pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf, 2
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2007-10-03 | 2 | 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 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf |