1995-02-01 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * PLEASE NOTE NEW LOCATION!! * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * **
Historic Alameda High School Little Theater
2200 Central Ave..
Alameda, CA
Wednesday, February 1, 1995
5:30 p.m.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE AUTHORITY:
1) Please file a speaker's slip with the Secretary, and upon
recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your
name. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item.
2) Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3) Applause, signs or demonstrations are prohibited during Authority
meetings.
I. ROLL CALL
A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 4, 1994.
IL JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL AND
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
A. Oral Report /Public Hearing from the Interim Executive Director /EDAW Consultant Team
Regarding Phase II Existing Conditions and Trends Report for Alameda Naval Air
Station.
III. AGENDA ITEMS
A. Approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for the Former Chair of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, E. William Withrow, Jr.
B. Designation by Authority Members of His /Her Alternate.
C. Report from the City of Alameda Planning Director for the HAB and BRAG
Recommendation to Approve the Report on the Conservation of Architectural and
Historical Resources and Historical Artifacts at Naval Air Station, Alameda and
Recommendation of Postponement of a Decision on the Approach to Conservation In
Order to Coordinate the Determination with the Final Community Reuse Plan.
Report from the Interim Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Establishment
of a Three Month Timeframe for Screening Homeless Applications and Acknowledgement
of the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative as the Entity
that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Shall Work With During the
Homeless Screening Process as Required in the Base Closure Community Redevelopment
and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994.
E. Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Recommending the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Adopt as its Vision Statement for the Naval
Air Station (NAS) Alameda the Community Vision Statement Prepared by the BRAG.
F. Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding Change of Meeting Date for the
July Meeting of the ARRA.
IV. ORAL REPORTS
A. Oral Report /Presentation from the Interim Executive Director Regarding the State Lands
Issue and How It Effects Property at Alameda Naval Air Station.
B. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding the Status of the Recruitment
of an Executive Director.
C. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on Reuse
Authority Staff Activities.
D. Oral Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
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' Elizabeth
Brydon, 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.
* * * **
The
I.
MINUTES
OF THE
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesda uaxy 4, 1995
5:30 p.m.
meeting convened at 5:44 p.m. with Vice - chair Sandre Swanson presiding.
Present: Councilmember Ralph Appezzato, City of Alame •
Councilman "Lil" Arnerich, City Ellen
Corbett it of San Leandr �' of Alameda; Mayor Ellen
y arOouncilmember Albert DeWitt, City
of Alameda; ilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors,
District 3; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda;
Councilmember Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Vice -Chair
Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Ex-
officio Alternate, Gail Greely, Alameda Unified School District;
Ex- officio Alternate Helen Sause, Base Reuse Advisory Group;
Absent: Councilmember Dezie Woods- Jones, City of Oakland.
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of December 7, 1994
Councilmember DeWitt requested that the minutes of December 7, 1994
be amended, Agenda Item ILA regarding the P & D Aviation Report. He
requested that the recommendation of staff read
further marketing studies on the use of the Naval Air StationsAlamedalairfield.
Mr. Parker agreed that this was the correct interpretation of the staff
recommendation.
A motion was made by Councilmember Lucas to approve the minutes as
amended. The motion was seconded by Mayor Corbett and passed by a
unanimous voice vote.
Chair Appezzato introduced the three new Members of the Reuse Authority: Supervisor
ROLL ALL:
A.
Chair Appezzato introduced the three new Members of the Reuse Authority: Supervisor
Wilma Chan, County Board of Supervisors, ; Vice -Mayor Charlie Mannix, City of Alameda;
Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda.
II. AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Selection of Chairperson "Governing Body
Councilmember Mannix moved that Mayor Appezzato be elected
Chairperson of the ARRA. The motion was seconded by Mayor Corbett and the
motion was unanimously approved.
B. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Resolution
Adopting, by Reference, Section 15000 et. seq. "State CEQA Guidelines", and As
They May be Amended from Time to Time, for the Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and Designation of the
Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as the
Authorized Representative of the ARRA to Administer Specific Functions of the
CEQA Guidelines, and to Make All Necessary Permit Applications to Federal,
State, and Regional Agencies, for Projects under the Jurisdiction of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner, gave a summary of the issue of compliance
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Mayor Corbett moved to approve the recommendation of staff. The
motion was seconded by Councilmember Mannix and passed by a unanimous
voice vote.
C. Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Funding Status and
Recommendation of Certification of Negative Declaration for the NAS Alameda
Sewer Force Main Improvement Project
Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner, gave a summary of the issue and requested
that the Authority accept the recommendation of staff.
Councilmember Lucas moved to approve the recommendation of staff.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Arnerich and passed by a
unanimous voice vote.
Speakers:
Neal Patrick Sweeney, City of Alameda resident stated that he felt we should declare war
on the environmental toxic cleanup in the Alameda Naval Air Station.
2
D. Approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for the Former Chair of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr.
Due to the illness of Mr. Withrow, this item was postponed until the next
meeting of February 1, 1995.
E. Approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for the Former Member of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Richard Roth.
Chair Appezzato read the Resolution of Appreciation for Former ARRA
Member Roth and thanked him for his service to the ARRA, City of Alameda,
and community. Councilmember Arnerich moved and Vice -Mayor Mannix
seconded a motion to approve the resolution The motion was passed by a
unanimous voice vote.
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney stated that he felt that the public should make a comment on how
thankful they are for Items. D.,E., and F. regarding Mr. Withrow, Mr. Roth, and Mr.
Parker and added that he hoped that Mr. Parker will recommend that the current staff
of the ARRA be retained and he thanked the staff for all of their work.
F. Approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for the Former Executive Director of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Don Parker.
Chair Appezzato read the Resolution of Appreciation for the foiuier
Executive Director, Mr. Don Parker. Mayor Corbet moved and Vice -Mayor
Mannix seconded the motion to approve the resolution. The motion was passed
by a unanimous voice vote.
Vice -Chair Swanson stated that he has appreciated the fact that Don Parker
has, in a .very professional way, kept Congressman Dellum's office well informed
and communicated with both friend and adversary as the process of base
conversion sort of pulled itself together. It has been an extraordinary
accomplishment that may go unnoticed to some because things seem like they've
moved so easily. But, in October, a year, the federal government's position was
that communities, like Alameda, should only receive about a quarter of a million
dollars ($250,000) to do the kind of planning that is taking place now. As a
federal representative, Congressman Dellum's office obviously wanted to,,get as
much money for the community as possible, but that there had to be a very
competent proposal put together requiring passage of a number of technical
review hurdles and rationale development. Mr. Parker and his staff did this in
a very competent way and precedent - setting approvals were made in Washington,
D.C. with a result of this community receiving more than some other
communities, after a very sound reasoning and strong rationale was presented.
Much of the credit goes to Don Parker and his leadership and the support that he
has received from his staff. He emphasized that this community should know this
3
is why the grant was approved. Many groups have approached this process in a
very cynical way, and tried to derail the process. However, Don Parker put on
his "flack" jacket, entered meetings, listened, and responded and his cool and
very professional approach diminished problems allowing for the best decisions
to be made with people working closer together than they have in previous
situations. He commended Mr. Parker's leadership and stated that Don would
certainly be missed and that his presence had been felt.
III. ORAL REPORTS
A. Oral Report from the Executive Director Reporting on the EDAW Trends &
Conditions Report for Naval Air Station Alameda.
John Petrovsky from EDAW gave a summary report on the Trends &
Conditions Report just completed. Copies of the report will be distributed to the
ARRA Members.
B. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating the Reuse Authority on Reuse
Authority Staff Activities.
Mr. Parker gave an update on the recent activities of the Reuse Authority
staff including: interim leasing strategy, utilities, State Lands issue, Science City
funding, and interim rules comments.
C. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Regarding
the BRAG Vision Statement.
Vice -Chair of the BRAG, Helen Sause, requested that the review of the
BRAG Vision Statement be postponed until the next meeting. She then gave an
update on BRAG activities including the upcoming community meeting on
January 28, 1995 which will give the community the opportunity to respond to
issues that the consultant analysis are raising; measuring the conditions of the
base and comparing them to the visions for the future; environmental issues;
proposals; historic preservation; and the proposal to keep the carriers on the base.
D. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Homeless Consultant
Process.
Mr. Parker noted that at the ARRA meeting of November 2, 1994, the ARRA
voted to send a letter to the Secretary of Defense requesting application for all or .;
portions of the Alameda Naval Air Station to be included under the Base Closure
Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. On December
7, 1994, the Navy was notified of the ARRA's request to have the Naval Air
Station (NAS) incorporated under the new procedures outlined in the Base
Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act, and the Naval
Aviation Depot (NADEP to remain under the old Title V of the McKinney Act.
This was proposed since most of NADEP had already been screened with
4
minimal interest by homeless providers in the heavily industrial properties, and
NADEP has the greatest interim reuse potential to generate jobs. The majority
of NAS has not been published in the Federal Register (screened), and none of
the housing at NAS had been screened; therefore, it was logical for NAS to be
incorporated under the new procedure. Mr. Parker said that it is anticipated that
these requests will be granted.
Under the homeless screening process outlined in the new legislation, the
ARRA is now responsible for the homeless screening process, which puts grater
burden on the local reuse authorities that previously was born by the Navy, (i.e.
providing building information to homeless interests, accepyting /screening the
homeless applications, incorporating applications into the reuse plan, document
conducting outreach to homeless providers, and drafting legally binding
agreements with homeless providers projects that have been incorporated into the
final reuse plan, etc.) Upon finalizing the grant application to OEA for additional
consultant staff to the ARRA to meet the additional requirements of the
Iegislation, it was determined that OEA had insufficient funding to meet all the
needs. With the assistance of Congressman Dellums' staff member, Roberta
Brooks, a revised process was proposed utilizing $40,000 in OEA funds
channeled through the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission
(EBCRC). The agreement would have the consultant paid by the EBCRC, but
the consultant would work for the A
Director. This was with the understanding n� and report to the ARRA. Executive
that the ARRA retains control,
guidance and integration of the homeless component into the community reuse
plan. Mr. Parker stated that he was comfortable with proceeding on this basis,
and a progress report on this issue will be given at the next ARRA meeting.
Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Schedule of Future Public
Hearings and Meetings for the Community Reuse Plan.
Paul Tuttle reported that a schedule had been handed out which outlines
the consultant process and the schedule of meetings. The first public meeting is
January 28, 1995 at the Officer's Club on base in the morning from
approximately 9 a.m. to noon. The other meeting dates are all tentative but
should be met in order to meet all the deadlines. The next phases, III, IV, and
V have two meetings scheduled before the A
which will be major public hearings where the ARRA hopefully one week apart,
decision. The first meetings have been scheduled Af ri p es nations make hee
consultants to identify the issues, and the second meeting would be closing the
public hearing and making a decision on that phase. Meetings scheduled
include: a briefing to the BRAG, a public meeting briefing to the EBCRC, a
public meeting sponsored by the BRAG, and the presentation to the ARRA. At
each phase, as shown on the schedule an accompanying newsletter and a report
from the consultant with recommendations will be generated. He added that at
the beginning of the consultant process, it was stated that there would be one
presentation (public hearing) before the Alameda City Council followed by
another public meeting (the same presentation, same material) to the ARRA.
5
Staff requested that the Authority Members consider the possibility that the
presentations of the City Council and the ARRA be combined in order to avoid
duplication of presentations as the City Council is a part of the ARRA.
After a brief discussion, the Authority agreed that combining these public
hearings was a good solution. Assistant City Attorney McLaughlin recommended
that the City Council consider holding a special meeting at each phase of the
planning process with the ARRA.
F. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding the Status of AEG Leasing.
Dave Louk reported that the BART Board will be working on the fare
increases in January. He stated that, hopefully, in February, the award of the
lease will occur, and if this happens, the notice to proceed will occur in March
to AEG, if they win the project.
G. Oral Report (and action, if necessary) from ARRA Member Appezzato Regarding
Proposal for Retention of Home Porting of Carriers (CVN's) and Other
Base /Reuse Opportunities at NAS Alameda.
Chair Appezzato reported that the Alameda City Council heard the
presentation on this subject the evening before regarding the possibility of the
CVN's (aircraft carriers) remaining in Alameda, either on an interim basis or
possibly permanent basis. The City Council voted, as well as the BRAG, to
move forward with the proposal to Senior political and military leaders, asking
the Navy questions as to the economic feasibility to maintain and keep the two to
three CVN's in Alameda.
Speakers:
David Franklin of the Alameda Navy Retention Tactical Committee, which put the
proposal together, gave a presentation on the proposal to retain the CVN's.
Supervisor Chan reported that this concept had been presented to the
County Board in December, 1994, by former Supervisor Perata, and the County
feels that it could be an important opportunity for Alameda. She added that it
would be discussed further in County policy and legislative committees and that
the County would like to participate in the process and help through lobbying,
etc.
Mayor Corbett stated that there was full support for this process from the
City of San Leandro.
Chair Appezzato requested that Vice -Chair Swanson provide the City of
Alameda with a list of appropriate personnel to send the letter to from the City
Council and the ARRA regarding the CVN's.
6
Vice -Chair Swanson reported that the original decision of BRAC 93 to
close NAS Alameda was a very close decision and arguments were made then,
adding more facts with the case becoming stronger. Whether or not there is a
will to reverse the decision, or the inclination on the part of the Navy to
recommend a different decision - -there has not been any evidence of a decision
from when it was first heard that people were interested in the possibility.
Congressman's office went to the highest ranking officials to be found in
Washington, D.C. and asked them the question, "Is this currently under
consideration and whether or not it was a definite no," and the response was that
it wasn't. Vice -Chair Swanson added that the position of the Congressman's
office is that they support the arguments as they were presented to BRAC 93, and
will continue to support the arguments that are being made now. However,
expectations should not be raised for the people of the community that are
preparing for this transition and build any false hopes about what is possible.
There has to be some indication from the Navy or someone in the Administration
that they recognize these growing costs associated with this decision and they
recognize that a mistake has been made, and they are willing to make
adjustments. That will may exist and the presentation of these ideals and a
review by those in position today may make a different decision and a different
recommendation as BRAC 95 comes together. The possibility has to be
approached realistically not giving false hope.
Councilmember DeWitt moved that the ARRA endorse the proposal for
continued home porting of the carriers as presented. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Corbett and the motion passed unanimously.
H. Oral Report from the Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
Mr. Parker reported that the following items would be on the next agenda:
presentation and public hearing on the existing conditions and trends analysis,
approval of standard of reasonableness for the homeless collaborative group and
approval of the community vision statement.
Vice -Chair Swanson requested that the status of the new Executive
Director position be included on the next agenda.
Mr. Parker stated that hopefully a selection would be made by that time.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Speaker:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, resident of Alameda, stated that the ARRA should communicate
with ethnic language media so that people of other languages can participate and other
ideas regarding base conversion.
7
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Vice -Chair Swanson reported that Congressman Dellums had requested that he
offer to the new Members of the Authority a briefing on what has been going on for the
last year and how the EBCRC fits into the work of the Reuse Authority. Chair
Appezzato requested that he be included in the briefing.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 8 :15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Brydon
Secretary
8
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
COMMENDING E.
AND REDEVELOPMENT WILLIAM AUTHORITY , JR. FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE
AS CITY OF ALAMEDA COUNCILME�EAIRPERSON OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE
R AND MAYOR
`�'� AND
TO ALL LET IT BE KNOWN that for his record of active
• over many years, and as the first chair person of the Alameda Reuse and
WILLIAM Participation on community affairs
WITHROW, JR. has earned the affection and admiration of this Rco Redevelopment Authority, Y, E.
community and ARIZA staff;
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM THRO W
7, 1989, and served as Councilmember from April 18, 1989eu�t�� d to the Alameda City Council March
1991, serving as Mayor from April 1, 1991 through December 20 he was elected
Mayor on March, 5,
1994; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure, E.
including WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. has served on numerous agencies,
b, among others; the Alameda
Commission; among
County ameda County Waste Management Authority; s,
Y� Metropolitan Transportation
Commission; Alameda County Agency; East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment
Board; The Alameda y Mayors' Conference; Alameda Coup
Housing Authority Board of Co' Economic Development Advisory
Transportation Authority; and mmissionexs
and the Alameda County
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM WITHRO W
base closure , JR. should be congratulated on his efficient response
base representatives ou e n the Department ep issues between
Defense, the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority nd
Alameda; and Tense, Depaz -tment of the Navy, NAS Alameda and NADEP
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM THRO W
TR.'S accomplishments deserve recognition and
commendation, among these are his roll in establishing the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Base Reuse
Advisory Group; and
WHEREAS, E. WILLIAM THRO W
guide of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
WHEREAS, as the first chairperson leader and spiritual
E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR. has encouraged and supported community programs
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda hereby express i sincere appzeCiation for his contributions of hereby
of the express its
Alameda Reuse r and Redevelopment aions Reuse and Rt and e p experience for he
f time, effort and experience for the
pment Authority.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse his unbounded energy, se and Redevelopment Authority,
hereby congratulate E. gy, resourcefulness and unselfish dedication to the co
tends its deepest gratitude WI for his WITHROW community, does
p g �• on his years and service to the community
- �thority. many labors on behalf of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
and
pmenfi
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the
and admirers t the co Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, friends
and admirers throughout hro d best wishes for continued in d t the Bay Area extend E.,„
good health, success and WILLIAM WITHRO W, JR. their
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum p
January 24, 1995
TO:
FROM: Honorable
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
David J. Louk Authority
Interim Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Desi nation b
Authorit Members of His /Her Alternate
Back�ro�d_
Pursuant to Section VI.B. Governin Agreement" each member of the Alameda Reuse Redevelopment uthori
of the "Joint shall Exercise o Power
alternate as a representative.
Authority shall appoint one
Discussion/Anal sis:
At the organizational meeting of the Alameda Reuse 19, 1994, each Member was meeting
to h be use and Redevelopment At this time, prepared to designate pmena e Authority thnext
xt
election of new , all but one Authori their alternate at the
Alameda City Council representatives, Member designated
necessary next
Authority to designate an alternate, their alternate. Since the
(See Attachment) Y for new Members of the
Fiscal
None.
Recommendation:
is i
It recommended that
designate It s alternate, if the the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Y have not already done so, p tY Members
/eb
Respectfully su
David J. Louk
Interim Executive Director
Attachment: Roster -A
RRA Members and Alternates
Members
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEMBERS AND PROXIES
Proxies
Mayor Ralph Appezzato_ __________________ ____
Office of the Mayor, Room 301 ^^
City of Alameda
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501 -4456
(510) 748 -4545
FAX (510) 748 -4504
Councilman "Li1" Arnerich
City of Alameda
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 748 - -4506
FAX (510) 748 -4503
Mayor Ellen Corbett
City of San Leandro
835 E. 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
(510) 577 -3355
FAX (510) 577 -3340
Supervisor Wilma Chan
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
District 3
1221 Oak Street, Suite #536
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 272 -6693
FAX (510) 268 -8004
Councilmember Karin Lucas
City of Alameda
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501 -4456
(510) 748 -4506
FAX (510) 748 -4503
Councilmember Garry Loeffler
City of San Leandro
235 Begier Ave.
San Leandro, CA 94577
Hm. (510) 569 -5561 Wk. (510) 667 -3592
FAX (510) 568 -3028
Mr. Mark Friedman
Aide to Supervisor Don Perata
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
District 3
1221 Oak Street, Suite #536
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 272 -6693
FAX (510) 268 -8004
Ms. Roberta Hough
911 S. Antonio
Alameda, A 94501
(510) 865 -6963
Members
Albert DeWitt
City of Alameda
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501 -4456
(510) 748 -4506
FAX: (510) 748 -4503
Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson ( #1 Proxy)
District Director
9th Congressional District
1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 763 -0370
FAX (510) 763 -6538
Councilmember Charles Mannix
City of Alameda
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501 -4456
(510) 748 -4506
FAX: (510) 748 -4503
Mayor Elihu Harris
Office of the Mayor
City of Oakland
505 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238 -3141
FAX (510) 238 -4731
Mr. Sam Huie
Alameda Unified School District
2200 Central Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 337 -7060 (District)
FAX (510) 522 -6926
Mr. Lee Perez
Chairman of the BRAG
Alameda, CA 94502
(510) 865 -7903
FAX: (510) 271 -5115
Proxies
Ms. Roberta Brooks ( #2 Proxy)
Senior Staff Member
9th Congressional District
1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 763 -0370
FAX (510) 763 -6538
Councilmember Dezie Woods -Jones
City of Oakland
City Hall
505 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238 -3266
FAX (510) 238 -6129
Ex- Officio Members
Ms. Gail Greely
Alameda Unified School District
2200 Central Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 337 -7060 (District) /522 -3009 (hrn)
FAX (510) 522 -6926
Ms. Helen Sause
816 Grand Ave.
Alameda, CA 9450
(510) 521 -3940
FAX: (415) 749 -2585
City of AIameda
Inter- department Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
Background
January 24, 1995
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Colette Meunier,
Planning Director, City of Alameda
Report on the Conservation of Architectural and Histori
Resources and Historic Artifacts
at Naval Air Station
The City's Historical
The
of Advisory Board (HAB)
architectural and historic resources discussed and hitoric
artifacts at Naval
technical findings Air Station, Alameda.
technical
Advisory fin g on the options available to the HAB referred its
Reuse
City y Group (BRAG) for their and City to the Base
Y Manager directed that the review and recommendation.
groups to be presented recommendations
Authority to the Alameda from these two
Author of (ARRA) instead of the Reuse and Reddy C°
Base Reuse. City Council because they Redevelopment
issues y concern
Discussion Anal sis
Conservation of Architectural and Historic
Co the 1966 National Resources:
of
of Federal Historic Preservation quction 10e
transfer property to take into account the requires the of.
properties. The first step protection fy
the historic properties which may P in this
prepared the Historic Architectural Resource process is to identify
y be affected. Sally Woodbridge
Air Station Alameda
while no for the U.S. nventor for Naval
individual buildings S Navy in 1992 which found that
while no
Register of g were eligible for listing core of the StistoricsPlaies g on the
a district comprising the
#1 is the executive Bible for listin
summary from this report. g• Attachment
The Navy is required
The
to consult with the
Historic Officer, the United States State Historic
Preservation, the City dvisory Council on to
produce a Memorandum of Y and other interested
produce avoid Memorandum Agreement specifying how the parties will
would have on the preservation yof adverse identified the Navy will
ed historic base
Since a National Register eligible resource has been the preservation of that resource
en identified at
Navy's closure process, must be included
how the resource is to be preserved Memorandum of Agreement which s in the
istoric Preservation Officer will d be requ the Navy specifies
required. Y and the State
'rinted on recycled paper
Honorable Members of the January 24, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
The City can play a role in this process with the following
approaches: (a) designation of the resource either as a City
Monument or including the resource in the Historic Building Study
List, (b) requesting that the City participate in the process in
lieu of the State Historic Preservation Officer, and (c) request
that the State Historic Preservation Officer authorize the City to
review the plans for preservation of the historic resources rather
than the State Historic Preservation Officer.
To facilitate this process, the HAB discussed this matter at their
regular meetings and participated in a tour of the facility in
February, 1994. Planning Staff prepared a memorandum for the June,
1994 HAB meeting which outlined the alternative approaches to
preserving the identified Historic District (Attachment #2). At
their June meeting, the HAB requested that the Base Reuse Advisory
Group review the alternatives and provide input. The Land Use
Subcommittee of the BRAG reviewed the matter at their September 21,
1994 meeting. The Subcommittee voted not to make any
recommendations at this time until more information on the
advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives can be made
available. The BRAG discussed this matter at their November 30,
1994 meeting and recommended that final action should be postponed
until the final Reuse Plan is developed. Minutes of the BRAG's
meeting are attached as Attachment 4.
Conservation of Historic Artifacts: On November 1, 1994 Marilyn
York and Barbara Baack, both retired from NAS, made a presentation
to the City Council and requested that the City be involved in the
conservation of Historical Artifacts at NAS. Ms. York and Baack
would like to see a Historic Museum established at.NAS. Council
Member Lucas asked to have a report prepared on this matter.
The report prepared for the Navy cited above did not include the
conservation of any artifacts, and these artifacts are not
protected under the National Historic Preservation Act. The
majority of artifacts are not site dependent and can have value
even if relocated to other venues. Plaques commemorating specific
events would be the exception. Thus, photographs, ship's bells or
cannons would still be a valuable resource even if not displayed in
the original context.
There is some concern by members of the public that all artifacts
at NAS will be removed and relocated to existing museums. They
believe that a historic museum at NAS should be established and
that the associated artifacts should be displayed there for the
public to enjoy. According to Ms. York and Ms. Baack who have been
in contact with Navy personnel, the Navy would be willing to
furnish various artifacts to an appropriate group for a future NAS
Historical Museum.
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 24, 1994
Page 3
At their November 30, 1994
At
they supported the meeting' BRAG discussed
1h Should be undertaken goal of conservation this issue that
but rather by as part of the BASE ` did not believe that
Y a community based group. planning g effort
The HAS at their
The HAB meeting of December
the Marilyn York and Barbara 1, 1994, heard a
idea of a Baack_ The HAB expressed support for
the citizens group to organize the support for
and their willingness to cooperate
nit pex•ate with such a group.
A community action group g
And for establishment for the conservation of
encouraged. Such ment of a historical historic artifacts
enc artied. a group could negotiate with the NAS should
be effective, and a building
this group `� for the storage of the artifacts.
be effect in this would need to either have To
retain a consultant ecognizing and cataloguing embers who have
need with this gula historic artifacts or
to be structured for type of expertise.
artifacts would remain accountability he group would
would permit in the public realm. and to ensure that
held artifacts private citizens to make contributions non-profit status
which may be important in telling As,
'Recommendation g the story of NAS.
BRAG and HAB recommend that the ARRA acre t
the followinc
.� motions; p this report and
make
1. The selection of
the preservation appropriate strategies for
the ion of architectural and historic resources pursue for
Naval Air Station, Alameda should
determined resources at
in conjunction w' be deferred for now and
with the Final Reuse Plan, and
2 • ARRA wi 1.)
encourage and work comes forward and rk with a suitable community
Naval Air conserve historic artifacts group
Station, Alameda. from the
Respectfully submitted,
olette Meunier,
Planing Director
Honorable Members of the January 24, 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4
Attachments
1. Executive Summary of the Historic Architectural Resources
Inventory prepared for Naval Air Station, Alameda
2. Staff Report and minutes from HAB meeting of June 2, 1994
3. Minutes from the City Council meeting of November 1, 1994
4. Minutes from the Land Use Subcommittee of BRAG of November 30,
1994
5. Minutes from HAB meeting of December 1, 1994.
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
SUMMARY:
All of the buildings constructed before 1946 on the Naval Air Station, Alameda,
hereafter referred to as the NAS Alameda, were viewed and researched for the
historic architectural survey. The major finding was that, although EQ. buildings
were found to be individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, an historic district comprising the permanent and non-permanent
buildings, open spaces, and street system in the central core of the naval air
station and the officer housing adjacent to the core area was identified. Under
Criterion A of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (see Appendix A), the
contextural theme of the district is the development of U.S. Navy bases in the
San Francisco Bay Area for World War II; the period of significance is 1938-1945.
The integrity of the district is high with few non-contributing structures in contrast
to the rest of the base, which has changed considerably since World Warn and
no longer conveys a strong impression of the appearance of the naval air station
in the period of significance.
•
Under Criterion C, the permanent, non-residential buildings of concrete were
designed in a simplified version of the early Modern style, which featured cubistic
forms and minimal detail to accentuate the forms. The buildings display a
continuity of styling in the use of a type of metal- and wood-framed fenestration
with multiple-light, hopper sash, and the general use of white as the basic
building color with accents of blue or brown. Monumental sculptures in concrete
of winged horses and eagles provide dramatic embellishment for the BEQ
complex. Although the semi-permanent, wooden buildings are stylistically more
utilitarian and anonymous than the'permanent buildings, they have the same
forms and fenestration. The housing was also designed in the early Modern style
and thus shares the continuity of the administrative and working part of the naval
air station. No noteworthy, unaltered interiors were found in administrative and
service buildings. Hangar interiors are not noted because they are integral with
their structure.
The triangular and quadrangular open spaces that stretch from the Main Gate on
the north side of the base southward to the Main Administration Building, and the
east quadrangle formed by Buildings 2, 3, and 4 contribute importantly to a
dignified and gracious introduction to the base. The principle streets defining the
district are the N/S-running First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Streets and the
E/W-running Avenues A, B, C, D, E, and F. The officer housing balloons at the
west ends of Avenues A, B, and C and has its own curved street pattern.
Taxiways #4 and #7 mark the east and south boundaries of the district; the outer
northern boundary is Main Street. Although Ramps 1, 2, and 3; Piers 1, 2, and 3;
and Wharfs 1 and 2 were constructed during the period of significance (the
ramps were used for the sea planes), they have since lost integrity and do not
contribute to the district. The nondescript ammunition lockers, fuel storage
drums, and miscellaneous sheds remaining from the period of significance are
judged not to contribute to the historic district because of their temporary nature.
1
Methodology
Research: A literature search was carried out in the Bancroft Library on the U. C.
Berkeley Campus, the California History Room of the Oakland Public Library, and
the archives at the NAS Alameda for material on the history of the base. Most of
the pertinent information came from commemorative publications in the files on
the base. Construction dates and information on alterations to the buildings were
found in the files of the Facilities Management Office. In some cases detailed
informatiori about remodeling was not given. No detailed, written accounts of the
construction of the NAS Alameda buildings were found. The major reference
work for the history of the Bay Area bases is: Building the Navy's Bases in World
War 11, History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps
1940 -1946, Vols. 1 and 2., 1947, US Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Fieldwork: Pre -1946 buildings were viewed on foot and photographed.
Forms: The standard DPR 523 (Rev. 6/90) Historic Resources Inventory forms
were used.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
In 1938, the Navy had onty 1,000 planes. The Hepburn Board, which established
wartime needs, found that the need for additional shore facilities for aircraft far
overshadowed that for other craft. The Hepburn Base Program was authorized
by Congress and signed by the President April 4, 1939. The 1940 appropriation
acts authorized funding for the Navy's wartime program for base construction,
which may be said to have begun in July 1940. Authorization was also given to
increase the number of planes to 15,000. The site criteria for air stations from
1940 to 1945 were based on providing a limited amount of landplane facilities
alongside a protected body of water where seaplanes could take off and land
under a reasonable variety of weather conditions.
According to the reference work cited above on building the Navy's bases in
World War II, the Alameda Air Station was the most important new air station
constructed on the west coast and was similar to the air station in Norfolk in that
it was the major air base for a great naval operating base area with auxiliary
fields. Prior to the Navy's acquistion of the property in 1936, the City of Alameda
had reclaimed about 135 acres on the northwest corner of the site which had
been turned over to Pan American Airviays. This company used the location as a.
terminal and built three hangars, a water well and tank, and an administration
building; the facility was called the Alameda Airport. The U.S. Army had
developed Benton Field on the Northeast corner of the site from 1931 to 1935. In
-1938, two years after acquiring the property, the Navy began development of it.
In 1940, development was planned for two seaplane hangars, 242 ft. by 320 ft.,
ramps and parking areas, and an all concrete carrier pier. Development
continued during the war, and in 1945, two more seaplane hangars were built
along with a 6809 -foot breakwater. The capacity of the barracks was increased to
29,000, and officers quarters were increased to a capacity of 3600. The
construction on the main part of the base was completed in 19
alterations have occurred 1945. Since then
mainly on the western and southern parts of the base.
In respect to its physical description, the air station was cons
hydraulically filled, rectangular site with its long axis running teed on a
square flying field was constructed on the western half of the site; administration, and personnel structures East -West. The
On the south side was the seaplane area, a lagoon te, shops,
Five landplane runways, 3,500-6000 seapla seaplane area, es wncl built on the eastern half.
9 n inclosed by a breakwater. jons Two
carrier piers and a storage area were constructed south of the jetty and Two
the main rectangle.
Jetty and outside
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
None of the buildings at the Naval Air Station, Alameda was found eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic to be
70 buildings that were documented in the central core, 38 were to an historic district. The remaining one Places. Of the
contribute to the district because of loss of integrity e found to
or location to in the
area of t the base g 31 buildings were judged not to
that has lost integrity since �1946. In the officer
housing precinct, there are an additional 47 contributing buildings, 85 buildings for the whole district. Other resources in the di tr
open spaces and the street system described above. ngs, making a total
open
appears to be eligible for system de on the b National district are the central
District
under Criterion A with the hove The NAS Alameda Historic
Historic
Register of Historic
Navy Bases in the San Francisco Bay Area for World War development of U.S.
the period of significance. Under Criterion C, the buildings in the
have a continuity of style and a high degree of ar ' with 1938 -1945 as
the retention of landscaping and parklike o en s chitectural int gritytenhancted b
P paces. Y
Contributing buildings are:
1 17
2 18 39 77 116
3 +63 20 40 91 130
4 6 21 42 9 2 135
22 43 137
8 23 101 193
9 16 30 44 j o4 47 buildings of
31 75A 115 Officer Housing,
not numbered.
Non - contributing buildings are:
5 19
70A 104 152
11 62 73A & B 109 153
12 13 64 78 713 162
66 90 163
14 117 15 67 98 118 264
134
3
ZI
Non - contributing temporary or miscellaneous, nondescript structures:
Storage lockers 37A -1 -4, 37B -5 -8, 37 -C 9 -12, 37D- 13 -19; storage sheds 26, 28;
magazines 50 -53, 56 -58, 355 -359, 516; storage sheds 265, 272, 277, 281, 283,
290, 291, 292, 301, 307 -322, 329, 339, 423, 480; skeet range 404; playing fields
382, 424, 425, 428, 447; flammable storage 196, 261, 273; bus shelter 284, 296,
401; field compasses 488, 489.
Ramps 1, 2 & 3, Piers 1, 2, 3, and Wharves 1 & 2 have lost integrity.
THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA -- Applicable Criteria for the NAS
Alameda District are A and C
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association, and: •
A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction (or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values -N /A) or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction.
MAIN GATE
U.S. PIERHEAO LINE .
Pic
U.S. HULKHEA0
e. 0
CN tC AR EA
AY
PRI
pRo
1 Ott
a #04
P. ArC ;IOU ND
70000 GCS
&TR
tOCIOCICIC
00000
it
PARKING
APRON
NO.3
91
117
AVE. G
4
tA :
c
- TOWER
PARKING APRON NO. 4
TAXIWAY NO. 7
PARKING APRON NO. 4
A LAHTI
EAST GATE
RAMP
N0.2
RAMP
NO.3
RAMP 17
N0.4
SEAPLANE BERTHING AREA
16 17
PIER NO.1
300TH 1
GATE
PIE NO. 2 40
AVENU
NAS ALAMEDA
HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY
ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1994
ITEM NO. 1
PROTEC ION OF HIST
ALAIvIEDA
IC ARCHITEC RES •URCES AT NAVAL AIR STATION
BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The United States Navy is preparing to close Naval Air Station
Alameda (NAS). As part of this process, Federal law requires
review of historic buildings and areas, for the purpose of
establishing methods of protecting them. This report summarizes
Federal historic review requirements, describes opportunities for
local governments in this process, describes alternative approaches
to preservation, and recommends next steps the Historical Advisory
Board can take.
Federal Historical R view Re i ements
Section 106 of the 1966 National H3,..toric Preservation Act requiies
Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions
on historic properties. (See Attachment 1, ac heet: A ive-
Minute Look at Sec ion 106 Revi w
The first step in this process is to identify the historic
properties that may be affected. The U.S. Navy has completed this
step, by preparing the report istor'c Ar hitec ural Resourc s
Ir222C4aLI;Llag174-2Air Station "ameda, in 1992. (See Attachment
2, report summary.) 'i':---hj_sz-----"T-e.i—Dortlt-----)undthat "although no buildings
were found to be individually eligible for listing on thellational
Register of Historic Places, an historic district comprising the
permanent and non-permanent buildings, open spaces, and street
system in the central core of the naval air -station and the officer
housing adjacent to the core area was identified."
Since the Navy has found an area on the Naval Air Station that is
eligible for inclusion in the National Register, it is necessary to
proceed with the remaining requirements of Section 106. First, the
Navy must assess the effects of base closure on the historic area.
If it is determined that there will be adverse effects, the Navy
initiates a consultation process involving the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), the United States Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the City, and other interested parties, to
produce a Memandum of Agreement specifying how the Na will
reduce, avoid, -r mitigate the adverse effects.
1
The Navy intends to coordinate this historic review with the
environmental review process. It will prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report on the Base Reuse
Plan one year prior to closure, now estimated to be in April 1997.
As part of its action on the Reuse Plan, the Navy could consider
delegating historical review responsibility to the City.
Section 106 review is required for interim leasing of buildings as
they are cleaned up and vacated, as well. as on the Base Reuse Plan,
according to Louis Wall, Cultural Resources Coordinator for the
Navy. This review will involve submitting reports to the State
Historic Preservation Office for each proposed lease, which will
require from two weeks to several months for review for each
structure, depending on the potential effect.
Opportunities for Local Governments in Historic Review
The National Historic Preservation Act provides various
opportunities for local government participation in historic
- review. (See Attachment 3, Section 106 Participation by Local
- Governments.) The Federal agency invites comments and review by
the City for most steps of the process.
1. The City can assume the duties of the State Historic
Preservation Office in the review process, with the agreement of
the City, the State Office, and the U.S. Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation. This would mean that the City, rather than
the State, would review reports on the effects of proposed
development on historic buildings, and if necessary contact the
Advisory Council, conduct the consultation process, and prepare the
Memorandum of Agreement. To assume these duties, the City must be
a State Certified Local Government (CLG) for historic preservation
(Alameda is a CLG), and it must submit a report on its historic
preservation program to the State Office and the Council.
2. The City can also assume the responsibilities of the State for
review of plans for rehabilitation of historic structures,
providing the City uses the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation in its design review. Alameda applies these
standards in reviewing changes to historical monuments but not to
structures on the Historic Building Study List.
No city in California has yet been authorized to assume the State's
responsibilities for historic review under Section 106, according
to Gene Itogawa, Program Manager for Certified Local Governments
for the State Office of Historic Preservation. Once a city
requests authorization, the. State Office analyzes the expertise of
the staff and the reviewing body (in this case the HAB) to
determine if the city is eligible. It might be necessary for
Alameda to expand its staff resources to qualify, for example by
contracting for the services of an architect with historic
expertise. Mr. Itogawa was unable to provide an estimate of how
long the review process would take.
2
3. Another option is that property determined by the Secretary of
the Interior to be suitable for historic preservation purposes may
be deeded by the U.S. General Services Administration to a City at
no cost, for preservation in perpetuity. The City could rent some
of the property to generate revenues for the preservation program;
commercial activities are permitted provided the e*terior facades
are maintained. Generally, such buildings and areas are recorded
on the Register of Historic Places, maintained by the National Park
Service. • (Source, Plannin Civilian Reuse of orm r Milita
9.)
Bases President's Economic Adjustment Committee, November 1991, p.
Alternative A...roaches to Historic Pres ry .
areas in Alameda
There are various options for preserving historic structures and
1.
Monuments.
-----------____ Structures and areas designated as historic
alteration or for demolition.
monuments by the HAS require approval by the HAB for any structural
2. Historic Buildin Stud Li t
requii7;—Titlikal-EIon.
Buildings on the Study List
H evaluates
.
buildings, not groups of buildings such as the historic area in
NAS AB individual
However when RAH considers whether to permit or deny
demolition, the significance of a single structure may depend upon
individual merit.
its being one of a group of structures, as well as upon its
4. Preservation of Record. in he Even
m The RAP
has the authority to permit-demolition of structures found to be
mitigation measures.
historically significant, following determination of appropriate
.1
documentation an and/or measured drawings which are kept on file in
These measures c include photographic
on the site.
the Planning Department, or installation of an informational plaque
All actions bY. the HAB are appealable to the City Council which
can take into account a broader range of factors, such as social
preservation .
and economic issues, in reaching a decision about historic
Recommended Acti
ns b the Historic Advisor
the Base Reuse Advisory Group.
First RAB , the should refer this report for review and comment to
Include the following recommended actions to be taken by the HAB!
1. Designation n
Alternative A: Include buildings indicated as "contributing"
in the NAS Alameda Historic District (map in Attachment 2, summary
of report on )4istoric Architectural Resources InventorV for Naval
Air Station, Alameda) on the City's Historic Building Study List.
This action would have no direct effect as long as the buildings
are owned by the Navy, but it would convey the City's intent to
preserve this historic district, and it would provide a review
procedure for demolition once the City obtains jurisdiction.
Alternative B: Designate the contributing buildings as
Historical Monuments undzr the City's Historical Preservation
ordinance. The advantage of this option would be that it would
impose. stricter design requirements and improve the .City's
prospects for assuming historic review responsibility from the
State, and thus reduce processing time. The disadvantage would be
that the City would have to impose more detailed requirements on
applications for structural alterations or removal.
Under either Alternative A or Alternative B, the HAB would use a
contextual approach to evaluating the significance of structures in
the historic area of NAS
2. Prepare a request to participate in the historic review process
in lieu of participation by the State Historic Preservation Office.
(See reporting requirements to the State and Federal governments in
Attachment 3.) The advantage would be reduced processing time for
applicants. The disadvantage would be administrative costs to the
City; it would not be possible for the Planning—Department to
assume this responsibility without additional resources.
3. Request that the State Historic Preservation Office authorize
the City to review plans for rehabilitation.of historic structures,
rather than the SHPO. The advantage would be reduced processing
time for applicants. The disadvantage would be additional
administrative costs to the City; also, it might be necessary for
the City to designate all structures as Historical Monuments and
apply strict design review standards in order to be eligible.
Attachments:
1. Fact Sheet, A Five-Minute Look at Section 106 Review, U.S.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1986
2. Summary, Historic Architectural Resources Inventory for
Naval Air Station, Alameda, prepared by Sally B. Woodbridge,
Architectural Historian, 1992
3. Section 106 Participation by Local Governments, U.S.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1988
MWM
03/03/94
4
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS -- CITY HALL -- 7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
Members Present:
Chairperson Plummer
Staff Present: Breitkopf, DeCelle ' Board Members
Secretary Hatkin and Nicol
y Altschuler
MINUTES: (Discussion /Action)
corrtes of regular meeting of 5 May 1994
correction.
approved 5 -0 with
AGENDA CHANGES
AND DISCUSSIONS•
(Discussion /Action)
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
(Discussion only)
a. Received
None.
b. Sent
None.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion
/Action)
None.
REPORTS: (Discussion /Action)
1. Naval Air
Station Alameda.
recommendation on the possible designation of buildin
historic on site of NAS. of and
gs as
Secretary Altschuler
requested that the gave a brief eco update of the
by Staff copy of the memorandum ter,,. and
by
historic regarding .the possible historic prepared
district at NAS to designation of the
the BRAG.
Chairperson Plummer reported on an article in the Al ameda Journal
written by Kay Hickox on the Naval Air Station.
The Board had a lengthy
Thesible historic desi discussion regarding
prepare a draft memorandum on the memorandum on
which would re C
The Board requested that Staff
quest that the City
Council establish a Preservation Subcommittee of BRAG as
recommended by the National Trust, and Lou Wall of the Navy.
Board Member Breitkopf moved, seconded by Board Member Hatkin to
send the memorandum outlining the issues associated with possible
historic designation of a portion of NAS to BRAG. Passed 5 -0.
2. City Hall. Update on renovation and seismic upgrading of City
Hall.
Secretary Altschuler gave a brief update on the project, including
a memorandum prepared by the Public Works Department requesting
that the City Council reject all bids. Chairperson Plummer
believes that the tower should be retained. Board Member Nicol
believes that the expense may not justify the tower, and that it
was important to save the building which may mean eliminating the
tower. Board Member DeCelle believes that Board Members should try
to attend the City Council meeting and steak on the matter.
3. Carnegie Building. Consideration of and recommendation on the
progress for determining future uses of the building.
Board Member DeCelle reported that the Sacramento Carnegie Library
expansion had been part of a discussion at the recent California
Preservation Foundation Conference in Sacramento. Board Member
Hatkin reported that she had seen the building.
4. Historical Advisory Board By -Laws. Consideration and adoption
of Historical Advisory Board By -Laws.
This matter was continued to the July 7, 1994 meeting without
discussion.
5. Mills Act. Consideration of and recommendation to the City
Council to adopt the Mills Act.
This matter was continued to the July 7, 1994 meeting without
discussion.
6. Historic Preservation Professionals. Consideration of
establishing a list of historic preservation professionals to
aid property owners and realtors in preservation and restoring
of historic sites in Alameda.
This matter was continued to the July 7, 1994 meeting without
discussion.
7. Civic Center. Continued discussion on possible design of
civic center specific plan.
This matter was continued to the July 7, 1994 meeting without
discussion.
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS -- CITY HALL -- 7 :30 PM
MINUTES
Chairperson Plummer, Board Members Breitkopf,
DeCelle, Hatkin and Nicol
Secretary Altschuler
Members Present:
Staff Present:
MIN UTES :
Minutes for the November meeting were not available.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
First two chapters of the proposed Development
Ordinance). en Code
(Zoning
Board accepted the communication.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Board Member Nicol, seconded by
Board Member r P f,
nominated Board Member Hatkin to serve as Chairperson for
Board Member Hatkin, seconded by Passed 5 -0.
Board Member Nicol to serve as Vice-Chairperson Breitkopf, oP995nompasted
Board
Passed
ACTION ITEMS:
Reports 1 & 2 will be discussed as one item.
REPS_ (Discussion /Action)
1. Naval Air Station
recommendation on the Alameda. Consideration and
possible designation of buildings as
historic on site of NAS.
Secretary Altschuler introduced Marilyn York and Barb
Both had spoken on the matter of era Bach.
the Council meeting of 2 November 1994. They at NAS at
of their personal knowledge of the y made a presentation
submitting a written statement for Staff's ruse of NAS, and will be
reports on this matter. in preparing future
she respects them; she would remind everyone that this country is
a democracy with immigration laws that grant asylum to the
politically and otherwise persecuted; however, this country cannot
take in all the poverty-stricken and suffering people of the world;
many in this country advocate disregarding the laws whenever we do
not like them; living in a democracy gives, not only rights but
responsibility to follow the laws of our country; she sees this as
legal and vote in opposition of the motion.
a matter of legality versus illegality and will support what is
President Withrow stated he would like to make one more comment as
it relates to, and in concern for, children who may be listening
and observing the forum this evening, that [regarding] those who
are concerned about "illegal immigration," people are talking about
nubers not people, not personalities; what they are concerned
about is that the United States cannot take in economically
disadvantaged of the world; we do not have the resources for that;
we cannot take the into the State of California; the resources are
not here; to when they say illegal immigrants, they are talking in
to of numbers; obviously what is being conveyed in how people
are taking that who feel very personally and emotionally about it,
Personalities; . •
is that [concerns about illegal immigrantsl is anti-individuals or
and that is very unfortunate
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Appezzato Arnerich,
Roth and President Withrow - 4. Nay. Councilmember Lucas - 1.
Council recessed to reconvene at 9:50 p.m.
* * * *
Actions Related to Base Conversion Process.
* * * *
94-656 Status Briefing on Base Conversion Process.
Helen Sause, Vice President BRAG, reported on recent base
N.A.S. Alameda;" and discussed interim uses.
conversion forum; submitted a document entitled, "A Vision for
Vice Mayor Roth stated he attended, and was impressed by the forum
and requested Ms. Sause relate to the rest of the BRAG committees
he is proud of them.
that they did an outstanding job in their presentations; and that
Shirley Cummins, Alameda, stated that Congressman Dellums has voted
against every kind of American defense, and candidate Deborah
Wright should be elected as our next representative.
conversion.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, restated former suggestions for base
Reguhu- Meeting, ALunedi City Council
November 1, 1994
Barbara Baack, San Leandro, requested Council support the
preservation of a one hundred acre historic district at NAS, a
request to save artifacts at NAS that could be displayed in a
museum placed in the district, and an application to the State
Historic Preservation Office for formal recognition.
Councilmember Lucas inquired, if Council decided to pursue this
matter, would Ms. Baack be able to continue to do volunteer work on
the preservation issue, and Ms. Baack replied she would.
Judy Pollard, Alameda, stated she supports preservation; action
must be taken now, or much history could be lost; local governments
may participate in the,process pursuant to Section 106, National
Historical Preservation Act.; in 1992 a historic district was
identified in the central core of NAS and is eligible for inclusion
in the National Registry of Historic Places; and requested Council
support action to save artifacts and the NAS district.
Mike Burgess, Alameda, spoke in favor of the historic preservation
issue; stated Council has a unique opportunity to provide the
leadership in this important matter of preservation of the historic
buildings and artifacts.
Marilyn York, noted a number of events, monuments and plaques,
stated Alameda should recognize its place in transportation
history; suggested museum for artifacts; and stated her hope is
that Council will approve an application to the National Historic
Preservation Office to save the artifacts and district.
Councilmember Lucas requested a staff report on the issue of
historic preservation and how best to address it, and thanked
speakers who put volunteer time into this matter.
Councilmember Appezzato agreed with Councilmember Lucas's remark
and that Council needs to look at historic significance of NAS.
94-657 Public Hearing to consider allowing the Port of Oakland
to use Tax-Exempt Bonds for the portion of their dredging project
within Alameda.
President Withrow announced this matter has been continued to the
next meeting.
94-658 Report from Public Works Director recommending parking
improvements in the Civic.Center area.
Gerhard Degeman, Alameda, objected to proposed owner assessment
district.
Helen Sause, Chair, Economic Development Commission, stated the
proposed Alameda Theater, will be a catalyst for business district,
RcguLar Mccting, Alameda City Council
Novintibcr 1, 1994
9
Page Four - BRAG Minutes
November 30, 1994
for extra funding for Mr. Matthew's continued support.
A motion was made by Helen Sause, seconded by Doug deHaan to advise the City Manager that
City Staff should remain involved with BRAG Subcommittees (when appropriate and in a
collaborative way with the EDAW Team) by designating a City Staff Liaison to attend
subcommittee meetings. T,he vote was unanimous.
Discussion and Action (If Necessary) Regarding the Alameda City Council Conducting Another
Outreach Campaign to Encouragement Greater Community Participation on the BRAG
Diane Lichtenstein reminded the BRAG that the BRAG Subcommittees are experiencing a drop-
out rate and the need for renewed membership is essential. Though there are some people of the
community who have expressed interest in joining a subcommittee, they have not officially joined.
Helen Sause said that City Council could be notified that memberships to the BRAG is desired
and should be reopened to the public.
Mal Mooney felt that open memberships should wait until after the new City Council convenes.
In regards to the outreach campaign, Paul Tuttle reported that the Base Conversion Office had
been receiving, on a average, one hundred surveys a day. From these surveys, people have shown
interest in either being on a BRAG Subcommittee or wanting information about the BRAG in
general.
Alice Garvin and Helen Sause recommended that the BRAG conduct its own outreach using the
surveys.
B. LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE
Discussion and Action (If Necessary) on "Protection of the Historic Architectural Resources and
Artifacts at Naval Air Station Alameda."
Mr. Stephen Fee reported that under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the
Navy was required to have a study done to determine whether or not there were historical
architectural resources on NAS that were worthy of preservation. According to Mr. Fee, Sally
Woodbridge (a local architectural historian) completed this study, and a summary of the
conclusion of the study was provided to the BRAG. After surveying NAS, Alameda,
Ms. Woodbridge concluded that no single building was worthy of being listed in the National
Register, but the central core of NAS was. The Alameda Planning Department reported that the
City of Alameda or Navy is required to either: 1) apply for listing on the National Register, 2) put
the core area on the Historical Building Study List, or 3)declare the core as a Historical
Monument. The Land Use Subcommittee discussed and made two motions: 1) to request more
information on these three options, and 2) to establish a clear distinction between land use
resource issues and the preservation of artifacts. According to Mr. Fee, artifacts are not subject
to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A suggestion was also made to the Land
Use Subcommittee to set aside a building in the central core area of NAS as a museum to house
Page Five - BRAG Minutes
November 30, 1994
the artifacts. Mr. Fee recommends that the final Reuse Plan should first be completed in order to
take action with respect to the historical preservation of buildings and the core area.
Collette Meunier of the City of Alameda Planning Department, spoke to the BRAG as to what
roles the City of Alameda or the Navy will play. •Ms. Meunier said that at a meeting in June,
1994, the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) had considered this, and the motion was to refer this
action to the BRAG for input. The HAB will report to the City Council in January, 1995. The
staff report outlined three options:
1) Designate the building(s) and put them on a Historic Building Study list, where a level
of protection will be provided for monuments;
2) Seek authority for review and control of those building to make sure that they are in
the State Office of Historic Preservation (Department of Interior) compliance guidelines;
3) A plan or strategy (which is required under Section 106) must be prepared for the
protection of the resource. The problem is will the HAB allow the Navy to take the
initiative or will City Council?
After discussion, a motion was made by Stephen Fee, seconded by Helen Sause to recommend
that City Council hold off action until more information is researched on the pros /cons of the
historic designation with respect to the architectural aspects, and that a strategy should be
developed to reflect the final Reuse Plan. The vote was unanimous.
Another motion was made by Doug deHaan, seconded by Diane Lichtenstein that the BRAG
recommends to the City Council to take action on who will take responsibility in the
categorizing/identification of the artifacts, and identifying the locations of these Historical
Artifacts on NAS. Paul Tuttle asked that Captain Dodge be approached for any existing lists of
artifacts inventoried by NAS officials. The motion passed unanimously.
C. EMPLOYMENT AND JOB RE- TRAINING SUBCOMMITTEE
Discussion and Action f Necessa Re:ardin: the BRAG Holdin: a S •ecial
Workshop to Determine How to Address the Impact of Base Closure on the Local
Economy/Business /Community
This item is tabled for the Wednesday, December 14, 1994, BRAG Meeting.
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE
Discussion and Action fNecessa Re • ardin Workin
the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC)
This was discussed earlier.
with the EDAW Consultant Team and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum
January 25, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Dave Louk, Interim Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Three Month
Timeframe for Screening Homeless Applications and Acknowledgement of the
Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative as the Entity
that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Shall Work With During
the Homeless Screening Process as Required in the Base Closure Community
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994
Background:
At the meeting of November 2, 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) voted to send a letter to the Secretary of Defense requesting application for all or
portions of the Alameda Naval Air Station to be included under the Base Closure Community
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. On December 9, 1994, the Navy was
notified of the ARRA's request to have the Naval Air Station (NAS) incorporated under the new
procedures outlined in the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance
Act, and the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) to remain under the old Title V of the McKinney
Act. (This was proposed since most of NADEP had already been screened, and NADEP has
the greatest interim reuse potential. See attached letter.) The new legislation imposes process
requirements on the ARRA which are outlined below.
Discussion/Analysis:
For bases incorporated under the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless
Assistance Act of 1994, the Secretary of Defense is required to publish in the Federal Register,
and in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the closing base, information on the
buildings. Only part of the properties at NAS have been published in the Federal Register and
none of the housing has yet been published. Staff is in the process of attempting to ascertain
when the rest of NAS - including the housing - will be published in the Federal Register and the
community newspaper.
Under the new legislation, the Secretary of Defense is also required to publish in the
Federal Register and in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the closing base
information on the local redevelopment authority. The Secretary of Defense has already
recognized the ARRA as the local redevelopment authority, but has not published this in the
Federal Register or a community newspaper.
Honorable Members of the January 25, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
In the new legislation, the ARRA is required to establish a period for accepting notices
of interest from homeless providers. The legislation states the period of time shall be not less
than three months or not more than six months. The ARRA must then publish the date specified
in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the installation concerned. It is
recommended that the ARRA. establish a homeless screening period of three months to
commence as soon as the requirements of the legislation will allow. The three month screening
period is necessary for the ARRA to meet the milestones to complete the Final Reuse Plan by
December 1995.
The ARRA staff has been working for the past several months with the recently formed
Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative (Collaborative). The
formation of the Collaborative and the facilitation of discussions between the various parities has
taken place with the assistance of Congressman Dellums' staff. The Collaborative consists of
homeless providers that have expressed an interest in property at NAS and /or Oaknoll. The
Collaborative has been briefed on the reuse planning process by the EDAW Consultant Team,
and the Collaborative is anticipating a three month homeless screening process.
The Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act requires
that the ARRA must consult with representatives of the homeless in the communities in the
vicinity of the installation and conduct outreach. Furthermore, the final reuse /redevelopment
plan submitted by the ARRA to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) must include a summary of outreach undertaken by the ARRA to
the homeless providers. The final reuse plan must also include a statement identifying the
representatives of the homeless and /or the homeless assistance planning 'board with which the
ARRA consulted and worked with during the preparation of the final reuse plan.
Since a local homeless board, the Collaborative, has been established and since the
ARRA staff, the EBCRC and the BRAG have a working relationship with this recently formed
entity - which was formed to accommodate the new legislation, it is recommended that the
ARRA recognize the Collaborative as the homeless assistance board which the ARRA will work
during the homeless screening process. The efforts undertaken to date by the ARRA staff with
the Collaborative have been documented - which will help the ARRA comply with the
legislation's requirement that the ARRA summarize the outreach undertaken to representatives
of the homeless in the final reuse plan.
During discussions with the Collaborative, it was requested that some mutually acceptable.
level of accommodation for homeless programs be established for the reuse planning process.
The Collaborative has worked cooperatively with representatives of the City of Alameda, the
ARRA consultant, representatives of the BRAG, Congressman Dellums' staff and the County
to refine these parameters. The result of these discussions will be presented to the ARRA at
a later date. After that date, these levels of accommodation with specific property designations
would be incorporated by the consultants into the various models being prepared for the final
reuse plan. At a later date, specific agencies would be selected to operate the programs.
Honorable Members of the January 25, 1995
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3
Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact:
Minimal advertising costs for the ARRA to advertise the dates of the three month
screening period in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the military installation.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, by motion,
approve the three month homeless screening period to commence as soon as the requirements
of the legislation will allow, and acknowledge the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base
Conversion Collaborative as the entity the ARRA will work with during the homeless screening
process for NAS.
Respectful submitte
ave Louk
Interim Executive Director
DL:jm
Attachment: Letter to the Navy Regarding the incorporation on of NAS Under the Base
Closure Community Redevelopment Assistance Act of 1994
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Naval Air Station
Postal Directory, Bldg. 90
Alameda, CA 94501 -5012
510- 263 -2870
FAX 510 -521 -3764
December 9, 1994
Captain Terry M. Dillon, P.E.
Commanding Officer
Real Estate Center, Code 241
Engineering Field Activity West
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
900 Commodore Drive
San Bruno, CA 94066 -5006
Dear Captain Dillon:
We have been notified that, as a result of the recently enacted Base Closure Community
Redevelopment Assistance Act of 1994, new screening procedures are available to a local reuse
authority so long as notice is sent prior to December 24, 1994.
This letter represents our notification to you regarding the requested homeless screening
process for two separate installations: the Alameda Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), and the
Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS). Each installation was approved for closure by the action of
BRAC 93.
It is our understanding that the responsible local reuse authority (LRA) has the option of
either requesting to remain under the current Title V of the McKinney Act or can select to be
incorporated in the recently enacted new procedures outlined in the Base Closure Community
Redevelopment Assistance Act of 1994.
As the recognized LRA for both NAS and NADEP, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is making the following requests for each separate
installation:
1) Naval Aviation Depot : For this installation, we wish to remain under the current
Title V of the McKinney Act requesting the homeless screening procedures.
Many of the buildings and property at the NADEP have been screened
previously by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for use by
homeless providers. Much time and effort has been previously expended on the
existing screening process by the federal government, the LRA, and homeless
providers.
Captain Dillon
December 9, 1994 Page 2
The NADEP facilities represent the vast majority of industrial interim reuse
potential for the ARRA. There is currently existing interim leasing prospects and
early reuse of these facilities is critical to maintain their value and utility. By
remaining under Title V of the McKinney Act, we are assured of being able to
move expeditiously and to maximize the early industrial reuse potential for the
base.
Naval Air Station: Pursuant to section 2(e)(1)(B) of the Base Closure Community
Redevelopment Assistance Act of 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, as the recognized LRA, requests that the use of all buildings and
property to assist the homeless at the Alameda Naval Air Station be determined
in accordance with the new procedures established in the new Act.
If there are any questions regarding this request, or additional information is required,
please have your staff contact me at 510- 263 -2870.
Don Parker
Executive Director
cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums
The Honorable Joshua Gotbaum
The Honorable William Cassidy
Bill Norton, Alameda City Manager
Dennis Drennen, Director, Real Estate Division
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Members
Carl Anthony, East Bay Conversion & Reinvestment Commission
Roberta Brooks, Congressman Dellum's Office
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum
January 25, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Dave Louk, Interim Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Request from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Adoptt Adopt
Vision Statement for the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda the Community
Vision Statement Prepared by the BRAG
Background:
In August 1993, the Alameda City Council appointed the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory
Group (BRAG) to provide a forum for citizen participation in the base planning process, give
the community information on the status of base conversion, and provide reuse recommendations
to the Alameda City Council. In October 1993, the AIameda City Council approved a BRAG
Mission Statement which the BRAG had adopted. However, since the formation of the BRAG
and after a year of meeting, the BRAG voted to adopt a new vision statement that more correctly
reflected the BRAG's vision for the conversion of the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS).
Discussion/Analysis:
The BRAG presented its vision statement at a Community Forum, and upon further
refinement adopted the attached vision statement. For the BRAG, the Chair is requesting that
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopt the BRAG Community Vision Statement
as the ARRA Community Vision Statement for NAS.
Budget Consideration/Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
The BRAG recommends that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopt the
BRAG community vision statement for NAS as its vision statement for NAS.
Respectfully submi
ave Louk, Interim Executive Director
Attachment: BRAG Vision Statement for NAS
City of Alameda California
Base Reuse Advisory Group
A Vision
for
N.A.S. ALAMEDA
By the year 2020, the City of Alameda will
integrate the Naval Air Station property with
the City and will realize a substantial part of
the Base's potential. Revenues will have
increased and a healthy local economy will have
resulted from the implementation o, f' a
coordinated, environmentally sound plan of
conversion and mixed -use development.
While building upon the qualities which make
Alameda a desirable place to live, efforts forts for
improving recreational, cultural, educational,
housing, and employment opportunities for the
entire region will have been successful.
Adopted .September 14, 1994
Base Conversion Office • Naval Air Station Bldg 90 • Alameda, CA 94501 • (510) 263 -2870 • Fax (510) 521 -3764
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Inter - Office Memorandum
DATE: January 25, 1995
TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Dave Louk
Interim Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
SUBJ: Report from the Interim Executive Director Regarding Change of Meeting Date
for the July Meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Background:
Currently, City of Alameda City Council meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every
month and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meets on the first Wednesday of
every month.
Discussion /Analysis:
Because the 1st Tuesday in July falls on a holiday (July 4), the Alameda City Council
meeting is automatically rescheduled for the next business day (July 5). The July meeting of
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (1st Wednesday of the month) falls on July
5, therefore, the ARRA meeting must be rescheduled to accommodate the conflict.
Conflicts with other boards
City Council meets:
School Board meets:
Planning Board meets:
Fiscal Impact:
None
Recommendation:
meeting at the same location would be as follows:
1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month
2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month
2nd and 4th Monday of each month
Based on the meeting schedules of other boards and commissions, it is recommended
that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority reschedule the July, 1995 meeting to
Wednesday, June 28, 1995 or Thursday, July 6, 1995 at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
/eb
Da ti d J. Louk
Interim Executive Director
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of. the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * PLEASE NOTE NEW LOCATION!
• Alameda High Little Theater
(Corner of Central Avenue and Walnut Streets)
Alameda, CA -
Wednesday, February 1, 1994
6:00 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
AGENDA ITEMS
A. Report (and action, if necessary) Regarding the Status of Benefits to the Staff of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
B. Report from the Chair Requesting Authorization from the ARRA to Communicate with
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security Requesting Consideration of the
Development of a Federal Loan Program to be Utilized for the Implementation of the NAS
Alameda Final Community Reuse Plan.
III. 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.)
IV.
V.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
ADJOURNMENT
*
Note:
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Elizabeth
Brydon, ARRA Secretary, at 263 -2870 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request
an interpreter.
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.
* * * * *