pages: CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-11-07 | 3 | In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst stated people are supportive. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point announced the State Lands Commission approved the agreement exchanging land at Alameda Point. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there would be a federal requirement to hold exercises similar to the Urban Shield event, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she has not heard about anything, but would follow up. The City Manager announced the meetings have been held with three of the four public safety bargaining units; the meetings went well; a Closed Session would be scheduled for the next Council meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR (12-528) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Submit a Comment Letter on the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2C at Alameda Point, Regarding Remedial Action Alternatives, to the United States Navy. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan stated Building 5/5A is the largest building at the Base with over a million square feet; inquired when the building was designated as historically significant. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the Navy originally did an analysis in the 1990's and determined there is a historic district which includes a number of buildings; Building 5 was not part of the historic district; then, the Navy's historic officer rejected the analysis and required further study; the new findings were that Building 5 is a contributing structure to the historic district; there were a couple of other changes including designation of the seaplane lagoon as a historic resource. Councilmember deHaan stated that he finds it really difficult to see the historical significance of Building 5; Building 5A is a different story; Building 5 has heavy contamination; he is concerned about leaving a building which might not have that significance in the center of a development area; he has concerns about what was designated historical; adaptive reuse of the building will be difficult; leaving a cement cap with certain restrictions is very concerning; questioned whether the Council feels that the building is historically significant and marketable. Councilmember Johnson inquired if the federal government has a process for dealing with historic designations and whether the City would have to go through said process to make changes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 November 7, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf |