Loading...
1998-09-02 ARRA MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, September 2 199 SPECIAL SESSION The special session was convened at 5:00 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding to address the following item: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR ; Attendees: Chair Appezzato , Member DeWitt , Member Kerr, Member Daysog (arrived at 5:30 ), Alternate Sweeney, Alternate Brooks , Alternate Friedman , Alternate Ornelas , Alternate Leonhardy. Chair Appezzato adjourned the special session at 5 :45 p.m. and iITediately convened the regular meeting. He announced that the Board had met in special session , and that direction was given to the r al property negotiator. ROLL CALL Present:Chair Ralph Appezzato , Mayor , City of Alameda Albert DeWitt , Councilmember , City of Alameda Barbara Kerr , Councilmember , City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember , City of Alameda James Sweeney, alternate to Councilmember Karin Lucas , City of Alameda Roberta Brooks , alternate to Sandre Swanson , District Director 9th Congressional District MarkFriedman alternatetoWilmaChan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3 Kathleen Ornelas , alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor , City of San Leandro Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Elihu Harris , Mayor , City of Oakland Ex-officio: Lee Perez , Base Reuse Advisory Group(BRAG) Gail Gredy, Alameda Unified SchooL District CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of July 1 , 1998. 3.- B. Recommendation to authorize finalizing negotiations and executing an interim .lease through the term of the Master Lease with the Homeless Collaborative for Building 101. $recycled paper H:\MENSLEY\RR \MlNUTES\ 1998\9-98.MlN C. Recommendation to award contractto Team Ace Joint Venture in the amount of$149 544 to upgrade Building90 at Alameda Point. D. Report from the Executive Director recommending approval of the recommended priorities for the AR's 1999 grant application to the Economic Development Administration. Speakers : None. Member DeWitt questioned the amount of the contract in Item 3-C because the bid by Teml1 Ace Joint Venture is for $124 620 , while the contract is in the amount of$149 544.Speculation was that this probably represented a 20% contingency amount; Chair Appezzato requested a follow-up report clarifying this. ; Alternate Brooks inquired about what , ifany, preference is giyen to local contract bidders , since Team Ace Joint Venture is located in Kansas. AR Executive Director K.ay Miller indicated.that these tyes of contracts are awarded under the Economic Development Administration grant, which has fairly stringent requirements. Chair Appezzato requested a follow-up report regarding the bidding process , especially as it relates to local contractor preferences. Member DeWitt moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The . motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: O. Abstentions: 1 (Leonhardy as to Item 3-C only); Absent: O. ACTION ITEMS A. Consideration of a Special Events Policy for Alameda Point. ExecutiyeDirector Miler explained that the Plannng Board asked the AR to adopt a policy for specific types of events allowable at Alameda Point inorderto streamline the approval process. This Special Events Policy will be in effect after adoption by the AR Board.i Memb er Kerr asked whether the Navy will accept theguidelinesestablished.inthePolicy, and Ms. Miler replied that they have stated they canot guarantee approval of all events which meet the requirements outlined in the Policy. Alternate Sweeney inquired about how the maximum attendance figures of 6 000 (daytime) and 000 (late night or where alcohol.is served)were determined. ARPlanner Elizabeth Johnson indicated that these figures were recommended by the Police Chief.. There was further discussion about whether the 6 000 figure should apply to the total attendance for a multi-day event or 6 000 per day in the case of a multi-day event. It was recommended that this be clarfied to indicate 6 000 at any given time. Alternate Ornelas recommended a requirement for liability insurance coverage by applicants. Ms. Miller stated that there is already a requirementfor insurance for licensees and lessees , so this could be added to the Policy also. $recycled paper H:\MENSLEY\ARR \MINUTES\ 1998\9-98.MIN Speakers e Perez, BRAG Chair, indicated that the BRAG feels that smaller groups would not be able to work through this complex process. The BRAG recommends that there be an appeal process which includes a $300 refundable fee. ARRA General Counsel Terr Highsmith stated that the intention of the policy is to restrict the appeals process to the two criteria already included because the process should be the basis for decision. Member Kerr felt that staff wil apply the standards fairly andrecommendedleaving the policy as written. Member Daysog moved , and Member Kerr seconded, that the Special Events Policy be approved with the following amendments: designate maximum attendance of 6 000 people at any given time, and add a requirement that the applicant must obtain general liabilty . insurance. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes: O. Abstentions: 0; Absent: B. Authorization to amend the sublease for two HOl1elessCollaborative agencies (United Indian Nations and Bessy Coleman Court) to allow occupancy of the units Member Kerr inquired whether this would present a problem if title for the property does not pass from the Navy to theARCity. Executive Director Miller stated that the HOl1elessCollaborative would have a recourse for a direct conveyancefrointheNavy. Alternate Friedman moved, and Alternate Leonhardy seconded, to authorize the amendment of the sublease for two Homeless Collaborative agencies (United Indian Nations and Bessy Coleman Court) to allow occupancy of the units. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 9. Noes:O. Abstentions: .0; Absent:O. 5. ORA REPORTS Presentation by the Port of Oakland regarding distribution Of dredge spoils Executive Director Miler indicated that this presentation is to provide further information on the use of sand from the Port of Oakland, as recommended in the golf course feasibility study. LenCardoza Dredging Manager at the Port of Oakland, distributed packets containing samples of the sand.. He explained that the 50 foot dredging project is to accommodate large. container ships and. that the sediment is Merrtt sand , which has received the highest classificatiOn fordeanliness (nO hazardous waste) fromgovemmental regulatory agencies.. The Port would pay the City $3-10 per cubic yard for the sand (exact price to be determined) and would accept all liability for its cleanliness. The project would take four years to complete (authorization in 1998 , .design and permitting in 1999 , and construction from 2000-2004). Speakers Richard Neveln , interested citizen, asked whether there would be a strong odor to the sand after it has been deposited and while it is drying out , as this could adversely affect events and tourism at Alameda Point. G)recycled paper H:\MENSLEY\RR \MlNUTES\ 1 998\9-98.MIN Mr. Cardoza stated that a strong odor is usually due to vegetation , and there is no vegetation in this sand because itis so old (300-600 000 years old). The sand has passed all toxicity and biological tests. Kurt Bohan , interested citizen, asked how the sand would be washed, since the salt water could make grass cultivation difficult. Mr. Cardoza stated thatsalthas not been a problem in other areas in the past; rainall and other normal water activity removes the salt from the sand. He also pointed out that top soil wil be placed over the sand to aid cultivation. Bil Smith , interested citizen , inquired aboutthe stability of the sandin the event of an earthquake and whether there needed to be. a layer of rocks and boulders deposited first, followed by the sand , top soil , and.vegetation , as was done at Treasure Island. Mr. Cardoza indicated that he has not looked at seismic issues associated with Alameda Point , but that this project isnotanalog()us to Treasure Island. B. Presentation of alternative golf course plan by Hugh McKay Associates KenHansen introduced the team from Hllgh McKayAssociates whopresented.analtemativeplanfor a privately-financed golf course resort and convention area at Alameda Point. There would be two championship golf courses , as well as a 200-room lodge and conference center, golf museum and golf academy. They estimate thjlt the total project would cost $33-47 IIllion to bllild and generate revenue to the City of approximately $20-30 million over a ten-year period. Kurt Bohan , interested citizen, recommended that the AR and City strongly consider this proposal rather than a City-financed and operated golf complex as previously proposed. Chair Appezzato pointed out that so far the AR has olly commssioned a feasibility study for a golf course and that no decision has yet been made about how.to proceed because there . are many issues stil to be resolved. C. Oral report from the BRAG updating the AR on current activities BRAG Chair Lee Perez stated that the BRAG will become a member of the Education , Technology and Business Consortium.. He also mentioned that plans .. are underway for an Alameda PointOpen House , tentatively scheduled for Satuday, October 24; furher details about this Will be available next month. Also , the second draft ofthe Navy s cleanup plan is being prepared and wil be presented to the RAB in September. Written report from the Executive Director updating the AR 1. EDA grant of$500 000 for design and engineering work on Tinker/Tynan project 2. Hornet gala grand opening on October 17 3. Alameda Point Open House on October 24 4. Second quarter lease revenue report recycIed paper H:\MENSLEY\ARR \MINUTES\1998\9-98.MIN Chair Appezzato noted that lease revenue income is exceeding projections , and congratulated the ARR on this achievement. E. Oral report from the Executive Director (non-discussion items) None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Dana Kokubun, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge , introduced herself as the new program director. She is in the process of identifying the users of the planned interpretive center at the Refuge and outlined the group s plans for continued outreach with local elementary schools. Richard Neveln , interested citizen , presented photos of buildings at the FISC property which he believes have s9me historic significance and should be preserved. Bil Smith , interested citizen , recommended taking advantage of the FISC property to provide affordable housing in Alameda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 7:45 p. Respectfully submitted aAl Patti Van Mark ARRA Secretary G)recycled paper :\MENSLEY\RR \MlNUTES\ I 998\9-98.MIN APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, October 7,1998 ROLL CALL Present:Chai'rRalph Appezzto Mayor , City of Alameda Albert DeWitt , Councilmember City of Alameda Barbara Kerr , Councilmember , City of Alameda James Sweeney, alternate to Councilmember Karin Lucas , City of Alameda Mark Friedman , alternate to Wilma Chan , Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3 Kathleen Ornelas , alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor , City of San Leandro Absent:Tony Daysog, Councilmember City ofAlaneda (present for special session only) Sandre Swanson , District Director 9thCongressiollal District Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Elihu Haris , Mayor , City of Oakland Ex-offcio: Lee Perez , Base Reuse AdyisoryGroup (BRAG) Gail Greely, Alameda Unifed School District CONSENT CALENDAR Appro al of the minutes of the regular meeting of September 2 , 1998. Recommendation to adopt plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for roof repair of Building 9 , and authorization for Executive Director to enter into all agreements for award ofthe construction contract (No. P.W. 09-98-23). Authorization for additional allocation of fuds in the amount of$118 764 for Building 530 upgrades (No. .. 11-97-29). Speakers : None. Alternate Friedman moved approval of the Consent. Calendar. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: O. Abstentions: 0; Absent: 3. ACTION ITEMS None. $recycled paper H:\MENSLEY\RR\MlNUTES\l 998\1 0-98.MlN ORAL REPORTS Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARR on current activities BRAG Chair Lee Perez reported that there was no BRAG meeting in September. Discussions about the restructuring of the BRAG are ongoing, and a progress report wil be made shortly. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARR 1. Alameda Point Open House on November 14 , 1998. Executive Director Miler indicated that the date of the Open House was moved from October 24 to November 14 , 1998 to allow more time for publicity and preparations. .. There has been a meeting with some of the Alameda Poil1ttenants , who are 19oking forwardto publicizing their . businesses and bringing people out to view their facilities. TheBRAG: Community Involvement Committee is organizing.theeyent. Oral report from the Executive Director (non-discussion items Executive Director Miler noted that the USS Hornet Museum wil have its grand opening on October 17 , and there wil be anElectricVehic1e (EV) EXPQ onQctober24-25 at Alameda Point. The Northwest Territorywil.opened for the EVExpo. Also , the City Engineering and Public Works Departments wil be moving out to Building 1 on October 16-17. As a result , the ARRA Facilties staff',ilLbe moving into the west wing. of Building 1. The ARR office wil beclosedOctober 16 due to the moves. Member DeWitt remarked that , according to the leasing status report , Buildings5and5-A are to be leased , although the master plan had marked them for demolition. He questi()n.edwhy the master plan is not being followed regarding these two buildings. Executiveoirector Miler stated that the ARR..oard had previously approved the lease for Building 5andthatthe tenants are in the process of obtaining their use permit. The prospective tenants for Builciing5-A may have some problems obtaining a use permit(dueto parking), so they are going through the permit process before coming to the ARRBoard.. These buildin.gs werel1arkedfor demolition because it was not thought that they were leasable; however , it would cost moretodel1olish thenl than the rent to be obtained from leasing them. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY NOlle. G) recycled paper H:\MENSLEY\RR \MlNUTES\1998\lO-98.MlN ADJOURt MENT The general meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at.5:45 p., at which time the Board entered into closed session. Respectfully submitted oJ If Patti Van Mark ARR Secretary G) recycled paper H:\MENSLEY\RR \MlNUTES\1998\1 0-98.MIN AFPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, November 4 , 1998 The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Chair Ralph Appezzato , Mayor , City of Alameda Sandre Swanson , District Director , 9th Congressional District (arrived at 5:45 p. Barbara Kerr , Councilmember , City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember , City of Alameda James Sweeney, alternate to CouncilmemberKarin Lucas , City of Alameda Mark Friedman, alternate . to Wilma Chan , Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3 Absent:Albert DeWitt , Councilmember , City of Alameda Kathleen Ornelas , alternate to SheliaYoung, Mayor , City of San Leandro Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Elihu Harris Mayor , City of Oakland Ex-officio: Diane Lichtenstein , Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of October 7 , 1998. Speakers : None. Alternate Friedman moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: O. Abstentions: 0; Absent: 4 .(Member Swanson arrived at 5:45 p. ACTION ITEMS A. Recommendation regarding the next step in assessing options for development and financing of agolfcourse in the Northwest Territory Executive Director Kay Miller indicated that staff recommendation is to move forward with the 214 acre golf course concept. The GolfGommission and Golf Manager should analyze the proposal and consider financing options. The larger golf course design which was proposed is not feasible because it would require major changes to the Reuse Plan , including elimination or relocation of the sports complex. The Recreation & Park Commission has already stated there is not another suitable location at Alameda Point for the sports complex , and it is much too popular to be eliminated. G) recycled paper C:\OFWlN40\11-98.MIN Speakers Ken Hanson , BRAG member , spoke as a proponent of the larger golf course proposal. indicated that at the last BRAG meeting, the two golf course proposals were referred to the Land Use Subcommittee for review, and requested that the ARR Board not make any decisions regarding the golf course until after the BRAG has made its recommendation. Chair Appezzato stated that the ARR Board was not being asked to make any recommendation regarding a golf course proposal at this meeting. Hugh McKay, Hugh McKay Associates , designer of the larger golf course project , indicated that his group has looked at the site and believes it could work in harmony with the sports complex. Chair Appezzato inquired if Mr. McKay and his group have met with the Golf Commission or . Recreation & Park Commission. Mr. McKay stated they have not. Gail Wetzork, Chair of the Recreation & Park Commission , said that there has been a lot of time and money already spent putting together plans for the sports complex and that it would be very expensive to have to move it. He also stated it would be unfair to the citizens of Alameda to eliminate it. Chair Appezzato recommended that the two golf course designs be reviewed by the City Recreation & Park Commission , Golf Manager and Golf Commission, and Economic Development Commission , as well as the BRAG. He added that the building of any type of golf course is contingent upon suitable financing arrangements. There are also details to be worked out with the Port of Oakland about the dredge spoils. Sherry McCarthy, Recreation & Park Director , stated that there have been meetings with numerous groups for the past four years regarding the design of the sports complex , that the plan was previously approved by both the BRAG and the ARR Board , and that grants and revenue streams are already moving forward. The current design would not be compatible with a larger golf course , and the Recreation & Park Commission is very opposed to eliminating the sports complex. Kurt Bohan , interested citizen , recommended that the golf course proposals be considered from a preservation standpoint. He said the hotel design would cause problems for planes being brought in for the Western Aerospace Museum. Member Daysog moved, and Member Kerr seconded , that the City of Alameda Golf Commission , Golf Manager , Recreation & Park Commission , and Economic Development Commission review options for development and financing of a golf course in the Northwest Territory and make recommendations back to the ARR. The motion passed unanimously by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: O. Abstentions: 0; Absent: 3. erecycled paper C:\OFWlN40\11-98.MIN ORAL REPORTS A. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARR on current activities BRAG Vice Chair Diane Lichtenstein provided an update about the plans for the Open House at Alameda Point to be held Saturday, November 14. She said that some of the tenants wil have their businesses open for tours , and there wil be displays about the wildlife refuge and other areas of interest to the public. Ms. Lichtenstein voiced the BRAG's concern about the condition of the Big Whites following the lead-based paint abatement work which is now complete. The BRAG is also reviewing the Community Reuse Plan to determine if that is being properly implemented. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARR I. New Deputy City Manager 2. Status of EIRIEIS 3. Lead-based paint abatement update 4. Fuel line removal project 5. Open House on November 14 Executive Director Miler introduced David Berger, the new Deputy City Manager for Community and Economic Development. Mr. Berger wil oversee activities of the ARR and City Planning, Economic Development and Community Development Departments. None. Oral report from the Executive Director (non-discussion items ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Doug deHaan , BRAG member , stated that the BRAG has always been in favor of having the sports complex and would not want it to be eliminated. However , there may be other places for it including some of the East Bay Regional Parks area. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member Daysog mentioned that in today San Francisco Chronicle there is an article about the redevelopment of HamiIton Air Force Base in Novato. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 6:30 p. Respectfully submitted(/;J Patti Van Mark ARR Secretary G)recyc1ed paper C:\OFWIN40\11-98.MIN APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, December 2 1998 The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Chair Ralph Appezzato , Mayor, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Sandre Swanson , District Director, 9th Congressional District James Sweeney, alternate to Councilmember Karin Lucas , City of Alameda Mark Friedman , alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 3 Kathleen Ornelas , alternate to Sheila Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro Absent:Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Elihu Harris , Mayor, City of Oakland Ex-officio: Lee Perez , Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the minutes ofthe regular meeting of November 4 , 1998. Speakers : None. Member Kerr moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Alternate Friedman and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: O. Abstentions: 0; Absent: 3. ACTION ITEMS A. Report recommending authorization for the Executive Director to finalize and execute a ten-year sublease on Building 169 with the U.S. General Services Administration. Alternate Sweeney questioned whether there are any fixtures and if the building is just a vacant warehouse. (irecycled paper h:\12-98.min Executive Director Miller indicated she cannot answer the question specifically, however , Staff Reports does indicate the total cost for building improvement would not exceed $10 000 dollars. Alternate Friedman moved, and Alternate Ornelas seconded the staff recommendation. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: O. Abstentions: O. Absent: 0 8. Report recommending authorization to finalize negotiations and execute an interim lease through the term of the Master Lease with Dignity Housing West for 30 West Housing apartment units. Executive Director Miler stated that this is an action similar to a number of actions the Board has taken in beginnng to interim lease the housing units to members of the Homeless Collaborative. These leases are needed to be executed prior to the Record of Decision in order , for these providers to go forward with their federal funding. Alternate Friedman moved, and Alternate Ornelas seconded the staff recommendation. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: O. Abstentions: O. Absent: 0 C. Report and recommendation by the Executive Director for approval of a six-month proposed 1999 budget for AR lease revenue. Executive Director Miller advised that Nanette Balls from AR Staff is available to answer any questions on the Staff Reports. Member Kerr inquired who is the environmental consultant. Executive Director Miler indicated they contracted through the City Attorney s office , through the same attorneys that they are using for the FISC negotiations , Shute Mihaly, with their subcontractor Peter Russell. The contract has been extended to inolude work for AR and , it is therefore , an effcient process because they are dealing with many similar issues on the FISC property. Member Kerr inquired on the 1999 AR fund balance projection. The ending balance on June , 1999 , is down to $2 947., which is a little bit thin. Deputy City Manager Berger indicated that they did look beyond the ending period for the next six months , and in fact , the ending balance projected is $561 000. The reason that it is down to that level is because there is some front-end loaded cost related to matching the EDA grants for the entire year s worth of improvements. So the second six month's expenditures would not contain EDA matching amounts which equates to about $550 000 according to AR Staff Member Balls. The OEA grant is also funded for the entire year match at $650 000. The next six months did not include those figures. The fact is that we took the revenue and divided it by two but we could not do that with the expenditures because we had an obligation to put the full match for federal grants in the first six months. This is just the transition budgets so that we can do a fiscal year budget that matches the City s fiscal year budget. It will be much more effcient for the operation to have a fiscal year that matches the City s fiscal year. recycled paper h:\12-98.min Member Kerr questioned the requirement for the matching funds and whcther they are actually paid by July 1. Deputy City Manager Berger deferred the question to AR Staff Member Balls. Staff Member Balls indicated that they are just budgeted, they are incumbered for that time period. Member Kerr remarked that there is actually money in the ball that has not been spent yet. Staff Member Bans indicated yes. Executive Director Miler noted that the AR Staff have had a lot of learning experience from operating one year of these revenues. With this experience under their belt , they have a better handle on where some of the cost and anticipated cost are going to be. The biggest unanticipated expenditures have been on building maintenance. Alternate Friedman moved , and Member Kerr seconded the staff recommendation. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: O. Abstentions: O. Absent: O. D. Report from the Executive Director recommending endorsement of AR's proposed grant proposal to the Office of Economic Adjustment for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Speakers: None Member DeWitt moved, and Member Kerr seconded the staff recommendation. The motion passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 6. Noes: O. Abstentions: O. Absent: O. ORA REPORTS A. Oral report from the BRAG updating the AR on curent activities. Speakers: Lee Perez , BRAG Chair, reported how very pleased he was with the open house. Hepublic1y thaned the staff for all the work they did and particularly congratulated Andrine Smith, the Chairperson of BRAG Community Involvement Group and all of the volunteers under her. He added it was a very good experience and the open house offered an opportunity for the community to come in to see what is going on at Alameda Point. BRAG will continue to discuss how it sees its future role. There are some things that are still holding fire , such as the soon to be scheduled meeting of the Museum Task Force. Chair Appezzatonoted how impressed he was with BRAG and the hundreds ofvoluntcers who have contributed their time. Lee Perez , BRAG Chair, expanded in saying that this whole community is known for real involvement. Member De Witt noted that he really liked this type of open house where each of the businesses open their doors where an individual can go in and observe what that business is about. He is interested in seeing this type of open house in the future. G)recycled paper h:\12-98,min Diane Lichtenstein , BRAG Vice-Chair, added that the tenants were thrlled to have this opportunity where the public can see them and for them to get exposure. This is a good formula that they will do again. Member Kerr , noted it was an excellent forum because people were able to see what is going on in the Base by walking through the businesses. This type of open house goes a long way into familiarzing people of Alameda of what is going on at Alameda Point and getting them to see and appreciate it. ORA REPORTS B. Oral report from the Executive Director (non-discussion items). . Executive Director Miler indicated that there are a couple of items that need to be reported. The Board asked a number of the Boards and Commissions in the City to look at the golf course issue. In the interest of effciency, the BRAG is hosting a joint workshop on the golf course issues and inviting the Golf Commission , the Parks and Recreation Commission , and the EDC so that they can all be given information jointly, share and talk among and between their various groups. This will take place in December. They will not be taking formal actions but wil be back in January or February with recommendations. Chair Appezzato asked if there are stil discussions with the Port of Oakland about some kind of tipping fee for clean dredge spoils. Executive Director Miler indicated yes. Since the Water Resources Act did not pass the last congressional session , the project has been delayed. However , they have had very productive discussions with the Port and thill there is an expectation that there is going to be a tipping fee. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services advised us verbally, and soon will be announcing their Refuge Management Plan. They expect to be circulating the document for public comment very shortly and hold a public meeting early in January. As soon as we have an official notice ofthat schedule , we will advise you formally. Tomorrow we will be offcially submitting to the Navy our revised EDC application. We have with your authorization, informally begun discussions with the Navy EDC Team about the major concept of the business deal. We will be meeting with their entire Navy negotiating team next week to start to get into the details of the business plan. Finally, I would like to say that this is my last offcial meeting with the Board as Executive Director. I have enjoyed this experience and enjoyed working with all of you. Thall you for the opportunity. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Tom Paulseck , Restoration Advisory Board Committee (RAB), indicated that he was in a meeting last night where he was informed that the Big Whites and the CPO Housing at the G)recycled paper h:\12-98.min Alameda Point have had the remediation completed but that the units were not ready for renting. This is a revenue producing item and would like to know when they would be available? City Attorney Terr Highsmith , indicated that they are stil waiting for the Navy s contractor, IT Corp. to provide certification that the lead base paint abatement was properly done for each individual unit. We are in discussions right now with the Navy regarding the tenus of the prime lease between the AR and the Navy regarding the liability the City wil be assuming in accepting these properties. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Appezzato at 6:00 p. Respectfully submitted v/1M Marites WardAR Secretary $recycled paper h:\12-98.min APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, January 6 1999 The meeting convened at 5 :43 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Chair Ralph Appezzato , Mayor , City of Alameda Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerr Brown , Mayor, City of Oakland Mark Friedman , alternate to Wilma Chan , Alameda County Board of Supervisors , District 3 Kathleen Ornelas , alternate to Sheila Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Roberta Brooks , alternate for Congresswoman Barbara Lee Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Beverly Johnson , Councilmember, City of Alameda James Sweeney, alternate to Councilmember Barbara Kerr, City of Alameda CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of December 2 , 1998. Counci1member De Witt advised that he did not see his name as being present at the meeting of December 2 , 1998 , and noted that he was present. Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes as amended for December 2,1998, and for the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Alternate Friedman and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: o. Abstentions: 1 (Johnson - minutes). ACTION ITEMS None. ORAL REPORTS A. Oral report from BRAG Diane Lichtenstein , Vice Chairperson of the BRAG , noted that BRAG Chair Lee Perez was out G)recycled paper h:\I-06-99..min of town for the last BRAG meeting, and requested that she present the BRAG report. The last BRAG meeting was ajoint meeting with the Department of Park and Recreation , the Golf Commission , some members of the Economic Development Commission and the BRAG. The purpose ofthe meeting was to discuss the two different proposals for the golf feasibility study. The next task will be to report to the individual agencies , and make a recommendation to the Golf Commission as to which way each commission wished to go. The Golf Commission would then appear before the BRAG or the City. The most current business plan for Hanger 41 will also be discussed regarding the Western Aerospace Museum/Alameda Naval Air Museum. The Fish and Wildlife plan wil be discussed , and a public meeting will be held on Saturday, January 16 , 1999. The BRAG wil discuss that meeting, as well as the continuing restructuring ofthe BRAG organization. B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non-discussion items). Deputy City Manager David A. Berger reported that several significant activities that were planned for January: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released the draft "Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation " plan. On January 14 , 1999 , from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at the Historic High School cafeteria , there will be a public meeting on the draft. The deadline for comments will be February 15 , 1999. Staff has been reviewing the plan, and will have a report and recommendation regarding a possible City AR position on the next Board agenda. The Naval Facilities Command , both in Washington, D.C. and in the San Bruno regional facility, have been engaged in an internal discussion regarding the draft environmental impact statement. The discussion could result in a delay of the certification of that document by three to four months past the mid-June target date. He noted that staff shared its strong concerns with the local Navy representatives , and he wil meet with the EF A West Captain Hunter on Friday, January 8 , 1999 , to discuss the current status. Captain Hunter indicated that it would be the highest priority for him to expedite the process. There will be a meeting on January 19 , 1999 , of Navy and City AR engineering representatives to review the infrastructure upgrade assumptions in each party s respective valuation of the Economic Development conveyance. Both sides were in agreement that was the key issue in reaching an acceptable business term. Kay Miller will coordinate the effort in her new roll as a part-time consultant. In addition, Kay Miler wil meet with outside legal council with the State Lands Commission Staff to review the assumptions in the Tidelands Trust matter. A report would be presented at the next meeting. G)recycled paper h:\1-06-99..min APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE '\ AMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, February 3,1999 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Chair Ralph Appezzato , Mayor , City of Alameda Mark Friedman , alternate to Wilma Chan , Alameda County Board of Supervisors , District 3 Kathleen Ornelas , alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Albert De Witt , Councilmember, City of Alameda Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Absent:Roberta Brooks , alternate for Congresswoman Barbara Lee Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerr Brown , Mayor, City of Oakland CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6 , 1999. Approval of the minutes of the special AR meeting of January 14 , 1999. Receive report by the AR staff recommending the authorization to expend existing City General Fund appropriation for Alameda Point activities. Receive report and recommendation by AR staff for approval of a six -month proposed 1999 budget for AR market rate housing lease revenue. Member DeWitt moved approval ofthe minutes as presented for January 6,1999, and for the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5. Noes: O. Abstentions- ACTION ITEMS Receive report and approval of the recommendations from the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and AR staff regarding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Management Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Janice Delfino , Ohlone Audubon Society, 18673 Reamer Road , Castro Valley, requested that Alternative C be considered. She noted that when the Navy turned over the property to U. Fish & Wildlife Service, it would be up to the Service to encourage and increase the least tern colony. She believed that the Service should protect the reason for establishing a refuge, and then , as time goes by, provide for public access. The public hearing was closed for Reuse Authority discussion. Chair Appezzato noted that he visited with the Fish & Wildlife Service the week before , and brought up some concerns. He mentioned that AR rejected the premise that the City of Alameda should pay for predator control outside the wildlife refuge , and have asked the Service to fund predator control outside the refuge. That was an early agreement with the Service when the acreage was increased from 390 to 565 acres. Secretary Garamendi agreed in principle that , and AR asked to continue that principle. Chair Appezzato also had a face-to-face discussion with Mr. Barr of the Fish & Wildlife Service , and they would do their best to fund whatever is possible to make this a viable refuge. Chair Appezzato also said that the beautiful land of the refuge should not be marred with the chain link fence or barbed wire. The alternatives were not discussed, because the decision should be worked out between the City of Alameda and the Wildlife Service. He also indicated that the U.S. Navy was able to use the entry and exit from the carrier piers without harm to the least tern. Planner Elizabeth Johnson noted that all ofthe alternatives in the Management Plan were consistent with the other restrictions that were discussed with Fish & Wildlife , and everyhing had been worked out , with the exception of the predator fee. Member Kerr noted that the proposed fence would not only be unattractive , but would also be opaque , stretching from the Bay to the Estuary, and out to the Northwest Territories. She added that the narrow channel created an unnecessary danger for small craft , and emphasized that she wished to promote safety as much as possible. Chair Appezzato noted that Mr. Barr s name should be added to the copy ofthe letter , and that the Washington office should get a copy as well. He added that a restricted lagoon would not be a viable option. Alternate Ornelas shared the concern about the fence , especially the barbed wire on top and the image it would project. She also questioned the need for the slatting on the fence. In response to her question regarding the need for barbed wire , Planner Johnson responded that it was standard issue in all urban refuges , to control access from people. An alternative is being sought for the barbed wire. Chair Appezzato noted that the people in Washington objected to an eight foot high barbed wire fence , and that would be closely examined. Planner Johnson noted that a higher fence with no slats would be effective, so that possible trespassers would see there was nothing to get to. Chair Appezzato emphasized that the City was committed to making the Wildlife Refuge work and that tremendous compromises were made in the process. He noted that he would sign the letter, and include the comments made during the public hearing. Alternate Friedman moved approval of the staff recommendation , with comments. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5. Noes: O. Abstentions- B. Receive report of alternative recommendations from the BRAG and AR staff regarding the no-cost leases for Buildings 77 and 41 for the Alameda Naval Air and Western Aerospace Museum. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Douglas DeHaan, Alameda Naval Air Museum , 1305 Dayton Avenue , spoke in favor of the issue. He noted the Museum would be a major impact in how the transportation issues would be handled, especially during off-hours. The initial mission of the Museum was to be an education conveyance; the BRAG has made it an economic conveyance as well. Mr. Ron Reuther, ANA W AM , P.O. Box 14264 , spoke in support of the proposed museum at Alameda Point. He believed that the potential of this Museum had a strong relationship to his experience as a zoo director. He noted that the Base Reuse Plan said that the Museum would have the ability to lease both buildings. In addition, if the Museum did not require all the space it requested, or if it did not succeed, the AR would be able to immediately lease the facilities to other job-generating uses. Ms. Nita Rosen, Alameda Naval Air and Western Air Museum , 1045 Island Drive , spoke in favor of the issue. She will be a coordinator for the gift store at the Museum. She believed that the sentiments of the Mayor , " Honor our past and imagine future " was especially relevant in regard to the mission of the Museum. Chair Appezzato emphasized that the primary issue was financing of the Museum. Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, BRAG , 633 Sand Hook, noted that the revenue projections made by staff for the Hornet attendance , and that there was a 200 percent increase in attendance. addition, there were 30 000 admissions to the Oakland Western Air Museums in the last year. These figures lend credence to the projections , although she agreed with staff that the grant projections were overly optimistic. While the $500 000 from the State would be greatly appreciated , no check has yet been written. Regarding construction costs , Ms. Lichtenstein noted that a very strong due diligence in that regard. Professional estimators , architects and contractors were consulted , and the City has been consulted regarding the realism of the financial figures. The business plan took an excessive amount of time , which has been frstrating, although the effort is going in the right direction now. Ms. Lichtenstein noted that the Board assured the BRAG that they were on track , and she recommended that they give them the few months to prove their performance. She noted that theAR staff was doing its job - to lease Alameda Point - and over 1 million square feet have been leased to date , bringing 1 000 to the Point. She noted that the potential ofthe Museum would be well worth the wait; they are asking an additional five months. She noted that the Museum was not meant to be a moneymaker , but ifthe AR could wait until July 1 , 1999 to make the lease permit. Chair Appezzato noted that was a reasonable request. In response to the Chair s question regarding what would happen between now and July 1 , Ms. Lichtenstein responded that they expected them to get the funding and have a strong business plan in hand. Mr. Benjamin Hance , Western Aerospace Museum , noted that the launch of the Museum boiled down to "show me the money." The Museum intended to use their own money to improve the City s buildings , which he considered a fair trade. The City was not expected to support the Museum. The use of Buildings 77 and 41 is seen as a unique opportunity, and they would like the chance to enhance the opportunity. Chair Appezzato noted that the AR supported the effort, but added that the Authority was also charged with making the Base work. The major question before the AR has been where the line should be drawn regarding viability. He added that the General Fund should not be used in this project. Mr. Jonathan Goldman , WAMANAWAM , 35 Embarcadero Cove , Oakland , noted that the Museum was not asking for money from the General Fund , nor for capital contribution from the City. They are asking for the opportunity to make their vision whole, which included the Hornet Building 77 , and the indoor exhibit space that Hangar 41 would provide. Chair Appezzato suggested that the staff should be directed to look for tenants for the space , to provide additional incentive to the Museum Board , and the City would have a tenant for the space. Mr. Goldman replied that the City and the Museum Board shared the same vision. Mr. Franz Steiner, ANA W AM, 501 14 Street, Oakland, presented a visual presentation of the vision for Building 77 and Hangar 41. In response to Member Daysog s question, Mr. Steiner responded that the cost to occupy Hangar 41 and turn it into a museum was $450 000. Considerable funds have been raised , but monies will be easier to obtain once the project is further along. Ms. Marilyn York , ANA W AM , noted that she would like to see Hangar 41 preserved as a monument to the thousands of people who worked in Alameda, and made it a gateway to the Pacific. She emphasized that their selfless dedication should be recognized, and their sacrifices during World War II should be honored. She added that the once in a lifetime history that took place on the home front in Alameda must be preserved. Ms. Barbara Baack , Alameda Naval Air Museum, emphasized that it was important not to let the aircraft deteriorate and suffer corrosion. These buildings are important for future generations to understand the military history of Alameda. Young people, seniors , and tour groups can benefit from the combined museum effort , and she asked the Authority s support in delaying their decision untilJuly 1 , 1999. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Chair Appezzato noted that he could support not terminating negotiations at this point. emphasized that the funds need to be raised , and did not want the City to be viewed as a charitable organization. Member Daysog supported Chair Appezzato in extending the decision until July 1 , and also that the AR should not turn away any prospective leaseholders during that time period. Alternate Ornelas supported the suggestion to delay the decision regarding the lease until July 1. She expressed concern about allowing staff to market the property in a parallel effort , because it may hinder the Museum Board's efforts to secure funding. It would be important to have a finite deadline , however , to provide a catalyst to complete the business plan.. Member Kerr noted that Hangar 41 is not the only hangar on the Base that needs to be leased. She noted that the $500 000 got through both houses in Sacramento , and reached the Governor desk. At that point , he decided to shift the money elsewhere , but it did gain the support of Senator Perata. She considered it likely that with a new governor, the $500 000 could be approved. She agreed that the deadline should be extended until the final deadline of July 1. In response to Member Johnson s question regarding marketing efforts for the property, Facilities Manager Ed Levine responded that they have intentionally not marketed the property. It was offered on an exclusive basis to the Museum, but there have been inquiries on Hangar 41. Mr. Levine noted that he has been hesitant to market it until the fate of the Museum has been determined. Chair Appezzato noted that it would be irresponsible to wait until July 2 to find an alternate tenant. Mr. Levine noted that staff s position is to assess the viability of the business plan , based largely on whether the Museum Board has the money in hand to finance the project. If the plan was seen to be viable AR would recommend finalizing the details of the lease , and executing the lease. In addition, any other potential renter would have to yield to the Museum. Alternate Friedman moved approval to adopt the BRAG recommendation , and to extend the deadline until July 1 , 1999. The motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed unanimously by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5. Noes: O. Abstentions- Receive BRAG report and recommendations regarding tourism as a means of economic development at Alameda Point. The public hearng was opened. Mr. Hugh McKay, McKay Associates/Muirhead Group, noted that tourism has not come forward as a development issue in the past. He believed that tourism could create opportunities not only for Alameda Point, but for the balance of the City as well. He added that the tourism efforts could be fast-tracked , with the help of private enterprise to assist the museums and the parks. believed that a destination resort hotel with a five-star restaurant and 36 hole golf complex could be implemented. Mr. Ron Reuther, ANA W AM , P.O. Box 14264 , spoke strongly in favor of the matter of tourism for Alameda, and believed that the city site was unparalleled in the world. He added that the more tourism destinations there were in the area, the more people would come to visit them. Mr. Vince Mackel , 1020 Dayton, noted that the committee was in need of a master plan , which would increase the attendance at both museums. He observed that the Reuse Plan was not a master plan, and was more of a statement. He suggested that an outside professional group be used to create a comprehensive tourism master plan to benefit the museums , and the community at large. In addition , a master plan would be able to provide tangible evidence of the vision imagination and interpretations to financiers and other crucial parties. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Member Daysog noted that the phrase "highest and best use " was a red flag for the Alameda Point area. On one hand , a hotel could be a substantial revenue generator, but on the other hand it cuts into a separate vision of a recreation center. He noted that he did not buy off on point number one at face value , and while it was true, there should be additional phrasing to suggest a complementary or pre-existing community visions as established in the community reuse plan. Member Daysog asked whether the proponents for the other golf course were involved in this review process. Ms. Joan Konrad , BRAG , responded that they did not contact the Golf Course Commission. They made an assumption that they wanted a revenue source from a golf course on the Northwest Territory, and that they should have one that provided the most revenue. She emphasized that a top quality development would attract more tourism to Alameda, and that the details could be outlined at a later date. The Golf Course Commission would be involved in the next phase. Member Daysog noted that the Muirhead Golf Course would be bigger, and would be a greater revenue source. Ms. Konrad did not believe there was a contradiction with the Reuse Plan. Ms. Johnson noted that a revenue generation criterion could lock the AR into a corner. Member Daysog suggested adding the phrase to Item number 1 , " consistent with the community reuse plan. Member Johnson agreed with Chair Appezzato s suggestion of putting in the phrase "highest and best use " and recognizing revenue generation. Ms. Lichtenstein suggested that it would clarify the issue to say, "the objectives of the development of the Northwest Terrtory and Northern Shores should include the following." She suggested omitting the development of a golf course complex , because the golf course is not being alluded to. They are alluding to the concept that tourism in that area should be an important component of the economic viability. Chair Appezzato noted that the Base Reuse Plan is undergoing EIS/EIR review , and cannot be changed dramatically without affecting that process. Member Johnson noted that the language should be changed to , " ... of a quality consistent with the goal of tourism. Member Kerr questioned whether this was a good time to pass an item like this , given the fragile state of the EIR. Member Daysog responded that by declaring a reaffirmation of the goals and principles , theAR would be saying they are not changing the Reuse Plan. Chair Appezzato noted that it was extremely critical to stay with the current Reuse Plan. Member Daysog moved acceptance of the BRAG recommendations and report, with the modifcations. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5. Noes: o. Abstentions- Receive BRAG report and recommendations from the BRAG and AR staff regarding the future role and responsibilities of the BRAG. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers on this item. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Mr. Lee Perez , BRAG Chair, noted that the BRAG and AR recommendations were the same except for one item. The only difference was in regard to who they could advise and work with. The relationship should change in a few months , and the difference in that sense is minor. Chair Appezzato agreed , providing it continues to evolve , and that the BRAG makes changes as it sees it better supports the mission of the BRAG and the Reuse Authority. In response to Member Daysog s question regarding City Council's designation of the Reuse Authority after the AR sunsets , City Counsel Highsmith responded that the Joint Powers Agreement could allow a vote at the end of April to terminate the AR. Alternatively, the body could choose to reconstitute the form of its membership. In order to take conveyance of the property, the City needs a Local Reuse Authority to continue in some form through the point in time where the conveyance of all the property has been accepted. In addition , Counsel Highsmith advised that the letterhead would still say "AR" on it. Member Johnson advised that this was a significant issue , especially whether the BRAG had the ability to comment on matters within its jurisdiction to other boards or commissions. Chair Appezzato noted that as long as the issue is within the subject matter jurisdiction of , and the communication is consistent with previous positions taken by the AR , then BRAG may communicate that position to other commissions. Mr. Perez advised that the BRAG has had no interest in going beyond the BRAG's scope of issues regarding the Base conversion. The BRAG would like the freedom from time to time to maintain ongoing communication with others boards and commissions. He noted that once theAR is reconstituted , this issue will be easier to change. Counsel Highsmith advised that a BRAG member could communicate as a private citizen. Any member of the BRAG could do so if the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the to which they are advisory, and was consistent with an existing AR position. Chair Appezzato noted that even City Council members are not able to appear before the Planing Board , for instance , and speak on behalf of the Council. Council Highsmith advised that the BRAG is in an advisory position to the AR , but not to the Planning Board. Mr. Perez emphasized that the BRAG was fluid , and that if changes were necessary, they would make them. Member Daysog noted that the phrase "as the committee shall select" was very good , but wondered why a five year sunset period was selected. In addition, he believed that it should be stated that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee is not a redevelopment project area committee as defined by California Redevelopment law, as amended. Member Daysog moved acceptance of the BRAG recommendations and report, with the modifications. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5. Noes: O. Abstentions- ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Bil Smith , 732 Central #16 , noted that the tourism industry lacked an advocate , and suggested that an additional consultant or tourist agency be used to facilitate communication between all parties in the tourism effort. The general meeting was closed by Chair Appezzato at 7:55 p. The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Respectfully submitted Sims