancing natural
features and resources ". When asked for their long -term vision for primary reuse options,
the number one choice of respondents was Park/Recreation Areas (42%), followed by the
number two choice, a Nature Refuge (37%). The second, more informal survey was
conducted at a November, 1994 public workshop. Workshop participants chose "maintain and
enhance wildlife habitat including wetlands, shoreline areas and endangered species habitat,
jn particular the least tem habitat" as their number one issue to be addressed in the
Community Reuse Plan.
The. CSI survey was mailed to over 31,000 residences in Alameda. As reported to the ARRA
on October 5th, 1995, 81% of the respondents favor the creation of a National Wildlife
Refuge on the 700 acre western portion of the base, 67% opposed citing new industry at
that location, 68% opposed creating a golf course there, and 77% opposed construction. of
more neighborhoods in place of the refuge. Interestingly, the closer the respondents lived to
the base, the more they favored open space uses as opposed to other development options.
However, our concern extends well beyond the boundaries of the proposed refuge.
Several BRAG members have openly expressed personal resentment towards the demands
democratic process places on public officials to consider the views of the public with an
open mind and respect. Members of the public have recorded these statements and would
be happy to play the tapes for you to re- experience the exact language.
Of course, BRAG members, just as any other citizens, are entitled to form and
voice their own opinions. However, as the public participation arm advising the ARRA,
the BRAG bears twin responsibilities: first, to encourage and facilitate public input from
throughout Alameda and the region into reuse planning for the Naval Air Station; and,
second, to shape recommendations that are informed by community preferences. The
ability of BRAG members to play this critical role in building community consensus is
severely compromised if they are incapable of seriously considering opinions different
from their own.
One immediate step which the BRAG could take to help restore the trust and faith of
the public is to review the Brown Act. In summary, the Brown Act states
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good
for the people to know and what is good for them not to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.3
It is the BRAG's general practice to hand out, and discuss, various documents
during their meetings without making them available to the general public. Occasionally,
requests from members of the public to review or receive copies of these documents are
honored, and copies are made available for the audience. However, far more frequently,
these requests are denied. This is in direct violation of the Brown Act, which states:
Notwithstanding ... any other provisions of law; agendas of public meetings and any other
writings, when distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body or
local agency by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a
public meeting of the body, are disclosable records under the California Public Records Act, and
shall be made available upon request without delay. (emphasis added)4
One of the most important public documents which the BRAG must immediately
begin to provide to the public upon request are the chapters of the Alameda Reuse Plan
which are being distributed and discussed at BRAG meetings. The BRAG's current
practice has been to withhold these chapters from public inspection, despite detailed
discussions before the public audience, and requests from the public for inspection.
On behalf of ARC Ecology, the Environmental Network for Military Base
Closures, and other interested and affected members of the public, I urge you to take
immediate steps to bring the BRAG into compliance with the Brown Act and to ensure that
BRAG meetings and products regarding reuse options for the Alameda Naval Air Station
are consistent with the input of the public. As you know, the environmental community is
acutely interested in the successful and sustainable redevelopment of the Air Station. We
look forward to working in cooperation with the BRAG to craft final reuse plan which
deserves the support of all. - .
3 California Government Code, sec. 54950 (Brown Act)
4 Brown Act, sec. 5495 7.5
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I would be happy to arrange
a meeting between environmental leaders and members of the BRAG to discuss any of the
issues raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Tim Little
cc: Hon. Ralph Appezatto, Chair, ARRA
Ms. Kay Miller, Executive Director, ARRA
The Hon. Ron Dellums, US Congress
African American Development Association
Alameda Peace Environmental Network
Alamedans for a Civilian Economy
Architects/Designers /Planners for Social Responsibility
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team
Baylands Conservation Committee
California Network for a New Economy
Career Pro
Center for Economic Conversion
Citizens for a Better Environment
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Clean Water Action
Conservation Science Institute
East Palo Alto Historical & Agricultural Society
Ecology Center
Global Vision 20/20
Golden Gate Audubon Society
Greenbelt Alliance
Greenpeaae
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 6
League of Women Voters
Military Toxics Project
Mount Diablo Audubon Society
National Economic Development Law Center
Natural Heritage Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern, California Recycling Association
Pacific Studies Center
Pesticide Action Network
Public Trust Working Group
Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment
San Francisco Baykeeper
Save San Francisco Bay Association
San Francisco Bay & Monterey Bay Area Community RAB Caucus
Shipyard & Marine Shop Laborers Union Local 886
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Sierra Club - Northern California/Nevada RCC
Sierra Club - San Francisco Bay Chapter
Seirra Club Legal Defense Fund
Sustainable Systems
Trust for Public Land
Urban Ecology
Urban Habitat Program, Earth Island Institute
Wilderness Society
T H E R O S E F O L N D A T I O N
For Communities & The Environment
3/3/95
Mr. David Louk, Interim Executive Director
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Dear Mr. Louk,
Thank you for your consideration in including the Rose Foundation on the monthly
distribution list for the full agenda packets for the Governing Body of the Reuse Authority.
Your courtesy helps defuse any tension which might have arisen over what could have
been publicly perceived as a refusal by the Reuse Authority to disseminate publicly
available information to interested members of the public.
While I want to stress that I consider the matter closed with the Authority's promise
to include the Rose Foundation on what your staff terms the "A" list, I feel it is important to
document for the record the extraordinary steps required to obtain this information.
Shortly after the Reuse Authority's first meeting last year, I contacted the Authority
by phone and asked to be placed on the distribution list for . monthly agenda packets. I
explained that such information was important to the Rose Foundation's work to facilitate
the efforts of a number of environmental organizations in making timely, positive
contributions to the success of the clean up and reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station,
such as the drafting of the enclosed Statement of Environmental Principles for Military
Base Closures. When Authority staff responded that they had no policy to guide their
response to such a request, I explained that similar requests had routinely been granted by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and many
other public agencies with -whom I regularly correspond. I offered to make any reasonable
payment to defray copying and mailing expenses. Yourstaff responded that my request
would likely be granted, and sent copies of the Authority's bylaws and procedures.
However, subsequent meetings came and went, and I received only single -page
agendas, rather than the full information which had I requested and been led to believe
would be forthcoming. I recontacted the agency, and repeated my request, once again
explaining that I believed the information I sought to be publicly available, and necessary
for n}e, or other members of the public, to receive prior to Authority meetings in order to
meaningfully comment on matters before the Authority. I was told that the Authority did
not consider such information to be in the public domain.
As I continued to attend meetings, it became clear that the Author. ty may be
selectively interpreting this public domain issue, since many others in the audience did in
fact have in their possession the same documents which I had sought. Finally I was forced •
to seek the intervention of Supervisor Wilma Chan. As you know, her office made a direct
ti 133 La.% ton Ave. Oakland. CA 9-4618 • Phone Fax 1510 t 65S -0702
.23n \ e,t ?ti S :.. Lo' \n_el , CA go;
request to Mayor Appezzato, which has now resulted in the Authority's promise to timely
send me the information in the future.
Once again, I extend my thanks for this consideration, although I remain concerned
that other members of the public may face similar difficulties in the future. I urge the
Authority to consider formulating a policy which encourages the public to participate in a
cooperative fashion by allowing full and timely access to documents pertaining to matters
which are before the Authority. By actively facilitating informed and meaningful public
involvement in the Authority's deliberations, the Authority builds a cooperative
constituency for successful.reuse.
It is my heartfelt view, and that of the Military Base Closures Environmental
Network whose endorsement list .(enclosed) is comprised of some of the most active and
influential environmental organizations in California, that "rather.than viewing community
involvement as a hurdle to overcome, successful reuse efforts will build on a foundation of
community support. "1
In closing, I want to congratulate the Authority fpr its hard work in tackling one of
the most difficult topics of our day. I believe that the Authority is interested in creating and
executing a reuse plan for the Naval Air Station which is supported by members of the
community, and pledge the modest resources of the Rose Foundation to assist in that goal.
Sincerely,
Tim Little, Executive Director
cc: Mayor Ralph Appezzato
Supervisor Wilma Chan
Mr. Saul Bloom, Director, ARC Ecology
Military Base Closures Environmental Network
1 MBC Environmental Network, "Environmental Principles for Military Base Closures ", 1994.
ARC
Arms Control Research Center
Center for Peace and Progressive Politics
833 Market Street Suite 110Z San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 495-1786; Fax (475) 495 -1787
ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
for
Military Base Closures
Saul Bloom
Carolyn Crampton
Ruth Gravanis
Arthur Feinstein
David Hawthorne
Tim Little
Paul Okamoto
Dr. William J. Smith
Michael Warburton
edited by
Tim Little
co-authors
Arms Control Research Center
Hunters Point artist
Restoring the Bay Campaign
Golden Gate Audubon
Architects, Designers & Planners for Social
Responsibility
Rose Foundation for Communities and the
Environment
Urban Ecology
Sierra Club
Ecology Center
and the
Military Base Closures Environmental Network
Published by
ARC/Arms Control Research Center
in collaboration with
Center for Economic Conversion
Urban Habitat Program
November, 1994
ARC /Arms Control Research Center
The ARC /Arms Control Research Center specializes in military base restoration and economic
conversion. For over ten years, ARC's work on monitoring the remediation of the United States
military's environmental pollution, coordinating community comments on federal base closures,
developing community economic conversion plans, and empowering local communities through
information sharing and direct organizing has saved federal and local governments hundreds of
millions of dollars, halted .wasteful federal defense programs, quantified the environmental
impacts of war and helped lead the way for the growing conversion movement. ARC has also
developed partnership programs with non - governmental organizations in the Philippines and
Great Britain to empower citizen -led military base restoration and clean up.
Military Base Closures Environmental Network
The Military Base Closures Environmental Network began to form in early 1994. Its initial
discussions focussed on proposals for the reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station. The
discussions quickly broadened to encompass all of the closing military facilities in the Bay
Area. Representatives of ARC /Arms Control Research Center, Architects, Designers &
Planners for Social Responsibility, Alameda Peace & Environmental Network, CAREER PRO,
Ecology Center, Golden Gate Audubon, Hunters Point artists, Northern California Recycling
Association, Restoring the Bay Campaign, Rose Foundation, Sierra Club and Urban Ecology
decided to meet regularly to share analysis of base closures issues and opportunities.
Network meetings are open to all activists and representatives of non - profit or non-
governmental organizations. For information about the activities of the Military Base Closures
Environmental Network, call Tim Little (510)658 -0702.
Bay Area Base Conversion Project
To ensure that base conversion activities in the Bay Area maximize local community
development activities, particularly for low income and communities of color that already bear
heavy burdens of economic dislocation and environmental degradation, the ARC /Arms Control
Research Center, Center for Economic Conversion and Urban Habitat Program have formed a
collaborative project, the Bay Area Base Conversion Project. The overall mission of the
collaborative is to facilitate the full participation of disadvantaged communities in the
conversion of Bay Area military bases in a manner that enhances the economic, social and
environmental health of the region as a whole.
Acknowledgements
ARC extends its heartfelt thanks to the co- authors and other members of the Military Base
Closures Environmental Network for their many hours of pro -bono time in crafting these
Principles. ARC gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the Environmental Committee of the
East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission, whose in -depth discussions of
environmental principles helped spark this Statement of Environmental Principles. Finally, ARC
extends its sincere thanks to the Rose Foundation for supporting the development of these
Principles through its "loaned organizer" program.
November 1994
Executive Summary
These Environmental Principles for Military Base Closures
offer four basic statements to help guide reuse efforts. They explain
how members of the Military Base Closures Environmental Network will
analyze reuse proposals.
Drawing from the authors' broad experience in environmental
protection, sustainable economics and design, and environmental
justice, these Principles state essential elements of sustainable reuse
plans. While recognizing that all aspects of the Principles may not be
applicable to every land parcel or reuse plan, the authors recommend
that they be incorporated as a goal statement in all reuse plans and
environmental impact statements. The goals of the principles are to:
• Encourage and facilitate economically sound commercial and in-
dustrial ventures, affordable housing, and protected wildlife
habitat.
• Educate and guide stakeholders and participants in the reuse
planning process, including government officials, planning con-
sultants, members of Restoration Advisory Boards, and interested
citizens.
• Highlight the opportunities presented by base closures.
• Help bridge the gap between existing regulations and base closure
opportunities.
• Facilitate the incorporation of sustainable environmental concepts
into all Bay Area reuse plans, environmental impact reports, and
other related documents.
1) All the region's diverse stakeholders must be included in
military base reuse. The various communities of the region,
particularly communities of color who have been negatively im-
pacted by existing operations and /or closure hardships, must be
involved as partners in.the decision making process.
Rather than viewing community involvement as a hurdle to
overcome, successful reuse efforts will build on a strong founda-
tion of community support. As conflicts or tensions arise which
cannot be solved through a participatory discussion, mediation
and /or binding arbitration should be considered so that overall
reuse and conservation efforts may move forward.
Reuse proposals should generate jobs which match existing
skills in the local community, and provide training to help develop
necessary new skills.
2) The basic rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and
walk on clean soil must be protected in reuse plans. The right to
clean air, water and habitat does not depend on either socio-
1
Stakeholders
in
Military Base Closures
(a partial list)
Artists
Base Workers
Base Workers' Families
Cleanup Contractors
Community Economic
Development Advocates
Defense Labs
Developers
Environmentalists
Ethnic Communities
Homeless
Labor Unions
Local, State & Federal
Government
Military Agencies
Native Americans
Neighbors
People Who Fish
Regulators
Small Business Owners
Universities & Colleges
economic class or wildlife species.
Many sites have serious and expensive contamination prob-
lems. Cleanup decisions must maximize reuse options and recog-
nize that full cleanup may take decades. Reuse plans should adopt
a multi- phased cleanup approach which allows available cleanup
dollars to be targeted most effectively, contains the spread of
contamination on sites which cannot be immediately cleaned up,
and moves towards a goal of full restoration of all sites.
The military agency currently holding title should not be
allowed to relinquish liability for full cleanup until contaminants
have been removed to levels found in nearby undisturbed areas.
3) The globally significant resources of the San Francisco Bay
Region must be respected and protected. Each of the diverse
elements of the Bay Area ecosystem must be respected in its own
right. The proximity of different wildlife habitats and the resulting
interlocking and interdependent food webs constitute both known
and yet to be discovered genetic resources for the entire planet.
Simply protecting endangered species does not preserve the
larger resource, although we must certainly strive to assure the
recovery of endangered and threatened species. Impacts on local
habitats should be evaluated . both in their own right, and for the
potential ripple effects on larger populations of species. To main-
tain and restore the Bay Area's biodiversity we must protect and
enhance the integrity of the entire ecosystem and its ability to
support all indigenous species and natural processes.
4) Reuse planning must not stop at the physical boundaries of
the bases, but must encompass the entire region. The region's
challenge is to engage in full bioregional planning which recognizes
that the Bay Area's irreplaceable natural resources are tightly
linked to its diverse social, cultural, architectural, and economic
resources.
Sustainable reuse planning should be directed towards im-
proving the overall quality of life within the region. Federal base
closure assistance funds could and should be preferentially ap-
plied to projects and conversion efforts which create sustainable
jobs, affordable housing, respect the natural environment and
rebuild communities.
The military bases slated for closure are public lands. For
decades the federal government has held title for purposes of
national security. Now these lands, which have always been held
for the general benefit of all citizens, are available for new public
benefit uses.
Base Closure
Opportunities
• Build "infill" develop-
ments on large parcels
which combine indus-
trial, residential and
commercial uses without
threatening the
greenbelt.
• Ease siting tensions for
industrial development
since portions of the
bases have historically
been used for industrial -
type activities.
• Integrate affordable
housing into reuse pla.._ .
• Apply federal funds
preferentially to sustain-
able reuse efforts.
• Recognize that military
security has created de
facto wildlife sanctuar-
ies. These valuable
refuges can be enhanced
and permanently pro-
tected.
• Engage the region's
diverse communities in
bioregional cooperative
planning.
• Unite diverse stakehold-
ers around the common
interest of successful
conversion.
Statement of
ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
for
Military Base Closures
1) All the region's diverse stakeholders must be included in mili-
tary base reuse.
The various communities of the region, particularly communities of
color who have been negatively impacted by existing operations and /or
closure hardships, must be involved as partners in the decision making
process. Impacted communities, whether or not they are geographically
contiguous to the base, should be consulted and included. Historical
claims to the bases, such as those being made by Native Americans
throughout the country, must also be taken into account alongside
contemporary reuse proposals.
Rather than viewing community involvement as a hurdle to over-
come, successful reuse efforts will build on a strong foundation of
community support. Both the decision making process and any eventual
reuse plans should require access by the region's diverse communities of
people regardless of income, race, religion, cultural and sexual orienta-
tion and be sensitive to each community's particular needs. Reuse plans
should require access to community facilities, open space, natural wild-
life and agricultural areas where appropriate.
One necessary step towards securing community support is to
ensure that reuse proposals generate jobs which match existing skills in
the local community. Since reuse proposals are, by nature, forward
looking, they should also contain training programs which are accessible
to local communities. Prospective workers must be given the opportunity
to learn new skills needed to participate in the region's revitalized
economy.
Reuse planners must recognize that tensions exist, and will arise,
between different communities of interest. Mediation and /or binding
arbitration should be considered to resolve conflicts so that overall reuse
and conservation efforts may move forward.
2) The basic rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and walk
on clean soil must be protected in reuse plans.
The right .to clean air, water and habitat does not depend on socio-
economic class, ethnicity, or species. Many sites have serious and ex-
pensive contamination problems. There is pressure verging on panic to
develop these quickly. Expense and concerns about timing cannot
Building
Job Opportunities
for Stakeholders
into Reuse Plans
Community Contracting
When the new Federal
Building was built in Oak-
land, the General Services
Administration required:
A Community Contract
Compliance Monitoring
Committee
20% small business set -
aside
30% minority & women -
owned business set - aside.
Bay Area
Ship Recycling Complex
The ARC /Arms Control
Research Center is promot-
ing development of a Bay
Area Ship Recycling Com-
plex. The complex could
employ dislocated workers
at Hunters Point, Mare
Island & Alameda to scrap
the "mothball fleet." In
addition to generating over
1500 jobs, the complex
would boost local scrap and
remanufacturing markets,
and ensure that the
shipbreaking work would be
performed to US environ-
mental standards. Past
practice has been to sell
scrap ships to Pacific Rim
nations to avoid US wage
scales and environmental
laws.
become the catalyst for weakening environmental protections.
Cleanup decisions must maximize reuse options and recognize that
full cleanup may take decades. Reuse plans should adopt a multi -
phased cleanup approach which allows available cleanup dollars to be
targeted most effectively, contains the spread of contamination on sites
which cannot be immediately cleaned up, and moves towards a goal of
full restoration of all sites.
The military agency currently holding title should not be allowed to
relinquish liability for full cleanup until contaminants have been removed
to levels found in nearby undisturbed areas. This preserves strict
accountability for cleanup and encourages the military to proceed as
rapidly as possible towards full cleanup. However, reuse authorities or
other title holders must be liable for any increased cleanup costs associ-
ated with, or caused by, reuse activities.
Short Term Cleanup: Assess and contain contamination
(1 - 3 years)
Contamination at all sites must be accurately assessed and mapped
before the base closes. Stopping the spread of contamination at all sites
must receive a higher priority than beginning active clean up. Once
contamination is contained, all technologies available for cleanup must
be assessed. Informed decisions about what, how, and when can only be
made after accurate and complete mapping of contaminated sites and
secure containment. In the short term, it is preferable to focus reuse to
fully or easily cleaned sites.
Medium Term: Effectively targeting cleanup dollars
(2 -10 years)
Human health risk assessments cannot have any degree of accuracy
until complete data about site contamination is collected and analyzed.
Once these processes have been completed, both ecological and human
health risk assessments must be used to allocate cleanup dollars. Some
land use restrictions must also be accepted in the intermediate phase.
Interim cleanup levels should be compatible with both the proposed
land use and the best available cleanup technology whenever practi-
cable.
Final Term: The long road to full clean up
(10+ years)
The final cleanup phase equals a combination of full restoration and
cleanup to levels found in nearby undisturbed areas. Full cleanup may
take decades to achieve on the most contaminated parcels. However,
until the final term cleanup is achieved, the military agency responsible
for creating the pollution should not be allowed to relinquish liability for
full cleanup. Monitoring of ongoing cleanup and restoration should be
conducted by the appropriate independent state or federal agencies.
Potential
Cleanup Incentives
Require military agencies to
be responsible for mainte-
nance until actual property
transfer.
Prohibit military agencies
who are responsible for
contaminated bases from
relinquishing title until fin,
cleanup is completed.
Create a locally- controlled
cleanup fund with an
assessment on commercial
and residential reuse ven-
tures. The fund would be
earmarked to help with final
cleanup.
3) The globally significant resources of the San Francisco Bay
Region must be respected and protected.
Each of the diverse elements of the Bay Area ecosystem must be
respected in its own right. The proximity of different wildlife habitats
and the resulting interlocking and interdependent food webs constitute
both known and yet to be discovered genetic resources for the entire
planet. In recognition of its importance to global biodiversity, the United
Nations has declared the entire region a United Nations Biosphere
Reserve.
Simply protecting endangered species does not preserve the larger
resource, although we must certainly strive to assure the recovery of
endangered and threatened species. Impacts on local habitats should be
evaluated both in their own right, and for the potential ripple effects on
larger populations of species. To maintain and restore the Bay Area's
biodiversity we must protect and enhance the integrity of the entire
ecosystem and its ability to support all indigenous species and natural
processes.
Endangered Species
Endangered and threatened species, species who are candidates for
protected status, and other species of special concern found on Bay Area
military bases include: the California Least Tern, California Clapper
Rail, black rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, Suisun shrew, California
Brown Pelican, American PeregrineFalcon, snowy plover, and burrowing
owl.
• Assure the recovery of endangered species by preserving, managing
and restoring adequate quantity and quality of habitat.
• Develop, adopt and implement recovery plans for all endangered
species.
• Set aside enough land and water to provide the full range of habitat
types to sustain the ecosystem and prevent the decline of not -yet-
endangered species.
Habitat Protection & Restoration
Enough habitat should be protected in designated refuges to sustain
existing wildlife populations and allow for the recovery of species in
decline. Habitats can also be protected and enhanced within portions of
the bases which are either currently developed or proposed for develop-
ment.
• Transfer large habitat areas to appropriate natural resource protection
agencies. Placing some of the most sensitive areas into public steward-
ship could answer many environmental questions at the outset, and
help galvanize support for economic reuse plans targeted at some of
the remaining acreage. Specifically, transfer requests submitted by
resource agencies for acreage on Alameda Naval Air Station and Mare
Island Naval Shipyard should be granted as soon as possible.
• Provide enough of each kind of habitat to prevent conflicts between the
needs of various species.
Beyond
Endangered Species
Caspian Terns are not
considered endangered,
yet their largest West
Coast breeding colony is
on Alameda Naval Air
Station. Disturbing this
colony could move a
robust species towards
threatened status.
Protecting Sensitive
Habitat
Both the US Fish & Wild-
life Service and the East
Bay Regional Park District
have requested that the
military grant 'public
benefit conveyance " re-
quests to protect sensitive
habitat areas. The federal
laws governing base clo-
sures allow free transfers of
land to other public agen-
cies for the benefit of the
general public. The Mili-
terry Base Closures Envi-
ronmental Network fully
suports these requests:
Alameda Naval
Air Station
595 acres dry land
375 acres submerged land
Mare Island
670 acres
Portions of
Hamilton Air Force Base
and
Skaggs Island
• Protect and restore tidal and seasonal wetlands, including mudflats
and marshes, as well as aquatic habitats.
• Maintain, enhance, restore and recreate a variety of upland and other
habitat types that will provide adequate opportunities for roosting,
foraging, nesting, hauling out and burrowing as needed for birds,
mammals, reptiles, fish, insects, and other species which complete the
food web.
• Protect and restore native plant and wildlife communities and control
harmful exotic species.
• Provide adequate buffer areas between wildlife habitat and human
activity.
• Minimize, to the extent possible, any impacts on wildlife resulting from
remediation of contaminated areas.
• Plan transportation routes and improvements, including roads, rail-
ways, shipping and ferries, to minimize impacts on wildlife.
• Coordinate reuse planing and natural resource management efforts.
Potentially diverse communities of interest will need to work together
to help each other achieve their goals.
Management Plans
Natural Resource Management Plans can help assure that wildlife's
needs are met.
• Create, fund and implement Natura 1 Resource Management Plans for
each base. These plans should be based on ecological inventories and
scientific assessments of wildlife needs.
• Incorporate the management plans into the overall reuse plans.
• Designate agencies to be held accountable for implementation and
monitoring.
• Identify and secure long -term funding for ongoing protection, moni-
toring and enforcement. Two possibilities are Department of Defense
allocations, and structuring reuse plans to generate revenues dedi-
cated to wildlife protection.
Educational Opportunities
Public education is the foundation for future wildlife protection.
• Provide environmental education and interpretive centers.
• Involve members of the community in designing and implementing
environmental education programs. Include opportunities for hands-
on restoration work.
4) Reuse planning must not stop at the physical boundaries of the
bases, but must encompass the entire region.
The military bases slated for closure are public lands. For decades the
federal government has held title for purposes of national security. Now
these lands, which have always been held for the general benefit of all
citizens, are available for new public benefit uses.
The region's challenge is to engage in full bioregional planning which
recognizes that the Bay Area's irreplaceable natural resources are tightly
linked to its diverse social, cultural, architectural, and economic resources.
6
"Placing some oft.
most sensitive areas
into public stew-
ardship could an-
swer many envi-
ronmental ques-
tions at the outset,
and help galvanize
support for eco-
nomic reuse plans
targeted at some' of
the remaining acre-
age."
Sustainable reuse planning should be directed towards improving
the overall quality of life within the region. A comprehensive plan will
provide for both restoration and development. It is important to re-
member that human rights may need to be restored as well as natural
resources. Particular attention must be placed on responding to histori-
cal claims by Native Americans, addressing the needs of communities
that have been negatively impacted by present or historical military uses,
and to preserving cultural heritage sacred spaces.
Bioregional Planning
• Consider the relationships between people, the environment, and the
economy.
• Respect the habitat needs of all species.
• Respect the livelihood needs of all species.
• Develop ecological building systems.
• Take the fullest possible advantage of existing facilities.
• Encourage the use of recovered or recycled materials and "low im-
pact" construction materials in building codes.
• Institute manufacturer buy -back programs such as refillable bottles
and rebates for returning used car parts. Create incentives to reduce
excess packaging.
• Recycling collection programs should add value to the local economy
by feeding appropriate local remanufacturing facilities.
• Establish local farmers' markets.
Public Trust
Many of the bases include tidelands and former tidelands which are
subject to the Public Trust. The Public Trust Doctrine is a time - tested
legal concept that the state government does not actually own tidelands
and navigable waters, but holds them in perpetual trust on behalf of all
the people in the state. The federal government claimed jurisdiction over
these lands in the interests of national security. Now that the bases have
been declared surplus for national defense purposes, much of their
acreage reverts to Public Trust.
Many questions have already arisen about how to apply the Public
Trust Doctrine to the bases, due to legal complexities including rever-
sionary clauses, and uncertain boundaries between wetlands and up-
lands caused by Bay fill. The State Lands Commission is charged with
making public trust determinations. However, their efforts have been
hampered by lack of funding.
The Public Trust Doctrine is not an impediment to economic conver-
sion of the bases. Public Trust designations allow numerous employ-
ment- generating uses, as well as wildlife habitat and open space. Cur-
rent law also provides a mechanism for public trust exchanges. In an
exchange, the public trust designation can be transferred from one parcel
to another, facilitating both economic development and environmental
protection. Such exchanges should be conducted through an open
public process.
Public Trust Uses
Include
Boating
Fishing
Hotels
Open Space
Public Assembly
Restaurants
Shipping & Ship Repair
Water - dependent Industries
Water - related Recreation
Wildlife Habitat
Standards for Commercial & Industrial Development
The need for industrial sites is recognized and encouraged. Manu-
facturing or other industrial activities should be sited on areas which are
currently (or have historically been) used in similar capacities. The
relatively large size of some of the bases may allow creation of buffer
zones to segregate industrial and residential uses. In some instances,
industrial /commercial uses could serve as buffers between residential
areas and wildlife preserves. Local governments (through their power
to make land use decisions) and the federal government (by providing
funding assistance) could exert strong leverage to encourage /require:
• Good neighbor agreements between companies and the surrounding
community.
• Best available environmental controls and best practical mitigation of
neighborhood impacts.
• Funding subsidies tied to environmental performance. Subsidies and
siting preference should be extended to companies which have a
proven track record of exceeding standard regulatory compliance
requirements or reducing hazardous waste generation. Siting prefer-
ence should be extended to companies which produce environmen-
tally beneficial products. Funding subsidies should also be tied to
environmental justice records.
• Siting preference for companies who employ unionized labor, pay
prevailing wages, and comply with OSHA regulations.
• No funding or siting preference given to industries whose viability is
based on excessive resource consumption or production of hazardous
wastes.
• Federal business development funds made available to local, minority
and women -owned businesses on a percentage basis that reflects the
demographics of the surrounding communities. A community con-
tracting oversight board should be created to ensure that community
contracting set - asides are properly achieved.
Land Use Decisions
Development decisions should be made in a regional context. Land
uses should encourage affordable housing and diverse job opportunities
which utilize skills in the local and surrounding communities. Ideally,
land use decisions should give people the option of living near their jobs
and /or working near their homes.
Development should blend with surrounding communities, be
compatible with the local environment, and match existing infrastruc-
ture whenever possible. Bases in urban centers should be developed
more densely than bases in rural areas. Dense development should also
ensure access to public transportation and include open landscape
corridors for scenic value, wildlife habitat, recreation and gardens.
Proponents of increased development should consider mitigating
increased demands for power , water, waste and sewage disposal
through encouraging conservation rather than increasing capacity.
Environmentally Sr r,
Industries
Conserve resources.
Use or produce clean fuels
or alternative energy
sources such as:
• Solar or wind power.
• Hydrogen, natural gas,
or methanol.
Build electric, alternative
fueled cars, or public
transportation.
Use recycled materials like
glass, aluminum, paper &
cardboard to
remanufacture valuable
new products.
Good Neighbor
Agreements
Encourage local hiring.
Protect the community
with Safety and Environ-
mental Audits.
Recognize the
Community's legal Right
to Know.
Reduce waste and
inefficiency, increasing
productivity.
Build trust between busi-
nesses and communities.
Transportation Systems
Transportation planning should allow people to move freely both
within and between communities. A comprehensive transportation
network emphasizes low emission public mass transit, pedestrian ori-
ented development, and encourages bicycles for both commuting and
recreation. Provide priority parking for van and carpools, maintain
access for emergency, disabled - persons' and service vehicles, and dis-
courage private automobiles in urban and village centers.
Parks, Recreation and Landscaping
Landscape planning for developed areas should serve many func-
tions, including recreation, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, energy conserva-
tion, food production, erosion control, soil replenishment and visual
screening. Public plantings, such as street trees or parks, should fit into
an overall landscape system.
The use of herbicides, pesticides, petrochemically -based fertilizers
and invasive plant species should be discouraged, if not prohibited.
Plants that are adapted to a dry- summer climate and benefit native
wildlife should be encouraged. Space should be provided for commu-
nity gardens, and residents should be encouraged to maintain home
gardens.
Sufficient space should be set aside on each base for a comprehensive
open space system which includes wildlife habitat as well as developed
parks. Recreational facilities should be designed and located to meet the
needs of residents and workers - now, and in the future,
Energy Systems
Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power should
receive the highest priority. Solar power considerations should include
both active (solar panels which transform the sun's energy directly into
electrical power) and passive (designs which orient buildings or rooms
to take advantage of the sun's light and heat in the winter yet can be
screened or shaded in the summer). Cogeneration (which captures heat
or other by- products of one process for reuse as fuel or other purposes)
should be emphasized whenever sensible. Cogeneration possibilities
could include composting organic matter to produce methane and
reusing excess industrial heat.
Water Systems
Reuse plans should help preserve and develop wildlife habitat by
restoring creeks and marshes.
Water systems in developments should collect and store runoff
water for irrigation. Waste water should be treated to appropriate levels.
Reclaimed water can be used for irrigation, decorative ponds, ground-
water recharge and dust control.
Ecological
Building Systems
Reuse existing
buildings, materials
and equipment.
Feature natural venti-
lation and light.
Build in grey water
systems to reuse bath or
shower water for irriga-
tion.
Capture and store roof
top rainwater for irriga-
tion.
Take full advantage of
active and passive solar.
Make recycling easy for
residents, workers and
visitors.
Use low impact con-
struction materials.
Provide easy access to
public transit.
Solid Waste Management
Solid waste systems should reduce the overall quantity of packaging
and waste, and emphasize reuse, recycling and composting. Building
materials should be reused and recycled to the greatest extent feasible.
Building Codes
Building materials codes should be created and enforced which
establish positive criteria encouraging the use of resource - conserving
materials, such as lumber from sustainable forestry and use of non -toxic
indoor materials. Special attention must be paid to reducing the use or
production of hazardous materials throughout the construction process.
Building codes can also encourage recycling, and energy and water
conservation by owners and tenants.
References
Alameda Naval Air Station's Natural Resources and Base Closure
March 12, 1994 Symposium proceedings
Available through Golden Gate Audubon Society, (510)843 -2222
Base Closures: The Local Peace Dividend
ARC /Arms Control Research Center
Call (415)495 -1786
Citizen's Guide to Military Base Clean -up and Conversion
Center for Economic Conversion & Military Toxics Project
Call (415)968 -8798
Citizen's Report on the Military and the Environment
Pacific Studies Center
Call (415)969 -1545
Defining Sustainable Communities
Edited by Catherine Lerza on behalf of the Tides Foundation
2000 P St. NW #408, Washington DC, 20036
Discovering Sustainable, Career jobs at Closing Military Bases
Sierra Club, San Francisco Chapter
Call (510)653 -6127
The Good Neighbor Handbook
by Sanford Lewis and the Center for Public Policy
42 Davis Rd., #3B, Acton, MA 01720, (508)264 -4060
Guide to Federal and California Endangered Species Laws
Planning and Conservation League Foundation
9261 St., Ste. 612, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916)444 -8726
10
Guidelines for Sustainable Base Redevelopment
and Environmental Restoration
Urban Ecology and Architects, Designers & Planners for Social Responsibility
Call (510)251 -6330
Native Shrubs of California
by Glenn Keator
Available through the California Native Plant Society
909 12th St., Ste. 116, Sacramento, CA 95814
Principles of Environmental Justice
People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit
Available through ARC /Arms Control Research Center, (415)495 -1786
Public Trust Doctrine and Land Use Planning
by Elizabeth Patterson, California Land Use Law & Policy Reporter, Dec. 1992
Available through Save San Francisco Bay Association, (510)452 -9261
The Regional Implications of Military Base Closures
ARC /Arms Control Research Center
Call (415)495 -1786
Restoring the Bay: A Citizen's Agenda for Restoring
the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary
Save San Francisco Bay Association
Call (510)452 -9261
Sustainable Cities: Concepts & Strategies for Eco-City Development
Edited by Bob Walter, Lois Arkin, Richard Crenshaw
4344 Russell Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90027, (213)662 -5207
11
ARC ECOLOGY
ARMS CONTROL RESEARCH CENTER
833 Market Street, Suite 1107, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 495 -1786 Fax: (415) 495 -1787
Military Base Closures Environmental Network
Statement
of
Environmental Principles for Military Base Closures
Organizational Endorsements 5/19/95
African American Development Association
Architects /Designers /Planners for Social Responsibility
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
ARC /Arms Control Research Center
Baylands Conservation Committee
California Network for a New Economy
Career Pro
Center for Economic Conversion
Citizens for a Better Environment
Citizens. Committee to Complete the Refuge
Clean Water Action
Conservation Science Institute
East Palo Alto Historical & Agricultural Society
Ecology Center
Global Vision 20/20
Golden Gate Audubon Society, Inc.
Greenpeace
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 6
Mount Diablo Audubon Society
National Economic Development Law Center
Natural Heritage Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern California Recycling Association
Pacific Studies Center
Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment
San Francisco Baykeeper
Shipyard & Marine Shop Laborers Union Local 886
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Sierra Club - Northern California /Nevada RCC
Sierra Club - San Francisco Bay Chapter
Sustainable Systems
Urban Ecology
Urban Habitat Program, Earth Island Institute
Introduction
The Public Trust Working Group appreciates the time, thought and energy that the
ARRA, working within a specified time and budget, has devoted to planning of the
Alameda NAS rcusc. We also appreciate the opportunity to herewith submit our comments
and recommendations.
The public; has an interest in San Francisco Bay's tidelands, submerged land and
navigable waterways. States are responsible for protecting the public's interest in these
lands through the legal principle under which these lands are held in, trust by the state
government for the benefit of all citizens.
'Under the Public Trust Doctrine, the State of California can exercise its
responsibility by designating Trust lands for the special water - related uses that these lands
are uniquely able to host.1 In recent decades, the State Lands Commission has acted on
behalf of the State, and its citizens, in preserving the size of the Bay, its water quality,
fishery, tourist and real estate industries, and even the regional climate, through application
of the Public Trust Doctrine,2 In short, without the Public Trust, the Bay Area would be
quite different than it is today.
The Public Trust is of utmost importance in the closure planning of the military
bases that encircle the Bay. If anything has been learned from past experience it is the
interconnectedness of the many physical, social and economic aspects of planning. In this
light, we suggest reuse planning for the Alameda Naval Air Station might better view the
Public Trust as a central theme, rather than an impediment 3
Over 80% of the lands presently administered by the Alameda Naval Air Station are
Public'l'rust Lands. I These lands are unique resources, The economic, environmental and
social health of the region and the state; requires that these, and other Trust lands, sustain
uses that utilize their proximity to the water in order to serve public needs. The people of
the Bay Area and California, no matter where they live or work, depend on Trust lands
being available to serve water- related purposes. Private uses need to be subordinated and
incidental to this larger public use.
The particulars of the State's need for Public Trust lands has changed over time, but
our dependance on our coasts and navigable waterways continues. The wisdom of. this
historic Public Trust Docliittc has been validated over time as lands protected by their Trust
1 Public trust usou recognized by the California State Lando Commission inolude waterborne
commerce, navigation, fisheries, 000logloal habitat protection, water - related recreation,
open apace and preservation of land In Ire natural condition.
2 For example, see Murphy v. City of Berkeley and State of California, and West Say
Community Aec ooleto3 v. City of an Mateo and State of California.
3 Rather than viewing the Public Trust Doctrine as an ovorall framowork to guide rouse
planning, a goal whloh would bo consistent with the established fact that at least CO% of the
base Is on Trust land, the reuse proposal simply oatabllahos a vague goal of achieving
"optimum response to Public Trust uses" (NAS Community Reuse Plan, p. 9).
4 Ac roportod by tho Stato Lands Commission and delineated on maps by the ARRA. Many
public trust advooatoo believe that the actual extent of the Trust Is even greater.
1
status are reconfigured into port facilities, wildlife refuges, and other uses to adapt to
changing conditions.
The Regional Context
Whilc the ARRA, by design, is only concerned with the reuse and redevelopment
of the Alameda Naval Air Station and adjoining facilities, decisions made here must
recognize our unique regional context, Between 1988 and 2001, the military will cease
using more than 14,500 acres of dry and submerged land ringing San Prancisco Bay and
the adjoining coast This will trigger significant changes in regional patterns of land use.
The City 6f Alameda, as many other communities deeply impacted by base
closures, is facing a sudden reduction in income and employment. Alameda faces common
challenge with these other communities in replacing those losses, and is naturally looking
to base assets.-- primarily real estate -- as an economic resource. The decisions shade in
Alameda, and elsewhere, will determine the San Francisco Bay environment well into the
future.
The ARRA's challenge of determining new uses for the former base lands is
formidable, apart from Pub'lic Trust considerations, because of such complications as toxic
waste and obsolete. infrastructure, as well as the complications of the public process.
Planning for reuse of so much acreage also represents a formidable challenge in and of
itself. Meshing public goals and objectives with the realities of private market decisions
and public fiscal capacities is especially difficult in 1996 California because our economy
and social contract are undergoing rapid change. However, we submit that this challenge
can also be considered a great opportunity.
The Public Trust and Base Closures
I.listorica.11y, the military required thousands of acres with proximity to the Day.
Much of this acreage was created and constructed by filling in tidelands and is therefore
subject to Public '!'rust requirements. The Alameda base is typical in this regard --
constructed. mostly on fill, with the majority of its acreage unarguably on Trust lands.
The Public Trust Doctrine embodies a set of principles to guide development. It has
evolved instruments that allow it to take specific current conditions into account as it
ensures the protection of long -term interests. For example, during its tenure as a military
base, portions of the Trust lands in Alameda were developed as housing, a use that is not
compatible with Public T;'iust requirements. However, there are instruments which allow
the trustees (i.e. the State of California) to take site.specific conditions into account, P
example, land exchanges can permit the substitution of non -Trust acreage for Trust land, or
temporary leases can facilitate the use of Trust lands for uses that are not themselves
consistent with the Trust but preserve the availability of the land for trust needs over the
long term. These instruments are designed to strengthen the ability of trustees to achieve
the broad public purposes of the Trust.
Applying the Public Trust to the NAS Alameda Reuse Plan
The Public Trust Working Group has been working with ,ARRA staff and
commenting on portions of the set of proposals called the "NAS AManneda Community
Rouse Plan" over the last several nnonths. Ptm the start, we have expressed our concern
about the consistency of the proposals with the Public Trust. We have explained that the
5 Aro Ecology, personal communication, 1/25!98
2
public has a property right over at least 80% of the land at the Naval Air Station. Not the
City of Alameda, not the State Lands Commission, not even the California Legislature can
transfer this public benefit into private hands. The Trust protects the rights of present and
future citizens to enjoy the unique nature of the land and water at Alameda for waterborne
commerce, navigation, fisheries, ecological habitat protection, water- t'eiaterl recreation, and
open space and preservation of land in its natural condition,
Tha document being presented as the "NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan"
shows uses on Public Trust land which arc not consistent with the Trust and contemplates
transfer of public rights into private hands for uses inconsistent with the public's rights.
The courts forbid such tratisfer,6 We believe it would be prudent for the ARR.A to correct
this defect before approving the proposal.
We have on numerous occasions talked with staff and provided suggestions on
how to correct the defects. We have offered to meet with the consultants charged with
drafting the proposals so that they might better understand these fundamental issues. We
regret that no substantive changes have been Made to the ARRA's proposals in response to
our cooperative efforts to offer alternative proposals which still moot the overall goals
articulated in Chapter One of the "NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan ".
Northwest Territories
All of the proposed uses for the Northwest Territories, with the exception of
parks /open space, would encompass non -Trust activities. These are valuable lands for
endangered species protection, as well as maritime and recreational uses. These uses have
been recognized and delineated in plans prepared by state agencies.
dousing at the Marna
Construction of 384 dwelling units. is proposed on 35 acres adjoining the marina
area. Yet the entire acreage is currently within Public Trust boundaries established by the
State Lands Commission and residential housing is universally recognized as an
impermissible Trust use. '
Civic Core,
Many non - Trost uses, including Pan Pacific University, and residential housing,
are proposed for this area.
kand,Lxcbanges
The Pubilc'1'rust Working Group is open to exploring land exchanges. However,
there simply may not. be any acceptable trades. Land exchanges which seek to remove the
Trust from waterfront property are seldom granted. According to the State Lauds
Commission:
"The lands from which the State's sovereign interests are to be removed must be
filled, reclaimed, and excluded from public waters. They must n'nt be useful or
susceptible of use for public trust purposes. It is difficult to Make this finding with
regard to waterfront and near -water properties." 1
We have questions about the concept of "phased trades" -- that is, a series of and
exclianges implemented over time to facilitate non-trust uses on land which is presently
R For example, see US aistriot Court, ND, CA 3/20/86, which held. "The City of Alameda did
not acquire from the State of California the right to sell the land to a private parson."
7 0/8/05 totter from State Lands Commission to Alameda City Attorney.
•
3
designated as trust land.8 All of these trades would be necessary to facilitate final build• out .
of many of the proposed projects. The trades needed to comply with Public Trust
requirements must at least be outlined, The outline must identify the location and acreage
of contemplated land exchanges and provide the basis for an eventual determination that the
land to be exchanged into the Trust will be of equal or greater value to the land which
would leave the, Trust,
J.easing
Throughout the "Community Reuse Plan" document, leasing of buildings and
acreage, both interim and long -term is discussed. Authority to grant 25 year leases with
subsequent 25 year extensions is claimed.a However, until full and clear title and
trusteeship interests are clarified, the ARRA may not have the authority for any leasing.
Additionally, the terms of any renewal need to be specified. The ARRA must take are to
ensure that these long -term leases with roll -over provisions do not collapse into permanent
attempts to circumvent public Trust requirements.
Public Lands
The City of Alameda and ARRA seem reluctant to make changes to the "plan" in
part because of the stated views of many ARRA Board members that "the City of Alameda.
is already 'giving up' 400 acres of land for wildlife refuge and it cannot afford to 'give up'
more because the plan will become economically unfeasible. "10 This conclusion is twice
flawed.
With regard to "giving up" land -- the City of Alameda is in fact asking the public to
give up land. The 80% of the Alameda Naval Air Station which is situated on Public rust
land dots not, and will not, belong to the City of Alameda. or ARRA, but to the citizens of
the State of California with the State Lands C.orrmission as trustee. The City of Alameda is
asking for the privilege of being designated a trustee of these lands. IT it is not prepared to
embrace the responsibilities of implementing the land trust, the City should neither ask for
tht role of trusteeship nor should it be entrusted with the privilege of managing the land.
Furthermore, conclusions about the economic feasibility of any proposed uses are
premature since a market and fiscal analysis has not yet even begun. Absent such analysis,
the City and ARRA are in no position to evaluate the financial feasibility of any of the
proposals. In our experience, it is seldom the amount of land available for development
which determines success, but the costs and returns on the proposed uses. It is entirely
possible to make money on a small property and lose money on a big property, or vice
versa,
TkMarketAmayail
We note that the ARRA's work plan for the earning year includes a market study.
We applaud that undertaking and suggest that the market study consider the following
questions
8 Although not submitted as part of the "Community Rouse Plan ", the "phased trade" concept
has boon articulated by ARRA staff to members of the Public Trust Working Group. Since the
"phased trade" concept Is oloariy part of AARA's Implementation strategy, it must be
outlined in the proposal and examined in the CEQA process.
NAS Alameda Community Rouse land, p. 2 -4.
10 ARRA F3oard members .Arnorloh & DeWitt, 1/3/90 meeting.
4
• What is the marketability of the proposed business park and R &D developments if
they target Trust compatible uses, or place non -Trust compatible uses in non - Trust
locations?
These developments are projected to generate needed jobs and could generate revenue
for the City of Alameda if the development actually occurs. A total addition of
5,581,000 square feet of R &D and business park development is proposed.11 Recent
trends argue against such a massive expansion. The City of Alameda presently has
approximately 2,655,740 square feet in similar use.12 In 1993, the City of Alameda
suffered a 10% vacancy for office and a 6.7% vacancy for R &D.13 By 1994, the.
City's vacancies had increased to 27.1% for office and 10.9% for R &D,14 While we
might hope that 1995 numbers may show some improvement, significant questions
remain about the marketability of new development.
• What effect will the introduction of such a large amount of new space have on
existing commercial property lessors?
Development at the Naval Air Station could compete with the existing market, with
detrimental effects, on the existing commercial market. City revenues from
commercial developnj out depend far greater on the number of square feet leased, not .
built and vacant. •
• What will be the effect of reserving revenues from Trust properties for Trust
purposes?
Under state law, revenues from Public Trust lands may only be used for public trust.
purposes. An annual statement of Public Trust revenues and expenses Illust. be filed
with the State Lands Commission.15
Recommendations of the Public Trust Working Croup
The PublieTrust Working Croup cannot support the set of proposals called the
"NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan ", as submitted, due to the serious legal defects
outlined in this paper, and because of the unanswered questions regarding potentially
significant effects on City of Alameda revenues as well as those of private landowners.
In order to correct serious conflicts with the Public Trust, we recommend that the
following changes be made:
1) Relocate the NorthwestTerritories project off of Public Trust lands.
2) Provide a specific land exchange proposal which encompasses the non -Trust use's
slated for the Civic Core and portions of the Marina areas.
3) Undertake a full market and financial analysis of the plan. The study must show how
Public Trust revenues will be segregated,
11 NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan, Chapter 2, table 1 -1.
12 ST Commercial Real Estate, "1995 Northern California Regional OveivIeNv ", p. 35
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 California Public Racourcee Code, Section 9306
5
4) Provide specific details about leasing strategies and provide enforceable assurances that
these leases will, in fact, protect long -term Trust interests.
5) While this document called the "NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan" fulfills Pryor
Act requirements, it has not undergone environmental review consistent with NI PA or
CEQA. Thus, it cannot become the basis for making any land use decisions or other
decisions with environmental consequences until full environmental review is
completed
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We ask for a written
response. Furthermore, we ask that these comments be considered as a preliminary
statement of concerns for examination in the upcoming EYR/MS• Specifically, we ask that
these comments be regarded as preliminary scoping comments, Additionally, we ask that
the forthcoming Scoping Notice be sent to inbe,rs of the Public Trust Working Group, as
these individual zxi s and organizations have evidenced a strong interest in environmental issues
related to the closing of the Alameda Naval Air Station.
Please direct correspondence to:
Sylvia McLaughlin
Chair, Public Trust Working Group
1450 Hawthorne Terrace
Berkeley, CA 9470$
6