2005-12-07 Regular ARRA MinutesAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004
2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005
2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005
2-DJ
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 3; Noes — 0;
Abstentions — 1 (Member Gilmore).
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the "text- only" changes made to the July 5"' Draft
PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA
Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the
changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a
finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.
A summary of the changes included:
- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a
regulatory document without any legally binding effect.
- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed -use plan,
maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.
- recommending work -live ordinance.
Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is
the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The
Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly
the compromises and trade -offs. There is more description about how the non - Measure A alternative
will be evaluated in the EIR process; and fiirther exploration of maintaining historical preservation, as
well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are the next steps to
implementing the Transportation Strategy.
Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.
Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making
their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC- related topics, including Historic Preservation
concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings identified for
Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to request and
Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as part of the
Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon development
encroachments and non - measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the Neptune Beach
Amusement Museum was discussed.
Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of
school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the early
termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.
Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added
to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for
subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality
questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog fi rther discussed his
concern regarding the Measure A and non - Measure A options, and Phase I revenue generation. Mr.
Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built -in fiscal mitigation payment
which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and public revenues that
we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property taxes for use on a
range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation payment and
operational issues.
Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board
members, requested several action items to be completed by staff:
1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic Preservation
— what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.
2. Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of retail
and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.
3. Provide separate analysis (off - agenda) on the HazMat clean -up, scenario of costs
between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.
4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic
2
Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that
the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then ultimately
evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.
5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an explanation
of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?
6. Continued emphasis that this "Preliminary" plan document is a step to a "Final" plan.
All Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in
February 2006.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Boardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend the
Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation strategies for
Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a wide range of
options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote to advise the
Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their
proposed 10 -year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease
for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.
6. COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
Boardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet
Home and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off - agenda report addressing
this same issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfi lly submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary