Loading...
1996-01-31 ARRA Minutes UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, January 31, 1996 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. I. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Vice-Chair Sandré Swanson, 9th Congressional District (replaced by Alternate Roberta Brooks at 7:45 p.m.); Alternate Folrath-Johnson for Vice-Mayor Charles Mannix, City of Alameda; Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr., City of Oakland; Councilmember "Lil"Arnerich, City of Alameda (replaced by Alternate Tony Daysog at 7:45 p.m.); Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Councilmember Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Alternate Greg Alves for Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3; Ex-officio Member Lee Perez, Chair, Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG); Alternate Anna Elefant for Ex-officio Member Barbara Rasmussen, Alameda Unified School District. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Appezzato announced that the following item was pulled for public discussion: 2-C. [Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Budget Request to the Office of Economic Adjustment]. Member Arnerich made a correction to the minutes for the January 3, 1996 meeting, page 3, Open Space and Conservation Element, to reflect that the vote was Ayes: 7. Noes: 2–DeWitt and Arnerich. Member Alves pointed out that on the December 6 meeting minutes, it was requested that housing in the Marina area be limited to the “eastern portion” rather than “eastern shore.” While that change had been made, policy 2-46 on the following page still read “eastern and northeastern shores” and the word “shores” needed to be changed to “portion.” He further pointed out that it had been agreed that the park should be included in the western shore and while the map reflected that, Alternate Alves also wanted that reflected in writing in the Plan. Alternate Alves asked whether action needed to be taken and Chair Appezzato replied that action had already been taken and these were just matters of consistency through the Plan. Paul Tuttle, ARRA Planner, said they were oversights that would be corrected. Chair Appezzato further stated that the motion on the Consent Calendar will confirm the changes. Vice Chair Swanson moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Member DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote – 9. Printed on recycled paper Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2-A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 3, 1996. Approved. *2-B. Additions to Minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 1, 1995 and December 6, 1995. Approved. *2-D. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Selection of Moffatt & Nichol Engineers to Prepare a Detailed Condition Survey and Master Plan for the NAS Utility Systems and Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Contract. Accepted. *2-E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption of a Resolution by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Authorizing the ARRA Executive Director to Represent the ARRA and Apply for the California Defense Adjustment Matching Grant. Adopted. 2-C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Endorsement of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Budget Request to the Office of Economic Adjustment. Executive Director Kay Miller relayed the response from the OEA to ARRA’s request for funding. While ARRA requested just over $2 million, only $920,000 had been approved, to date. She then detailed the funded, partially funded, and unfunded budget items. She recommended that ARRA adopt the budget from OEA to provide operating funds with the understanding that ARRA staff will appeal some of the budget items with OEA and look for other ways to fund any unfunded items. Vice-Chair Swanson stressed the need to word the motion to reflect that while ARRA accepts the funding approved to date by OEA, negotiations are to continue to pursue unfunded/unresolved budget items. Speakers: Tony Daysog, Alameda resident and alternate for Member Arnerich, stated that with less in OEA funds, it was essential that ARRA prioritize and eliminate City grants for reuse. He felt the City’s in-kind grant match for OEA funds should be, instead, an in-kind loan to be repaid promptly by ARRA. Arthur Feinstein, Program Coordinator for the Golden Gate Audubon Society, referred to page 6 of the staff report recommending endorsement of the budget regarding the $10,000 request for consultant services during the Section 7 consultation. He stated that it was unfortunate that there was no mention of using the funds to aid in the recovery of the species, but instead, to avoid an unrealistic burden on the economic redevelopment of Alameda. He also felt it unfortunate that there was still an assumption that the refuge would be an economic burden, despite their attempts to convince ARRA the refuge would provide economic benefits to the City by (1) avoiding infrastructure costs for development and (2) bringing in millions of tourist dollars. Printed on recycled paper Chair Appezzato requested that Mr. Mark Braly of OEA address questions on the budget request. Mr. Braly stated that ARRA’s proposal had been well-presented and justified. However, OEA’s mission is to fund planning and they felt many budget items went into the implementation stage. He further stated that OEA’s funding of consulting support will be “very ‘iffy’ from here on out” because ARRA is passing out of the planning phase. Vice-Chair Swanson then queried Mr. Braly on individual budget items and ascertained the following: (1) Amounts in the Recommended column were definitely approved; (2) Most of the funds on the items with question marks [office expense and redevelopment area planning] will be approved; (3) Travel: if more details are provided that justify the travel expenses, OEA will reconsider; (4) Legal: the amount is firm and consistent with policy but there are guidelines as to what the money can be spent on and there were questions on whether some of the expenditures proposed by ARRA staff were allowable; (5) Market Analysis for NAS/FISC: OEA feels this item gets into implementation and the funding allotted by OEA is reasonable; (6) Detailed Plan Development for NAS/FISC: while the committee is always open to further discussion, they are firm on the $50,000 figure; (7) Housing Revitalization Feasibility Study: as a matter of policy OEA does not fund a fine [detailed] level of planning but they are open to further information; (8) Building Upgrade and Demolition Study: this crucial item can be reconsidered but OEA maintains it gets into implementation; (9) Technical Support for EDC Application: staff is expected to prepare the application and the amount funded is considered adequate for special technical support; (10) Economic Analysis/BP for Port Conveyance: as information on cost is developed more specifically, it will be reconsidered; (11) Appraisal for Public Trust: as the need becomes apparent to staff and the Governing Body agrees, OEA will reconsider; (12) Redevelopment Area Planning: the number will not be far off from the requested amount; (13) Detailed Long-term Market Planning/Materials: this is not a “no” and will be reconsidered at the appropriate time; (14) Wildlife Management Plan/Section 7 Consultation: OEA is cutting back on consulting fees; (15) Parcel and Street ROW Survey: this level of detail in planning is considered outside of OEA’s mission to fund and while the line can always be pushed, Mr. Braly felt the decision was firm—Vice Chair Swanson stated an essential item like this is a study area not an implementation area and asked that the Board direct staff to provide the rationale to challenge that gray line; (16) Support for School District: it is outside OEA’s mission to fund. Vice-Chair Swanson asked Mr. Braly if the ARRA Governing Body could approve, without prejudice, the minimum amounts subject to ongoing negotiations and with the assurance that OEA will entertain ARRA’s specific appeals. Mr. Braly agreed. Vice-Chair Swanson made a motion to endorse the minimum funding proposed by OEA with the understanding that ARRA is not prejudiced by the recommended amounts and that OEA understands that ARRA will negotiate those items that are clearly marked for negotiation and provide additional rationale to appeal those items. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt. Member Arnerich asked Mr. Braly if many items marked with a zero should actually have been question marks. Mr. Braly answered that in areas where there were amounts indicated, it would be “uphill” to get them changed but where question marks appeared, there was some question to be resolved. Member Arnerich said that, upon first reading, he had taken the zeros to mean that 3 nothing would be given but Mr. Braly’s earlier answers indicated that those issues were still open for negotiation. Mr. Braly answered affirmatively. Member DeWitt stated that Long-term Marketing Planning was the next phase and how well we are able to market the Base will determine our success. Mr. Braly agreed but asserted that was implementation and OEA would only fund the planning aspects of the marketing. He further stated that OEA can fund a marketing strategy that could include prototype marketing materials but not actual marketing materials and that, as agreed with Vice-Chair Swanson, this item would be revisited later. Speakers: Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, commented on appropriations. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote – 9. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin stated that the staff report also requested that the Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to execute any grants that might be presented by OEA. Vice-Chair Swanson requested an amendment to his motion to add the statement that the Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to execute any grants that might be presented by OEA. The amendment was seconded by Member DeWitt and carried by a unanimous voice vote – 9. ACTION ITEMS At the request of Will Travis, Executive Director of BCDC, item 3-G was moved to the top of the action items because it impacts on the discussion of item 3-F. 3-G. Presentation by Will Travis, Executive Director of BCDC and Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Oppose the Bay Conservation Development Commission Port Priority Designation on the 220-Acre Northern Runway Area of NAS Alameda. Mr. Will Travis made a thorough presentation on the background and justification for BCDC’s Port Priority Designation on the 220-acre northern runway area. He made the following points: The entire base was designated for Port Priority Designation but after study, it was recommended that all but 200 acres in the northern runway area be released from port priority use in the Plan. This Plan—the Federal Coastal Management Act—was approved by the federal government. He further stated that “there is a wonderful, unusual provision in there that federal agencies have to comply with state plans.” Therefore, “unless the designation is removed from the Alameda Naval Air Station . . . BCDC must, by law, object to the Reuse Plan, thus preventing the Defense Department from transferring any property. In order to amend the Bay Plan, it takes a vote of two-thirds of the Commissioners, or 18 votes from representatives throughout the bay region who represent local governments, the governor, the legislature, state, and federal agencies. Mr. Braly further stated that if ARRA presents a Plan that “does not either reserve that 220 acres or allow some way for us to work with your staff to resolve this problem, I fear that it will be difficult to get 18 votes to do anything. And we will then be at a point where everything is stopped.” Mr. Travis requested that ARRA staff work with BCDC to craft a proposal to request that the port priority use be removed from the 200 acres while agreeing that if 4 the request is denied, ARRA will “go along with it” [Port Priority Designation] under certain conditions to be agreed upon by BCDC and ARRA staff. Mr. Travis asked that, in taking their action, ARRA remember the following seven things: (1) Most of Alameda is fill, created out of San Francisco Bay and Alameda should take a stand that will protect San Francisco Bay from future Bay filling. (2) Alameda is not an island, it is part of the greater Bay Area and ports drive the Bay Area’s economy. (3) Port designation does not preclude all use of this area, particularly immediate uses such as AAFES or dredge material disposal from the Port of Oakland dredging. (4) This area may not be needed for 20 years and 20-year interim uses could be developed that would not preclude port use in the future. He further stated that, if ARRA puts half the work into making a port work as they have in resisting it, one could have been developed by now. (5) A port designation is not forever; the trend is that there is more cargo moving more quickly through less space. The Seaport Advisory Committee will monitor cargo movement so that if the trend continues, in a couple or three years they may lift the designation. (6) A port designation is consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine. (7) The ARRA Governing Body should take into account the fact that BCDC staff has tried to be very accommodating in removing the port designation from the bulk of Alameda NAS, worked with ARRA staff to see if there were other areas such as where the carriers are now berthed, discussed interim uses, and offered to be advocates for some of the development. In summary, Mr. Travis cautioned that inflexibility could lead to an impasse that would not be in anyone’s long-term interest or short-term desires. He urged ARRA to direct staff to work with BCDC to try to get the designation lifted while providing a “fall-back position” so that the process can move ahead and BCDC can approve the Defense Department’s plan and the rest of the area can be released quickly for redevelopment. Chair Appezzato stated that the plan that designated the entire base as a seaport was made when it was a Naval Air Station with ships and aircraft. Now that the Navy is leaving and the federal reservation will be no more, it can be argued that the plan is no longer valid. The Chair stressed that ARRA’s success to date lies in the fact that it is a regional entity created for regional purposes to make regional decisions. Wanting the designation removed from the 220 acres does not mean that ARRA is not acting or thinking regionally. The Chair further stated that he did not believe that the Port of Oakland would emphatically support five container berths in Alameda. There is no bridge or tunnel and it takes millions of dollars to provide one. Also, removing the port designation does not prevent port use at a later date. Member Chang stated that, as a former Port Commissioner for Oakland and having served on BCDC, he feels that the Bay Area is the future shipping center for the western United States. However, the Port of Oakland is successful because of train and other transportation access. However, he feels strongly that designating Alameda for port use is a mistake because there is no feasible transportation system. Member Arnerich registered his strong opposition to 220 prime acres being land banked for future use when a port is not economically feasible due to lack of transportation. Member Chan asked if the ARRA Governing Body takes action tonight and BCDC votes to retain the seaport designation, what will happen? Executive Director Miller responded that if the designation is not removed and it threatens to impact how the Navy conveys the land, staff will come back to 5 the ARRA governing body with a fall back plan for restricting the use of those lands. Then, the ARRA will return to BCDC yearly to try to get the designation removed. ARRA Planner Paul Tuttle stated that the Community Reuse Plan is a recommendation to the Navy on their actions. The Navy will conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Plan. In that EIR/EIS, one of the alternatives the Navy will be looking at is a port designation. Once the EIR/EIS is completed, there will be a clearer understanding of what the impacts will be. At that time, if there are additional modifications necessary to the Plan, it will come back to ARRA for approval of the changes. Both the ARRA recommendation and BCDC recommendation will be considered in the Navy’s Record of Decision (ROD). Member Chan, also the Alameda County representative to BCDC, stated that the County is very interested in the economic development of NAS Alameda because of its regional implications. Member Chan stated that she was supporting removal of the seaport designation from the 220-acres because the regional issue of the base conversion is key to the long-term future of Alameda County. Further, she felt Mr. Travis had not presented a compelling case of the necessity for or the feasibility of a port development in Alameda. She further asserted that the full BCDC Commission had not yet heard this issue. Member DeWitt asked Mr. Travis how BCDC planned to solve the transportation issues. Mr. Travis suggested the possibility of $150 million cranes that would allow ships to berth on the Oakland side, span the estuary, and off-load their cargo on the Alameda side. He also suggested the use of barge ferries and bringing the containers through the Posey Tube. He stressed that BCDC is looking far out to possible space needs in 2020. Paul Tuttle stated that ARRA’s consultant on market demand for port/marina uses is reviewing market demand and “through-put” calculations. Mr. Travis suggested that ARRA not spend money on that study as BCDC has used conservative estimates. Member Corbett stated that while ARRA has a duty to balance all the various interests involved, there is a finite amount of land to work with. ARRA has to balance open space, shoreline preservation, and habitat needs. While the dialogue can continue, a decision must be made now and a port does not seem feasible. Helen Sause, BRAG Vice-Chair, stated that it is the BRAG’s stance that BCDC proposes to “land-bank” precious land that is the easiest to clean up and which presents the earliest possibility for development. Vice-Chair Swanson queried Mr. Travis on his comment that if ARRA does not leave open the 220 acres, the recommendation on lifting the seaport designation from the remainder of the base might not be lifted. Mr. Travis replied, “When you are trying to count up to 18 votes of a Commission which can operate with a quorum of 14, it is hard to get the necessary votes if we have . . . a strong division, it is not inconceivable that we will have our Commission equally divided and that we will end up with a 12–12 or 13–13 split And with that kind of vote, they don’t do anything.” Vice-Chair Swanson answered that the earlier comment was perceived as a threat and a very political statement that BCDC would “risk impairing the economic development of this island to preserve for two decades, 220 acres for a purpose yet undetermined 6 based on analysis yet unformed.” He further stated that ARRA, the Alameda City Council, and the people of Oakland supported the regional dredging project that was essential to expanding the Port of Oakland’s capabilities. He added that the port expansion into FISC and potential consideration for Army base property are all regional issues supported by the people who have been working jointly on this issue, yet those activities were being treated as if they were not relevant to this decision. “In fact,” Vice-Chair Swanson continued, “this region has made a tremendous statement about its consideration of the port and port activities contributing to the economic viability of the area and for BCDC to take the position that this is not enough is not acceptable.” Member Arnerich asked when the question would become, “What’s good for the City of Alameda?” Vice-Chair Swanson offered a closing comment that BCDC “cannot expect the people of this region to continue to cooperate with the expansion at the Port of Oakland while BCDC challenges them on the Alameda shore—it just will not be accepted.” In response to a question from Alternate Folrath-Johnson if it is BCDC’s position that Alameda is perfectly suited for a port, Mr. Travis answered that the Commission had not yet taken a position and that this is the position of the professional staff based on the analysis that has been done and the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee, which had voted 11–2 to retain the seaport designation on 220 acres. Speakers: Tony Daysog, alternate for Member Arnerich, stated that Alameda was an island surrounded by regulatory sharks who need to “get off our backs” and let Alameda go about its way. Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, talked at length about various issues. Member Corbett moved to accept the staff recommendation to oppose BCDC Port Priority Designation on the 220-acre northern runway area of NAS Alameda. Chair Appezzato asked if the motion could be amended to allow the ARRA Chair to sign any correspondence that needs to be sent to BCDC Commissioners prior to their vote. Member Corbett so amended the motion. Alternate Alves seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote – 9. 3-F. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Adoption by Resolution of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. Paul Tuttle, Reuse Planner, presented an overview of the written Summary of Changes, Corrections and Additions provided at the meeting. On the first outstanding land use of the Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Mr. Tuttle requested that Assistant General Counsel Heather McLaughlin address a letter dated January 26, 1996 from the Law Offices of Alan C. Waltner on behalf of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. The letter demanded that the entire wildlife refuge site proposed in September 1994 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be set aside for habitat preservation purposes. Ms. McLaughlin stated there were two main issues raised in the letter: CEQA compliance and the Fish and Wildlife request. Regarding the CEQA, Asst. General Counsel McLaughlin advised that CEQA guidelines provide an exemption for feasibility and planning 7 studies that allows ARRA to go forward with the Community Reuse Plan without getting into environmental review. That issue will be addressed in the EIR/EIS process that the Navy will conduct. As for the Fish and Wildlife request, the issue is premature because the negotiation process is ongoing and an exact acreage number has not been arrived at. When the acreage numbers are finalized it will be appropriate to address their comments if they are still valid. Mr. Tuttle briefly reviewed the outstanding issue of the Wildlife Refuge. Essentially, the Regional Director for Fish and Wildlife Service on the West Coast has communicated his recommendation that the Community Reuse Plan designate a Wildlife Refuge area of no less than 390 acres and no more 526 acres. The exact size and boundary of the refuge will be determined upon further scientific investigation and development of an acceptable predator management program over the coming year. The other issues that ARRA staff has asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to address are funding of the refuge, ownership of the property, and how it should be transferred. Staff recommendation, based on the Fish and Wildlife request, is to adopt the requested language as part of the Plan and send it forward. Staff will then work with Fish and Wildlife over the next months to finalize the size and all the conditions of the Wildlife Refuge. The Predator Management Plan will provide input into the management plan and will provide input into the Section 7 Consultation which must be done in conjunction with the EIR/EIS. The second outstanding land use issue is the BCDC Port Designation on 220 acres of the Northwest Territories. This issue was discussed and voted on in item 3-G. Under Substantive Comments and Recommended Changes, Mr. Tuttle stated that the BRAG recommended policy for Wildlife Refuge disposition was that a certain portion of NAS Alameda, particularly the wetlands areas and the areas around them, be transferred to Fish and Wildlife with the remainder of the portions in the middle of the airfield being transferred to the City and managed by Fish and Wildlife. Because of the Fish and Wildlife Service request to ARRA, staff recommends that this issue be deferred pending future discussions with Fish and Wildlife. The BRAG’s second recommendation was that the fiscal policy of the Plan be amended to reflect a goal of maintaining a 10 percent balance in revenues rather than the 4.3 percent presently projected. On the BRAG’s third issue, Vice-Chair Helen Sause stated that the recommendation regarding housing in the Northwest Territories was a misunderstanding. While the BRAG urged ARRA to aggressively pursue removing the limitations on the land, they did not intend to do anything contrary to the Public Trust. She further stated that the Public Trust has things that can be done and satisfied so that ARRA is free to use the Northwest Territories for all uses, including residential. Therefore, the recommendation was not to remove the Trust but to say that the Trust can be removed if ARRA meets Trust needs and if Trust needs can be met, ARRA should aggressively pursue trying to do so. Paul Tuttle then reviewed the suggested changes and additions received from the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, the Alameda Unified School District, and ARRA staff regarding Operation Dignity’s request for veterans housing and additions to the homeless process identifying dates of ARRA actions. Dena Belzer, ARRA’s consultant on homeless issues, detailed ongoing developments with Operation Dignity. Operation Dignity has requested funds 8 to build new family housing for homeless vets and their families on land they already own rather than receiving an accommodation at NAS Alameda. In a recent meeting between Chair Appezzato, Ms. Belzer, and HUD representatives in Washington, D.C., HUD officials were very encouraging. The recommendation to ARRA is that the language in the Plan be changed so that this is the first option for accommodating Operation Dignity. Chair Appezzato stated the Ms. Belzer had been flown at the expense of the mayor of Boise, Idaho to address the Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. While there, Ms. Belzer met with Chair Appezzato and HUD officials at no cost to ARRA. Chair Appezzato added that Ms. Belzer is very well thought of across the United States and while in Washington, D.C., she spent some time with Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Tuttle outlined the recommended changes to the Plan from the State Lands Commission to clarify policy language on the Commission and Public Trust issues. The AUSD had submitted editorial changes that ARRA staff is recommending be adopted. The AUSD had also requested additional language be added to clearly state the limits of fees not paid for by school district. This request is not recommended by ARRA staff, as language already exists on page 9-19, policy 9-5 that covers this issue. Upon reviewing policy 9-5, the school district’s representative indicated agreement to the Chair. Speakers: Arthur Feinstein, Program Coordinator for the Golden Gate Audubon Society, expressed their appreciation that the Wildlife Refuge had been included in the Community Reuse Plan. However, Mr. Feinstein then made the following remarks. He advised that scientists indicated that a minimum refuge size that would ensure the preservation of the Least Tern was 525 acres. Mr. Feinstein quoted from a letter he indicated was written by the seven preeminent Least Tern scientists in the world that this colony is one of the most successful and that the continued success of the colony is crucial to the continued recovery of the Least Tern. They contend that any significant change to the current configuration of the airfield and adjacent open areas may irrevocably affect the success and perpetuation of the Least Tern. Regarding the letter sent to ARRA from the Audubon Society’s lawyer, Mr. Feinstein then stated that they are still flexible; they are not saying that if they do not get 595 acres they will sue—that was not the intent of that letter. He asserted that from the very beginning they have said they would live with what the scientists say. “If the scientists say 390 acres, we go with 390 acres.” He continued that the scientists haven’t said that—Fish and Wildlife Service said 525 acres but BRAG put it down to 390 acres, not based on science but because they wanted it to be 390 acres . . . and that is something that the Audubon Society cannot agree to. Mr. Feinstein stated, “There is no reason to create a refuge when you know it is not going to work. Our fear, of course, is because you do want to preserve this land for the City of Alameda, that perhaps there are some who don’t want it to work . . . making it intentionally small so that in ten years you’ll be able to do something else on that land. That’s our concern. When the scientists say 525 acres, we’ll go for it—450 acres, we’ll go for it—595 acres, we’ll go for it. We are resting our position on science, not on our desires, not on your desires.” Mr Feinstein then added that the Golden Gate Audubon Society was willing to help the refuge be a success by providing docents, getting the 9 word out to the birding community, and helping place advertising into birding magazines to attract birding enthusiasts to the refuge. Alternate Daysog requested clarification, asking if Mr. Feinstein had said that 450 acres was acceptable. Mr. Feinstein said that when the scientists agree to a number that is scientifically justified, they will not argue with that number. Member Corbett asked if the Audubon Society would accept the Fish and Wildlife Service determination. Mr. Feinstein answered that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not immune from political pressure. “If the Fish and Wildlife Service says 390 acres is fine and the Audubon Society has seven Least Tern scientists saying it is not fine, then it is not fine.” The Audubon Society would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with scientists to arrive at a acreage figure that has the support of the scientific community. Mr. Feinstein further stated that he anticipated that the Fish and Wildlife Service will come out with a figure that they will agree on. Chair Appezzato asked if the Audubon Society would not agree to accept Fish and Wildlife’s determination, why should ARRA? Mr. Feinstein repeated that when a majority of scientists agree to a number, the Audubon Society will go along. Alternate Brooks stated that she felt the letter from the lawyer was extremely inappropriate and in very bad faith because Congressman Dellums’ office and ARRA have been working diligently to try to bring people together and keep the process going. When a lawyer enters the picture with demands, it changes the tone and the basis upon which people are working in good faith. She further stated that Fish and Wildlife are making the decision, and they are not there to make a political decision but one based on predator control issues. She added that it would be very reassuring to hear that the Audubon Society and other groups that have been working toward a consensus on this issue would actually state that they will accept Fish and Wildlife’s decision. Mr. Feinstein replied that they worked with the BRAG Fish and Wildlife group for months in trust and good faith and signed a compromise document with a lower acreage figure (which came from the Fish and Wildlife Service) and it was rejected by the BRAG, which then came up with a figure of 390 acres. Mr. Feinstein stated that they [the Golden Gate Audubon Society] were cementing their position so they can say they have exhausted their remedies if they have to go to litigation, which, he added, he sincerely hopes they do not have to do. Alternate Brooks stated that it is not clear what their position is. Mr. Feinstein replied that their cemented position is “when the scientists come out with their conclusions of what the refuge needs, that’s what we will support.” Alternate Brooks asked if those were the Fish and Wildlife scientists. Mr. Feinstein replied, “In all likelihood. I will not commit and say absolutely now Fish and Wildlife Service. . . .You’re asking me to be very blunt and I will do so so that you know our position. We believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service will come out with an answer we can support.” Alternate Daysog asked for a copy of the letter from seven scientists that Mr. Feinstein referred to. Mr. Feinstein gave a copy of the letter to the ARRA Secretary to disseminate to the ARRA Board. Tim Little, ARC Ecology and the Environmental Network, thanked ARRA staff for their professionalism. Mr. Little then made the following comments regarding the preferred alternative Community Reuse Plan. It will need substantial modification and mitigation to get through the CEPA/NEQA process. The refuge, as proposed, violates federal property transfer laws—the Navy is obligated to a direct, no-cost transfer to Fish and Wildlife. The Plan 10 speculates about a new estuary crossing without specifying details, making it impossible to project air quality and traffic impacts; CEQA prohibits this kind of piece-mealing. The toxic cleanup section is incomplete. Public trust issues exist. The position of ARC Ecology and the Environmental Network is that they accept the submission of this Plan to the Navy to fulfill the Prior Act Amendments and encourage ARRA to go to the head of the line for whatever inadequate funding is available. It is insufficient as a preferred alternative for CEQA purposes. Written comments were provided to the ARRA Secretary for the Governing Body. In response to a question by Alternate Daysog on what type of EIR we are doing (a Program EIR or a Master EIR), Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin answered that it would be a Master EIR. Tim Little asked if it would be a joint EIR/EIS and Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin answered that they were working on that now. Nancy Wakeman, representing the Public Trust Working Group, provided written comments regarding the preferred Plan’s consistency with the Public Trust. She discussed the public interest at NAS Alameda as it relates to ARRA and the City of Alameda’s activities, problems of consistency of the document with the Public Trust, and their recommendations. Thomas Okey, Conservation Science Institute, restated the results of his survey, which advocated a large portion (700 acres) for open space uses at NAS Alameda. He stated that the present map is not consistent with the results of his survey. His second point was that the position of the BRAG is in direct contradiction to the results of his survey. Chair Appezzato pointed out that almost 44 percent of the Naval Air Station will remain in open spaces with almost 25 percent of the land in a wildlife refuge. Alternate Alves stated that most of the people he knows who answered the survey would not have agreed to leave it as open space if they knew it was going to remain in cement. Alternate Brooks stated that this Plan is exciting because it expresses tremendous cooperation and consensus building, negotiation and compromise. She expressed the opinion that this very complex community and regional process cannot be summed up by the opinions of 4,600 local respondents. Member Corbett expressed the opinion that the CSI survey left other communities out of the pool. Richard Nevelyn, displaced base worker and BRAG Reuse Committee member, stated that he was pleased with the wording regarding displaced base workers in the Plan. He reminded ARRA that cleanup levels in areas designated for housing are stricter than for other types of uses. Dave Ryan, EFA West, stated that the Navy NEPA process is a public process that will begin in March. He asked that as many people participate as possible. Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, discussed contamination and environmental cleanup. Upon receiving no further discussion, the Chair asked for a motion on Outstanding Land Use Issues. I. Outstanding Land Use Issues 11 A. Fish and Wildlife Refuge – There was a motion from Alternate Brooks to approve the staff recommendation on the Fish and Wildlife Refuge. The motion was seconded by Member Chang. Alternate Alves asked if the staff recommendation was no less than 390 acres no more than 525 acres. He stated that 525 acres is too much land and asked that ARRA go with the 390-acre figure. Alternate Brooks stated that the staff recommended language is necessary to move the Plan on to the EIS/EIR; if the figure is set at 390 acres, Fish and Wildlife would have a problem. Alternate Alves answered that was OK. Alternate Brooks stated that it was not OK. Alternate Alves rejoined that he was ready to “do litigation or whatever it takes because this is a long-term issue.” Alternate Brooks stated that the EIS/EIR is going to take a year and we cannot wait for the Section 7 process to be resolved. She added that if Fish and Wildlife decides the refuge is going to be 525 acres, the refuge is going to be 525 acres. Alternate Alves stated that ARRA should not commit to anything over 390 acres. Alternate Daysog offered a friendly amendment: “No less than 390 acres and no more than 526 acres, emphasizing with the exact size and boundary of the refuge to be determined by further scientific studies.” The amendment died for lack of a second. The motion to approve the staff recommendation on Fish and Wildlife passed with the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes: 2-Alternate Alves and Alternate Daysog. B. BCDC Port Priority Designation – A motion was made by Member Chang to accept the staff recommendation to oppose BCDC Port Priority Designation. The motion was seconded by Member Corbett and passed unanimously – 9. II. Editorial Changes and Corrections and Clarifications A motion was made by Member DeWitt to approve the editorial changes and corrections and clarifications recommended by ARRA staff. The motion was seconded by Member Corbett. Alternate Alves asked that on page 2-7 the definition of “commercial” be changed to add “conference/convention facilities.” Chair Appezzato asked if that was a difficulty for the staff. Paul Tuttle stated that this language reflected the existing city definition for commercial uses. Alternate Alves said that he had added the word “hotels” previously. Alternate Alves made a motion to add the words “conference/convention facilities.” The motion was seconded by Alternate Daysog and passed by a unanimous voice vote – 9. Alternate Alves then made a motion that the words “conference facilities” be deleted from the Parks & Recreation recreational facility definition in the recommendation on page 9 of the staff report. The motion died for lack of a second. Alternate Daysog asked when the RV Park was going to be discussed and voted on. Executive Director Miller advised him that the RV Park had been voted on previously in Chapter 2, the Land Use section and in Chapter 6, the Parks and Recreation Cultural Facilities. 12 On receiving no further discussion regarding the editorial changes and corrections and clarifications, the motion passed unanimously – 9. III. Substantive Comments and Recommended Changes A. BRAG Recommendations A.1 - Member Corbett made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to defer disposition of the Wildlife refuge pending results of discussions with Fish and Wildlife. The motion was seconded by Alternate Folrath-Johnson and passed with the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1–Alternate Alves. A.2 - Member DeWitt made a motion to accept the BRAG recommendation to add an additional financial policy to pursue a goal of a 10 percent net positive fiscal balance for the City of Alameda. The motion was seconded by Member Chang and passed unanimously – 9. A.3 - Previously found to be a non-issue. B. Alameda County Waste Management Authority B.1 - Alternate Brooks made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to add goals and a policy on recycling of demolished buildings. The motion was seconded by Member Corbett and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Abstain: 1–Alternate Daysog. C. AUSD (Letter) C.1 - A motion was made by Alternate Alves and seconded by Member Chang to approve the editorial changes suggested by the Alameda Unified School District. The motion passed unanimously – 9. C.2 - The school district agreed this is not at issue. D. ARRA Staff Recommended Changes D.1 - Alternate Brooks made a motion that the staff recommendation be adopted for the Operation Dignity veterans’ housing request. The motion was seconded by Alternate Alves and passed unanimously – 9. D.2 - Member Corbett made a motion to approve the staff recommendation on additions to the homeless process identifying dates of ARRA actions. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 9. Abstain: 1–Daysog. IV. Late Comments A. State Land Commission Changes (Letter) – A motion was made by Alternate Chang to approve the clarifying policy language on State Land Commission and Public Trust issues. The motion was seconded by Alternate Alves and passed by a unanimous voice vote – 9. B. Audubon Society (Letter) – No vote required. 13 Chair Appezzato asked for a motion to adopt the Plan. Member DeWitt moved acceptance of the Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The motion was seconded by Member Corbett. Alternate Daysog asked to make an amendment to the motion to strike the words “RV Park” everywhere it appears in the Community Reuse Plan. The Executive Director recommended against the change, as the RV Park is an integral part of the Plan to finance the parks and trail system. The amendment was seconded by Alternate Alves. Alternate Daysog stated that while the RV Park might be an integral part of the reuse of the base, he felt it would be a disaster to his neighborhood, which is one block from the proposed site. The amendment failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 2–Daysog and Alves. Noes: 7. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin pointed out that ARRA needed to act on the Resolution to Adopt the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan. Member DeWitt rescinded his original motion and made a motion to adopt the Resolution Approving the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan. The motion was seconded by Alternate Alves. Chair Appezzato stated that he hoped the Commission would vote unanimously to support the Community Reuse Plan. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 1–Daysog. Chair Appezzato complimented the staff, the BRAG, and the entire community for all work done over the past couple of years to get to this point. Alternate Alves thanked the staff and BRAG for listening to his “nitpicking.” Alternate Brooks said that she hoped everyone had something in the Plan they did not agree with because “that is what this remarkable process has been about.” She congratulated the community and the BRAG for the enormous amount of work accomplished and stated that it has been an honor to be a part of this process. ORAL REPORTS: 4-H. Oral Report from the Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating ARRA on BRAG Activities. BRAG Chair Lee Perez stated that it is impossible for 100% of the people to be 100% satisfied with this Plan because this a heterogeneous community. Now the first phase is done, the BRAG feels that it still has a role to play and they are currently meeting to discuss what that role might be. While OEA has decided not to fund the BRAG, Mr. Perez stated he feels that it is essential to find a way to maintain a viable presence in the process to come. Helen Sause, BRAG Co-Chair, acknowledged the ARRA Board for the confidence they placed in the BRAG and the support that was given to the BRAG’s efforts. Member DeWitt inquired if there was any way to find funding for the BRAG. Executive Director Miller answered that OEA had always been firm that they would not fund the BRAG after the Community Reuse Plan was adopted; however, the BRAG was going to submit a budget to the City. 4-I. Oral Report from the Executive Director Updating ARRA. Executive Director Miller thanked ARRA staff, the consultants, and the City of Alameda staff for their extraordinary team effort. The staff is actively moving forward to work out details of special legislation involved in 14 forming a redevelopment project area with Barbara Lee’s staff. The City is moving forward by taking the first step toward designation of a redevelopment survey area on February 6. On interim lease activity, she reported that staff is getting very close on several interim leases. Staff is also currently working on Member Chan’s request to work with the County to set up a financing strategy workshop. Ms. Miller thanked Oakland Councilmember Henry Chang for his support in moving the City of Oakland forward to provide matching funds for a ULI Workshop. Finally, she mentioned that the EIS Scoping Meeting is a community meeting scheduled for March 16 from 7:00–9:00 p.m. in the Historic AHS Cafeteria. Chair Appezzato thanked the U.S. Navy, CAPT Jim Dodge, EFAC, and EFA West for their efforts in helping make the conversion a success. He asked Alice Garvin, Diane Lichtenstein, Doug DeHaan, Pattianne Parker, and other members of the BRAG present to stand up and be recognized. He mentioned that during the Conference of Mayors, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and the Bob Isaacs from Colorado Springs spoke very highly of the job that Kay Miller had done at Lowry. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Speakers: Neil Patrick Sweeney, Fremont, stated that ARRA meetings should be televised and the base conversion should be on the Internet. Daniel J. Corcoran, Alameda, stated that there is no mention of disability access in the Plan and that the base has to be in compliance with the ADA. Curt Pederson, Alameda, agreed that the meetings should be televised and stated that he was discouraged that an endangered species has more rights to land than people. He also felt that the fact that the Plan lacked a hotel but approved an RV Park was a travesty. Alternate Alves informed Mr. Pederson that there was a provision for a hotel in the Marina area. John Thayer Fee, Alameda, voiced his support for a bridge, factories, industries, and the Hornet, and offered ideas for developing the base. Bill Smith, virtual agile manufacturing, spoke to various issues including the U.S. Hornet, MARAD ships, and home pages on the Internet. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Member Corbett requested that staff research OEA’s mission and jurisdiction, their definition of planning vs. implementation, and comparative information from other base reuse projects regarding what does and does not get funded. Alternate Daysog requested that his “No”vote on the Resolution Adopting the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan be changed to “Yes” for several reasons: Out of respect for 15 the Mayor of Alameda, who has recently appointed him to the Economic Development Commission; because he felt that is what Member Arnerich (for whom he acts as Alternate) would like; that sometimes extremism in the name of defending the neighborhood is not a vice (and there will be continued challenges with regard to maintaining neighborhood preservation); and, he felt it was important that the vote be unanimous. Chair Appezzato stated that the motion to adopt the Resolution Adopting the Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan passed unanimously – 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 9:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret E. Ensley Secretary 16