pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf, 4
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2007-12-05 | 4 | Another speaker, Leora Feeney, Boardmember of the Golden Gate Audubon Society and Friends of the Alameda Wildlife (FAWR), stated her appreciation for the cordiality given by the VA regarding their proposal. She stated that all of them support Veterans in a huge way, and also support wildlife and open space and opportunities for our children to experience nature. Ms. Feeney discussed her concerns on specific issues of the VA presentation, mainly the "circle" concept (1900 feet distance from the nearest hangar). She's concerned that any development that places a barrier between the Lease Tern colony and the water would present a problem, as the Lease Terns do not fly over buildings. They would not be able to get to the water to forage. Ms. Feeney's other strong objection is the VA's unwillingness to accept the water around the refuge, together with the land, including the island breakwater where the brown pelicans roost. If the VA accepts the land and develops that northern portion of it, it seems reasonable, but there is a need to protect the foraging waters of the Lease Terns and the island breakwater for those endangered species. She emphasized the need for accountability to protect these things, and stated that if the USF&W does not have it, nor the VA, she's concerned about who will accept the responsibility. Chair Johnson asked the VA what their intention is with regard to Ms. Feeney's concerns about the water. Mr. Hutchison stated that it is envisioned that the water area would go to the master developer, SunCal, and that the VA has never coveted that water. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, corrected Mr. Hutchison's statement by explaining that the area is Tidelands property, so it would be the ARRA or the City that would hold title to the property, and not SunCal. The next speaker was Eli Saddler, Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon Society. He discussed further the concerns of Ms. Feeney, and agreed that they support the VA. He would like them to go forward with their development plans, but just not at the Alameda Point site. One of their primary concerns is that the VA's plan contradicts the existing biological opinion that was developed when USF&W originally requested the property as a refuge. There was a minimum acreage required for the California Lease Tern which was the entire area sectioned off, not including the northern-most portion, which was going to the City and was to be developed as a buffer zone. The VA's plans would be inside the buffer zone of the area that has already been designated as the critical habitat for the species. They do not think that it is biologically defensible to draw a circle of 1900 feet around the colony, it is unrealistic to think that the birds will obey and stay in that circle. They use the whole area, including areas where the VA has already planned to put their hospital. Mr. Saddler also further discussed his concern about the water area, which was also included in the original biological opinion, which stated that the area to the south was needed for foraging for both species. He emphasized their concern about whether the VA's plan was biologically feasible without very serious mitigation that would have to be done ahead of any construction, mitigation meaning having an alternative site for the Lease Terns to go to, and there was no discussion of this mitigation. It is their understanding that the USF&W would have some kind of requirement that would include mitigation. The problem is, however, that there really is no other location for the Lease Terns to go. The VA plans could potentially jeopardize Alameda's very significant Lease Tern colony. Mr. Saddler also discussed his concerns about the VA's NEPA process and whether it is legally defensible. The transfer of the parcel is for a purpose, and if there is a new biological opinion that contradicts a pre-existing one, this places the VA's development plans on shaky ground, legally. Chair Johnson thanked all the speakers and Mr. Hutchison for coming in from Washington, DC to make the VA's presentation. Member deHaan asked whether the VA looked at other opportunities at Alameda Point. Mr. Hutchison clarified that their discussions have been with the Navy, and that the Navy came to them, unable to agree to terms with the USF&W and was going to dispose of the property, and asked whether the VA had an interest in taking it over. Their relationship to the parcel is a direct result of the Navy soliciting their interest. Mr. Jaynes added that the VA had looked at the older Coast Guard Housing property, but felt that it wasn't large enough to satisfy the VA's needs for a medical clinic as well as a columbarium. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf |