1997-06-04 ARRA Minutes APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 4, 1997
The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda (left at 7:20 p.m.)
Roberta Brooks, alternate to Vice-Chair Sandré Swanson, District Director, 9th
Congressional District (left at 7:20 p.m.)
Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 3 (arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Henry Chang, Jr./Elihu Harris, Mayor, City of Oakland
(arrived at 5:50 p.m.; left at 7:20 p.m.)
Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Ellen Corbett, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda (arrived at 5:55 p.m.)
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Lee Perez, Ex-officio, Base Reuse Advisory Group
Ardella Dailey, Ex-officio, Alameda Unified School District
Absent: Karin Lucas, Councilmember, City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending approval of the recommended priorities for
the ARRA’s 1998 grant application to the Economic Development Administration.
Member Kerr moved approval of the recommendation. Alternate Ornelas seconded the
motion, which passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Absent: 4 - Leonhardy,
Chan, DeWitt, Lucas.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3-B. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director for changes and clarifications to
applicable sections of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan to add 17 acres to the City of
Alameda’s Public Benefit Conveyance request for a Sports Complex, and other changes and
clarifications to Section 8.0, Property Disposal Strategy.
Alternate Brooks inquired how a Public Benefit Conveyance can be changed legally at this stage.
Executive Director Miller replied that while we cannot add a new PBC at this stage, we can add
acreage to an existing Public Benefit Conveyance.
Speakers:
Bob B. Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics (Islanders), stated the Sports Complex would provide a
positive approach to learning and development and would help revitalize the west end of Alameda.
Jennifer Radecke, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex and providing a
50-meter pool for swimmers.
3-B
_recycled paper 1
Melanie Anne Aeblieck, Alameda Island Aquatics, spoke in favor of the Sports Complex, stating
that The Islanders have 100 swimmers and currently, distance swimmers need to go to Chabot,
Concord, or Walnut Creek for a distance workout.
Toby Chavez, BRAG Recreation Work Group, thanked everyone who had put their time and
thought into planning for the 17 acres of soccer fields, tennis courts, a gymnasium, softball field, etc.
that comprise the Sports Complex plan. He added that the Sports Complex will not happen
overnight and will take approximately 20 years to completely build out.
Maria Antonov, a sophomore at Alameda High School and a member of the Alagators swim team,
spoke in favor of the motion, saying she knew the swimming community will work hard to find the
funding for a new pool.
Dr. Robert Deutsch, Alameda Soccer Club Board of Directors, stated that this is a chance to
provide some land and recreational facilities as a legacy for our children and the future.
Kelly Gallagher, sophomore at Alameda High School and member of the Alagator Swim Team,
asked the ARRA to approve the Sports Complex with a 15-meter pool to train in that will enable
Alameda teams to compete on an equal footing with other area teams.
Patricia Packard, Vice President of the Alameda Soccer Club and 20-year Alameda resident, stated
that the proposed Sports Complex will offer healthy recreation to area citizens. The Alameda Soccer
Club has committed to financial support and a willingness to work with representatives of other
sports to make the fields of our dreams a reality. Chair Appezzato announced that just a few days
ago the Alameda Soccer Club gave the City a $10,000 check to help defray expenses. On behalf of
the City, he thanked all those who donated funds.
Karen Simontacchi, Alameda Soccer Club, stated that the Sports Complex is not only important to
the children of Alameda but will benefit the entire region and its economy.
Warren Hood, Alameda Soccer coach for nine years, spoke in favor of the motion, pointing out that
since he began coaching, soccer fields have diminished by less than half and the children are running
on fields of play that many adults would dread to walk on.
Member Daysog moved acceptance of the report and recommendation. Alternate Brooks
seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 -
Lucas.
3-C. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body
authorize the Executive Director to draft and sign a letter to Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA), Ships Donation Program, requesting that NAVSEA establish August 15, 1997 as the
deadline for a final donation application for the U.S.S. Hornet and that NAVSEA make its decision
no later than September 30, 1997.
Chair Appezzato asked Executive Director Miller if the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation (ACHF)
was aware of this agenda item. Ms. Miller answered that ACHF was not only aware of it, they
concur with the recommendation and suggested the August 15 date.
Speakers:
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, stressed the importance of the Hornet for its tourism
value and the money that tourism will bring to Alameda. He also spoke in favor of the Bullet Train,
building ferry boat piers, and USCSF Research Hospital.
Richard Neveln, an interested citizen, spoke in favor of the Hornet, stating that he hoped the Navy
was given some “wiggle room” in the letter to allow them to pay for pier space if they need longer to
think.
_recycled paper 2
Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, voiced her support of the Hornet and asked why MARAD is
paying millions of dollars to dock their ships but the Navy is unwilling to be responsible for the
Hornet, which is also a Navy vessel. Executive Director Miller explained that MARAD is not under
the Department of Defense; Maritime Administration ships are Department of Transportation
vessels.
Bob Rogers, Executive Vice President of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation, stated that they
suggested the dates in the recommendation because they want to go forward. ACHF is wrapping up
their fundraising, they have some very exciting things happening, they are very supportive of ARRA,
and he thanked staff for they support. He further stated that ACHF is probably the only organization
that actually wants to pay rent.
Alternate Brooks asked what was motivating the recommendation. Executive Director Miller
answered that there is a need to know if the ship is not going to make it into the ship donation
program to ACHF because the Navy is then going to have to decide what they are going to do with
the ship. Also, the Navy is not willing to pay rent equivalent to what the MARAD ships are paying.
Ms. Brooks then stated that if there is anything that Congressman Dellums’ office can do about that
part of the problem, to let her know. Chair Appezzato stated that if the ship fails to make it into the
ship donation program to the Hornet Foundation, the Navy is ultimately responsible for removing the
ship from our port.
Member DeWitt moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by member
Daysog and it passed by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas.
3-D. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director requesting the governing body to
authorize ARRA staff to prepare and issue an RFP for a property manager to renovate, lease, and
manage all or part of the available units in West housing.
Speakers:
James Sweeney, Alameda citizen and member of the BRAG Housing Subcommittee, stated that the
first and foremost theme in discussions about the housing is that these old apartments and old
buildings have to come down. The vast majority of Alameda citizens have a fear of the ghettoization
of the old houses, which are deteriorating from day to day. He asked that deconstruction be looked at
in this RFP.
Bill Smith, Emeryville resident, discussed the latest issue of the Base Closure News, which has a
cover article on 368 units of housing in Fort Ord. The same firm handling the Fort Ord housing has
done 3,300 units in the Bay Area for the low income, the disabled, the homeless, and people on
welfare. He suggested that we look at this organization to see what they could do at NAS.
Ann Mitchum, Emeryville resident, agreed that due to the wear and tear and state of these units,
they would be considered substandard lease or rental housing. She recommended that no action be
taken at this time and that ARRA consider selling the property to encourage pride of ownership
instead of bringing down rental values because of the proliferation of rental units.
Executive Director Miller stated that the staff recommendation was to go out to bid for the 19 Big
Whites and 32 single-family, ranch-style homes with an option to bid on the townhouse and
apartment units to see what the private sector would do in renovating and leasing those units. She
stressed that the ARRA would not be obligated to follow through.
_recycled paper 3
Alternate Brooks stated that the discussion of destroying units constructed in 1964 and 1966 seems
bizarre to her as she lives in a 1941 house which is still going strong. She added that she did not
know why ARRA should not pursue studying this and she hoped she was not hearing that we were
going to tear down 18 townhouses and 242 apartments. Ms. Miller answered that the staff
recommendation was to issue an RFP to bid on the Big Whites and single-family homes and see
what the private market would do with the townhouse and apartment units.
Alternate Leonhardy asked what would happen to these units if they are not leased or rented?
Executive Director Miller answered that they would be boarded up. Alternate Leonhardy asked if
ARRA is willing to have vacant housing throughout that much of that complex? Ms. Miller stated
that would be the result. Mr. Leonhardy mentioned the associated blight conditions that would
follow with boarding up that many units. He then asked that, as the Tidelands Trust significantly
inhibits long-term planning or transition, if any study been made of possibly trading the housing out
of the trust. Ms. Miller stated that we know that the State Lands Commission is going to be
agreeable to “grandfathering in” the existing housing for some period of time. She added that there
are less than 40 units in the trust but that the area includes most of the Big Whites.
Member Daysog said that the boarding up issue raises the issue of looking into the cost of
deconstruction on these units. He further suggested that if an RFP is being let out on renovating,
leasing, and managing some of the units, he would like to include deconstruction as part of the
information gathering process. He added that the San Francisco Weekly recently had an article on
Project Area Committees and how that is affecting redevelopment areas in the City and County of
San Francisco. Mr. Daysog requested a report on Project Area Committees so that he has a better
understanding of the issue.
Member Kerr stated that if there is anyone living within a redevelopment area when it is formed,
then there is a requirement for a Project Area Committee (PAC)—and any number larger than 25
may trigger this. The PAC has great legal power and takes a 2/3rds vote of the governing body of the
redevelopment area to override their decisions. Special legislation was passed last year relating to
base closure redevelopments which overrides the general redevelopment law in California.
Overriding that is last year’s special legislation initiated by Barbara Lee that relates specifically to
Alameda Naval Air. Redevelopment lines may have to be drawn to exclude the housing. She added
that the City Attorney’s office has been working with a legal firm that specializes in this and before
entering any long-term firm commitments on the housing, ARRA should know how or if this might
affect redevelopment. She stated that once this empty housing is put on the market, then there is a
one-for-one replacement housing requirement. This becomes a very serious commitment for the City
of Alameda to do a one-for-one replacement and income levels have to be matched.
Ms. Kerr asked Assistant General Counsel Highsmith to comment on replacement housing.
Assistant General Counsel Highsmith reported that the General Counsel’s office is currently working
on an opinion to answer questions about whether leasing properties within an intended
redevelopment area will trigger replacement housing and relocation costs as well as other questions
voiced this evening. Alternate Leonhardy suggested that if you have to do replacement housing, you
have to do 20% set-asides from the redevelopment funds for low and moderate income housing
development and those costs might be offset right there, straight across.
_recycled paper 4
Ms. Kerr asked that in the first sentence of the final paragraph of page four of the staff report, after
the phrase “. . . issue an RFP to find a property manager to renovate, lease, and manage” the word
“or deconstruct” be inserted. Member Kerr stated her preference that the RFP address only the Big
Whites and the single-family homes. Executive Director Miller asked for clarification—if the RFP
was only for the Big Whites and the single-family homes, was deconstruction of those units still to
be a part of the RFP? Member Kerr stated that in the case that the RFP was limited to the Big
Whites and single-family homes, deconstruction would be left out.
Member DeWitt voiced his preference for leasing the 19 Big Whites and 32 single-family homes.
He added that perhaps the financial benefit of renting the apartment units would not be beneficial to
the City given possible relocation fees and whatever else might apply. In that case, the RFP might
include what it would cost to deconstruct the apartment-type units.
Member DeWitt moved to go forward with an RFP to find a property manager to renovate,
manage, and lease the Big Whites and the single-family units. The motion was seconded by
Member Kerr. Chair Appezzato restated the motion, to go forward with an RFP for the Big Whites
and the single-family homes with an option to bid on the other housing to include looking at
deconstruction if, in fact, the market does not bear using them, and the potential for tear-down and
redevelopment in other areas. Member Kerr stated that she really wanted to limit it to the Big
Whites and the 32 single-story units; otherwise, deconstruction should be included. Executive
Director Miller explained that an RFP issued for firms that would deconstruct townhouses would go
to a completely different audience than firms that do property management. Chair Appezzato
concurred that if deconstruction becomes an issue, a different RFP can be issued.
Member Leonhardy stated that the units that the ARRA is talking about boarding up are those
immediately around the homeless housing units, which means continuing a blighted condition.
Alternate Brooks added that the concept of examining these other issues makes sense and it would be
helpful to know if the townhouse and apartment units are viable.
Member DeWitt stated that he still has questions about the financial benefit of leasing the apartment
units. Executive Director Miller quoted scenario #1, renting only the single-family and Big Whites
would probably return about half-a-million dollars annually to ARRA revenue. Scenario #2, adding
the townhouse units (6 buildings with 19 actual units) would result in additional revenues of between
$130,000–$155,000. Scenario #3, adding the apartments, would result in an additional $800,000–
$900,000 being generated.
Alternate Brooks stated that unless an RFP goes out, the ARRA will not know whether anybody
thinks this is viable. If no firms want to work with the apartments and townhouses, then the path is
clear—they have to come down. If there are interested firms then questions on legal ramifications
must be asked, a cost-benefit analysis can be examined, etc. Even if the RFP goes out for all
housing, there is no obligation and the ARRA can reject all proposals if they so wish.
Alternate Leonhardy asked Member DeWitt to accept a friendly amendment to include the
apartments and townhouses with the management costs and benefits broken down by housing
category. Member DeWitt accepted the friendly amendment. Member Kerr then withdrew
her second. Member Daysog asked if deconstruction could be started on a second track tonight.
_recycled paper 5
Counsel Highsmith answered that the issue of deconstruction was not on the agenda for discussion.
The motion was seconded by Alternate Leonhardy and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes: 7. Noes: 1 - Kerr. Absent: 1 - Lucas.
3-E. Report and recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body
authorize the Executive Director to draft two letters for signature by the ARRA Chair and Vice-Chair
stating the ARRA’s opposition to the Navy proceeding with an environmental screening
methodology in which the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA)/Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
Region 9 will not concur. One letter will be sent to RADM David J. Nash, Commander, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters and the second letter will be sent to Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, att: Sherri Goodman.
Dave Ryan, representing EFA West, stated that this is a serious issue and the Navy is working in
partnership with the state addressing complex technical issues. He suggested the ARRA not take
sides but encourage the Navy to work in a collaborative fashion with the state to resolve the issues.
Chair Appezzato replied that when the Navy leaves the City will have to work with the state and
meet state requirements. Alternate Brooks added that the ARRA has a fiduciary responsibility to the
City to weigh in by advocating the property be left as clean as possible. Ardella Dailey, Co-chair of
the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) stated the RAB fully supports drafting and sending the
recommended letters.
Alternate Leonhardy moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8. Noes: 0. Absent: 1 - Lucas.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4-F. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
BRAG Chair Lee Perez commended all the sports interests that worked together to develop the
Sports Complex proposal. The BRAG feels that it is beneficial to the redevelopment of Alameda
Point to recruit an academic presence to replace PPU. Chair Perez stressed that the BRAG’s vote on
the housing issue had been a very close vote and they felt the housing must be approached carefully.
Doug deHaan reported that the Airfield Task Force is recommending a limited use airfield although
the financial aspect still needs to be worked out. Chair Perez ended his report by stating that the
BRAG continues to work with WABA and other west side groups on the issue of a commissary;
they are working closely with the FISC Ad Hoc Task Force; and the BRAG continues—along with
other groups—to look at some possible conflicts of interest on dual memberships. Chair Appezzato
added that he would be selecting a new alternate.
4-G. Written report from the Executive Director updating the ARRA on:
(1) Coast Guard Housing; (2) Airfield Workshop; (3) Public Trust Appraisal; and (4) BCDC Port
Priority Designation. Executive Director Miller stated that the Airfield Workshop would not occur
on June 19 and optional dates in July are being considered.
4-H. Oral report from the Executive Director (non-discussion items).
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
_recycled paper 6
Richard Neveln, interested citizen, reported on the economics of an air show at Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, which generated income of $88 million in one week.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, an interested citizen, thanked the ARRA and the BRAG volunteers for their
contributions to the region.
Kurt Bohan passed, stating that he would send in a letter.
Bill Stremmel, recent Alameda resident, complained of the locked gates to the northwestern end of
the base that has been declared off-limits to all human activities due to the nesting season of the
Least Tern. He stated that there is always a socioeconomic and environmental price when property is
restricted to a narrowly defined purpose and it has serious implications for overall redevelopment.
Richard Neveln stated that a Walgreens at Atlantic and Webster does not set a very comfortable
tone to the entrance of Alameda Point and suggested that Frys Electronics would set a better tone.
Bill Smith, an Emeryville resident, discussed deconstruction and methods of removing lead paint
stating that it is much more difficult to deconstruct than it is to construct.
Ann Mitchum, an Emeryville resident, stated that the Navy spends tens of thousands of dollars per
Big White per year on the maintenance, which makes the viability of leasing the Big Whites and the
other units economically weak. Deconstruction is also expensive and economically weak.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog stated that although deconstruction was not included in the final motion [item 3-D],
it will not be dropped. If RFP responses do not reflect neighborhood values and City priorities,
deconstruction will have to be discussed. He further stated that options were left open such as
leasing out the housing. And by leaving West Housing open, another option is the possibility of
moving some of the homeless housing in East Housing to West Housing, especially in light of the
type of housing that is being considered in East Housing.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Member DeWitt at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret E.Ensley
ARRA Secretary
_recycled paper 7