2007-10-03 ARRA MinutesAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Chair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.
2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.
2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident
Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at
Alameda Point.
A power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,
Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the
resources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while
transfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the
update and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed
concern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was
considered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA
to protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.
Member deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the
photos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are
getting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point
and the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use
of the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned
how far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college
students chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from
2-A
Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
included an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.
Member deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney
summarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest
colony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).
Member Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the
fragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site
1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of
addressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.
Saddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how
the clean-up is managed.
Vice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.
Saddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of
proposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the
proposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay
engaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what’s best for Alameda, what’s best
for the Veterans and what’s best for the wildlife.. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a
fed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.
Member deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA’s proposals and
requested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained
officially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal
available yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,
he would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is
currently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site
plan, but there are no additional details beyond that.
Member deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-
fed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,
and, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This
opportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be
conveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we’re involved in for the remainder of
the property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the
development is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to
dry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the
USF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.
Member deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said
that they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their
commitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained
that, in the USF&W’s own words, “the status of refuge is at an impasse”; that they are unable to
reconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is
future liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer
arrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because
there are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires
consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.
Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and
that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up
obligations for the property.
Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal’s follow-up with the VA has been to this point
regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter
responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is
aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal’s Project Master
Schedule.
It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).
Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have
been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting
includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and
their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on
12/12 at the O’club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development
scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling – the
technical work to support the land-planning effort.
Member Matarrese asked if we’re on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has
prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us
more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement
process. FM requested that this item be agendized.
Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has
reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of
SunCal’s activities regarding the project.
This report was for information only. No motion or action was required.
3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation
Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).
Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done
at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns
identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of
digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff’s recommendation is to take the
Navy’s approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.
Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and
groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the
concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good
deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell
further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,
except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy’s supposition that what drums were
placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue
was the volume of waste – the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,
they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in
landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the
Navy’s estimate.
Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the
Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and
dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be
cleaned.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, and 0 abstentions.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility
study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional
controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in
Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are
interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member
Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,
and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be
done.
Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the
representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary