Problems with FOSLs

[Don Zweifel <zweifel@chapman.edu>]

One of the bones of contention ostensibly is over the legalese in a
lease document as it relates to liability of the lessee, the lessor or
the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). In other words, the languge
should spell out who is culpable, that is, who will ultimately be liable
for any former toxic contamination build-up discovered after the DoD or
DOE lowers the flag or signs off the base as being contaminant free. 

The lessor is currently required to do an environmental impact check-sheet
on any LRA-approved prospective tenant that submits a request to lease to 
the service branch via the LRA.

One particular query that may necessitate an answer is whether a
building's proposed reuse will increase the risk to human health due to
the close proximity of toxics in the immediate vicinity, that are, let's
say, undergoing remediation. 

The environmental check-sheet addresses the issue of whether or
not the proposed reuse will have a detremental impact on: surface water
run-off, the vadose zone, the shallow and/or principal aquifer, air
quality and the potential for soil contamination to name a few. If this
checklist, which is mandated under NEPA or the National Environmental
Protection Act comes up with a clean slate then and only after this
transpires can the normal conditions and covenants as a basis for a lease,
be deliberated.

Basically speaking, if the reuse will not have any new negative
environmental impacts then the way could be open for a positive FOSL.

Note bene: To the best of our knowledge the Long Beach Naval Base near Los
Angeles was the first BRAC federal facility to successfully implement
FOSLs for civiliian tenants.

For those interested in submitting a formal request to lease your
preliminary POC (point -of-contact) will probably be your LRA's
redevelopment planner. 

If anyone else has a POV on this it will be greatly appreciated.

 Don Zweifel
 CalEPA DTSC Adv Grp Mil Base Closure