I have several reasons for suggesting and joining this advisory committee.
Here are some of them, updated slightly from my post to Michelle Ellson’s Island Blog on September 18, 2009:
1) Peter Calthorpe’s designs for Alameda Point are as balanced, “green,” and sustainable as any I have seen put forward since 1997, and they seem more achievable as well.
2) The City of Alameda is losing money hand over fist with the former naval base sitting relatively idle while its substandard infrastructure falls apart. No other plan, past or present, has the financial resources and the planning expertise behind it to meet this problem better than Suncal’s does. (Remember: Alameda Point Community partners withdrew as the master developer when they realized that they could not make any money developing Alameda Point under the 1973 Measure A/Charter Section 26 density limitations.)
3) The City of Alameda does not have the estimated $700 million up front needed to rebuild the entire infrastructure of Alameda Point, but the existing military-spec infrastructure is inadequate and failing. (Higher taxes, anyone?) Commercial redevelopment with its private financing is the only way to get the infrastructure brought up to current standards without placing a huge financial burden on Alameda’s taxpayers.
4) Other Measure A-compliant plans for Alameda Point would create far more traffic per Alameda Point resident than Peter Calthorpe’s Suncal plan with its below-island-average density. And the traffic projections in the latest city Alameda Point traffic study seem to underestimate both long-term predictions of reduced auto use levels and the contribution of mitigation measures to be implemented by the developer.
5) The City of Alameda needs the help of experienced developers like Pat Keliher of Suncal to pry the former base out of the hands of the US Navy before the Navy decides to sell it off to unknown developers who have no relationship at all with the City or any interest in working within City of Alameda guidelines. (Suncal is committed to its relationship with the City, even if that relationship has been strained at times.)
6) The City of Alameda needs the economic and social benefits that a revitalized and sustainable development at Alameda Point can bring us. New jobs, housing, and business activity will stimulate our local economy and support our city budget, unlike the currently underutilized and crumbling former naval air station.
7) I believe that Suncal made some mistakes early on in its attempts to market its plans to our community. I wanted to help this developer (and this designer) present their plans to the community and receive a fair hearing based on the merits of their plan, not on misinformation.
8) I am not inclined by nature to automatically support development. I opposed the expansion of South Shore Center because it was always in the wrong location for good transportation access. And I opposed the rush to build the cineplex and parking structure on their respective sites because the two structures were (and still are) too massive for their tiny lots. (The City should have stopped and re-examined its options after Longs Drug withdrew its parking lot from consideration.) But it is clear to me that, for many reasons, Alameda must now move forward with a major redevelopment at Alameda Point: too much time has been wasted already.
9) Suncal and its partners are well equipped to meet the many complex challenges posed by this site. Among them are: toxic contamination, wildlife preservation, transportation, failing infrastructure, historic preservation, rising sea levels, and our island geography. We need the resources of an experienced and capable developer like Pat Keliher and Suncal’s many partners, especially designer Peter Calthorpe.
The development and redevelopment process is long and amazingly complicated. But rest assured, if Suncal’s initiative is submitted and passes at the ballot next year, several additional City approvals WILL be required before anything is built at Alameda Point. These include a full environmental impact report (EIR) and mitigations, a major design review, a Disposition & Development Agreement (DDA), etc., before the City’s boards and commissions and/or the City Council. These are all required by law and anticipated in Suncal’s initiative.
I have participated in many previous development approval processes to safeguard the City’s health and welfare. I am participating in Suncal’s advisory committee because I believe that their proposal is the best possible development plan for Alameda Point. I also want to make sure that their revitalization proposal continues to serve this community’s best interests, which are foremost in my thinking at all times.
