1999-05-05 ARRA MinutesAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, May 5, 1999
The meeting convened at 5:30 with Chair Appezzato presiding.
ROLL CALL
1.
Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor, City of Alameda
Mark Friedman, alternate to Wilma Chan, Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, District 3
Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda
Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland
Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Shelia Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro
Absent: Sandré Swanson, Vice Chair, Ninth Congressional District for Barbara Lee
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 1999.
Mayor Appezzato moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was
seconded by Alternate Friedman and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 8.
Noes 0. Alternate Ornelas arrived subsequent to the vote; Alternate Swanson was
absent.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3-A. Recommendation to execute an interim lease through the term of the Master Lease
with the Homeless Collaborative for a 4-acre urban garden on Parcels 98 and 99.
The public hearing was opened.
Jack Shepherd, Homeless Collaborative, 1415 California Street, Berkeley, noted the legally
binding agreement, which has been negotiated and adopted, has a provision for relocation in it
and that the Collaborative would have no problem including the provision in the interim lease
agreement.
2-A
1
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Elizabeth Johnson, ARRA Environmental Planner presented an analysis of four alternative sites
for the location of the organic garden. She said the site in question, Parcel 99, Site #2, is on the
list of sites they analyzed for this report. The sites highlighted represented previous work over
the last two years in attempting to site an entire four acres designated for the Homeless
Collaborative garden in the original agreement.
Ms. Johnson stated that Site #1 was approved at the April meeting as part of the garden. Site #2
was the second part of the garden representing about three acres. (If this site is rejected, another
three acres to meet the commitment has been made to the Homeless Collaborative). Site #3, the
recreation area at the main gate on base, was rejected because it is part of the public benefit
conveyance to the Alameda Recreation Parks Department. Site #4 was considered, however it
was seen as a potentially good development site for future residential development due to its
location. Currently, it is covered with debris from an old building and the water tower is on the
site. The Collaborative rejected this site because of poor soil quality and the cost to clear the site
of the debris. Ms. Johnson noted Site #5, a parking lot across the street from the “O” club which
has served as overflow parking for the club, is currently designated in the use permit conditions
of approval for the housing as an overflow parking space. ARRA Facilities staff decided the
parking area would be too valuable for interim leases and future development in the area to use
as a garden site.
Site #7, a strip of land adjacent to Main Street was suggested by a councilmember. This site has
been obtained by the Public Works Department to convert the former railroad right-of-way into a
green-way park, which incorporates a number of flood improvements to address the flooding in
the area. The Greenway park incorporates a bike path, pedestrian path and a series of detention
basins for flood waters with landscaping and appropriate amenities. This site was rejected
because of the Public Works park project.
The last site Ms. Johnson noted was a small parking area closer to the majority of the homeless
accommodations. The site will provide parking for leases, including areas which have been
committed to the Homeless Collaborative and the BOQ, which has not had an assigned use but
will require a lot of parking, and therefore was rejected.
In summary, Ms. Johnson noted that after reviewing all of the potential sites that met the main
criteria of being a large enough open area, Parcel 99, Site #2 was recommended as an appropriate
location for the Homeless Collaborative Garden.
Chair Appezzato noted since there were no speakers, he opened it for commission, discussion or
motion.
Alternate Friedman moved to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Daysog. Discussion was opened by Member Johnson.
2
Member Johnson stated she had spoken to the City Attorney about including in the agreement a
provision that the Collaborative would agree to future negotiations in the event the site becomes
desirable for development. She then asked the question would it be possible to address this with
the Collaborative to include this in as a provision.
Counsel Highsmith responded when the City negotiates the terms of the interim agreement for
the garden area, inquires can be made and negotiated, and staff can be directed to do that.
Member Johnson asked if this direction could be made tonight and included as a detail to the
agreement.
Counsel Highsmith responded yes.
Member Daysog asked Counsel Highsmith how long is the length of the interim lease.
Counsel Highsmith responded the interim lease can last up to 12 ½ years which is the remainder
of the lease period between the Navy and the ARRA.
Member Johnson said that converts to 59 years.
Counsel Highsmith noted that once the property is conveyed to the ARRA or the City, either
would enter into individual long term leases with various members of the Collaborative for their
various uses and whatever period time they put their use into, the interim lease would be part of
the total of the 59 years.
Member Daysog voiced the 12 to 59 years Member Johnson suggested is accurate. He said this
would give ARRA or City the flexibility it needs.
Chair Appezzato said the flexibility depends on whether the Homeless Collaborative would do it
or not.
Member Johnson said it would be just a negotiation.
Chair Appezzato asked if all was satisfactory.
Member Johnson responded yes as long as the City Attorney’s office confirms it.
Counsel Highsmith responded she would review it because the current form of the interim lease
does not include any provision or opportunity for relocation of use. She noted she would review
the form of the legally binding agreement which has not been finalized and determine if the
provision that Mr. Jack Shepherd is referring to can be moved up and placed in the interim
agreement.
3
Chair Appezzato stated that if it is not in the interim agreement, it will be included in legally
binding agreement. He expressed the Collaborative has been cooperative in agreeing to relocate
to benefit the community.
Member Daysog added to Chair Appezzato’s comments that the members of the Collaborative
have been excellent partners in the base conversion. Member Daysog expressed that this issue
should move forward.
Member Kerr expressed several concerns about the recommended site and the Homeless
Collaborative. They were never promised a site; the staff had not surveyed the entire base, and
they were looking for a site that a sealing underneath that would prevent groundwater
contamination, there are acres and acres of concrete out there that would satisfy this. Member
Kerr voiced that Mr. Shepherd spoke of an agreement that only the Homeless Collaborative had
full information about and the officers of ARRA had not seen.
Member Kerr further stated Site #2 they recommend would interfere with the sale of the “Big
Whites” and the Ranchettes once title was received. She also expressed the commercial use
proposed for Site #2 is right in the middle of what should be a residential zoning. It would also
be giving them (Homeless Collaborative) non Tidelands Trust land and there is some legal room
in the City Attorney’s memo that we might not have to that.
Member Daysog responded that the success of the base conversion will not be based on 3 or 4
acres for several reasons. He voiced that alternative garden areas could be put anywhere and the
same questions would persist. He expressed the idea of putting the garden on top of cement
convinces him the process should move forward, based on the professionals they are working
with who have some sense of how to do gardens and an understanding of chemical or biological
issues. They are not people who are going to put families or children at risk, they are going to
know if it is safe or not. He expressed this place is no more at risk than any other sites and the
professionals they are working with will inform them weather or not they should proceed.
Member Daysog stated that whether or not the Homeless Collaborative has any effect on the sale
of the big whites, it is important to have a combination of what we have right now. He said that
they will be developing homes on east housing and other parts of FISC which will benefit the rest
of the base.
Member Kerr responded that it is not a community garden like the smaller plot is, it is supposed
to be a commercial nursery and a job training facility and should not be in a residential zone. She
further clarified that Site #2 was no more contaminated than any other site, it was their design
that they put their raised bed gardens over a seal and to prevent groundwater contamination by
putting that seal. She expressed the base conversion is financially so fragile, that to write off a
reduction of price that the big whites and the Ranchettes can sell, is not fiscally responsible
because every dollar is needed to move this redevelopment area to succeed and there are many
individuals who are hindering the process. The latest is the Port of Oakland got a bill introduced
that makes no provision for recompense to the City of Alameda or the redevelopment district for
4
the taking of land for the dredging project. This may seriously harm our ability to redevelop.
She voiced that the HUD money is not needed when money from significant tax increments is set
aside.
Member Daysog questioned Member Kerr’s argument that the community garden or horticultural
center is going to hold up the base conversion. The base is 2000 acres, 1500 of it developable,
and its big enough to accommodate four acres for the homeless. It is big enough to accommodate
60 acres of the upscale housing and it can be done on a prudent level where everyone benefits.
Member Kerr responded saying it is the initial fiscal health of this redevelopment district that is
important, because without the money to pay for the infrastructure, there will be no
redevelopment district. She said the sale of those houses will be an asset that can sell early to
produce more money just like the redevelopment of FISC and it is important it be done properly.
Chair Appezzato voiced to Member Kerr that she did not include the beltline property which is
20 acres of private property, that a group is trying to turn into public land. He said it is
questionable how a private group can take 20-30 acres of private land that could help in the
redevelopment zone.
Chair Appezzato noted that this council and past council has gone forth with redevelopment at
Harbor Bay, Send, Raiders, Wind River Project, Marina Village, Drive In Site, Walgreens
property, Webster Street Hotel, and for anyone to indicate that this Council does not care or
concern itself is erroneous. Chair Appezzato agreed with Member Daysog noting that people are
clamoring to get into this prime real estate property.
Member Kerr voiced the point of order she was making was that the City Attorney had instructed
council to not discuss the belt line initiative in public, however the City council could vote to
take a stand on it but it is not a proper subject for discussion in either council meetings or ARRA
meetings.
Chair Appezzato disagreed noting Member Kerr raised the issue of financial crisis in this city. It
is public knowledge that it is going forward.
Member Kerr voiced that everything should be done to launch the redevelopment area. Member
Kerr noted that past council and BRAG had not agreed to this site because the siting of this
commercial project had never been agreed to and this is not something promised to the Homeless
Collaborative. They were promised acreage, it was in the reuse plan, but the siting was “to be
determined.”
Alternate Leonhardy move to accept the recommendation. The motion was seconded by
Member Daysog, and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes: 7. Noes - 1. Abstentions 0.
Member Daysog approved to move forward. The motion was seconded by Chair
Appezzato and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes 7. Noes 1. Abstentions 1
5
(Swanson).
4. ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from the BRAG updating the ARRA on current activities.
BRAG member Andrine Smith was present in place of Chair Lee Perez. No report was given.
4-B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager.
No report was given.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Mr. Douglas deHann, 1305 Dayton Avenue, discussed the importance of the roles of the
Congressman’s office and the county, and their impact from the April meeting. He expressed no
one can second guess or know the kind of dilemma everyone would be in, if these roles were not
in place. He also voiced that the Homeless Collaborative was right in putting a barrier between
the soil and land. He noted they know the ground water is a problem in the area and in the area
of where the marsh crust is located.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Alternate Ornelas apologized for missing the last meeting which included the discussion of the
length of the term of this body, due to an official visit from their sister city. She expressed San
Leandro has appreciated having the opportunity to have a voice in this process, especially since
the closing of the base has had a regional impact on the County. They look forward to receiving
further reports from this body and San Leandro will continue to offer its support of the successful
development of Alameda Point.
Chair Appezzato thanked her, noting this is an island, but it operates on a regional level and
without operating regionally, it would not succeed.
Alternate Friedman expressed the success of economic development and every other aspect of
base conversions in the City of Oakland is because Alameda reached such a rapid conclusion of
negotiations with the Homeless Collaborative in such a harmonious way and the other public
benefit conveyances that have been put forth in Alameda Point. In the City of Oakland, the
Department of Defense has rejected their plan for Oak Knoll and they are not much farther along
on the Oakland Army base. He expressed that having reached a positive agreement with the
Homeless Collaborative has been a factor in Alameda’s success.
Mayor Appezzato noted that there is not a community of this size that has received as much
federal funds as the City of Alameda. He voiced that it is a demonstration of regional
6
cooperation.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
ARRA Secretary
7