Loading...
2000-05-03 ARRA MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, May 3, 2000 CLOSED SPECIAL SESSION The special session was convened at 4:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding to address the following item: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Attendees: Chair Appezzato, Member DeWitt, Member Kerr, Member Johnson and Member Daysog. Chair Appezzato adjourned the special session at 5:40 p.m. and convened the regular meeting at 5:50 p.m. He announced the Board had met in special session and gave instructions to Real Property Negotiators and obtained a briefing from staff. No action was taken. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION The Board obtained a briefing from the City Attorney and general counsel regarding Renewed Hope Housing and ARC Ecology vs. City of Alameda. He announced the Board gave instruction to Counsel. . ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 2000. 2.B. Recommendation to Approve CDBG /ARRA Funding Exchange for Building 7 Upgrades. Member DeWitt moved approval of the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of April 5, 2000 and the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0. -1- 3. ACTION ITEMS 3.A. Report and recommendation from the Deputy City Manager regarding the APAC's proposed restructuring and review of their advisory role status. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers on this item. Diane Lichtenstein, Vice -Chair APAC stated they have been trying for the past four years to obtain a meaningful role. With the conclusion and implementation of the Community Reuse plan, APAC has felt like they have been lost, without any information. For example the Rave Concert and the Antique Fair, never came through the BRAG. APAC had no input or information on issues that were going on with the wildlife refuge requirements of the use outside the fence, which has a huge impact on the use of Alameda Point. Ms. Lichtenstein further stated they are not allowed to discuss FISC or East Housing and communicate with other boards or commissions. The HOME project never came to the BRAG and, although it had a good completion, it is something that BRAG might have had an input on. APAC does not wish to advise other committees. They would like to use their seven years of involvement to ensure the appropriate implementation of the Community Reuse Plan. Staff's job is to lease up the property as fast as they can and APAC's job is to encourage the income, but to keep an eye on the permanent use and the impact on the entire community. The Board's job is to balance the two, as each view is equally important. The community has had no involvement in the implementation of the Reuse Plan, therefore the community should be involved in the issues which involve the policies in the development, by advising the ARRA. Ms. Lichtenstein requested the Board to retain the APAC until the General Plan is completed and requested to hold off on the "sun - setting" portion until a future time, to see if the community does have a continuing role in the development. The APAC would like to be apprised of on -going issues that affect policies and that they be allowed to communicate with other boards and commissions where appropriate and where Alameda Point might be affected. Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, #301 -C, expressed his concern over what may or may not happen at Alameda Point. There is much talk about a master developer before there is a vision for what should be done with Alameda Point. Alameda Point has the potential to bring in more money from tourists than Jack London Square. A master developer should not be picked without knowing exactly what we want Alameda Point to become. It should be a destination based around its historical roots. Richard Nevelen, Public Transit Committee member stated AC Transit voted on Saturday to extend Line 50 to Alameda Point starting in June from 5:30 am to midnight. AC transit will begin service to Alameda Point which will be effective seven (7) days a week, and will run until 8:00 pm on Sundays. He urged everyone to participate in the 7:30 PM Public Transit meeting, following the ARRA meeting. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Mayor Appezzato stated the BRAG was a community driven process which has got us to where we are now, by hundreds of Alamedans. The BRAG was instrumental in the Community Reuse Plan being formulated. All of the success and challenges with the Homeless Collaborative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife services and the Coast Guard issues has a BRAG stamp on it. We would not have been as successful as we have been without the community input represented by the Base Reuse Advisory Group. The APAC has a role, but it should continue to be advisory role to the ARRA. The APAC should be reviewing things which come to the ARRA. Mayor Appezzato stated he does not believe the APAC should be out talking to other commissions, as the Board does not allow that of other commissions. As individuals, APAC can do that. As an advisory group to the ARRA, Mayor Appezzato expressed he would like APAC to remain as long as the ARRA is in existence. APAC should not "sun -set" until the ARRA "sun- sets." Member Kerr stated when BRAG was first formed there were at least 200 members on it. It was an organization which allowed people to join sub - committees and have their say and get their viewpoints discussed with the BRAG and then was then brought forth to the ARRA meetings, as a community -wide organization. However, it is no longer true that the BRAG represents the community any longer. It is now a closed group with ten or eleven people on it. Member Kerr stated she likes option four, because the BRAG is comprised of valuable people and if they have a citizens group, they could then advocate their viewpoints much more freely and they would not be subject to the Brown Act, as they could get together whenever they wanted to. They would be free from the constraints they are complaining about now. Option four would satisfy all of our opinions. Member Daysog stated the BRAG /APAC is a vital part of the ongoing conversion of Alameda Point. Their role involves implementing a vision for Alameda Point which does exist. This vision was put in place and memorialized in the Community Reuse Plan. We are doing something really grand here in Alameda, which involves the Lord's work. President Clinton came to Alameda Point to make this conversion the model of how all base conversion processes should occur. There has been a significant amount of progress since this time. Nowhere else do you find 186 homes set aside for homeless families, skateboard parks set aside for children and families or lease terns area to the extent of 500 plus acres. Everyone has risen to the challenge of making Alameda Point a model for all communities. Whatever mistakes the ARRA has made in routing infonniation to the BRAG, requires a different method of what is being asked by the BRAG. Member Daysog stated his preference for the BRAG is to maintain what is in place now and fine -tune the issues of routing of information and pacing it to the BRAG. Member Johnson stated she agreed with the Mayor and Vice -Mayor about maintaining the status quo. With regard to the BRAG communicating to other boards and commissions, they do not wish to advise these boards, they only would like to communicate their position to them. This does not put the BRAG in an advisory role, as they are not asking for this type of role. The BRAG is different from other advisory boards or commissions, because their scope of -3- involvement is very broad. If the golf course commission has an issue at Alameda Point, it would make sense the BRAG be allowed to take a position on that issue, as it affects the redevelopment process at Alameda Point. Member Johnson asked for a clarification from the BRAG. Is the BRAG asking for an advisory role or the ability to communicate? Diane Lichtenstein responded that they are asking to remain advisory to the ARRA and be able to communicate with other boards and commissions. Member Johnson stated that as a member of the BRAG she did not see a problem with that and as a member of the ARRA she still does not see a problem with that. Member Johnson stated she developed a great deal of respect for the BRAG, as it started out with 200 members, although it is down to a core group now. However, the depth of the knowledge from the BRAG members is very amazing, as the present members have been with the group from the beginning. Member Johnson stated she is very impressed with their knowledge and dedication. Member Johnson stated she recommends allowing them to communicate, not advise or create an extra layer of bureaucracy. However, if they have a position concerning an issue on the base, they should be allowed to communicate it. Mayor Appezzato asked Member Johnson how would she envision that communication going forward? Member Johnson stated it could be by a letter from the BRAG or a BRAG representative could speak at the meeting. Member Kerr stated option four would give them that freedom. Member Johnson stated that would make them a citizen's group, which is a significant difference from what they are now. Mayor Appezzato stated he does not support option four. His concern is that the communication would become more than communication, it would become a recommendation. A board or commission could mistake that as a position of the ARRA. The Board does not get that many items and if they are not going to deal with it, why should the BRAG deal with it at another board or commission meeting ? Member Johnson stated the difference between the way the BRAG has operated versus other boards and commissions, is that BRAG would consider a project from the beginning to the end. They have a much more in -depth look at the issues that they deal with. Mayor Appezzato stated if they have a communication, they can communicate it to the ARRA Governing Body, and the Board will decide if it should go any further. -4- Diane Lichtenstein stated Mayor Appezzato's suggestion makes sense, however timing is an important issue. It would take two months to get to the Board and then the Board would have to make an immediate decision and vote on it. Mayor Appezzato responded that if the BRAG has a timing issue and the issue is important to them, then they can call a special meeting. If it is coming to the ARRA, the BRAG has a time to meet and make a recommendation to the ARRA. Ms. Lichtenstein responded hopefully there is time before the issue is finalized by the ARRA Board for the BRAG to take the Board's decision to whatever board or commission before it is finalized. Mayor Appezzato responded that this is something the BRAG is going to have to deal with, because he wants the relationship to remain with the ARRA only. Member Johnson stated that because of the timing problem, maybe staff can alert BRAG as early as possible to issues that they may want to address that are before other boards and commissions. Ms. Lichtenstein responded that sounds like a great idea. Mayor Appezzato stated that the BRAG is privy to all of the issues that are going before all the boards and commissions in this City, as it is all public information. Ms. Lichtenstein responded yes, that is true. David Berger, Deputy City Manager stated there are already two mechanisms in place for communication to the BRAG. Deputy Berger indicated he meets every month with the Chair and Vice -Chair of APAC. A variety of issues are discussed to help shape the agenda for the next meeting of the APAC. Deputy Berger and staff do an extensive oral report, in addition to any formal items on the agenda on a monthly basis to keep them apprised of what is going on. These two mechanisms with some additional consciousness of other things that are going on, can be easily achieved. In terms of the timing issue, because the Board is now the five Councilmembers, there are two opportunities per month without having to call a special ARRA Board meeting, while it would technically be a special ARRA meeting, however it would not be an extra meeting, so the BRAG could come out and support their issues. Thus, there are two opportunities to bring a timely matter to the ARRA, as staff can call a special meeting of the ARRA in conjunction with the Council. Member DeWitt stated the BRAG was formed to be an advisory group to the ARRA. The BRAG was to take matters before the citizens and to obtain the community's input and make decisions and then bring their position to the ARRA. The role of the BRAG should be as an advisory group to the ARRA. They should sunset when the ARRA sunsets. The basic idea of the BRAG was not - 5 - for the BRAG to be experts in certain fields, but to obtain information from citizens and have the citizens input on certain subjects. Member DeWitt stated he would vote to keep the ARRA and the BRAG together, as they are an advisory group to the ARRA. Member DeWitt motioned that the Board approve option one with modification to the "sun -set" question. As long as there is an ARRA, there should be an advisory group, so the two should sunset together. Discussion. Member Johnson asked Member DeWitt to incorporate the Mayor's suggestion to allow the BRAG to communicate to the ARRA and if the ARRA chooses, to forward that communication on to other boards and commissions. Member DeWitt agreed with the suggestion, but their main purpose is to advise the ARRA. Member Kerr asked the motion to be clarified as it sounded like there were several different versions of the motion. Either they are going to be advisory to this body only or they are going to be advisory to other boards. Member DeWitt stated they have no other official capacity. Member Johnson stated that BRAG is not asking to be advisory to other boards, they are asking to communicate to other boards and commissions. Member Kerr stated the BRAG would inevitably communicate recommendations. Member Johnson stated that it can be made clear that the BRAG is not acting as an advisory committee, only that they are conveying information. The boards and commissions are bright enough, that they should understand this. City Attorney Carol Korade stated the BRAG is advisory to the ARRA. Since they are advisory to the ARRA, they are limited to the same constraints of ARRA within the subject matter jurisdiction of ARRA. If BRAG wants ARRA to take a position on something that is not currently on the ARRA agenda, they could request for it to be placed on the ARRA agenda. The ARRA then could choose on whether or not to take a position and to allow BRAG to communicate their position to another body or the ARRA could decide to communicate it themselves or they may not take a position on the matter at all. Member Johnson stated that putting it on the ARRA agenda is cumbersome because if BRAG has an issue, they should forward it to the ARRA Board, who can then forward it on. -6- Mayor Appezzato stated the Board cannot forward it on, unless it has been agendized. Carol Korade stated the BRAG would have the opportunity to place something on the agenda, because they may want to communicate an issue to one of the boards or commissions. Member Daysog stated the issue is the implications of recognizing that there is going to be a process that we are putting in more and more pieces and that in the long run, this will slow down the way the Board deals with issues. Base Conversion requires staff to be fast and flexible. Any communications from the BRAG has to be subject to the timetables and the guidelines of that commission. Member Johnson responded that the Deputy City Manager indicated that if there is something they need to respond to sooner, they have two opportunities a month, as they can call a special BRAG meeting. Mayor Appezzato stated the decision the Board intends to make, is to continue to allow the BRAG to maintain as they are presently and allow them to submit communications to the Board on issues which they think are important. Member DeWitt amended his motion to include all communications must come to the ARRA before it can go out to other committees and a review of APAC's status in eighteen months. Member Johnson moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson, and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from the BRAG. Diane Lichtenstein, APAC Vice -Chair thanked the Board for taking the time to work out something that is important to them, which will be a benefit to everyone. 4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non - discussion items). None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Richard Noordyk, 1209 Central Avenue, expressed to the Board that he is familiar with an organization who takes on refurbishing buildings like the ones at the base, with no cost to the City. Mr. Noordyk gave Deputy Berger a business card with the point of contact information to follow up on. -7- Christopher Webb, 895 Lafayette, expressed that the community has changed a lot in the past five years. There should be a mechanism in place which provides new members of the community and input into APAC. There are special committees to deal with certain issues for AP &T and the EDC and he would like to see a way to have their issues implemented into the City. Mayor Appezzato apprised Mr. Webb that the ARRA and APAC meets once a month and both meetings are posted. Mayor Appezzato advised Mr. Webb to contact the APAC if he would like to participate in the their committee. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Res ectfully, Lucretia Akil ARRA Secretary