Loading...
1995-05-03 Joint ARRA CC Minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, May 3, 1995 5:30 p.m. The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. with Chair Ralph Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Alternate Tony Daysog for Councilman "Lil"Arnerich, City of Alameda; (Note: Alternate Daysog is an alternate to Councilman Arnerich only as an Authority Member - Council Members do not have alternates); Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice-Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Alternate Roberta Brooks for Sandré Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Ex-officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group; Ex-officio Member Gail Greeley, Alameda Unified School District. (Summary: 8 ARRA Members, 3 Alameda City Council Members and Alameda Mayor were present) Absent: Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro. II. AGENDA ITEMS: A. Presentation/Public Hearing Recommending Acceptance of the Proposed Alternatives and Directing the Consultant Team to Proceed with Phase V of the Scope of Work Assessment of Land Use Alternatives. Mr. John Petrovsky of EDAW gave a presentation on the Proposed Alternatives for NAS, Alameda. The primary action requested of the Authority was approval of the range of alternatives as follows: 1) Mixed Use/Regional Open Space Emphasis - This alternative would look to NAS Alameda as a major source of regional open space for preservation and recreational purposes. The main focal point of activity in this alternative is the existing core area of the Base. It is envisioned that the core area will develop as a "flex-zone" to accommodate a mixture of uses based on the interim (near term) reuse of existing facilities with redevelopment and in-fill changes, additions, demolition occurring over time. The development of the mixed use core has an emphasis on office/light industry and commercial uses. 2) Mixed Use/Regional Open Space with Seaport Industrial Emphasis - Mixed Use Core - This alternative would look to NAS Alameda as a major source of new jobs and industry for Alameda and the regional as well as a preservation of regional open space resources. Its emphasis is the development of a regional seaport facility on the north edge of the island utilizing the Oakland Inner Harbor. The northern edge of the airfield area is developed as a regional seaport facility with a buffer of a golf course to the south. 3) Seaport Industrial Emphasis-Mixed Use Core - This alternative would look to NAS Alameda as a major source of new jobs and industry for Alameda and the region. Its emphasis is the development of a regional seaport facility on the north edge of the island utilizing the Oakland Inner Harbor. 4) Residential/Mixed Use Emphasis - Mixed Use Core - This alternative shows NAS Alameda developing primarily as residential neighborhoods with cluster centers of mixed uses capable of providing services and workplace uses. Its emphasis would be development of a mixed use core and residential/mixed use in the northern portion of the airfield area. 5) Residential/Mixed Use Emphasis - Disperse Centers - This alternative shows NAS Alameda developing primarily as residential neighborhoods with other uses scattered throughout the Base. There is a development of dispersed centers focusing on other uses including the existing core area of the Base with a commercial, residential and education emphasis. Mr. Petrovsky reported on what the next steps would be. A full set of goals and objectives is in the process of being formulated to govern the planning process and be a feature of the ultimate final plan. This is currently in the BRAG process. All of the public involvement input received to date has been evaluated and, utilizing EDAW's own Trends and Conditions Report and Interim Reuse Strategy Reports, will be put all together into a comprehensive set of policy level statements. This will come to the ARRA for approval after going through the BRAG. Through this list of goals and objectives, EDAW is developing a series of criteria on which they will assess the alternatives. The criteria being utilized are: 1) Economic - EDAW will be looking at these alternatives and compare them from the standpoint of their fiscal feasibility, their financiability, how many jobs and what type they will provide versus how many residential units of what type; implications that each of them may have from the standpoint of phasing (phasing infrastructure, financing infrastructure; 2) environmental regulatory; response to each one to biological resource concerns, primarily the Endangered Species Act; State Lands Commission jurisdiction, public trust; extent to which any of the alternatives has an influence or is adversely influenced by the clean-up effort; 3) land use and social - land use balance and mixture, compatibility with existing uses in Alameda, i.e., at what point is a bridge or tunnel necessary? Mr. Petrovsky stated that the consultant team is scheduling the ARRA Board to make a decision on a preferred plan in August or September. 2 Chair Appezzato stated that he felt it was very wise for the consultant team to include the annex in their planning process. Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr. stated that he had been a Port Authority Commissioner for a number of years and stated that in order for a port to be successful, rail and truck transportation systems are required. He stated that he felt it would be rather difficult on the Island of Alameda to have rail and truck transportation systems crossing over residential areas of the community. Councilmember Lucas stated that she shared Mr. Chang's concern regarding the seaport. Speakers: Mr. Tim Little, Director of the Rose Foundation stated that at the last presentation given in the Theater by EDAW, Mr. Petrovsky had indicated that there would not be any further consideration of moving the lease tern colony because there is overwhelming biological evidence that moving the colony does not work. He questioned Mr. Petrovsky as to whether some new evidence had come to light supporting the idea of moving the colony. Chair Appezzato stated that no alternative should not be at least discussed. He stated that Mr. Petrovsky had four out of five alternatives which do not require relocation of the tern colony. Mr. Little then asked when the report regarding the alternatives would be released to the public. Mr. Petrovsky stated that there is no deadline currently on publishing the alternatives and that the next step is to do the assessment of the alternatives and then report back to the Authority with the analysis. This will occur in July/August. Mr. Little then asked what the timeline for the public would be in order to digest a lengthy and detailed report in order to be able to offer meaningful comment. Dave Louk stated that there will be reports to both the BRAG and ARRA at which time there is available time for public comment. Additionally, reduced sized maps will be available at the library for the public to review. Mr. Petrovsky suggested that the maps will be available at the Reuse Authority office once they are quantified in terms of number of units, acres of use, etc. Mr. Stephen Fee, member of the Planning Board and Chair of the Land Use Subcommittee of BRAG urged that the Board recommend acceptance of the proposed alternatives and direct EDAW to proceed with Phase V. 3 Mr. Ronald Michael Basarich, representing RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) and BRAG (Base Reuse Advisory Group), speaking as a citizen of Alameda, stated that he supports the proposals and recommended that the ARRA move forward to Phase IV. He stated that he and his neighbors were concerned with the issues of the seaport plan and problems associated with the plan which were addressed by Councilmember Chang very well regarding transportation and the issue of the Fish and Wildlife Service claim to such a large portion of land for a game preserve and that the grid system is the most workable plan to meet everyone's needs. Mr. Thomas Okey, of Conservation Science Institute and a member of the Environmental Subcommittee of the BRAG and the RAB. He stated that a large omission had occurred regarding the formation of the reuse plan, which is the public surveys which had been conducted which, according to Mr. Okey, show clearly that the priority of the public for reuse of the Naval Air Station is open space, habitat restoration and environmental cleanup. He stated that one of the BRAG Chairs (at a recent BRAG meeting) stated that a public survey should never have been done, because now the public would tell the BRAG what to do and that it was too valuable for a democracy. He stated that he assumed the person meant that the land was too valuable for a democracy. Chair Appezzato stated that like this Commission or any other Commission, the Commissioners cannot control anyone's opinion nor can they control an opinion of even a Chair of the BRAG. All opinions must be weighed evenly and will be done in public. Neal Patrick Sweeney, resident of Alameda, suggested that the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) be included as a regular item on the City Council agenda for BRAG activities and that the transportation connection should be a tunnel from the City of Alameda West end toward the City of Oakland. He also suggested that business proposals not accepted by the City of Alameda Reuse Authority should be forwarded to other Reuse Authorities in the country. Bill Smith, of Bases Commercialization Bureau, stated that he is from Emeryville and that they have the Transportation Research Center in Berkeley who are looking at doing a three wheel electric car to shuttle people down to the Watergate Towers from BART. He suggested a proposal for a foot bridge, with a little electric vehicle utilizing it to go to BART getting the working community in and out of the Base. Richard Nevelin, former base worker and member of several BRAG and EBCRC committees, stated that some of the things that need to be added to the plan are some sequencing questions which have to do with how to implement the plan - having the consultant work up some sequence as to likelihood and development and perhaps have an alternative. He also stated that former base workers should get at least as much entitlement regarding inclusion in the plan as do the homeless. Ken Hanson, BRAG Chair, stated that he felt that the Authority should support the concept of what is being presented and that it is a cornerstone that can be developed into what is best for the City of Alameda. He added that the Golf Course was presented as an idea because it would generate revenue. The second reason it was 4 presented was because it could become a buffer zone between the undeveloped, uninhabited wildlife area. Vice-Mayor Mannix made a motion to accept the recommendation of staff. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Chan and passed by a unanimous voice vote. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Appezzato stated that this meeting would be the last meeting that Dave Louk, Interim Executive Director, would be the Interim Executive Director of the ARRA. He then thanked Mr. Louk for his outstanding job since Don Parker left and introduced the Staff of the ARRA who gave Dave the following presentation: "The old saying goes, 'It's been a swell ship for the Captain, but a hell ship for the crew', but with Dave Louk as our Captain, it has been just the opposite. We, the Staff of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority are taking this opportunity to publicly express our appreciation and gratitude for Dave's leadership and support as Interim Executive Director for the past six months. Dave's thoughtful team spirit, good humor, commitment and patience have kept the Reuse Authority office together and the reuse process moving forward. Dave, your fellow crew members would like to wish you fair winds and a following sea always...." The Staff then presented a Captain's hat to Mr. Louk. Dave Louk thanked the Staff for the nice presentation. He stated that it had been really interesting sitting in the driver's seat for the past six months and that the ARRA office had kept it together very well since Don Parker left. He added that none of it would have been possible without the excellent Staff and that everyone in the office took on a tremendous extra amount of work in the past six months, a lot of hours which really hadn't been recognized, including a lot of nights and weekends and taking work home. He concluded by stating that he did not think the ARRA would be where it is today if it wasn't for the work that Julie, Paul, Elizabeth, Josi and Emily had put into the day to day operations of the office as well as the support received from the BRAG and from the Members of the ARRA. He then thanked the Members for making it easier for him. Chair Appezzato stated that Dave and his Staff are to be congratulated and that for six months Dave had filled two jobs which is extremely difficult under any circumstances. Alternate Roberta Brooks seconded Chair Appezzato's sentiments and added that it had been a real pleasure to work with Dave. She then thanked Dave for his ability to keep everyone apprised of everything, all of the time, which is an extraordinary thing to be able to do. Vice-Mayor Mannix stated that he was looking forward to working with Dave in the future. IV. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY: VI. ADJOURNMENT: 5 The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Brydon Secretary 6