2000-11-14 Special ARRA MinutesAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE CLOSED SESSION AND
SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tuesday, November 14, 2000
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
1. CLOSED SPECIAL SESSION
The special closed session meeting was convened at 5:00 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 announced the Board had met in special session and gave instructions to Real
Property Negotiators. No action was taken.
Chair Appezzato stated there was some public comment about the legality of what the Board was
doing in closed session. There was no obligation for the City Council to deal with the RFQ for a
Master Developer. Usually, the City Council will not get involved however, as they are the
elected representatives of the citizens of the City of Alameda, staff felt that there would be wider
participation if the City Council participated in the draft of the RFQ. Normally, the City Manager
would issue the RFQ, with advice from the City Council. The RFQ will be released shortly as a
public document for everyone to see. Chair Appezzato stated he asked all of the Board members
if they would prefer not to deal with this issue and to allow the City Manager to review the RFQ.
The City Council felt that as elected representatives of this City, they wanted to proceed in
helping staff draft the document.
Assistant City Attorney Terri Highsmith stated the RFQ document that was reviewed in closed
session also has direct bearing on the price and terms, which will come into negotiations with the
Navy and a proposed Master Developer. It was directly on point to meet in closed session to
review the document. Attorney Highsmith stated she could not be more specific about the price
1
and terms, except that it was discussed. It was an appropriate closed session exception. The
reason that the City Attorney's office has advised the ARRA to review the document in closed
session and hold it back until it is released to the Master Developer at which time it will become
a public document, is to diffuse any possibility of a later perception that the developer selection
process was somehow an unfair process by allowing the document to have a premature
disclosure to the public, prior to the developer's ability to obtain copies of it to compete in a
competitive process. Attorney Highsmith stated they wanted to ensure that no one call the
developer selection process into question, believing that the process was done unfairly. There
will be plenty of opportunity for the public to participate in the selection process to come.
Chair Appezzato adjourned the special closed session meeting at 5:50 p.m. and convened the
special ARRA meeting at 6:00 p.m.
2. 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
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of September 6, 2000.
3 -B. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of September 19, 2000.
3 -C. Report and recommendation from the Development Services Director to appropriate grant
funds from the Environmental Protection Agency for technical services to explore potential
environmental remediation designs for Sites 1 and 17 at Alameda Point.
Member Kerr moved approval of the minutes as presented for the regular meeting of
September 6, 2000 and the special meeting of September 19, 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.
4. ACTION ITEMS
4 -A. Recommendation to authorize the release of the Request for Qualifications and continue
the solicitation process for a Master Developer at Alameda Point.
2
Staff presentation.
Doug Yount, Development Services Director did a presentation which highlighted the significant
points in the staff report. These brief highlights included: review of goals and objectives of
Alameda Point redevelopment and reuse; role of a Master Developer; RFQ criteria requirements;
estimated timeline; public participation process; and fragmented development issues. Mr. Yount
stated that fragmenting out portions of the development may have a serious impact on the ability
and reinvestment on the necessary infrastructure across the entire Base. It is very important that
the investment of infrastructure be shared across the development portions in order to make the
entire redevelopment process work. The Community Reuse Plan is a guide for the redevelopment
process, as it anticipates the coordination of efforts of land use, mixed use, recreation space and
wild life refuge. Development phasing and environmental remediation must be coordinated and
if there are portions that are pulled out, it will be difficult to consider an early transfer capability
with the Navy and disposition of the property, in order to get the sufficient funds from the Navy
for environmental remediation. If packages are drawn out for creating low- income and affordable
housing, it may not be able to be reached if some of the infrastructure costs are not able to be
integrated throughout other development phases. The recommendation to the Board by staff is to
authorize the release of the RFQ and continue with the selection process for a Master Developer
as outlined in the staff report.
Chair Appezzato stated this is the beginning of a long tedious public process, culminating into a
Master Developer or combination of something. Everyone will have an opportunity to provide
input and comments on how they think it should go. If the two public forums are not enough,
there will be more.
The public hearing was opened.
Joan Konrad, APAC member stated their main concern is public involvement in the Master
Development selection process. Ms. Konrad expressed her appreciation to the Board with their
concern on community input. There should be sufficient and meaningful community
involvement in the selection process. Ms. Konrad stated that the first community forum will not
be until two months into the selection process and the second will be four months into the
process which does not involve the community enough. There is a disconnect between the
Community Reuse Plan and the implementation of the way the selection process will progress.
Chair Appezzato stated he will be very receptive to APAC's recommendations on the public
process. If the dates should be changed or if there is a need for additional public forums, it will
be considered.
Member Daysog asked Ms. Konrad will APAC have a community meeting among APAC
members as well as inviting the public to help the member APAC designee address concerns to
the developer selection team?
3
Ms. Konrad responded that it was an excellent idea, although she does not have the authority to
say the APAC will do that.
Member Daysog stated there is a potential of six community meetings plus the two, because of
the three designee members from the Economic Development Commission, Planning
Commission and APAC. Each commission could hold public meetings amongst themselves.
Member Kerr stated it is hard to get people out to public meetings and December is extremely
difficult to get people to public meetings. When staff was suggesting January, they were being
practical. There is not attempt to delay the process.
Eve Bach, Arc Ecology stated it is difficult to determine if it is a good idea or bad idea to release
the RFQ at this time, because of not being able to review it. Ms. Bach stated she was very
disappointed to see that it was not attached to her packet when she received it. She appreciates
the Board's effort to explain why there was a closed session, however the explanation was not
satisfactory, but raised more questions. The implication of what is written in the staff report and
what has been said, is that there are only two choices: either to have the City Manager release the
RFQ at his discretion or to have the Council to review it in a closed session. There is a third
alternative which San Francisco has followed with respect to Hunter's Point and Treasure Island,
which is to have public review of the document. The RFQ is the document which explains to the
development community what the City is looking for. Having public feedback about the content
of the RFQ does not make it unfair if it is done in an open session. Ms. Bach stated that her
understanding of the Brown Act is that the Board has met improperly to discuss the RFQ in
closed session and that she is sorry for that
Douglas DeHaan, APAC member stated the APAC has expressed concern about how the
commission committee was being formulated. APAC will have discussions to ensure that the
APAC designee is moving forward with the community information. Mr. DeHaan expressed he
shares the same desire with the Board in making the best decision for the community.
Chair Appezzato stated the Board will do its best to ensure that this is as fair a process as
possibly can be because of the financial and land use impacts.
Member Kerr asked Attorney Highsmith in all public processes, the people who have a financial
interest that does not meet the general public exception, should they not be on the decision
making point?
Attorney Highsmith responded that people who participate on the selection committee will be
City officials during their term of participation. Whoever is on the selection committee should
not have a conflict of interest, as defined by the fair and political practice commission or even a
potential common law conflict interest as defined by case law, which is the idea that you cannot
-4
"serve two masters." The official must be devoted and loyal to the Master Developer selection
outside of any other interests that they may have. These are the type of things that will be looked
at to determine who will be on the selection committee.
Member Kerr asked Attorney Highsmith to comment on the inclusion of a Chamber of
Commerce member.
Attorney Highsmith responded that a Chamber of Commerce member will be fine as long as
there is no financial conflict of interest as defined by the government code and no common law
conflict of interest. There would have to be a Chamber member that did not have a direct
obligation to serve tenants, because a tenant who is a lease holder at Alameda Point has a conflict
of interest, because it is the very property that they have an interest in that is being offered for
sale.
Member Kerr responded that the Chamber of Commerce does participate in the business
organization at Alameda Point and asked Attorney Highsmith for further clarification on that
issue.
Attorney Highsmith responded that another member of the Chamber that serves the WABA or
another area would not have the same perception of a conflict of interest, as opposed to someone
who is a member of the Chamber who directly supports the Tenant Consortium, as an example.
Member Johnson stated the Chamber of Commerce will be given the opportunity to designate a
person and the City Attorney's office could review their proposed designation. If there is found
to be a conflict of interest, the Board will let them know at that point.
Attorney Highsmith responded they would review any designated member at the Board's
request.
Allan Shore, 3238 Briggs stated he was disappointed that Eve Bach's comments were not reacted
to as the public input process. Mr. Shore stated he has very serious concerns about the public
input process, which were addressed in the closed session meeting. When Chair Appezzato asks
the Council about the input that they want, instead of letting the City Manager go through the
normal public RFQ process, the Council said no they did not want to do that, because they
recognize this is an important process. The issue most important now is that the public feels it
has a right to have input into the questions that are asked of potential developers. There is no
reason why the RFQ cannot be open to public scrutiny and input. Mr. Shore requested that the
Board delay this process for about one month to allow the valuable input of the community,
which will bring about a team playing effort for this process.
5
Bill Smith, 732 Central Avenue, #16 stated that he has focused his interest on transportation. The
problem is that information has always been on a need to know basis just like the military. The
Alameda Point Advisory Committee should be changed to a commission to have their full
unbiased input where they feel necessary throughout the whole process for the Master Developer.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Member Johnson stated that on page 2 of the staff reports where it lists "chair ", it would make
more sense to list the selected member as "designee ".
Doug Yount responded however the Board chooses to list the selected members, staff will abide
by that.
Member Johnson asked if the Board was making a decision tonight on the fragmented
development that was discussed in the staff report?
Mr. Yount responded no, it is only to provide additional information for the Board.
Member Johnson motioned to adopt the recommendation with the change in membership
from chair to designee and that there will be additional public sessions if it becomes
appropriate. The motion was seconded by Member DeWitt.
Discussion.
Member DeWitt stated that staff has worked very diligently on this issue and there is a need to
move forward.
Member Daysog stated that on page 2 of report 4 -A it is written that "the response committee
will make a recommendation to the ARRA ". Does this mean that after each community forum
meeting the list will become narrower until the selection team chooses one developer?
Doug Yount responded that it could. It is anticipated that the developer selection team based on
all of the input, review, criteria and qualifications in the Business Plan, would eventually from
the short list have a recommendation to the ARRA Board of a single developer. If the selection
team feels that there are a number that are equal and cannot make a decision between the three,
there may be a recommendation of one, two and three.
Member Daysog stated there is room to further define or change a single recommendation to the
top three recommendations.
Doug Yount responded that the Board can change the criteria as they feel it is appropriate.
-6
Chair Appezzato stated that instead of saying one, two and three and making the process appear
unfair, it should be done as it was in the past when the top three was chosen and went though a
thorough evaluation process.
Doug Yount stated that it is best to reserve that discussion for a later date when there is the
release of the Business Plan.
Member Daysog stated that if there is only one developer, people may vote against that particular
group for lack of a bigger selection.
Doug Yount responded that it makes sense to have a ranking so that the Board can see the
scoring and decide.
Member Daysog responded that ranking is a good idea.
Chair Appezzato stated that is very dangerous. Why would anyone respond to an RFP if they
have already been ranked in the RFQ?
Doug Yount stated that Member Daysog was just illustrating that there would be a ranking
process when the recommendation from the selection team comes from the ARRA Board for a
decision. There would not be just one recommended but a ranking of first, second and third
choice.
Chair Appezzato stated that would not be fair because that would give the number one choice the
lead.
Member Kerr stated that in the selection for the FISC property there were three groups presented
without any ranking. There is an advantage of having three or five potential developers. There
would not be anything worse that presenting a single developer to the Board as indicated in the
staff report under Public Involvement Process on page 2. Presenting the Board with an
appropriate numbered group, allows the public to review and get involved with the selection
process. It is difficult to overcome the advantage of the developer that is ranked as the first
choice. Also, it is not to early to discuss this issue.
Member Daysog stated that whether they are ranked or unranked is not significant, just as long as
there is not "a recommendation" but recommendations.
Chair Appezzato asked that if they receive twenty responses from the best qualified developers,
what is wrong if all twenty are qualified and are sent the RFP? Why would we limit ourselves to
two or three?
Member Johnson stated that it is not a bad idea that we clarify that we do not rank the selected
potential developers, as it may have a potential to influence the final decision. The language "a
recommendation" might be misconstrued.
Doug Yount responded that the short list will not be ranked.
Chair Appezzato stated that ranking should not occur until after the short listed teams have
submitted their proposals and presentations.
Doug Yount stated the recommendation portion of the staff report was in response to the end of
the process, not the RFQ process. After the selection team has had all of the community forums
and completed its review of the Business Plans of the short list of developers, then there would
be some type of a recommendation made.
Chair Appezzato stated that during the FISC process, the Council voted after the presentation of
the three short listed.
Member Kerr stated that there should be a group of equally ranked individuals.
Member Johnson asked will the short list mean that they qualify or they do not?
Doug Yount responded yes, that is correct.
Member Kerr stated that the staff report makes a lot of assumptions about the RFP process. The
motion tonight on the RFQ should mean that the Board is making no assumptions on the RFP.
No appearance should be made that the Board is approving the RFP process at this meeting.
Chair Appezzato instructed staff to ensure that there will be presentations on the RFP, without
intimidation and that no method of ranking will be used.
Assistant City Manager, C &ED David Berger stated that the Board will have an opportunity next
February 7, 2001 to review the proposals that are received and determination made on which
developers will go forth beyond that and what criteria will be used. All of that additional
information will be provided to the Board. The Board and the public will have the opportunity to
comment on the rest of the process on February 7, 2001.
Member Johnson amended the motion to include that the RFBP be an unranked
recommendation of qualified individuals and that the Board is not making any decisions on
the RFP process with this motion. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
8
4 -B. Recommendation to Adopt the Golf Commission's Recommended "Alameda Point Golf
Development 36 Hole Versus 18 Holes" Report and Direct Staff to Undertake Pre -
development Activities for Development of an 18 -hole Championship Golf Course,
Hotel, Conference Center and Spa on the 214.5 Acres Approved and Consistent With the
Base Reuse Plan.
Staff presentation.
Dana Banke, General Manager of the Golf Course stated they have assembled a City staff and
golf development team consisting of Elizabeth Johnson, Kathleen Kelly, Doug Yount, Ed Levine
and David Brandt from the City Attorney's office. There are two consultants that have worked on
a number of reports including David Zhender from EPS and Marcus Judge with Golf Research
Group. In 1998 the ARRA directed City staff to do an RFP for a golf feasibility study done by
Kyle Phillips and Associates. They looked at the 214.5 acres on the Northwest Territory. The
property they looked at is the best golf course property in the nation which would be highly
profitable for the City. The only problem is that it sits on flat land with a runway through it. The
possibility of receiving the clean merit sand from the 50 ft. dredge project looked very possible
which means the development of the golf course would be that much better. In July, 1998 the
feasibility study was presented to the ARRA and at that same time a local developer presented to
the BRAG another potential development which was the replica of St. Andrews which would
have been 36 holes. At that time, the ARRA was not at the point to make any decision on the
development and they asked the Director of the Golf Commission to look into the development
plans and the possibility of a 36 hole golf complex. Staff retained EPS and Golf Research Group
to look into the viability of a 36 hole golf complex. In order to do that the Sports Complex would
have to be relocated which is on 57 acres which would bring the total property to 271 acres. After
further review the findings were that if the sports complex were to be relocated, it would be at the
detriment of about $25 to $35 million. The safety constraints of being able to have an 18 hole old
course and an 18 hole new course is that the problems that exist with the design would be . a
tremendous liability to the City. On September 20, 2000 the Golf Commission approved
unanimously to recommend the development of an 18 hole golf complex over a 36 hole, built on
the original 214.5 acres, not the 271 acres. They also recommended to fund the predevelopment
of the 18 hole golf complex of $318,000.
Member Kerr asked about people being hit by golf balls. Is that not a hazard on any golf course?
Dana Banke responded that it is a hazard on any golf course. However, a replica of St. Andrews
was built on small acreage and a golf course of a championship caliber would have to be built on
approximately 125 acres and there would be much more room from the center line of the fairway
allowing for arid shots. There would also be golf cart pads and space to accommodate sectors, all
of which is needed at Alameda Point for an 18 hole golf course.
Chair Appezzato asked can a safe golf course resort be built on 214.5 acres?
9
Dana Banke responded that not only can they build a safe golf course, but a golf course that can
house a US Open and a PGA championship style golf tournament.
Chair Appezzato asked if the question about arid golf balls is immaterial?
Dana Banke responded that is correct.
The public hearing was opened.
Andrine Smith, APAC member expressed their support in favor of the 18 hole golf course. The
report is consistent with the advancement of redevelopment towards a golf course. If it is
necessary, the APAC would encourage the ARRA Board to consider land use which has been
allocated to other uses, including the sports complex. This would not require reallocating all of
the land towards the sports complex, but it needs to be reconsidered. The ARRA should also do a
careful cost benefit analysis as to the cost involved in relocating a part of it versus the revenues
that this might be created for the City. Another concern of the APAC is that the wildlife is
requesting another 26 acres be devoted to grassland. APAC strongly encourages the ARRA to
work with the refuge group to make that 26 acres apart of the golf course rough area. Sufficient
land has already been devoted to the refuge.
Chair Appezzato stated the Board will vigorously negotiate with the wildlife group about any
additional acreage they are requesting. Chair Appezzato stated he is not prepared to discuss
anything in reference to the sports complex.
Member DeWitt asked Ms. Smith if the APAC was supporting the proposal for the 36 hole golf
course?
Andrine Smith responded that they are not in support of the 36 hole. Based on the APAC
recommendation, they are in support of the 18 hole golf course.
Member DeWitt asked Ms. Smith if they were adding to their recommendation a conference
center and relocating the sports complex?
Andrine Smith responded that if it is necessary, the APAC would recommend to relocate all or
part of the complex.
Doug DeHaan, APAC member stated that the sports complex is viable. If the sports complex can
be put together with the resort and the overall complex of the entire development, it may be
something the Board could have funded. It may have to be a $20 million bond issue or
something of that nature which would have to go forward. The Board should look at the overall
development of the entire resort, not just the golf course and there may be a better understanding
of the entire package.
- 10 -
Chair Appezzato responded that there are already people in the community who are concerned
about the reduction of the 56 acre sports complex without any input. There has to be a fully
public discussion so that all concerns are met.
Hugh McKay, Alameda International Destination Resort (AIDR) stated that if the Board had
given the same concern to the golf course as they have given to the Master Developer issue, there
may have been more movement on the destination resort. AIDR would like to develop an
upscale project that is a benefit to all of Alameda. There will be four upscale golf courses in the
Bay Area, including Chabot, San Leandro and Calbrae, all of which will be $100 to $130 in
green fees. The green fee mentioned in the staff report is $100 to $175 and who would be
willing to pay that fee in comparison to the cheaper fees at the other local golf courses? Another
upscale golf course will not be an economically wise decision for the City, as there are too many
upscale golf courses now.
Chair Appezzato asked Mr. McKay if he had already been given the opportunity to submit his
proposal?
Mr. McKay responded no, they have only gone to the golf course and Park and Recreation
committees.
Chair Appezzato advised Mr. McKay that he can submit his proposal to any of the existing
boards and commissions and he will have the opportunity to submit his proposal when an RFP
goes out.
Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond Road stated he has followed and studied the 1998 golf course
feasibility study and has determined that the 214.5 acres of land is not enough to support an 18
hole golf course. The standard guideline is 150 acres per hole. Adding another 57 acres would
not be a sufficient size for 36 holes. Not even moving the sports complex from the Tidelands
Trustland to other areas of Alameda Point is not a good idea, as it would steal revenue producing
land that is important to the overall infrastructure costs and services that are required at Alameda
Point. A layout such as St. Andrews raises serious safety concerns, including crossing fairways
and people being hit on the greens and sharing greens. This course should be done as uniquely
Alameda in its course and design. Mr. Wood urged the Board to approve all of the staff report
recommendations.
Kirk Elliott, Chair, Alameda Park and Recreation Department stated they are in support of the 18
hole golf course and the sports complex/hotel /conference next to it. It is ideal that both the golf
course and sports complex be located together where they have been designated. The
commission suggests that the Board accept the staff recommendation.
Tony Corica, Chair, Golf Commission stated that at their September 20, 2000 meeting they
approved the concept of a golf course at Alameda Point in support of a quality 18 hole premium
daily fee force versus the 36 hole design. The 18 hole golf course designs keeps in line with the
Community Reuse Plan and the 214.5 acres that have been allotted for the golf course can
accommodate one championship golf course with amenities such as a range in a clubhouse but
not two. If we went to a 36 hole concept, the current gym at Alameda Point would have to be
demolished, which provides basketball and other extra curricular activity for the youth of
Alameda. Mr. Corica expressed to the Board to approve the 18 hole concept.
Bill Smith, Virtual Agile Manufacturing stated this situation is the biggest pause in the
Community Reuse Plan. He stated the lease tern is the biggest problem with Alameda Point
taking up to much land. Mr. Smith expressed his concern about the lack of tourism for the
people of the region due to the issues of the wildlife refuge taking up to much space at Alameda
Point.
Diane Lichtenstein, Vice -Chair APAC stated that in the recommendation from the APAC, item
five should include "highest and best use generator." The income is extremely important to the
City which would bring jobs and income into the City. Ms. Lichtenstein stated that it is
premature to talk about moving the sports complex, however, the APAC is urging the Board to
imagine a vision of what Alameda could become. A financial analysis should tell the City what
is the best way to go.
The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion.
Member DeWitt stated he is in favor of the analysis that has been done and the recommendations
as stated in the staff report. Staff has done an excellent job in clarifying the development of an
18 hole versus a 36 hole golf course.
Member Johnson stated she is aware that there is a lot of debate on the 36 hole golf course, but
what needs to kept in mind is that on the agenda and staff report is not the issue and size of the
sports complex. The Board is only focusing on the 18 hole golf course and resort as presented by
staff. Member Johnson stated she is concerned about the available space for the sports complex,
however that would be a whole set of another hearings.
Member Kerr stated she was pleased to see that there was a feasibility study for the conference
center and spa included in the staff recommendation. An 18 hole golf course is not going to be
sufficient alone to attract enough people by itself. Member Kerr expressed she is very interested
in seeing an upscale golf course in connection with the other options. Member Kerr asked
Member Johnson about the disposal of the dredging spoils with the Port of Oakland and will that
affect what happens with the golf course?
- 12 -
Member Johnson responded that the Port of Oakland needs approval to do their dredging before
the City can get any of their dredging materials, if the dredging plan passes.
Member Kerr responded they seem to be re- sinking their criteria for the disposal which is of
concern.
Member Johnson stated it needs to be revised because the way it is currently, the Port of Oakland
would not be allowed to do some of the restoration projects they are planning. Once it is revised
then the Port of Oakland can go forward.
Member Kerr stated that the point of this is to enable the 50 ft. dredging project. Member Kerr
asked is there room for an 18 hole golf course and conference center without displacing in
portion of the sports complex ?
Dana Banke responded yes.
Chair Appezzato stated that the Port of Oakland has two or three sites for dumping of dredged
spoils. There is some controversy over it as to whether or not they are filling the Bay and there
will be some opposition. Alameda will be a site but it will not come under the same opposition
as other sites because it is on dry land at Alameda Point. Alameda will not be a site that is
controversial and the Port of Oakland will come to Alameda for final plan approval.
Member Daysog expressed his appreciation to the Golf Course Commission and Recreation
Commission of the extreme care both exercised in their due diligence with regards to the market
study report comparing the market opportunities with different golf courses. It allowed us to see
different golf courses throughout the region. It also highlighted the constraints and opportunities
in building an on -site golf course and the requirements associated with it. There seems to be a
continuing commitment of documenting everything.
Member DeWitt 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.
5. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A. Oral report from APAC.
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction, or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the
agenda.)
None.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia Akil
ARRA Secretary