1996-05-01 ARRA PacketMARGARET ENSLEY
AGENDA ARRA SECRETARY
Special Meeting of the Governing Boc
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Autnority
* * * * * * * **
ARRA - Building 90, outside the East Gate
Alameda Naval Air Station
Corner of Atlantic Avenue and Main Streets
Alameda, California
1. ROLL CALL
Wednesday, May 1, 1996
4:30 p.m.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter not on the agenda over
which the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance.) Due to the
nature of the special meeting, participants are encouraged to make public comments at the
regular ARRA meeting immediately following the special meeting.
3. TOUR OF THE PROPOSED RV PARK AND WILDLIFE REFUGE AREAS AT NAS
ALAMEDA
The Navy is providing a bus to tour the proposed RV Park and Wildlife Refuge areas. The bus
has a limited capacity (approx. 25 people); therefore, seating will be on a first -come, first-
seated basis. The bus must be loaded and ready to leave at 4:30 p.m. sharp. The bus will
return to Building 90 at 5:00 p.m. sharp to allow participants travel time to the regular ARRA
meeting, scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at the Historic Alameda High School Cafeteria.
4. ADJOURNMENT
NAS
Alameda
0
Main Street
Webster St.
tom- t
0
rn ':1
0
o
Webster
CA
uos pe j
0 :t
0
o
r!'.
n
N"1
9
e
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * * **
Alameda High School Cafeteria
1996
West Wing, Historic Alameda High School
Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Street
Wednesday, May 1,
5:30 p.m.
Alameda, California
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon recognition by the
Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name. Speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of
pertinent points presented verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority meetings.
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 6, 1996.
2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a
Consultant Team to Prepare a Market Study, Detailed Development Plans, an Economic
Development Conveyance Business Plan, and a Port Development Conveyance Application
and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract.
2 -C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a
Consultant Team to Prepare a Street Improvement Plan for NAS Alameda and the FISC Sites
and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract.
2 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a
Consultant Team to Prepare Building Improvement Study Specifications and a Building
Demolition Study and Specifications and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and
Execute a Contract.
2 -E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection of a
Consultant Team to Prepare a Housing Feasibility Study and Authorize the Executive Director
to Negotiate and Execute a Contract.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3 -F. Resolution Commending Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff for His Contribution
ARRA Agenda - May 1, 1996
Page 2
to the U.S. Navy, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and the Community
in His Capacity as Director of the Environmental Department for Naval Air Station
Alameda.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -G. Briefing on Secondary Materials: Demolition and Recycling by Joan Holtzman, Center for
Economic Conversion and Coy Smith, Executive Director, Materials for the Future
Foundation.
4 -H. Briefing by Paul Ammon, Contractor for EBCRC on Workers to Business Owners Program.
4 -I. Briefing by Supervisor Wilma Chan on April 10 and April 26 Financing Workshops.
4 -J. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the ARRA
on BRAG Activities.
4 -K. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the ARRA on
1. Televising ARRA Meetings
2. HUD Approval of the Community Reuse Plan.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the Governing Body in regard to any matter not on the agenda
over which the Governing Body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance.)
6. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PROPOSED LITIGATION
Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9.
Number of cases proposed: 1.
7. READJOURNMENT TO PUBLIC SESSION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION
TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY
8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
9. ADJOURNMENT
Notes:
* 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
ARRA Agenda - May 1, 1996
Page 3
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.
.PPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 6, 1996
The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair Sandre
Swanson, 9th Congressional District (arrived at 5:45 p.m.); Vice -Mayor Charles
Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Jay Leonhardy for Councilmember Henry
Chang, Jr., City of Oakland (left at 7:22 p.m.); Alternate Tony Daysog for
Councilmember "Lil "Arnerich, City of Alameda; Councilmember Albert DeWitt,
City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of
Alameda; Alternate,. David Brown for Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County
Board of Supervisors, District 3; Ex- officio Alternate Helen Sause for Ex- officio Lee
Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG); Alternate Ardella Dailey for Ex-
officio Member Barbara Rasmussen, Alameda Unified School District.
Absent: Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Appezzato stated that Item 2 -E would be pulled for a formal presentation. Alternate Daysog
requested that Item 2 -B be pulled for discussion.
Vice Chair Swanson moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Member DeWitt
seconded the motion, which carried the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Absent: 1 -
Member Corbett.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
*2 -A. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of January 31, 1996. Approved.
*2 -C. Report and Recommendation from the Executive Director Designating a Portion of the
Parks and Recreation Public Benefit Conveyance Lands at NAS Alameda for a Dog Exercise
Area. Approved.
*2 -D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Selection of
Consultant Team to Prepare a Marketing Plan and Graphic Materials to Support the ARRA's
Interim Leasing Effort and Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute the Contract.
Endorsed.
2 -B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Revised 1996 Budget Request to the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA).
Alternate Daysog asked whether the in -kind contribution to the grant would come from the City of
Alameda to the ARRA in the form of a loan. Executive Director Miller explained that the in -kind
contribution has always come from the City of Alameda in the form of City Staff time, including
time that elected officials and BRAG members spend working on ARRA - related issues. Alternate
Daysog stated that he preferred that the value of the City staff time be transferred as a loan so that
Alameda funds remain for Alameda projects.
Alternate Leonhardy moved endorsement of the revised 1996 OEA budget. The motion was
seconded by Member Mannix.
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, suggested that all ideas for the base conversion, whether
accepted or not, be posted on the Internet with graphics of NAS Alameda.
Alternate Daysog offered an amendment to 2 -B that the in -kind amount of the local match, which
currently is $353,337, be considered a loan and that the ARRA approach the City for that sum as a
loan and not as a grant from the City. Alternate Leonhardy stated that he could not accept the
amendment. The motion died for lack of a second. Chair Appezzato noted that Vice -Chair Swanson
had arrived. The original motion to endorse the revised 1996 OEA budget carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 0. Abstain: 1 - Alternate Daysog. Absent: 1 - Member Corbett.
2 -E. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company For its
Generous Contribution of S25,000 For Use in the ARRA's Lease Marketing Program and for
its Continuing Support of the Base Conversion Process.
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, stated that everyone should thank Pacific Gas and
Electric Company for their generous contribution and that more publicity was needed to get more
contributions.
Chair Appezzato asked that Rita Hamilton, Area Manager and Jane Yura, East Bay Division
Manager for Pacific Gas and Electric Company come forward. A motion was then made by Vice -
Chair Swanson and seconded by Member Mannix to accept the resolution expressing appreciation
to Pacific Gas and Electric Company for its generous $25,000 check in support of ARRA's lease
marketing program. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Absent:
1 - Member Corbett.
Chair Appezzato read the Resolution to the assembly conveying the ARRA' s sincere appreciation
to Pacific Gas and Electric Company for its support of the base conversion process and thanking
them for their $25,000 contribution. A picture was then taken to commemorate the event. Jane Yura
commended the ARRA on the tremendous progress made to date and voiced PG &E's commitment
in providing funds to implement the marketing plan, which is so vital to the the health of the
community and PG &E.
ACTION ITEMS
3 -F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of Pre - Applications to
the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for a Technical Assistance Planning Grant,
Construction Application for the Main Street /Storm Water Improvement Project, and
2
Building Improvement Construction Application for Building to be Leased to the Alameda
Center for Environmental Technologies (ACET).
Executive Director Miller thanked Chair Appezzato and Bob Brauer of Congressman Dellums'
Washington, D.C. office for urging the ARRA to apply for EDA funds. Chair Appezzato thanked
Bob Brauer for the support and assistance that he provided on behalf of Congressman Dellums'.
office. Ms. Miller also singled out Mark Braly, OEA Project Manager, for all of his support and
assistance in the process. Executive Director Miller explained that ARRA staff was seeking
approval to submit a pre - application to EDA for several projects: First, a $450,000 technical
assistance planning grant for three studies: (1)Building Upgrade Survey and Construction
Specifications; (2) Building Demolition Study; and Street Improvement Study. This would require
a $150,000 local match. Second, a $3 million construction grant for the Main Street/Storm Water
Improvement Project, which would require a $1 million non - federal match that would be met with
in -house (City) design, engineering and permit work and Urban Runoff funds. Third, a $400,000
EDA construction grant for building improvements to a building to be used by the Alameda Center
for Environmental Technologies (ACET), with the match to be provided by ACET.
Alternate Daysog voiced his concern about the $150,000 match required for the $450,000 grant
requested for the three studies under the technical assistance planning grant. He stated it was
imperative that the ARRA go to the City of Alameda and ask for a loan of staff time and repay the
City for the local match. Executive Director Miller stated that she viewed this grant as an enormous
opportunity for the City of Alameda to get a project funded that has been a City priority for years.
She further stated that it is critically important that everyone understand that the Base is fully a third
of the City of Alameda and the future of the Base will impact the future of the entire City. Member
Mannix stated that it was dangerous territory to think of the City of Alameda and the ARRA as
entities that are in opposition to one another and he could not support a process that would make the
development non - viable.
A motion was made to endorse the pre - applications to EDA for grant monies by Vice -Chair Swanson
and seconded by Alternate Leonhardy.
Speakers:
Bill Smith, an interested citizen, stated that there is a lot of money available from the State and he
feels that once the State .is involved, Alameda "has it made."
Alternate Daysog offered an amendment that the ARRA go to the City to ask for the $150,000
needed for in -kind match be provided as a loan. The motion died for lack of a second. Vice -Chair
Swanson stressed that the ARRA must take every opportunity provided to obtain funds to support
the reuse effort. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: None. Abstain:
1. Absent: 1 - Member Corbett.
ORAL REPORTS
4 -G. Progress Report on Pan - Pacific University from Peter Sun, Ph.D. Dr. Sun read the
contents of the update report provided with the ARRA packet.
3
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, stated that he is backing Pan Pacific University.
A motion to accept the report was made by Member Mannix and seconded by Member DeWitt to
accept the report. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: None. Absent:
1 - Member Corbett.
4 -H. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) on
Reorganization of the Public Participation Process.
Helen Sause, Vice -Chair of the BRAG, gave a presentation on the historical role of the BRAG,
including their organization, responsibilities and activities, and their suggested mission for BRAG
II as providing community input. She stated the BRAG strengths, examples of ongoing key issues,
and their view of the next steps to be taken. Alternate Daysog stated that homeowners and close
neighbors to the Base should have a very large say in the conversion process.
Speakers:
Richard Nevelyn, former base worker and BRAG member, stated that it is essential to have public
participation and suggested that agendas and minutes should be published in the Alameda group
newspapers. He also suggested that large firms such as Clorox and Pacific Bell be approached for
money to support the BRAG efforts.
Kurt Peterson, West Alameda Neighborhood Association, felt that their group should have a very
strong influence on the base conversion decisions due to their close proximity to the base.
Bill Smith, a concerned citizen, stated that there are many valuable tools and equipment on the base
and everyone ought to have an opportunity to become part of the process.
4 -I. Oral Report from the Facilities Manager Updating the ARRA on Interim Lease Status.
Ed Levine, Facilities Manager for ARRA, stated there are 35 buildings that comprise approximately
3 million square feet at NAS with interim leasing potential. At FISC there are ten large warehouses
and one large office building that will be available for lease after 1998. He provided an overview
of the steps necessary to achieve an interim lease and the current status of potential lessees.
Speakers:
Richard Nevelyn, a displaced base worker, requested that future lease status reports be dated and that
the number of jobs that might be created by each tenant be listed on the report.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, renewed his request that the base reuse process be
modernized by getting all the facts about the base on the World Wide Web.
Bill Smith, a concerned citizen, provided suggestions for movie studios that might want to establish
a presence on the base.
4
4 -J. Oral Report from the Executive Director.
Executive Director Miller briefed the ARRA on five issues. (1) The Alameda Center for
Environmental Technology's (ACET) invitation for Alameda Businesses to join the ACET Board
of Directors. (2) There is a meeting scheduled with Fish & Wildlife and the Navy to begin the
Section 7 process. (3) There is an informal request from the Navy Public Works Department to
retain some housing, however no decision has been made. (4) A Financing Workshop for the
ARRA that would include a half -day session with developers and another half -day that would
include (a) an investor's panel and (b) the state and regional role in financing. It was decided that
the ARRA Secretary would conduct a fax poll to determine what dates would be best for the
workshops and whether the ARRA April meeting should be held in addition to the two half -day
workshops. (5) The EIR/EIS Scoping Session would be held on March 13, 7 -9 p.m., after which
the process would become invisible to the public until the consultants present a draft EIS sometime
in the summer or early fall.
Speakers:
Sandra Cavender, West Alameda Neighborhood Association, expressed their concerns about the RV
park, its close proximity to a school, and the adverse effects on children, the environment, and the
neighborhoods.
James Sweeney, an Alameda resident, stated that the neighbors are fearful of the RV Park and that
a day -use park would be more appropriate.
Member Mannix stressed that the RV Park is still conceptual in nature and citizens should contact
East Bay Regional Parks District with their concerns.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, a concerned citizen, suggested that a Volunteer Faire be organized to help
solve problems and that everyone involved in the process should be volunteers.
Kurt Peterson, West Alameda Neighborhood Association, stated his concern that after the EIS
Scoping Session, there will not be continuous public input until the draft EIS report is presented.
D. Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner, explained that after the draft report is presented, the public will be
able to review and comment on the plan.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith, an Alameda citizen, spoke to various issues including a smooth transition and highest
and best use of existing machinery, tools, furniture, and equipment.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Chair Appezzato suggested that the members of the West Alameda Neighborhood Association form
a list of questions and contact Kay Miller to arrange for a meeting of the Association to brief them
and answer questions.
Vice -Chair Swanson suggested that a quick tour of the base be arranged for interested ARRA
members to see what the proposed RV Park site and wildlife refuge areas look like.
5
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Margaret E. Ensley
Secretary
6
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
April 24, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
2 -B
SUBJECT: Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection
of a Consultant Team to Prepare a Market Study, Detailed Development Plans, an
Economic Development Conveyance Business Plan, and a Port Development
Conveyance Application and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and
Execute a Contract.
Background
The preparation of a market study, detailed development plans, the Economic Development
Conveyance (EDC) business plan, and a Port Development Conveyance (PDC) business plan are all
part of the ongoing planning work scheduled for this year. Parts of this work effort, coupled with
other detailed planning studies —the market study and the detailed development plans, building
demolition and building upgrade studies, the street improvement plans, utilities studies, and the
housing feasibility study —are all necessary components to finalize the ARRA's EDC application
to the Navy and the ARRA's PDC application to the Department of Transportation.
In response to the ARRA's newspaper advertisements and direct contacts with potential consultants,
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were issued to more than fifty firms. Proposals were received from
five teams, of which four were selected for interviews.
The interview panel will include the ARRA Planner and Facilities Manager, staff from the City of
Alameda Community Development Department, and staff from Alameda County. Interviews are
being held Thursday, April 25, 1996. The Executive Director may interview finalists if there is not
a clear consensus recommendation from the interview panel. The final selection will be presented
to the ARRA in a separate letter prior to the ARRA meeting on May 1, 1996.
Budget Considerations /Fiscal Impact
Total cost of this scope of work is $212,000. This project will be funded by a grant from the Office
of Economic Adjustment (OEA). OEA grants require a 25 percent in -kind local match from the City
of Alameda.
A portion of the total budget ($135,000) has been approved in this year's OEA budget. Additional
funds ($77,000) have been requested from OEA in a Budget Revision. The additional work will not
commence until approval has been received from OEA.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 24, 1996
Page 2
Delays in funding approval will delay the schedule for completion of portions of the work tasks and
ultimately delay the ARRA's EDC application. However, timing is of the essence. The ARRA must
move ahead to select the consultant team and begin the necessary work to complete the EDC and
PDC applications by the end of 1996.
Recommendation
It is recommended that ARRA endorse the consultant team selection as presented at the ARRA
meeting and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a final contract with the
consultant to proceed with this project.
Respectfully submitted,
IAJCI
Kay Miller
Executive Director
KM/DPT /mee
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
April 24, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
2 -C
SUBJECT: Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection
of a Consultant Team to Prepare a Street Improvement Plan for NAS Alameda and
the FISC Sites and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a
Contract.
Background
The preparation of a Street Improvement Plan is one of the many detailed planning studies
authorized in this year's ARRA budget. This portion of the work is intended to support the ARRA's
Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) business plan. It would provide the City and ARRA
with a detailed street plan and development costs for all public streets at the NAS and FISC sites.
The plan would identify the conditions of existing streets, plan for new streets, assess costs for street
upgrades and maintenance, and present a staggered phasing plan for street upgrades.
A general street organization was provided in the Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda. This
study is intended to detail the optimum street rights -of -way for arterial, collector, and local streets
and the costs for new construction or bringing existing streets up to City of Alameda standards.
In response to the ARRA's newspaper advertisements and direct contacts with potential consultants,
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were issued to more than fifty firms. Proposals were received from
three engineering teams, all of which were interviewed. The interview panel included the ARRA's
Planner and two representatives from the City of Alameda Engineering Department. Reference
checks are being made prior to announcement of the final selection. The consultant recommendation
will be faxed to the ARRA Governing Body prior to its regular meeting on May 1, 1996.
Budget Considerations/Fiscal Impact
Total Budget for this project is $310,000. This project will be funded by a grant from the Economic
Development Administration (EDA). The EDA grant requires a 25 percent cash local match.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 24, 1996
Page 2
Recommendation
It is recommended that ARRA endorse the Consultant team selection and authorize the Executive
Director to negotiate and execute a contract with the consultant to proceed with this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT /KM/mee
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
April 24, 1996
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Kay Miller
Executive Director
2 -D
SUBJECT: Report from the Executive Director Recommending ARRA Endorse the Selection
of a Consultant Team to Prepare Building Improvement Study Specifications and a
Building Demolition Study and Specifications and Authorize the Executive Director
to Negotiate and Execute a Contract.
Background
The preparation of the Building Improvement and Building Demolition studies are necessary to
finalize ARRA's Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) business plan. The study divides into
two components: one dealing with building upgrade requirements and the other with building
demolition. The work relating to building upgrades is critical to the implementation of the ARRA's
ongoing interim leasing efforts. Outline specifications and cost estimates are required for each of
the approximately forty buildings at NAS and FISC that the ARRA has identified as having interim
leasing potential. The specifications should be sufficiently detailed to allow the ARRA to request
design/build proposals from contractor.
The work relating to demolition will provide essential cost estimates and criteria to support the
ARRA's current negotiations with the Navy regarding the conveyance value of NAS properties. The
demolition analysis will cover approximately 50 buildings at NAS and FISC, ranging in size from
12,000 to 500,000 square feet. The analysis will include specific strategies and identify local
resources to enhance opportunities for salvage and recycling.
In response to the ARRA's newspaper advertisements and direct contacts with potential consultants,
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were issued to more than fifty firms. Proposals were received from
six teams, of which four were selected for interviews. The interview panel will include the ARRA's
Facilities Manager and Assistant Facilities Manager, the Planner, and the Chair of the BRAG's Land
Use Subcommittee.
Interviews for the consultant team will be conducted on Friday, April 26, 1996. The consultant
recommendation for this and other planning studies will be faxed to the ARRA Governing Body
prior to its regular meeting on May 1, 1996.
Budget Considerations /Fiscal Impact
The total Budget for this study is $140,000. This project will be funded by a grant from the
Economic Development Administration (EDA). EDA grants require a 25 percent local match. This
work will not commence until approval has been received from EDA.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Page 2
April 24, 1996
Delays in funding approval will delay the schedule for completion of portions of the work tasks and
must
ultimately delay the ARRA' s EDC appeic�a1tioanna therefore,
diatelylcommenceethe work necessence.
to
move ahead to select the consultant
complete the EDC and PDC applications by the end of 1996.
Recommendation
It is recommended that ARRA endorse the
ct with the consu consultant selection withrthis project. cutive
Director to negotiate and execute a contract
submitted,
Kay Miller
Executive Director
DPT/KM /mee
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 15
COMMENDING LIEUTENANT COMMANDER MICHAEL L. PETOUHOFF
FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE U.S. NAVY,
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND THE COMMUNITY IN HIS CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT
FOR NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA
TO ALL LET IT BE KNOWN that for his record of dynamic and effective leadership of the
NAS Alameda Environmental Department, Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff has earned
the affection, respect, and admiration of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the
surrounding communities comprising the County of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff has led the charge for the U.S.
Navy and the Community in an all -out effort for base cleanup to effect the timely and effective reuse
and redevelopment of Naval Air Station Alameda; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff has —in the face of
insurmountable odds, adversity, bureaucratic paper work, and institutional malaise dedicated
himself to the goals of environmental protection and cleanup as expressed in the Five -Point Plan
for base reuse and redevelopment issued by the President of the United States; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff has— through his tireless efforts,
leadership, cajoling, persuasiveness, knowledge, expertise and patience —taken it upon himself to
move all mountains, men, and bureaucracy toward a timely and effective environmental cleanup and
protection; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff has been an effective leader in
reaching the goals of early and effective reuse and redevelopment of NAS Alameda;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority hereby commends and honors Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff for his
distinguished leadership, direction, efforts, and expertise for the benefit of the City of Alameda, the
City of San Leandro, the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, the U.S. Navy, and his country;
and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
commends and recommends Lieutenant Commander Michael L. Petouhoff to his superior officers
including his Commanding Officer, the Secretary of the Navy, and the President of the United States
for a job well done, which has brought the highest honor and esteem to himself, his shipmates, and
the U.S. Navy; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, staff
members, and his many friends and colleagues throughout the area extend to Michael L. Petouhoff
their sincere appreciation, gratitude, and thanks for a job well done and best wishes for his continued
success, good health, and happiness.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and
passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular meeting, assembled on
the 1st day of May, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Margaret Ensley
Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Date: May 1, 1996
SMIlwg
Deconstruction for salvage, reuse and reconstruction (DSRR) is a'viable and
valuable alternative to traditional demolition activities at closing military bases.
What are the BENEFITS of DSRR?
4 -G
• Increased jobs - 10 jobs in resource recovery, reuse and remanufacturing
are created for every 1 job that landfilling provides.
• Lower Dismantling Costs - Salvage coats less than demolition because
companies that deconstruct rather than demolish can. offset their costs.by the
retail value of intact materials.
• Cheaper and'Higher Quality Materials - Reused materials are less
expensive and often of higher quality than new materials; from redwood
beams to metal parts, special resources can be preserved and remarketed
provided special care is taken.
• Business Attraction - Base sites offer recycling and reuse businesses newly
available industrial land close to sources of deconstructed materials - an
ideal setting for storage, sorting and retail resale facilities (transportation
costs are avoided too).
•. State Incentives - California has incentive programs to encourage
.manufacturing with reused materials. These Recycling Market
Development Zones (RMDZs) can be expanded to cover bases and attract
additional business.
• Legislative; Compliance - State regulation AB 939 requires local
municipalities to reduce their waste production by 50% of their 1990 levels
by the year 2000 or be liable for fines of $10,000 a day.
• Business Development - Secondary materials industries have Strong
growth potential; for example, a Berkeley -based salvage company generates
$1.4.rnillion in sales a year with projected annual growth of 15 -20 %.
•
• Community Support - Salvage, reuse and recycling meet community ideals
for reducing environmental impacts and encourage acceptance of reuse
plans.
• Insurance Coverage - Salvagers carry full liability insurance and cover
subcontractors thus allaying the concerns of the military and Local Reuse
Authorities with regard to liability issues.
• Models Exist - Successful deconstruction and salvage work has been done
at Hamilton AFB and the Presidio which can be replicated and improved on.
CORRESPONDENCE
FROM:MGMT OFC
TO:
510 521 3764 APR 24, 1996 12:19PM #696 P.01
,ww U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C. 20410-7000
7ta
44'44. 1l Z
DCJ
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR commuNny PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
FAX TO: Julie Mantrom, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
FROM: , Perry Vietti, Coordinator, Base Redevelopment Team
(202/708-2186 x4396)
DATE: April 24, 1996
RE: Copy of Approval Letter for the Naval Air Station
Alameda
PAGES (including cover sheet) = 2
Congratulations! HUD has approved the ARRA's reuse plan. Find
approval letter attached. Hard copy has been placed in the mail.
It has been a pleasure working with you, Alice, and John. I wish
continued success in the implementation of your reuse plan.
■ • k...01 I • I 1,41
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING ANO OEvElbP#4DIT
■
3id 321 3764
PPR 24, 1996 12:19PM #896 P.
U.S, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON. C.C. 2O$o-7000 ,
April 23, 199e'
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda, CA 94501-5012
Dear Ms. Miller:
1 am pleased to inform you that the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) has approved your base reuse plan
for the Naval Air Station Alameda under the Base closure
Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994.
This means that you can now move forward-with implementing your
plan.
Specifically, we have determined that the plan meets the
requirements under the Act regarding outreach to homeless
assistance providers and balancing the economic redevelopment,
other development, and homeless needs of your community. We are
pleased that the City and the Alameda County Homeless Providers
Base Conversion Collaborative agreed on a mutually acceptable
arrangement that is reflected in the sixteen enclosed legally
binding agreements (all sixteen agreements are identical with the
exception of page 1 and Exhibit A).
Congratulations on your success in balancing the diverse
needs of your community. The planning process followed by your
community is a model for base redevelopment.
I wish you continued success in implementing your base reuse
plan. HUD stands ready to assist you in your revitalization
efforts.
Sincer ly,
/(.
:Andrew Cuomo
Assistant Secretary
EnCiOSUreS
CC: Dave Ryan, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, West
Michele Greco, Base Closure Policy and Implementation
David MacKinnon, Program Manager, Office of Economic
Adjustment
Norma Bishop, Base Transition Coordinator
John Brauer, Alameda County Homeless Base Conversion
Collaborative
Jimmy Prater, Program Manager, HUD's Office of Community
Planning and Development, San Francisco
Alameda Reuse and Redeveloplllellt Allthority
Naval Air Station Alameda
Postal Directory, Building 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
Ronald V. Dellums
9th Congressional District
Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Wilma Chan
upervisor, District 3
Jameda County Board
of Supervisors
Henry Chang, Jr.
Oakland Councilmember
serving for
Elihu Harris
Mayor, City of Oakland
Ellen M. Corbett
Mayor
City of San Leandro
Albert H. DeWitt
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Karin Lucas
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Charles M. Mannix
Vice -Mayor
City of Alameda
Kay Miller
Yecutive Director
Ito, paper
April 17, 1996
Robert R. Tufts, Chairman
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
Thirty Van Ness.Avenue, Suite 2011
San Francisco, CA 94102 -6080
(510)263 -2870
Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Re: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for the San Francisco
Bay Area Seaport Plan
Dear Mr. Tufts:
After considerable review with the ARRA's attorney, these additional
comments are provided by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) staff pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code section
21177(a)'. The ARRA staff has previously submitted comments in both oral and
written form and these earlier comments are incorporated by reference into this
comment letter.
There are a number of defects in the Environmental Assessment (EA) that has
been prepared in connection with proposed amendments to the San Francisco Bay
Area Seaport Plan (Seaport Plan). The defects affect the adequacy of the EA in
general and the adequacy of the EA as it pertains specifically to the property now
within the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS).
The ARRA staff concurs with the propriety of using an EA as a functional
equivalent of an EIR under section 21080.5 and Guidelines sections 15250- 15253.
An EA, however, is judged by the same standards that apply to an EIR. (Citizens for
Non -Toxic Pest Control v. California Department of Food and Agriculture (1986)
187 Cal.App.3d 1575.) The EA prepared in conjunction with the proposed
amendments to the Seaport Plan is defective under these standards. The law requires
an EA to address all of a project's associated activities and impacts. As more fully
described in the following paragraphs, the EA prepared for the proposed amendments
to the Seaport Plan does not do so.
'All further section references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise
indicated. References to sections of the administrative guidelines implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) found in sections 15001 et seq.
of the California Code of Regulations are indicated by a reference to the
appropriate "Guidelines" section.
Chairman Robert R. Tufts
April 17, 1996
Page 2
DEFECTS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. The EA has an inadequate project description. Guidelines section 15252 requires a
description of the proposed activity. The project description in the EA does not comply with this
requirement and is therefore inadequate for a number of reasons.
(a) There is no section of the EA labelled "project description." It is not possible to
tell without forcing the reader to make inferences or assumptions what the EA is analyzing as the
"project." The ARRA staff has been forced to make an assumption about what the "project" is that
is being analyzed in the EA and has assumed that the EA defines the "project" as the whole of the
document labelled "DRAFT SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT PLAN - A REPORT TO
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION" dated February 16, 1996. (See
Guidelines section 15124 and County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App. 3d 185.)
(b) Identified, identifiable and reasonably foreseeable consequences of the
recommended amendments to the Seaport Plan are not included in the project description. This
defect is pervasive throughout the EA. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San
Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California ( "Laurel Heights I ") (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376
and San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713.
Some of the identified, identifiable, and reasonably foreseeable consequences of the recommended
amendments to the Seaport Plan include dredging, disposal of dredging materials, filling,
transportation improvements (including but not limited to impacts associated with construction of
necessary tunnels or bridges and the rail facilities necessary to make proposed port facilities
functional), construction of container facilities, construction of bulk cargo facilities, impact on air
quality, impact on wastewater facilities (including, by way of example the Oakland Inner Harbor
sewer force main), and construction of ancillary structures and parking facilities.
(c) The EA does not adequately analyze the conformity of the project with other
regional plans such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management Plane, Waste Water and Water Quality
2 While there is an air quality study appended to the EA, the EA itself does not address
conformity with the Bay Area Air Quality Management Plan. This is significant because the
appendix to the EA concludes that "[a]n exact determination of consistency between the Seaport
Plan and the regional air quality plans cannot be made." Since no clear finding of consistency
appears in the appendix, the absence of any discussion of the issue in the EA itself is a violation
of the CEQA requirement found in the Guidelines. In addition, the substantive lack of
consistency requires a mandatory finding of adverse impact. Such a finding is not included in the
EA.
Chairman Robert R. Tufts
April 17, 1996
Page 3
Plans, County Congestion Management Plans, MTC's Regional Transportation Plan, with the
regional housing allocation plan, or with the existing general plans of the local jurisdictions within
which the project would be implemented, all as is required by Guidelines section 15125 (b).
(d) The EA does not identify the objectives sought to be achieved by the project. By
itself this omission renders the EA inadequate because it fails to infolin the decision - makers what
balances could be made to achieve "most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" (Guidelines section 15126(d)).
2. The EA has an inadequate description of the project's environmental setting.
(a) The EA does not provide a description of the project's environmental setting.
Such a description from both the regional and localperspectives is required by Guidelines section
15125. (See, also, Environmental Information and Planning Council v. County of El Dorado (1982)
131 Cal.App. 3d 350.) As noted in subsection (a) of that Guidelines provision: "knowledge of the
regional setting is central to the assessment of environmental impacts."
Specifically, the EA does not address the existing level of actual physical
development either at individual port sites or in the Bay Area generally as the base lines for
comparing the proposed amendments to the Seaport Plan. Instead the EA only compares the
proposed amendments to an assumed build -out under the existing Seaport Plan. This analytic
omission is perhaps the most significant as well as most obvious defect in the EA. The absence of
a description of the project's environmental setting renders the analysis of significant adverse
environmental impacts, the analysis or mitigation measures, identification of alternatives and their
analyses, and the cumulative impacts discussions defective.
(b) Without limiting the comment made in paragraph (a), the EA does not describe
the setting at NAS Alameda. There is no description, for instance, of the physical setting of the
project, the surrounding land uses, or the geology, topography, or hydrology of the area of the
project. The EA does not describe the nature or extent of man-made construction, including existing
buildings and paved areas, on the site, nor the presence of contamination associated with such
construction or its use. There is no description of the transportation or circulation system' in the
project location. No discussion appears concerning the biological resources, including an
identification of endangered species and their habitats, of the Bay Area setting generally or the Least
3 The map of the Bay Area Ports and Port Priority Use Areas that is provided on page 23
of the EA does show the location of Interstates 101, 680, and 880/80 and the Bay Bridge, but
showing these four transportation facilities is obviously an inadequate description of the complex
traffic and transportation system that exists in the Bay Area.
Chairman Robert R. Tufts
April 17, 1996
Page 4
Tern specifically. The EA does not describe the nature of the marine environment of the Bay Area
or the setting specifically proximate to any Port or Port Priority Use Area. The seismic condition
of the Bay Area is not described. There is no description of the effect upon or need for new or
altered governmental services by any of the affected units of local government such as fire, police,
street and street lighting maintenance, water resources, sewer services and facilities, storm water
drainage, and other governmental and utility services.
3. The EA does not properly analyze the significant environmental impacts of the project.
Guidelines section 15126 requires that all phases of a project be considered when evaluating
its impact on the environment, including the planning, acquisition, development and operation
phases. The EA defers identified phases of the project for later analysis in violation of this CEQA
requirement. Without limiting the application of this comment, the following are examples.
(a) The EA identifies filling the bay as a potential significant adverse environmental
impact. The EA does not, however, analyze the known and foreseeable adverse environmental
impacts of placing fill at the sites identified for that activity.
(b) The EA identifies the inadequacy of the existing rail transportation system to
handle products moved in and out of the proposed berths at NAS, but does not assess the known and
foreseeable adverse environmental impacts of constructing the necessary railroad facilities. This
omission may be caused by the fact that the needed rail facilities could not be built under existing
plans and environmental conditions; identifying the likelihood that the rail facilities could not and
would not be built would significantly affect the ability of the Commission to have an appropriate
record upon which to base findings "balancing" the contribution the five berths at NAS Alameda
would make toward achieving the objectives of the project against its significant adverse
environmental impacts.
(c) The EA does not employ "rigorous analysis" nor support with "concrete
substantial evidence" its conclusions that impacts, particularly impacts on endangered species, water
resources, and traffic, will be insignificant. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990)
221 Cal.App. 3d 692.)
4. The EA has an inadequate description of mitigation measures.
Because the project is not defined accurately and completely, the mitigation measures that
are identified are inadequate to address the significant adverse environmental impacts of the project.
Without limiting its application to the entire document, the following are examples of inadequate
mitigation measures for the portion of the project that is proposed for NAS Alameda.
Chairman Robert R. Tufts
April 17, 1996
Page 5
(a) Mitigation measures to protect endangered species and their habitats. This issue
is addressed in detail in the letter to the Commission from the Audubon Society.
(b) Mitigation measures for the known and reasonably foreseeable traffic, noise, air,
light and glare, and water contamination impacts of known and foreseeable construction activity are
not included and therefore are not adequately analyzed.
(c) Mitigation measures for the known and reasonably foreseeable traffic, noise, air,
light and glare, and water contamination impacts of the operation of five berths at NAS Alameda are
not included and therefore are not adequately analyzed.
5. The Alternatives Analysis in the EA is defective.
(a) The EA identifies only two alternatives to the proposed project. Both are obvious
"straw men" alternatives. One alternative is premised on the unsubstantiated and inaccurate
assumption that filling the bay is the sole or major adverse environmental impact that can or should
be avoided or mitigated in assessing the proposed amendments to the Seaport Plan. Alternatives that
would avoid adverse impacts to endangered species or their habitats, for instance, or other
environmental adverse impacts are ignored.
The second alternative proposes the same extent of capacity as the proposed project would
accommodate, but does so by centralizing and concentrating port construction. The concentration
of port construction would require more fill in the Bay than the proposed amendments. The fact that
this alternative incorporates the need for additional fill guarantees the conclusion that it is a less
environmentally damaging alternative.
The required "no project" alternative is not included in the EA because it is inaccurately
mischaracterized and analyzed as a "no change" alternative'. Because of the assumption in the EA,
discussed more fully below, that a "no change" alternative presumes build -out of the existing Seaport
Plan, there is no alternative identified in the EA that would result in less construction than the
proposed amendments to the Seaport Plan. In other words, the EA is structured in such a way that
all of the alternatives analyzed are more intensive and involve more construction than the project.
This violates not only the letter but the spirit of CEQA.
(b) The EA does not analyze any alternative that would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects
of the project as is required by Guidelines section 15126(d). Since the purpose of the alternatives
4 Page 14 of the EA: "[T]his EA analyzes the effects of a'no change' alternative to the
existing Seaport Plan."
Chairman Robert R. Tufts
April 17, 1996
Page 6
analysis under CEQA is to find ways to lessen the significant impacts of projects as initially
proposed, it is essential that at least some alternatives be identified and analyzed that are lesser in
scope and impact than the proposed project. In the case of the Seaport Plan project one obvious
alternative that should have been included and analyzed is an alternative that accommodates some
but not all of the projected demand in 2020 for handling waterborne cargo. A second obvious
alternative that should be included in the EA is the one that assumes technical enhancement of the
ability of existing port facilities and near -term port projects to absorb the longer -term (2010 -2020)
need projected in the EA.
(c) Because the project and environmental setting are not properly described, the EA
does not identify alternatives to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that the project may have
on the environment as is required by section 21002.1. CEQA requires the EA to identify and discuss
alternatives to the project or any of its locations that are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effect of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives. (See Guidelines section 15126(d)(2) and Citizens
of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553.)
(d) The "no project" alternative analysis that is required by. CEQA is not included.
This is a fatal defect. The "no project" alternative must "discuss the existing conditions as well as
what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not
approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services." (Guidelines section 15126(d)(4).) In the case of the proposed revisions to the Seaport
Plan, CEQA requires an analysis of the existing conditions at each affected Bay Area seaport
location and what would reasonably be expected to occur if the current Seaport Plan were left
unrevised. Conclusionary, inaccurate and perfunctory statements about existing conditions
['Shoreline areas at existing ports have been substantially altered and developed for shipping
operations, therefore, additional terminal development at these locations will not present a
substantial impacti5 ] do not substitute for an adequate analysis of the "no project" alternative. See
Environmental Information and Planning Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d
350.
6. The cumulative impacts of the project are inadequately identified and addressed.
(a) The EA incorrectly ignores the consequences of construction it identifies as a part
of the project. Without limiting the generality of the defect, an example is the following: The EA
lists a number of individual construction projects at ports throughout the Bay Area and purports to
identify some of the environmental impacts that may result but does not analyze the cumulative
5 See page 25 of the EA.
Chairman Robert R. Tufts
April 17, 1996
Page 7
it recognize the cumulative aspects of the consequences of planned or reasonably foreseeable major
projects involving or affecting other aspects of the transportation system in the Bay Area. For
instance, the EA does not recognize the following:
1. The cumulative aspects of proposed construction activity at NAS Alameda
and the Port of Oakland activity despite the fact that they are virtually adjacent facilities across the
Oakland Inner Harbor.
2. The planned expansion of the Oakland International Airport.
3. Implementation of the State Transportation Improvement Plan and
Projects panned by the local Congestion Management and Transportation Authorities.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT PROPERLY A SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
The EA purports to be a "supplement to an EIR." It does not comply with CEQA as a
supplement to an EIR. A supplemental EIR may be used if "[o]nly minor additions or changes
would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed
situation." The changes that have occurred in- cargo handling, container handling, bay ecology,
military base closures, seismic activity and knowledge, land -use, transportation systems, local
general plans and regional plans, to name but a few, make it impossible to characterize the
environmental analysis that is appropriate in 1996 as requiring only "minor additions or changes"
to the 1988 or 1991 documents that have been certified for other purposes. The Commission is
required to prepare a new Environmental Assessment for the proposed amendments to the Seaport
Plan.
Sincerely,
0(.4c1.&ee
D. Paul Tuttle
ARRA Planner
DPT:av
cc: BCDC Board
MTC Board
ARRA Governing Body
William Travis, BCDC Executive Director
Carol A. Korade, ARRA General Counsel
Alameda Jlense and Itedevelopffldllt Authority
Naval Air Station Alameda (510) 263 -2870
Postal Directory, Building 90 Fax: (510) 521 -3764
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
Governing Body
Ralph Appezzato
Chair
Mayor, City of Alameda
Sandre R. Swanson
Vice -Chair
District Director for
Ronald V. Dellums
9th Congressional District
Anthony J. "Lil" Arnerich
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Wilma Chan
Supervisor, District 3
lameda County Board
Supervisors
Henry Chang, Jr.
Oakland Councilmember
serving for
Elihu Harris
Mayor, City of Oakland
Ellen M. Corbett
Mayor
City of San Leandro
Albert H. DeWitt
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Karin Lucas
Councilmember
City of Alameda
Charles M. Mannix
Vice -Mayor
City ofAlameda
Kay Miller
Executive Director
Recycled paper
April 9, 1996
Mr. Gerald G. Lutz
President
Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation
P. O. Box 460
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mr. Lutz:
This letter is to follow up on several conversations which you have had with Ed
Levine and me. First, 1 would like to assure you that the staff at the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority is eager to work with you on your application for
berthing space for the HORNET (and for any adjacent support facilities) so that you
have a decision in a timely manner.
We are unaware of the specific requirements you must meet in order to acquire the
ship from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Your explanation of that
process and the timeline for submittal of your business plan to NAVSEA would
assist us in determining whether the HORNET is compatible with the long -range
reuse plan or is a viable candidate for an interim lease.
Specific, written responses to the following questions would assist us:
•. What location or alternative locations would be suitable for berthing in addition
to the NAS pier? Please discuss options onsite at NAS as well as any off -base
alternatives.
• What adjacent support facilities would be required (e.g., parking, warehousing,
etc.)?
• What type of port services would the ship require (e.g., BOWTS, utilities, etc.)?
• Would the ship require dredging of the channel? How could the Foundation
contribute financially to this effort?
• Would the ship have to be dry- docked at regular intervals for maintenance?
• What lease term would meet the requirements of NAVSEA?
• What is the renovation schedule? (We assume that this would be time - phased.)
• What type of environmental issues are associated with the ship and how would
the community be protected? What state and federal EPA regulations have to be
met?
• What does the Foundation propose to guarantee a financial return to the
community (e.g., a percentage of the gross profit, not less than a specific
minimum amount per year, or a fee based on linear footage, or some other
formula)?
Mr. Gerald G. Lutz
April 9, 1996
Page 2
• What primary or ancillary benefits will the HORNET provide for the community?
• When must the Foundation ensure NAVSEA that all arrangements for the ship are in place? In
other words, when must ARRA make its decision?
As you can see, we can only make a decision when we have answers to specific questions. In
addition, the BRAG may determine at its April 17 meeting that it needs more information. Given
the BRAG'S new schedule— meeting on the third Wednesday of each month —the earliest a
recommendation could be made to the ARRA a °ve verbal presentation voting
to the probably July.
at its May 22
tentatively recommend that you plan
meeting.
I should also advise you that if ARRA determines the HORNET is compatible with the Community
Reuse Plan and is an asset to the community, the Foundation would have to fund an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for a City Use Permit and General Plan amendment.
Please review our request for information letter. If you have questions,
If you can you may contact
information you believe will assist us, so much the.b
Paul Tuttle at (510) 263 -2870.
Sincerely,
Liej-L-2
Kay Miller
Executive Director
NB/KM /mee
Base Reuse Advisory Group
April25, 1996
LTCDR Michael Petouhoff
250 Mall Sq. Bldg. #1, Room 211
Naval Air Station Alameda, Env. Dept. 015
Alameda, CA 94501 -5000
Dear Mike:
On behalf of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and the entire community, we wish to
sincerely thank you for your dedicated service to the NAS Environmental Cleanup problem. Your
professional attitude, energy, technical knowledge, and personal concern with turning over the NAS
lands to the City of Alameda in a non - hazardous state is deeply appreciated. We commend you for
your aggressive tactics in pursuing innovative solutions to the NAS pollution problems and for your
untiring efforts to coordinate cleanup activity with the needs and priorities of Alameda for reuse of
existing facilities.
Your personal diligence was key to the successful leasing of Hangar 20 to CALSTART and
preparation of buildings 11 and 400-for potential leasing to AEG. The BRAG is fully aware of the
numerous obstacles and difficulties involved in coordinating the actions and approvals of various
agencies to achieving these goals. Achieving such outstanding results in the face of overwhelming
coordination problems is a credit to your personal skills and dogged determination.
You have set an incredibly high level of achievement and performance for your successor to match.
We deeply appreciate your earnest efforts to obtain more funding for remediation work and your
efforts to stretch the dollars available by putting them to the most urgent and useful applications.
You have laid the groundwork for final base cleanup and transfer, and we will miss your willing
cooperation and forceful pursuit of our mutual objectives. Thank you for a job well done.
Sincerely,
Lee Perez, Chair
Base Reuse Advisory Group
cc: ARRA Governing Body
BRAG Commission
LP/ MIJJ
• Naval Air Station Bldg 90 • Alameda, CA 94501 • (510) 263 -2870 • Fax (510) 521 -3764