1999-02-03 ARRA MinutesAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA 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 DeWitt, 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 Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6, 1999.
2-B. Approval of the minutes of the special ARRA meeting of January 14, 1999.
2-C. Receive report by the ARRA staff recommending the authorization to expend existing
City General Fund appropriation for Alameda Point activities.
2-D. Receive report and recommendation by ARRA staff for approval of a six-month proposed
1999 budget for ARRA market rate housing lease revenue.
Member DeWitt moved approval of the 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: 0.
Abstentions-0.
2-A
1
ACTION ITEMS
3-A. Receive report and approval of the recommendations from the Base Reuse Advisory
Group (BRAG) and ARRA 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.S.
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 ARRA 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 to
that, and ARRA asked to continue that principle. Chair Appezzato also had a face-to-face
discussion with Mr. Barry 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 of the alternatives in the Management Plan were
consistent with the other restrictions that were discussed with Fish & Wildlife, and everything
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.
2
Chair Appezzato noted that Mr. Barry’s name should be added to the copy of the 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: 0. Abstentions-0.
3-B. Receive report of alternative recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA 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, ANAWAM, 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 ARRA 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
3
that there was a 200 percent increase in attendance. In 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 frustrating, 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 the ARRA 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 of the 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 if the ARRA 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 ARRA supported the effort, but added that the Authority was also charged with making the Base
work. The major question before the ARRA 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, WAM/ANAWAM, 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, ANAWAM, 501 14th 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.
4
Ms. Marilyn York, ANAWAM, 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 until July 1, 1999.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Chair Appezzato noted that he could support not terminating negotiations at this point. He 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 ARRA 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’s 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, ARRA 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, ARRA 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:
0. Abstentions-0.
5
3-C. Receive BRAG report and recommendations regarding tourism as a means of economic development at Alameda
Point.
The public hearing 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.
He believed that a destination resort hotel with a five-star restaurant and 36 hole golf complex could be implemented.
Mr. Ron Reuther, ANAWAM, 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 ARRA into a corner.
Member Daysog suggested adding the phrase to Item number 1, “consistent with the community reuse plan.”
6
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 Territory
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, the ARRA 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 modifications. The motion
was seconded by Member Johnson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes – 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions-0.
3-D. Receive BRAG report and recommendations from the BRAG and ARRA 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 ARRA 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 ARRA sunsets,
City Counsel Highsmith responded that the Joint Powers Agreement could allow a vote at the end of April to terminate the
ARRA. 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
7
all the property has been accepted.
In addition, Counsel Highsmith advised that the letterhead would still say “ARRA” 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 ARRA, and the communication is
consistent with previous positions taken by the ARRA, 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 the ARRA 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 ARRA to which they are advisory, and was consistent with an existing
ARRA position.
Chair Appezzato noted that even City Council members are not able to appear before the Planning Board, for instance, and
speak on behalf of the Council.
Council Highsmith advised that the BRAG is in an advisory position to the ARRA, 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: 0. Abstentions-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Bill 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.m.
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
8
Respectfully submitted,
Cory Sims
9