Loading...
1999-08-04 ARRA MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 4, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL 1. Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor City of Alameda Sandre Swanson, Vice Chair, Ninth Congressional District for Barbara Lee 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 Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda Kathleen Ornelas, alternate to Sheila Young, Mayor, City of San Leandro Lynne Fitzsimmons, alternate to Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Absent: Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Jay Leonhardy, alternate to Jerry Brown, Mayor, City of Oakland PRESENTATIONS 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 1999. 2 -B. Report from the Deputy City Manager recommending approval of funding exchange for Building 7 utility systems upgrades. 2 -C. Report from the Deputy City Manager and approval of letter to Senator Diane Feinstein regarding support for extended Cooperative Agreement funds. Vice -Chair Swanson moved approval of the minutes as presented for July 7, 1999, and the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Alternate Ornelas and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes 7. Noes 0. Alternate Friedman arrived after the vote. ACTION ITEMS 3 -A. Report from the Deputy City Manager reviewing the due diligence report from the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) and recommending authorization to sublease Hangar 41 for non - museum use and reserve Building 77 for an air museum. -1- The public hearing was opened. Nita Rosen, 1045 Island Drive, Board of Trustees for the Naval Air Museum and the Gift Store Coordinator, stated they have had their gift store opened for three weekends. They borrowed money from three individuals, paid off their bills, have $2,000 worth of merchandise and $700 in the bank. She expressed it can be done easily, with a little work. She noted they passed out a letter to the Board with their new web site for the Alameda Naval Air Museum, created by Morris Thompson. Roy Dickerson, 472 Bartlett Avenue, Hayward, expressed the project is a viable organization, as far as the volunteers and interest in it. It stated that when he flies over the base it is sad because it looks like an empty parking lot and the Naval Air Museum and the Hornet is the spark to make it blossom. Hugh McKay, 211 Sheffield Road, expressed the Naval Air Museum is of historic value and an opportunity for the Board to create something like the Skateboard park. He indicated there are volunteers waiting in the wings to help and volunteer their time. He spoke to Roy Edwards who is willing to volunteer and inspect the museum to show his support for the Naval Air Museum. Roy's son who has been an electrician for 30 years, is willing to contribute his talents and Mr. McKay indicated his own son could contribute time. He stated the as people become more aware of the base and the opportunities it has, more people will volunteer. There are people who are willing to make pledges. Marilyn York and Barbara Baak are willing to donate $20,000 each and once the word gets out, more people will do the same. Franz Steiner, 501 14th Street, Oakland of VBN Architects, made reference to the summary section of the staff report presented by Deputy City Manager Dave Berger. He stated the section that states "...ANAM has accrued a cash reserve of about $8,000 and must fund building upgrade costs of approximately $533,000 (for both buildings)," is not accurate. He indicated there are firm pledges for $230,000. They disagree that the total costs of upgrading a hangar to a hangar is not $533,000 based on their experience with work in adjacent hangars, but closer to $300,000. The other hangars were converted for other uses, not for aircraft. His professional opinion is that all the work for this hangar is not necessary, like it was for the adjacent hangars indicated in Deputy Berger's staff report. Mr. Steiner stated the section of the staff report that states, "Notably lacking is detailed information regarding volunteer commitments and a signed agreement covering the $200,000 pledge," would be made clear by the donors of that pledge for this meeting. Mr. Steiner indicated that it is difficult to make clear who the actual volunteers are, until the building and tasks are identified. They disagree with the staff report section which reads, " The City's Public Works Department estimates the cost of Hangar 41 upgrades for code compliance is approximately $463,000. An additional $70,000 will be needed to upgrade Building 77." They estimate the costs for code compliance upgrades to be $250,000 and the additional upgrades to Building 77, is closer to $50,000. -2- Roy Reuther, 955 Shorepoint, #212, ANAM member, asked the Board the to disapprove staffs recommendation and the approval for the Naval Air Museum. He felt ANAM should be given a chance to get started and prove itself viable. Having the use of the actual building would be critical to gaining the volunteer support and help it needs. The estimated projections of the ANAM group of 20,000 people the first year, 40,000 the second and 60,000 the third year are reasonable. This compares to the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos which had 100,000 people in attendance their first year, 80,000 which paid attendance. The Hornet is doing better than some figures announced, as they are expecting their total attendance around 350,000 total in their first year. The Hornet, the Wildlife Refuge, the Antique Fair which is growing, the forecast Bladium, and another museum for ships, all would add to make this attendance effort viable. Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed he was an original volunteer of the Hornet two to four days a week to make it happen, which amounts to 800 volunteer hours of one person for the Hornet. He indicated there are three or four dozen volunteers, from various unions, which would include electrical or plumbing experience. 100 to 250 hours of volunteer labor would translate to $1 1,000 by himself alone. Multiply that by 30 people, you have $250,000 in volunteer efforts, by people who have worked on the Hornet. There are people in the Navy league who also want to participate. The people who served on the U.S. Navy need to be honored with this museum with real aircraft that they worked on, flew and for the citizens of this country and the region, not something for a storage facility for an opera company. Mr. Neveln expressed we need to preserve the aviation heritage that Alameda has and keep this museum until it can prove itself, like the Hornet has with the many special events and the interest of national museum and celebrities. The museum is the direction to go with Hangar 41 and the volunteers will support it. Barbara Baak, P.O. Box 1769, acknowledged the letter that was distributed to the Board from Dave Wilson of the EBCRC, offering regional support to the museum and funding. She expressed this was an example of the kind of support they are building and believed more support would be forthcoming. Ms. Baak noted the Reuse Plan designates Buildings 41 or 77 be set aside for cultural purposes as a museum and states they are to be given a chance to succeed and they would like that opportunity to be extended to them. Promises were made in the Reuse Plan and all the volunteers have worked in good faith to try to meet the requirements of the ARRA and staff. The people at the air station have a great tradition at the Naval Station which helped win World War II and many of their volunteers came out of the depression and they are truly representative of the greatest generation of the 20`h century and Alameda should be very proud to have their stature in the midst for over 30 years invested in Alameda. The promise should be kept as stated in the Reuse Plan and they deserve to develop Hangar 41 and Building 77. Ms. Baak humbly asked for the Board's support. Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, asked the non -city councilmembers to not defer their vote and think about whether or not if this is good for the community. He stated this was not an issue of land use which has already been decided. The standards of who is picked to move onto the base are unreasonably high if you are in the real estate business. If the museum is -3- voted down because of staff mistakes and bad judgement calls on how many people would pay how much, people will suffer from Alameda, Oakland and San Leandro. He expressed his concern about an article he read relating to the costs. Mr. Bohan asked the Board to vote in the direction of the museum. Marilyn York, ANAM, expressed they have sought to play in the rules and meet the requirements. The staff report is a one -sided version of their efforts and the newspaper article printed Tuesday was a devastating release, which had nothing good to say about the museum's effort. The staff report nor the newspaper article mentioned nothing about the thousands of hours of volunteer labor, the $35,000 donated by the architectural support of Franz Steiner, of VBN Associates, the $30,000 donated to fees permit which are legally required for the project; and there was no mention of the importance of the museum project in saving the naval aviation history of Alameda or the educational goals of young people or citizens of the community. The Alameda Naval Air Museum received unanimous votes in favor of the project from the full ARRA. The museum's request for Building 41 and 77 were included in ARRA's Base Reuse Plan. The vote at that time was to set aside these two buildings for cultural purposes. This represented less than 5% of the buildings on the base in square footage. The Base Reuse Plan states they were to be given a chance to rebuild the museum and a chance to succeed. The staff report is a betrayal of this promise. Congresswoman Barbara Lee and her staff are working to obtain funds for this museum and Dave Wilson of EBCRC offered significant regional support and funding. Ms. York stated that have attempted to meet each requirement as they have negotiated with the ARRA and staff and each time, however the bar has been raised higher, yet they have persevered. The volunteers are poised to carry out this project if they are allowed to do so. She felt it was a betrayal of promises for the City to turn its back on them and turn down long -term cultural value of a museum, in favor of a short-term financial gain by renting the hangar as a warehouse for storage. Ms. York asked the Board to restore the priority of recognizing the great contributions made by the Navy and its employees to more than 50 years in Alameda history. They need both buildings and together they can bring this history alive for future generations. It would be more vibrant tourist attraction of lasting value than to settle for a storage warehouse. Doug Dehan, 1305 Dayton Avenue, expressed that four years ago the complex of Hangar 41 and Building 77 were the center piece of the closure. It was operational and retrofitted in many ways to present itself in a good like. $100,000 has already been put into it, $40,000 of which was cash and numerous hours of pro bono effort. Mr. Dehan indicated the task force has been a separate identity for 2 '/2 months. If staff rents out Hangar 41 for the $400,000, there would be rent rebates which could last for two to three years, which are not tangible dollars that would be seen in the budget. In response to the question of the lack of aircraft to preserve in the museum, Mr. Dehan indicated that when they were with WAM, there was an ample amount of aircraft, however they have to seek aircraft which will be displayed. They will now have to look at other opportunities with the Hornet or other options. He felt that all Alamedans should support these endeavors. -4- Mayor Appezzato asked Mr. Dehan if Western Aerospace was one of the key factors to make this effort successful? Mr. Dehan responded that the Port of Oakland has made a more enticing deal for Western Aerospace to stay in place and therefore, did not want to extend themselves into two positions. Grace Keachie, ANAM, expressed that her understanding is that if they are given Hangar 41, they would have five years to make it work. At the end of five years, if it is unsuccessful, Hangar 41 would be given back. Ms. Keachie indicated that she was surprised that there was some question as to whether or not the $100,000 she is donating is going to happen. She felt insulted and resented there being any question of her commitment to donate the $100,000. She insured the Board that she has that much money and has full intentions of giving it to the Board for the museum. Ms. Keachie indicated that she will not sell all of her stock until she knows that Hangar 41 will be designated for the museum. Many people have worked very hard for the past two years to make this museum a reality. Young people growing up need it and it does not make sense for this building to be filled up as storage space for a grand opera from San Francisco. Stephen Keachie, ANAM, expressed that he and his mother, Grace Keachie, have each pledged $100,000+ and have shown ARRA Facilities Manager, Ed Levine, the paperwork to show that the money does exist. He noted the written pledge that was passed out to the Board, stating emphatically that they will give this pledge, if the ARRA governing body finds merit in the proposal presented to them for Hangar 41, make that lease contingent on the availability and legal pinning down of that money. Mr. and Ms. Keachie are prepared to start the process next Monday morning with the proper legal and financial authorities, if the Board finds that Hangar 41 should be given a chance with the air museum. They were advised by legal advice that they should not sign anything further until their is a firm indication from the Board of what their intentions are. It costs Mr. and Ms. Keachie several thousand dollars to pull this money out of their present investments. The staff reports have invoked the Community Reuse Plan and mentions the word non- viable, which has been taken out of context. Mr. Keachie referenced page 812 of the Community Reuse Plan which states, "Should these uses prove to be non - viable over some period of time....," is completely omitted in this month and last month's staff report. He feels they are to be given site control and given a chance. On page 814 it states, "If the museum does not require all the space it is requesting or if it does not succeed, the ARRA will have the ability to immediate release..." Mr. Keachie noted the Community Reuse Plan was a promise by the City to the Navy and the public to provide certain community benefits, amongst the establishment of a comprehensive naval air museum. This is the Board's opportunity to redeem their promise and compliment their volunteer effort in dollar pledge. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. -5- Member Daysog thanked the Keachie's for making the offer of a donation, while their are differences of their approach as to whether or not it is valid. The key issue comes down to one of cost, do we go with the numbers brought forth by Steiner Associates or the City Government's numbers. Volunteers tend to under estimate the costs, while City Hall does not estimate the costs high enough. Member Daysog stated he is satisfied with the report from the Deputy City Manager in following through with questions he had at the previous meeting, if he could evaluate the offer of the $100,000 and if he could look at the financials and the costs. Very important points were brought up regarding the legally binding issue and whether or not the money should be placed in the escrow account sometime during the past 30 days. Vice -Chair Swanson he is concerned with reserving the history, which means a lot to many people and generations that have worked at the base and have dedicated their life to it. The process of military base conversion is not solely based on the community working together, it needs the overall participation of the business community, the citizens of Alameda and participation of the region. There will have to be millions of regional dollars that this base will have to attract and depend on to make this work. The issue of site control is critical for a project like this to succeed. If there is no site control, you cannot convince people to contribute money, resources and it is impossible to secure any federal assistance. The Congressional office is very proud of giving millions of dollars to the base conversion process and the House National Security Committee would love a project like this. Money is not the issue in whether or not this facility can be rehabilitated. Vice -Chair Swanson indicated that upon the Secretary of Defense visit last year, he stated that Alameda was a jewel of defense conversion and indicated they would like to help. Those are promises made. Our position as the ARRA has been let's stick to the plan. The Community Reuse Plan is clear when it states each facility was set aside for cultural purposes. A lease should be given, they should have access to this facility and be given a chance to succeed or fail based on the merit of the project. Our commitment is to make sure we do all we can as we have done in the past to help secure the funds to make this work. Alternate Fitzsimmons stated their should be a timeline that this does not keep going on and on. Member Kerr asked staff of Item #3 on the $1.1 million of basewide infrastructure costs, on whether or not this is a one time assessment, and if this would be advertised over a period over a period of many years? Deputy Berger responded that was correct. There was not an implication that the up -front payment was collected in the business plan. Member Kerr asked if the type of flooring in Hangar 41 would continue to be concrete? ARRA Construction Manager, Celia Karian responded that the flooring they are referring to are the damages to the conditions of the flooring in place. The floor has come up, there -6- are coatings, holes and patching needs to be done. It is patching of flooring, not putting in a new floor. Member Kerr asked is it a concrete floor? Celia Karian responded yes. Member Kerr asked aside from the bathrooms, would there be any partitions? Celia Karian responded the partitions would be in the bathrooms, the exit passage ways, which are all of the corridor systems. Member Kerr asked what corridor systems would there be? Celia Karian responded there are doorways and passageways that must be in the building in order to get people into the building and to meet life safety codes to get people out. Member Kerr indicated this is a big wide open space hangar and is there any reason that when people come to in through a door, they would not be entering into this big open space? Celia Karian responded that the way the building is configured is that it has a two -story flank which is where there are offices and the hangar area, and you enter the building through those two -story ends. Deputy City Manager responded that there is a perception that this building can continue to function as it did as a hangar, however, the occupancy under the building codes would convert to a different use. It would become a facility for people, a museum. The building was evaluated, as all buildings are evaluated at the base, for what the use and occupancy will be based on the new use, not the old building. Celia Karian was trying to explain that in our estimate there are certain elements that need to be added to comply with the code as it relates to the life safety, because it is not going to be an old hangar. Although there is open space where the aircraft would be displayed, it has to comply with the states code for the people, the volunteers, employees and visitors. There is a difference in philosophy from what the group thinks would need to be spent, versus what City staff thinks needs to be spent on life safety under the new museum use. Member Kerr indicated she is not questioning all the things on the list, however she is surprised about the new flooring, corridors for entrance and egress. Based on the plans she has been told about, they are going to enter directly into the open space. Celia Karian responded that the plans she has seen do not have entries through the hangar doors. There has been a change in what the plans have been since the last time they had seen them. Since the project has been down scope, they have not seen any additional plans. The hangar doors from an operational point of view are difficult to have as an entry -7- door. They are huge 30 ft. high by many feet wide heavy doors, that have to be cranked open. Celia stated the plans she had seen have indicated entries on both sides, not through the hangar doors. Member Kerr asked Franz Steiner, VBN Architects to respond to Celia Karian's comments about the hangar entrance. Franz Steiner, VBN Architects, stated that the code does not require any specific type of flooring for a required exit. Celia commented on vinyl tile that is coming up on the floor over an area that is designated to be an exit in one of the earlier plans, which can be easily taken up and removed. It does not have to be replaced with anything because the concrete floor is fine. The other issues of cutting doors into the hangar doors is something that has been verified with the state office of Historic Preservation as being acceptable in concept and meeting all requirements of the Secretary of Interior guidelines for historic preservation, although they have not seen a specific drawing yet. Member Kerr stated there is a second story in Hangar 41 which is going to be made inaccessible, it will not be used. Is this correct? Mr. Franz Steiner indicated that is correct. The Fire Marshal will require that be locked off so that no access can be accomplished. It requires putting some locks and gates on it. Celia Karian stated they have remodeled many hangars, and what they have found is that you estimate what you can identify and you do not see what is entailed in any particular thing. The consequences of this, is that the costs begin increasing significantly. The numbers presented to the Board by staff are based on very similar projects, one being a hangar the identical size of Hangar 41. Member Kerr asked what is the identical hangar being used as? Celia Karian responded for manufacturing. The numbers from this hangar have to do with the code compliance aspect of it. Staff has tried to compare it to the scope of work that the museum group has identified. Celia stated they are currently working on Hangar 23 which is a much smaller hangar, about 64,000 sq. ft., and that project is very close in terms of scope to this one. The numbers presented by staff are very close to Hangar 41. Mayor Appezzato stated to Celia that they do have history for some of the basis of their current hangar upgrades. Celia Karian responded yes they do. The estimates have to do with the actual experiences staff has had and they have tried to modify it to the scope of work that the museum group is planning to do, which is certificate of occupancy, barricading or closing off the office and shop areas, and putting in those life safety improvements. -8- Member Al DeWitt stated there are two problems to deal with: the museum and paying the bills at Alameda Point. The Authority has to maintain the base and all the buildings have to be used in order to that. Member DeWitt stated he asked the City Manager to be more diligent in leasing the buildings out and getting some money back in. The Navy has cut the amount of money they were donating to the Caretaker fees, down to a very minimal amount. The City will have to go out and borrow money to pay the police, fire and other maintenance and operation fees at Alameda Point, around $6 million. There is a definite need for financing to keep the base going. The base has also had a reoccurrence of vandalism which means there has to be some foini of security there. Member DeWitt stated this is one of the motivating forces to keep as much money coming in as possible. Regarding the museum, Building 77 will not be much of a museum by itself. In order for Building 77 to be any kind of a viable project, it needs Hangar 41 with lots of airplanes in it. Based on the business plan and the amount of money needed from the staff report, the museum barely meets the financial obligations that are required. Based on the $200,000 that is going to be donated, the museum would have an opportunity to get off the ground and prove itself. They should be given a chance to do it, only because of the $200,000 that is being donated. If it does not work, the Keachie's know they are going to lose their money and with that kind of faith, it is hard for him to not give the group a chance. They should be given a probationary period to see if they can make the museum work. Mayor Appezzato stated the project at its conception was admirable. He stated he thought about this for long time and cannot change his mind that he will not support this going forward. It is time to make a decision and if the commission decides to go forward, he will support them and if they decide not to, Mayor Appezzato indicated that is how he intends to vote. We already have the Western Aerospace, the Meyers House, the Hornet and Alameda museum. If the motion is to go forward, there should be some parameters. Mayor Appezzato indicated if the majority of the commission decides to go forward, he will support them and do everything he can to make it work, however he will not be amongst those to vote for it. Member Daysog recommended a motion be made to accept staff's recommendation. Motion was not seconded. Member DeWitt recommended an alternate motion to allow the museum board to continue to operate, be provided a lease, provided they fulfill the requirements that are necessary in the financial areas and they meet the minimum requirements that are outlined in the business plan within one year. Discussion. Member Kerr stated that the motion should include allowing them to start the work. Mayor Appezzato indicated the group should have at least six months to prove itself viable. -9- Vice -Chair Swanson stated that the group be granted a lease for one year as soon as possible, so they can have site control. The group should be required to give a progress report after six months. Member DeWitt amended his first motion and recommended a motion to allow the museum group be given a one year lease to go forward with a six month review. Motion was seconded by Vice -Chair Swanson. Ayes - 6; Noes - 2. Roll call vote: Vice Chair Swanson, Member Kerr, Member DeWitt, Alternate Member Fitzsimmons, Alternate Member Friedman, Alternate Member Ornelas voted yes; Member Daysog and Chair Appezzato voted no. 3 -B. Receive BRAG report and recommendation to approve the formation of a BRAG Tourism Task Force Committee. BRAG Chair Lee Perez indicated they had nothing to add to the report and hoped the Board act favorably on it. Richard Neveln, 1328 Park Street, expressed he was elated that the museum is apart of what is going to bring the tourism task force to work. Tourism is what is going to rejuvenate the entire region as Alameda and other communities around the San Francisco and East Bay, taps into the $6 billion a year tourist industry that virtually belongs to San Francisco. With public transit and increased tourism, both will help to pay for that transit which benefits the region and those who live in Alameda. Mr. Neveln expressed he supports the BRAG Tourism Task Force whole heartedly. Kurt Bohan, 344 Westline Drive, stated that since at least 50% of the tourist attraction has been approved for about one year, he is happy and encouraged that the tourism committed be created which the BRAG recommended. For to long, there has been no direction at Alameda Point. The development plan is so broad, there is no plan as the people say. The committee for tourism can give a direction of focus, which has not happened for four years. It is a good opportunity, especially with the air museum Hornet. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Member DeWitt motioned recommendation of approval that a BRAG Tourism Task Force be established. Motion was seconded by Alternate Member Friedman. Ayes - 7; Noes - 0. Alternate Member Ornelas left prior to the vote. 3 -C. Receive BRAG recommendation to appoint BRAG representative to the Planning Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee. BRAG Chair Lee Perez, stated they took this action on the BRAG as a result of a recommendation made, they make this recommendation to the ARRA Board to have a representative from the BRAG. There are other direct representatives from City Board's - 10 - and Commissions and they are merely asking that in this area the BRAG be able to have a representative on the joint board. Chair Appezzato stated that he supports their position. The BRAG has been valuable to the community, bringing us to where we are they deserve to have a representative on this committee. Member Kerr asked Chair Perez is the Planning Board Representative a member of the BRAG? BRAG Chair Lee Perez responded yes he is a member of the BRAG as a representative of the Planning Board. The action that has been taken by the Planning Board is that the representative that they have selected on the BRAG, now represents the BRAG back on the Planning Board and they have not been able to clarify that point. Their position before that action was taken, is that they would have a BRAG member sit on the Inner Harbor Board in the same fashion. Initially a Inner Harbor Board member was sitting on the BRAG, not necessarily one who represents the two positions, back and forth. Councilmember DeWitt motioned recommendation to approve a BRAG representative to the Planning Board's Inner Harbor Interim Leasing Policy Guidelines Committee. Motion was seconded by Vice -Chair Sandre Swanson. Ayes - 4; Noes -1. Councilmember Daysog and Alternate Friedman left prior to the vote. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from the BRAG. BRAG Chair Lee Perez, indicated there will be another community meeting sponsored by the Catellus Group, next Tuesday at 6:00 PM. BRAG Member Malcolm Mooney is at Summit Hospital and not expected to return home. BRAG Member Ken Hansen had a heart attack and had a quadruple by -pass and is at home recovering. Bother members have contributed tremendously to the success of the BRAG. Chair Appezzato asked BRAG Chair Lee Perez to extend our best to both members. 4 -B. Oral report from the Deputy City Manager (non- discussion items). Deputy City Manager David Berger indicated they are on track in structuring the proposed financing which Council gave them direction to do back in mid -May. This will be coming to the ARRA Board and the Council who will take an action on this item on August 17th, 1999. This will allow us to move forward and fill the void when the Caretaker money presumably dries up. There has been some limited success with the Navy on Caretaker renewal, but the dollars are still short of what is needed, even to match current year level through conveyance, which they are projecting early next year. Vice -Chair Swanson said they would like to discuss with the Navy and the Department of Defense on the Caretaker issue for additional money. Deputy Berger responded to Vice -Chair Swanson that they know he is there to help, although they are not to the point where they need intervention. Deputy Berger indicated they are going to EFA West to meet with the Commander. Mayor Appezzato stated since they have the authority to sign the letter to Senator Feinstein, they should do it and send one to Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Barbara Lee. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Vice -Chair Swanson invited the Council for the announcement of Bank of America and the East Bay Commission $1.5 million revolving loan fund that will help smaller businesses at the base. Bank of America is contributing $650,000 to this effort and they are trying to get other institutions interested in what is going on at the base. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respect L cretia Akil ARRA Secretary