Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization

AAPR STATEMENT ON DEFEAT OF MEASURE B - It’s Up to Our City Leaders to Find a Way to Implement the Plan

2010-02-03T10:39:00.000-08:00

Alameda, CA, February 2, 2010. Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization (AAPR) is disappointed in the defeat of Measure B, but we are hopeful that another way will be found to implement that land use plan that was the basis of the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative.

The plan to revitalize Alameda Point fulfills the community goals to create a new neighborhood at the former base that will provide valuable civic and recreational amenities, job creation and an environmentally sustainable mixed-use development that will be an asset for all of Alameda.

While we are disappointed that after 17 years of planning there currently is no viable mechanism for fulfilling the community vision for a vibrant new neighborhood at Alameda Point, we are encouraged by the statements of our elected leaders indicating support for the land use plan developed by world-renowned community planner Peter Calthorpe.

Doing nothing at Alameda Point is unacceptable. The base is deteriorating rapidly and costs Alameda millions of dollars each year in maintenance.

With Measure B’s defeat, it is now the responsibility of our elected officials to lead us in finding another way to implement this community-developed land use plan. We count on them to do this, and we offer our continued support for the realization of the community vision.

HOMES Newsletter

2010-01-27T09:45:00.000-08:00

The HOMES Front, the newsletter of HOMES, has an interesting edition covering everything from endorsements of Measure B to the City’s lack of good faith negotiations.

You can read it here: http://www.homesalameda.org/newsletter/front.html

“The Sum of All Fears”

2010-01-25T09:59:00.000-08:00

Lauren Do adds up all the figures that make up the shortfall the City claims will result from the project. Only problem is, it doesn’t add up.

Read it here: http://www.laurendo.com/the_sum_of_all_fears

The Greenbelt Alliance, "the San Francisco Bay Area's advocate for open spaces and vibrant places," has just announced its support for Measure B:

2010-01-21T09:54:00.000-08:00

http://www.greenbelt.org/resources/press/releases/release_2010jan20.html

Greenbelt Alliance Endorses Measure B for a Renewed Alameda Point

Smart reuse of the land is right for Alameda and for the Bay Area

After careful consideration, Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area’s leading advocate of open space protection and smart growth development, has endorsed the plan to redevelop the Alameda Point Naval Air Station in the City of Alameda. Greenbelt Alliance encourages Alameda voters to support Measure B on February 2 to allow the successful reuse of Alameda Point.

"The proposed development of Alameda Point is a win for Alameda and a win for the Bay Area," said Jeremy Madsen, Executive Director of Greenbelt Alliance. "If we want a region that is climate-friendly and less auto-dependent, that safeguards our iconic landscapes and creates great neighborhoods for all Bay Area residents, this is exactly the right kind of development."

Key to Smart Growth

Redeveloping Alameda Point would be a significant step in creating the type of walkable new neighborhood the Bay Area needs. In June 2009 Greenbelt Alliance unveiled Grow Smart Bay Area, a regional vision of protected open space, farms, and wildlife habitats and vibrant, climate-friendly neighborhoods. The Grow Smart vision is based on rigorous research that finds the region’s next generation of growth can be accommodated within the Bay Area’s existing cities and towns if infill development sites are efficiently used.

For years, about 1,000 acres of the decommissioned Naval Air Station have sat neglected on the western end of Alameda. The redevelopment plan calls for a 60-acre sports complex, new waterfront and community parks, and outdoor recreation opportunities, linked by bike-friendly boulevards. Toxic contamination, left over from the Navy era, would be cleaned up. Expanded ferry services would increase transit options to San Francisco for all Alameda residents. Over 1,000 homes in the mixed-use community would be affordable to people with moderate, low, and very low incomes, increasing housing choices for Alameda’s socio-economically diverse population.

Greenbelt Alliance recognizes that the proposed Alameda Point development and Measure B are controversial among Alameda residents and leaders. Some of the criticism is understandable. Measure B itself could be simpler, allowing voters to more easily understand the implications of approval. Greenbelt Alliance would have preferred that the development proposal include provisions to use well-paid Bay Area workers to build the new community so that the construction itself would contribute to the economic vitality of the region.

Measure B Misrepresented

However, Greenbelt Alliance believes that the long-term benefits of development at Alameda Point outweigh the shortcomings of the development proposal or Measure B. We also believe that some of the criticisms are incorrect or overstated. Greenbelt Alliance commissioned an urban economics expert to review the City’s election report finding that the fiscal impacts of the proposed development would be negative for Alameda. This independent review found that the election report relied on several worst case assumptions. A more standard analysis would have likely revealed that the development’s fiscal impacts would be either neutral or slightly favorable for the City. Our analysis of Measure B also found that, while the measure would convey land use entitlements to the developer, it does not convey ownership rights or other regulatory permits. As such, the City Council or other regulatory agencies could require modifications to the development if further analysis, including CEQA review, indicates that changes to the development plan are warranted based on environmental, health or other concerns.

Finally, Greenbelt Alliance acknowledges that the process to approve development at Alameda Point is not ideal. Under normal circumstances, City voters would not act as decision-makers on such a complicated land use matter via the ballot box. Instead the elected representatives of Alameda’s residents, the City Council, would be responsible for reviewing the development proposal through established parameters of land-use decision making, carefully deliberating and determining the best interest of their constituents. However, Alameda’s 1973 Measure A requires a public vote to allow for any development of multifamily housing other than duplexes. In an era where Bay Area workers, seniors, and young families are seeking a variety of housing choices, policies like Measure A are an impediment to creating high quality, thriving neighborhoods. In fact, Measure A has rendered previous development proposals for Alameda Point infeasible.

Time for Change

"If the redevelopment of Alameda Point does not move ahead now it could be years, even decades, before something happens with the old Naval Air Station,” said Madsen. "Alameda deserves better. If Measure B passes, it will lead to a great community at Alameda Point, a place Alameda residents will be proud of and a model for the entire Bay Area."

###

For 50 years, Greenbelt Alliance has been the San Francisco Bay Area's advocate for open spaces and vibrant places, with offices in San Francisco, San Jose, Walnut Creek, San Rafael, and Santa Rosa. www.greenbelt.org

Lauren Do - "It’s tricky"

2010-01-20T10:11:00.000-08:00

Here is Lauren Do's post today:

So, in an apparent about-face from last Friday when I was told that the SunCal submission was a public document, apparently both the City and SunCal have gone to Def con stall and I’m getting the runaround. According to SunCal spokesman, Joe Aguirre, they are not releasing the documents because of the “confidentiality agreement” between the City and SunCal.

The unspoken is that it appears that the blockage is coming from the City side (surprise surprise) So, in the public (namely, my own) interest, I’ve submitted a public records request and if the City wants to justify how precisely it is not in the public’s interest given the election, I can’t wait to get the answer. For a City that is interested in “transparency” and and “informed populace”, it will be interesting to see how they justify that these documents are not public. So far, I have not received a response yet from the City Attorney’s office, but it’s only been a day.

Letter to the Editor - City leaders let residents down

2010-01-18T10:07:00.000-08:00

The Alameda Sun

By Joan Konrad

January 15, 2010

Three years ago, after a competition, the city of Alameda chose SunCal to be the master developer for Alameda Point.

The city and developer, acting as partners, entered into an agreement by which they would work together to establish how Alameda Point would be developed. If that is the case, how could the city, both elected officials and staff, have been unaware of what is in the initiative written by SunCal?

How could our city leaders have had so much enthusiasm for this project for the past three years, and now, suddenly, work for its failure? The reasons they give for rejecting the initiative appear flimsy.

How could the city leaders tell the voters to reject the Measure B initiative and entrust the development to the very people, the city, who have been unable to prevent the process from falling apart? The city's energies might have been better spent negotiating a fair deal and seeing the Disposition and Development Agreement is well-written.

Does the city plan to do the development alone? Where would they find the money? Do they have the expertise? They run a city; they are not experienced developing large tracts of land. Perhaps they have a new developer in mind to take over the work done by SunCal? That certainly would not be acting in good faith.

If Measure B fails, how many more years will it take before we have a new community at Alameda Point? How much more will it cost the city? Let's hope Measure B passes.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/alamedajournal/ci_14192852

Alameda Point: Do We Move Forward or Let It Rot?

2010-01-15T09:31:00.000-08:00

When it comes to how we vote on Measure B, that is really the question. Eve Pearlman sums it up excellently in her article today:

http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/01/eve-pearlman-how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-the-point-2/

DDA Education

2010-01-15T09:00:00.000-08:00

Attention City Leaders:

John Knox White has an excellent post on the difference between DAs (Development Agreements) and DDAs (Disposition and Development Agreements) that explains the controls a City has via the DDA process.

We hope you’ll take a look: http://johnknoxwhite.com/2010/01/13/alameda-point-all-the-protections-in-place/

savealameda.com : "Alameda city government to SunCal: We want to work with you, so drop dead"

2010-01-12T10:09:00.000-08:00

Click here to read this post that was posted at savealameda.com:

http://savealameda.com/2010/01/08/alameda-city-government-to-suncal-we-want-to-work-with-you-so-drop-dead.aspx

A Citizen’s Perspective: Measure B Meets Objectives, Benefits City

2010-01-11T10:22:00.000-08:00

AAPR’s Helen Sause has excellent editorials in Friday’s Journal and Thursday’s Sun. You can read them here:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/alamedajournal/ci_14142549?nclick_check=1

and here:

http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6341&Itemid=11

Meeting Recaps

2010-01-08T09:19:00.000-08:00

It was a busy week for those seeking to learn more about Measure B.

Tuesday’s night’s joint Council/Board of Education meeting was long. Several blogs posted coverage of it including: http://johnknoxwhite.com/, The Island http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2010/01/on-point-the-prisoner/ and Lauren Do http://www.laurendo.com/ (The Nogotiator, 1/7/10).

Thursday night, the League of Women Voters hosted an excellent forum on the pros and cons of Measure B. The conference room was filled beyond capacity as many Alamedans – and not just the usual suspects – sought to learn more about Measure B.

AAPR’s Honora Murphy was excellent in presenting an Alamedan’s perspective on the necessity of moving forward with transforming the deteriorating former Base into a usable, vibrant community that all can benefit from. SunCal’s Pat Keliher answered the many excellent questions asked by the audience.

The opposition’s Dave Needles focused on the need to examine the initiative in a vacuum as if there are no such things as Disposition and Development Agreements, Business Plans, or Environmental Impact Reports. At several points it became obvious that Needles does not support the actual land plan for the Base either, with its planned mix of housing types and walkable neighborhood, leaving one to wonder if focusing on fears about the initiative is simply a ruse to prevent a sustainable, mixed-use development at all.

Needles concluded by stating that the City of Alameda has all the expertise needed to take on the master developer role. One wonders if perhaps the City’s dogcatcher isn’t terribly busy and could take on this role.

AUSD School Board Vice-President Mike McMahon Endorses Measure B

2010-01-06T13:41:00.000-08:00

The following is a message that Mike McMahon sent out via email this morning:

After sitting through a two hour presentation from City and AUSD staff on Measure B, I am prepared to take a position on Measure B. My primary focus is overseeing of the schools and as such I will not tread into City Council's arena of responsibility. One of the main factors that makes Alameda desirable is our very good schools and I am committed to maintaining that reputation.

I believe the overall benefits of choosing to develop Alameda Point using the existing framework presented by Suncal is better than the alternative of another sixteen years of doing nothing but plan to plan. The vision for the Alameda Point development will provide for a vital community that will serve the needs of children, adults and seniors. While there are no guarantees in Measure B, I am confident that AUSD is in a strong position to negotiate a mitigation agreement that will serve Alameda Point and the West End residents. Suncal has vested interest to insure that schools are fully integrated into the development and we will be able to work with them to achieve a solution that meets the needs of future Alameda children.

I realize this issue is bigger than the schools, so if you need more information please attend the League of Women Voters Pros and Con's Forum on January 7, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Main library. If you can not attend, they have a updated link to their analysis of the measure.

http://alameda.ca.lwvnet.org/files/measurebcorrected.pdf

Important Meetings!

2010-01-04T16:17:00.000-08:00

Two critical meetings happen this week that will help inform voters about Measure B.

The first is a combination City Council/Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, January 5, 7:00 pm at Mastick Center.

Although the purported purpose of this meeting is to discuss how the Revitalize Alameda Point plan impacts the Alameda Unified School District, SunCal is not being allowed to make any sort of presentation. Presentations will only be by the Interim City Manager, an outspoken opponent of the plan, and the AUSD superintendent.

Many of us at AAPR are also very strong public school supporters. We feel it is essential that any plan at Alameda Point benefit the schools, and we feel this plan does. We hope the meeting will provide at least an opportunity for questions and answers related to the plan’s impact on our schools so that the voting public can be fully and accurately informed.

On Thursday, January 7th, the Alameda League of Women Voters will be hosting a pro and con forum at the Main Library. More information can be found at the LWV web site here: http://alameda.ca.lwvnet.org/MeasureB.html

Proponents and opponents, including AAPR, were asked to provide answers to a LWV questionnaire. That can be found here: http://alameda.ca.lwvnet.org/files/measure_b_q_and_a.pdf

Please come to these meetings this week and show your support for revitalizing Alameda Point!

"More about that Treasure Island development" by Lauren Do

2009-12-30T12:46:00.000-08:00

Lauren Do writes on her blog about the development at Treasure Island. You can read it here.

Alameda Point Lease Revenues – in the City’s Own Words

2009-12-29T21:44:00.000-08:00

Lauren Do has more on lease revenues at the former Navy base and how they are not keeping up with maintenance costs…this straight from City reports. You can read Lauren’s post here.

Changing Their Tune

2009-12-23T11:30:00.000-08:00

One of the arguments the opponents to Measure B make is that bringing in a developer to revitalize the former Navy base means the City will “lose” millions of dollars in lease revenue each year from current tenants at the Point. A variation of this theme is that we don’t need development at the former Navy base because we’ve got all this lease revenue coming in.

The reality is that lease revenue is not keeping up with the costs the City is paying each year to maintain the Point and it’s costing us million of dollars every year.

SunCal propaganda? Nope, this recognition comes straight from Councilmember Doug DeHaan himself, one of the chief authors of the above-mentioned argument about “losing” lease revenue. From Councilmember DeHaan’s 2008 campaign web site:

CONVERSION OF ALAMEDA POINT:  For the past eleven years, The City of Alameda has actively been engaged in the process of the conversion of Alameda Point for public use. In the last eight years the city has been involved with two different master developers. During this period the city has bonded over $15 million in support of public services and the conversion planning process. The present cooperative agreement with the Navy and our inability to generate enough lease revenue is costing the City General Fund $1 million to $2 million annually.

I believe the city must maintain the present city/master developer Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) timeline. This has been very difficult during the present turbulent national fiscal crisis. Our challenge has always been to convert Alameda Point with zero fiscal impact (fiscal neutrality) to The City of Alameda, while fulfilling the community’s goals and expectations. The city must make sure that the community is fully engaged in the process and understands all aspects of this complex redevelopment project

Lauren Do covers this topic today in her blog post Paint It Black.

House of Cards Continued

2009-12-18T10:59:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, this blog reported on the erroneous statement on bankruptcies made by the opponents of Revitalize Alameda Point.

We just received a copy of the HOMES Special Edition newsletter and they examine the other rebuttal arguments point-by-point. It is really worth taking a look.

The newsletter may be accessed here: http://www.homesalameda.org/. Be sure to click “more” to see the story on the opponent’s rebuttals.

A House of Cards

2009-12-16T09:39:00.000-08:00

Today, AAPR became aware that the writers of the Rebuttal to the Argument for Measure B admit to being not quite accurate in their ballot rebuttal arguments. They claim that they did not know that it was Lehman Brothers that went bankrupt, not SunCal.

This is simply startling given that the signers of both the Arguments Against Measure B and the Rebuttals are all signed by Alameda City leaders – the Mayor, Councilmembers, City Treasurer, City Auditor, and two School Board members. The fact that Lehman Brothers went bankrupt last year is hardly top secret information. And the fact that Lehman Brothers is not the financial partner on Alameda Point is well-known as well. To pin these bankruptcies on SunCal shows either a frightening lack of knowledge or a deliberate effort to misinform voters. It does make one wonder what else was incorrect in the opponent’s rebuttal. More to come...

A Taxing Situation

2009-12-16T09:36:00.000-08:00

With all the controversy and complexity around the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative, one can understand the hesitation to do anything. So, how about if we just wait and do nothing?

The former base has been closed for 12 years and it is steadily deteriorating. The costs to maintain it continue to be a burden on our City budget. For example, in fiscal year 2008/2009, the City spent $15.7 million on maintenance and security, $3.7 million more than the $11.9 in lease revenue that it took in. that amounts to approximately $14 million per year. In fact, in the time since the City took over maintaining the Point, it has spent over $100 million on repairs, security and other costs, and the place is still falling apart.

The Navy is cleaning up the contaminated soil and groundwater, but the old buildings are contaminated with lead and asbestos, and the roads, sewers and utilities need replacement in order for the land to be usable for business, housing or recreation.

Alameda cannot afford this steady drain on City revenue.

The cost of doing nothing to revitalize Alameda Point is too high and promises to rise every year. And the cost of not enabling this unique waterfront property to become usable and enjoyable for all Alamedans is simply unacceptable.

OpEd: Response to critical points of opposition to SunCal plan

2009-12-14T11:38:00.000-08:00

By Michael Krueger

(This ran in the Alameda Journal on Friday.)

Rosemary McNally's My Word on Nov. 20 is unfortunately full of inaccuracies that do not help readers understand what is truly at stake in the Feb. 2 election to determine the future of Alameda Point. Below are listed McNally's chief objections along with the corresponding facts.

Bankruptcies: Each SunCal project is a separate entity. The recent bankruptcies were all projects financed with Lehman Brothers. The financial partner for Alameda Point is D.E. Shaw, which backs up the investment with $29 billion in worldwide assets; Lehman is not involved in any way.

Control of the land: Once an agreement is reached, the Navy conveys the land to the city, not to the developer. The city has control of the release of land for development. Laws cannot be changed "at whim" by the developer or anybody else.

Fiscal neutrality: Alameda Resolution 13642 requires that the project pay for itself and not burden the City of Alameda or residents outside of Alameda Point. The project must pay its own way for all city services.

City fees: The project is required to pay for public benefits directly rather than paying for them via impact fees.

Rent revenue: The city is spending about $2 million more per year ($2.3 million last year alone) in maintenance and security costs than it collects in rent revenue, and this loss is rising every year due to the deteriorating conditions of the Point. Redeveloping Alameda Point will increase revenue through transfer, sales and property taxes. Financial projections indicate a long-term surplus of funds for the city from the project.

Selling parcels: SunCal based its proposal on the fact that it does the infrastructure and master planning, then sells to vertical developers who specialize in certain aspects such as building homes, business sites, transportation infrastructure, parks, etc. When the City Council selected SunCal two years ago, they considered this a good thing; it means that the project is not tied to only one type of development.

Profit: We should hope that SunCal makes a profit on this project, because there is a profit-sharing mechanism in place between SunCal and the city.

Risks: Alameda Point is blighted, full of toxins (the Navy is only required to clean below ground, not the lead and asbestos above ground), largely unusable, and costs the city millions in lost revenue each year. That is the real risk that looms larger for each day the project lies undeveloped.

This February, let's make a decision based on the facts.

Door Hangars Hang on Mistruths

2009-12-10T09:17:00.001-08:00

Door hangars were distributed around Alameda over the weekend urging a no vote on Measure B.

Unfortunately, the anti-Measure B campaign, run by San Francisco political consultant Jim Ross, gives new meaning to the idiom “red herring.” Below are some of the claims made on the ads – and the actual facts.

• Measure B could cost Alameda taxpayers $500 million - This is a herring as red as it gets. The figure refers to the redevelopment money the City is going to generate at Alameda Point that has to be spent on redeveloping Alameda Point regardless of who develops it.

• Waives $51 million in fees – The project is required to pay for public benefits directly rather than paying for them via fees.

• Transfers $11 million in yearly revenue from the City to the Developer. The City collects about $11 million in rent revenues but spends close to $14 million per year on maintenance and security, a net loss of over $2 million per year. Redevelopment is needed so that the City stops losing money at the Point and, instead, a project is created that benefit the City financially.

• Underfunds public improvements and benefits by at least $175 million - SunCal initially developed a peer-reviewed budget of $200 million for public benefits, such as the sports park. The Alameda public works department came up with a new budget of $375 million. SunCal has unequivocally assured the City that it will remove the cap. The initiative specifically states that specific fiscal terms will be addressed in the Disposition and Development Agreement, as is industry practice.

Then, the Ross campaign throws in the same-old bankruptcy charge. The City knows good and well that this project has no connection to the other projects. Each SunCal project is a separate entity. When Lehman went bankrupt, so did the projects financed by Lehman. Alameda Point has DE Shaw as its financial backer with $28 billion in assets behind it.

All we ask is that we try to be truthful here so that voters can make a decision on facts, not fiction.

Do We Smell Smoke?

2009-12-08T10:41:00.000-08:00

We’ve all heard that the City has concerns about the initiative. We’ve also heard that SunCal has agreed to resolve all of their major concerns. So, just what are these concerns and how can they be resolved?

Alameda citizens should know that SunCal has been meeting with City staff on a weekly basis for several months to negotiate the project’s business points. SunCal is continuing to work with City staff on the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).

Many say that nothing can change the terms of the Development Agreement (DA) that is part of the initiative, therefore negotiations are not useful. This is simply not true.

The DA is strictly a land-use document that sets the framework for land use at Alameda Point. The Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) specifically requires that concerns related to achieving fiscal neutrality be addressed in the DDA. The DDA is the appropriate document to refine the business point of this public/private partnership and to clarify the terms and conditions involving the project. The DDA is the correct document to address specific business points about which the City has expressed concern. In fact, the DA specifically states: “Nothing in this Development Agreement limits the discretion of the ARRA, CIC and/or Developer in establishing in the DDA, or such other contract between the CIC and the Developer, certain development and phasing obligations of the Developer.”

For City leaders to say that they like the plan but not the business terms of the initiative is nothing but a smoke screen.

City Concerns

2009-12-07T14:11:00.001-08:00

The following are the economic concerns raised by the City and the resolutions SunCal has agreed to:

$200 million cap on public benefits - Waive the $200 million cap on public benefits by agreeing on standards and specifications to ensure public benefits are constructed.

2% tax rate cap – Waive the 2% overall tax rate cap on the total property tax burden to be imposed on the property within the project area to assure adequate funding for construction and operation and maintenance of the project.

Spending redevelopment funds outside the project area - Waive the provisions of the DA that require that redevelopment funds be spent within the project area so that such funds could be spent outside of the project area if the needs of the project are met and such expenditures further the goals of redevelopment of the project area.

California Environmental Quality Act - Clarify the relationship between CEQA and the public benefits and assure that the project will be subject to mitigation measures as required by CEQA.

Letter to the Editor - SunCal plan shares vision of helping homeless

2009-12-04T10:17:00.000-08:00

Doug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative and member of the Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization Advisory Committee, has this Letter to the Editor in today's Alameda Journal:

SunCal plan shares vision of helping homeless
By Doug Biggs

The Alameda Point Collaborative is a supportive housing program serving 500 homeless residents, including almost 300 children and youth. We were created out of the McKinney Vento provisions for utilizing federal surplus properties to serve the needs of the homeless. More significantly though, the needs of the homeless and low-income residents were interwoven into the community plan and the general plan for the reuse of Alameda Point.

Environmental and social justice are an integral component of the redevelopment of Alameda Point. From the initial Base Reuse Advisory Group discussions back in the early 1990s, one of the key components of any future at Alameda Point was opportunities for homeless and low-income families to gain a foothold and engage in economic opportunities that will build self sufficiency. In the standards that established APC, the city included a goal of placing homeless and low-income residents into 15 percent of all new jobs created at Alameda Point. It is very important to understand that the eventual success of APC is promoting self-sufficiency at Alameda Point and that is directly connected to the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The community has already spoken that this is a desirable goal — it is now imperative that we make that goal a reality.

APC has had the "fortune" of working with several potential master developers to integrate our goals and needs into the larger redevelopment. None of them has seen our success as their success in the way that SunCal has. They are working with us on developing a win-win strategy that will provide more opportunities for our residents while creating a community that will enhance the larger development.

Just the Facts, Ma’am (and Sir)

2009-12-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

Like Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet fame, we just want the facts. And we’d like the facts to be the basis of voters’ decisions in February. Unfortunately, there are a lot of claims out there that simply are not true. Here are a few facts on some key topics:

Fiscal Neutrality: It is required by City ordinance that this project achieve “fiscal neutrality,” which protects the City and limits any exposure to costs and provides additional revenue to the City’s general fund. This requirement is part of the Specific Plan. The project area will be taxed to produce the necessary funding so the City will not have to provide the funds. In other words, the project must pay its own way. Additionally, the developer is required to make up for any shortfall that may occur.

Impact Fees: Alameda Point is within a redevelopment project area; such special districts typically engage in public-private partnerships to achieve revitalization. Often within a redevelopment area, the developer provides infrastructure or other public benefits in lieu of paying impact fees. Such waivers are not new in Alameda. Harbor Bay Isle has long been exempt from all future impact fees; more recently, Alameda waived impact fees for Alameda Landing. Both projects belong to other developers.

Binding Agreement: ARRA, the City’s redevelopment agency, and the developer will enter into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that will address specific business points about which the City has expressed concern. The DDA will be a legally binding document as specified by the ENA. The Initiative is essentially a land-use document. Nothing prohibits the City from imposing additional requirements on the Project through the DDA.

Project Control: The developer will not have absolute control of the project as some claim, as it will remain subject to the legal authority of ARRA and the City, including all applicable subdivision laws and the many controls preserved for the City in the Specific Plan, including subdivision map act approval, pattern book approval and financial plan approval. The project is also required by City law to pay for itself and must achieve fiscal neutrality; in other words, it cannot be a financial burden on the city.

Schools: SunCal and the School District have been holding discussions regarding educational planning. The Specific Plan has addressed the basic framework for the community but allows for flexibility in number, size, location and phasing of schools. Refinement has always been anticipated once more detailed school planning occurs. It is not the intent of the Initiative to address the project’s impact on the School District; however, it does set forth the requirement for a CEQA analysis. Nothing in the Initiative waives the obligation of the developer to pay state mandated school fees. The Initiative in fact proposes to exceed this obligation by constructing schools on the property.

Public Benefits: The developer will provide 145 acres of parks and open space, build recreational and sports facilities, improve public access to water, and create bayside walking and biking trails. The developer agrees with the City on standards and specifications to ensure the public benefits are constructed, and this will be addressed within the DDA. These points will include providing more detailed specifications for the public benefits and a means of addressing rising future costs and cost overruns so that the City and its residents can be further assured about the public benefits to be delivered.

New HOMES Newsletter

2009-12-02T10:15:00.000-08:00

The newest edition of The HOMES Front (HOMES’ newsletter) is just out and contains a lot of information related to the upcoming election including:

Ballot Arguments
Who Really Developed the Plan
Are there Secret Alternative Plans

You can read it here: http://www.homesalameda.org/newsletter/front.html

Imagine...

2009-11-30T15:14:00.000-08:00

Spectacular views, enormous potential, incredible decay. Take a look at the waste- at Alameda Point as it stands today: http://www.alamedapointcommunity.com/alamedatoday/

Isn’t it time now to turn this debilitated former Base into an asset for our entire community?

SoCal Fact Finding Trip

2009-11-24T09:02:00.000-08:00

The Alameda Journal reported last Friday that the Mayor, Councilmember Matarrese and a member of the City Manager’s office were traveling to Irvine, California to meet with officials to learn more about how they are handling redevelopment of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

While they were in the area, one hopes they also visited Amerige Heights. Located on the site of a former defense facility, this area has been successfully redeveloped by SunCal into a thriving mixed-use community. Citizen input went into the design of the development, which was designed by Peter Calthorpe.

Sixteen years of citizen input has gone into the planning of Alameda Point, also designed by Peter Calthorpe.

As reported by Lauren Do yesterday, the City of Irvine’s plans for a Great Park on the site of the former air station are not going too well. Let’s hope our City leaders also took a look at a successful redevelopment project while they were there. Read her article on this topic here: "Southern California comfort"

To Be or Not to Be

2009-11-20T12:23:00.000-08:00

The new library - 30 years in the making

The Alameda Theatre - 25 years in the making

Alameda Point - 16 years and counting…

Substantial Point - By Laurendo.wordpress.com

2009-11-18T09:58:00.000-08:00

Lauren Do writes a rebuttal piece to the arguments that have been made against the initiative. It is re-posted here:

“Louise” reposts from the Island the ballot argument against the Alameda Point Revtalization Initiative and then asks that folks “substantiate” their opinions and that “blanket assertions” are not adequate. Except for the fact that the arguments against the Initiative aren’t substantiated either, but rather blanket assertions themselves.

Before I get into the whole pissing match that will probably be the standard between now and February when the votes are finally tallied, I just want to first say that there are a lot of people that I respect who disagree with my position on the Initiative. And hopefully folks on either side or on neither side can agree to disagree without assuming nefarious motivations of one another.

And with that here are the points that were specifically addressed in the arguments against the Initiative:

continue reading...

Ballot Argument in Favor of the SunCal Initiative

2009-11-17T10:00:00.000-08:00

The following is the text of the ballot argument in favor of the revitalization of Alameda Point, which will be called Measure A:

The Naval Air Station at the western end of Alameda permanently closed more than 12 years ago. Since then, many plans have been developed, but little progress has been made to transform the base into a safe and productive part of our city.

Costs to maintain the crumbling infrastructure and decaying buildings at Alameda Point continue to grow, making it a burden on the City of Alameda and Alameda taxpayers. After decades of military use, the Navy is cleaning up the contaminated soil and groundwater; however, the site’s aging buildings are contaminated, and the roads, sewers and utilities need to be replaced.

Now, there is a unique opportunity to further clean up Alameda Point and make it a vibrant part of our community, without cost to current Alameda taxpayers.

World-renowned planners, with input from citizens of Alameda over many years and through dozens of public workshops and community meetings, have developed a plan to create a green, sustainable, transit-oriented development at Alameda Point.

If approved, the plan will:

*Remove decayed buildings and further clean up the toxic waste
*Improve public access to water and create bayside walking and biking trails
*Provide 145 acres of parks and open space
*Preserve historic structures
*Build a new ferry terminal
*Bring new businesses and jobs to Alameda
*Build recreational and sports facilities
*Build a new library, fire station and school

This plan will NOT cost existing taxpayers. In fact, the City requires that the plan must pay for itself.

The plan to revitalize Alameda Point is supported by community and business leaders, environmentalists, seniors and residents. Please visit www.alamedapointcommunity.com for more information.

Now it’s up to you to help make this plan a reality and decide Alameda’s future. Vote YES on (Measure A).

(Signed)

Doug Siden, Helen Sause, Christopher Seiwald, Ron Matthews, Honora Murphy

HOMES and SunCal - By Helen Sause - President, HOMES

2009-11-13T16:01:00.000-08:00

The following letter appeared in today's Alameda Sun:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

The city council recently voted on an election date for the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative. The council followed the City Clerk's recommendation to hold a special election Feb. 2, 2010. After having worked for years and years to see a viable plan be developed for Alameda Point, I am thrilled to see a proposal for the Point come before the voters.

However, the public has just learned that there are issues of concern around the initiative. These issues have been the topic of negotiations between SunCal and the interim city manager for months now but have only recently been made public. SunCal detailed responses to these issues in its Oct. 19 letter to the Interim City Manager ("Comments to the Alameda Development Initiative Election Report") indicating that all of these issues are resolvable. The city council indicated at their meeting on Oct. 20 that they would continue good faith negotiations with SunCal and that the public has the right to know what these issues and their resolutions are.

Please, stay true to your word and give time for that to happen. Election codes do not require a special election for this initiative, which would occur at a significant cost to the city. A Feb. 2, 2010 election date requires ballot arguments due as early as Nov. 13, according to the county registrar. This timing would preclude fruitful negotiation and public disclosure.

It took 10 years from the time the base closed to select a viable master developer, SunCal, and two years after that for SunCal to conduct the in-depth analyses and gather the community and city input necessary to create this plan to finally revitalize the blighted and deteriorating former Naval property. After all this time, allowing another few months for negotiations to continue seems a small price to pay.

We should not have to rush into an election that jeopardizes all the time, energy and effort so many Alamedans have committed to the creation of this viable plan for Alameda Point.

Development Terms

2009-11-12T10:05:00.000-08:00

As an aid to better understanding the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative, AAPR has put together a handy dandy list of commonly used development terms and their definitions.

ENA = Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
Alameda agreed to negotiate exclusively with SunCal regarding the Alameda Point reuse project. The city shall not negotiate with any other entity regarding the project or the project site. The ENA expires in July of 2010. The ENA requires “good faith” negotiations and “exclusive” negotiations.

DA = Development Agreement
This is a contract between a private entity, in this case SunCal, and the City of Alameda to develop an area of land that places conditions upon the project. This lays out the framework for a project by setting forth the legal, financial and other policies necessary for the implementation of the Land Use (Specific) Plan. The agreement is good for the city because it provides for an increase in the public benefits of a project and it is good for the developer because it establishes ground rules for the project.

DDA = Disposition and Development Agreement
A contract between a developer and the City of Alameda that provides the framework for the city’s transfer of the property to SunCal and the developer’s construction and operation of the project. Nothing in a DA limits the authority of the DDA to define the development, phasing and fiscal obligations of the project.

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
A state law that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared for the project in order to assure that the environmental impacts of the whole of the project will be addressed prior to construction. The EIR is an independent analysis conducted by consultants selected by and reporting to the City of Alameda. SunCal Companies is paying for the $2 million EIR, but it is the City’s role to manage the process. The EIR will study the Revitalization Initiative’s impacts on wildlife, air and water quality, traffic, climate change, geotechnical issues and the health of wildlife in the area, among other things.

Fiscal Neutrality
Alameda Resolution 13642 (Policy of Fiscal Neutrality Regarding Development at Alameda Point) requires that the project pay for itself and not cost the City of Alameda or residents outside of Alameda Point. Fiscal neutrality means it cannot require a subsidy from the City of Alameda nor use funding from city services. The initiative requires the City and the developer to design the public financing plan for the project so that the Specific Plan will be achieved while meeting the City’s requirement of fiscal neutrality. The DDA will further specify the controls and terms of fiscal neutrality.

TRAFFIC STRATEGIES

2009-11-11T09:07:00.000-08:00

The Revitalize Alameda Point Plan includes a host of traffic strategies, all of which support a decreased reliance on the automobile, one of the community’s primary principles for their vision of Alameda Point. And, of course, we all know that less automobile use means less traffic and less harmful pollutants released into the air.

The following piece, done by HOMES for last April’s Earth Day event, does a nice job of summarizing the proposed traffic strategies.

TRANSIT SYSTEMS

Alameda Point will be transit-oriented and designed so that residents, workers and visitors can take maximum advantage of transit options. A multi-faceted transportation strategy is proposed, with a transit hub created within the mixed-use area at the Seaplane Lagoon.

Shuttles and Bus Rapid Transit
In addition to AC Transit bus service, there will be a dedicated shuttle connecting Alameda Point to the 12th Street BART station and downtown Oakland. At the major on-site shuttle stops, car sharing, park and ride lots and bike-sharing services will be located to further reduce the need for private automobiles.
The shuttle service will eventually evolve to a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service connecting Alameda Point to the 12th Street, and later, Fruitvale BART stations. Ultimately BRT service is to include dedicated transit lanes along major thoroughfares in Alameda to enable efficient cross-island travel. Where BRT travels in lanes with automobiles, “queue jump lanes” may be provided to allow BRT vehicles to bypass automobiles.

Ferry Service
A new ferry terminal will be constructed at the multi-modal transit hub, located at Seaplane Lagoon, with frequent high-speed ferry service between Alameda and San Francisco.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems and Facilities
Strong pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout Alameda Point and especially to transit stops will be provided. All streets will be equipped with safe pedestrian routes. Short blocks and mid-block pedestrian passageways will invite walking. The Plan includes a ne work of bike lanes and trails. Secure bicycle parking, including bicycle lockers, and potential bicycle stations (attended bike parking, service and sales) will be provided at the ferry terminal. All schools, community centers, retail areas, public parks and workplaces will include bike racks and/or lockers.

Transit Hub and Transportation Management Coordinator
The goal of the City’s General Plan Transportation Element and the Alameda Point Community Plan is to reduce trips generated by new development. The proposed mix of jobs, housing, transit options, schools, retail and services allow residents to remain in the Area for most needs, such as childcare, school drop-off, daily errands, shopping, recreation and dining.
Non-auto travel options will be promoted in a number of ways. Assessments paid by all homeowners and businesses will entitle residents and employees to an “Eco-Pass” for access to all transit modes provided by the Project. Also, an Alameda Point Transportation Management Coordinator will be paid to assist residents, workers and employers in planning their trips, organize ride-matching and vanpool programs, administer incentive programs to increase transit usage, and the like. The Transportation Coordinator will evaluate each program to ensure maximum effectiveness and streamline transit needs of residents, workers and employers. The Specific Plan details the extensive improvements to be implemented in the first phase of build-out.

Truck Routes
New truck routes will extend along the north and east sides of the Area. These routes will serve the entire Alameda Point district. Truck routes have been selected to avoid residential areas.

Parking
Because of its concentrated mixed-use design and its infill location, Alameda Point is expected to generate less traffic and parking demand than conventional suburban developments, and the required amount of parking will be lower than for conventional development. Parking will be regularly monitored to determine the appropriate cost for parking in certain areas. Many different strategies are planned to enable sufficient parking, but to be efficient and flexible in its allocation and management.

Phasing of Transportation Improvements
The proposed land use plan for Alameda Point includes five phases of redevelopment. The Transit Demand Master Plan (TDMP), which will be developed and approved by the City prior to the first phase of development, will include a detailed implementation and operations plan for each phase of the transportation strategy. The Specific Plan details extensive implementations in Phases I through V.

HOMES - Cleaning Up

2009-11-10T10:04:00.000-08:00

One of the frequent topics about Alameda Point concerns cleanup. We know the Navy is responsible for most of the toxic cleanup and we hear that SunCal will take clean up to a higher level if the Revitalize Alameda Point Initiative is passed, but really, what does all this mean?

Read more...

Sustainability

2009-11-09T10:46:00.000-08:00

Community input on the future of Alameda Point over the last fifteen years has addressed the desire for an environmentally sustainable neighborhood. But just what is a sustainable community? And how does the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative address this community vision?

Sustainable Development balances the needs of today with protection of the natural environment so that the needs of our future generations will be met. The SunCal plan for Alameda Point includes a wealth of sustainability strategies, including:

1. De-emphasizing of the use of the automobile

automobiles are major emitters of greenhouse gases
a mixed-use, compact community supports public transit and walkability
bike trails, pedestrian walkways and convenient public transit lessen automobile usage.

2. Is self-contained

a mix of retail, commercial, recreational and civic uses provides needed amenities locally, lessening the need to travel.

3. Has a jobs/housing balance

having places for residents to work and homes with a range of purchase prices allows employees to greatly reduce the amount of commuting.

4. Uses resources wisely

building designs include recycled materials and materials from renewable sources
building systems are designed to minimize water use
recycled water and drought-tolerant landscapes further minimize impact on water resources

5. Is carbon neutral

energy efficient buildings reduce demand for power
renewable energy sources – wind, water, solar – supply a large part of the community’s needs

“The general sustainability goal is to take every reasonable step to be a good neighbor to the environment and surrounding community, while leaving the smallest possible footprint.”
(Excerpt from Alameda Point Draft Redevelopment Master Plan
December 19, 2008)

We invite you to look at the sustainability strategies yourself. They can be found here on pages 123 – 138.

HOMES Quiz - Focus on the Facts

2009-11-06T10:15:00.000-08:00

Who currently owns the land at Alameda Point? What is the price tag for the land? And who pays for maintenance, repairs and security at the Point?

HOMES put together an interactive quiz with some of these questions. We invite readers to test your knowledge of some of these basic facts: http://homesalameda.org/newsletter/factsquiz.html

It’s Up to the Voters!

2009-11-05T09:18:00.000-08:00

At the November 3rd City Council meeting, the Council selected February 2, 2010 as the election date for the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative.

“We’re pleased that the initiative is now scheduled to go before a vote of the people so that the citizens of Alameda can be the ones to determine the future of Alameda Point,” commented AAPR President Doug Siden. “Alamedans now have a unique opportunity to transform the blighted, largely unusable former Navy base into a vibrant new neighborhood with homes, jobs, parks, civic amenities and breathtaking views that will benefit all Alamedans.”

The February 2nd date will be a special election at a cost to the City of between $235,000 - $325,000.

Letter to the Alameda City Council and Mayor

2009-11-03T11:58:00.000-08:00

The following is a letter sent by AAPR President Doug Siden to the City Council and Mayor today:

November 3, 2009

Dear Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers,

I am writing on behalf of Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization, a citizens group advocating for revitalizing Alameda Point.

AAPR is pleased that the citizens of Alameda will have the opportunity to vote on the proposed plan to redevelop Alameda Point, but we are deeply concerned that the proposed election date of February 2, 2010 will not give citizens the time to make a fully informed decision.

A majority of the Council has indicated support of the plan, but some have very recently expressed concern over certain aspects of the initiative. The City and SunCal are currently in negotiations over these issues. SunCal has committed to resolving these issues, as evidenced by their October 19th letter detailing comments to the initiative election report, and as recently as October 20th, the Council committed to support good faith negotiations and public disclosure of these issues and their resolutions. A February election date effectively precludes these negotiations and their disclosure, as ballot arguments would be due as early as next week.

We ask that the Council show their commitment to good faith negotiations by allowing the time necessary for further negotiations and public disclosure by scheduling a later election date.

The Naval Air Station was decommissioned in 1993 and closed in 1997. The SunCal proposal is the first viable plan that has been created after all these years. It is based on over fifteen years of community input and was developed in partnership with the City of Alameda. The plan offers amenities and economic benefits for our entire community. We should not risk derailing this opportunity by rushing into a February election that stifles further negotiation and public discourse opportunities.

In addition, a February special election requires expenditure by the City of at least a quarter of a million dollars, something we cannot afford right now and something that is not necessary. Scheduling the initiative for an existing election date such as June 2010 would save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars and give citizens the opportunity to make a fully informed decision.

Doug Siden
President, AAPR
510-523-8157

NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH? NOT!

2009-11-02T16:23:00.000-08:00

By Helen Sause

A long time ago (late October) before city “leaders” began piling on about their dislike for the SunCal development plan, most of us citizens thought the City was negotiating in good faith with the Developer to ensure that we had a viable plan for the revitalization of our blighted and deteriorated Alameda Point Navy owned property. That’s what our City leaders said, at least, as recently as October 20th. Apparently, that is not so.

Now I am terribly confused. Not only are City leaders falling all over themselves to see who can grab the largest headline repudiating the SunCal/City development proposal, but these same leaders are expressing their vows of “transparency” with opaque hints that they have secret backup plans they will put in place as soon as they can torpedo the current plan. Now, I may not be an attorney but I don’t believe that fits the legal definition of “negotiating in good faith” that they so recently claimed to be doing. Or am I missing something?

Meanwhile, SunCal has gone over the allegations against their plan point-by-point indicating that the issues being used to repudiate their plan are under assumed good faith negotiations.

That has prompted our “leaders” to come up with “new” issues like the non-negotiable price the Navy wants for the land that has been in place for several years or the State grabbing tax increment, which the Courts found unconstitutional when the State tried to do that last year.

Our “leaders” talk about risks, but the real risk we now face is losing a plan and a developer willing to build a new community at Alameda Point and perhaps being sued for not acting in good faith (the City has an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with SunCal). Alameda Point, under the SunCal plan, has a decent chance of revitalizing the blighted deterioration of a third of our Island. It has a decent chance of not only providing amenities for the community, but of contributing to a positive financial outcome.

So when you consider the pitiful bleatings of “the sky may fall” consider the guarantees in your own lives and the efforts you make to ensure that you are making a decision based on the best information available. Alameda is in the same position now – we can choose a decent chance to develop an area that is an expensive drain on our budget or we can squat here on the finish line and whine that new discoveries are making us back away once again and succeed only in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

City leaders - try negotiating in good faith. You might like it and it might actually work!

Helen Sause
President, HOMES
Member, Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization

Letters to the Editor - Alameda Sun

2009-10-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

These two letters were printed in the Alameda Sun. The first is a letter that urges the Mayor and City Council to have an open dialogue about the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative. The second discusses HOMES's support for the initiative.

Educate the public on the plan
By Doug Siden, President, Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization

The Alameda Sun received a copy of the following letter:

An Open Letter to Mayor Johnson and Council Members:

Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization is a citizen committee advocating for the revitalization of Alameda Point. Part of our advocacy includes ensuring that the revitalization of Alameda Point remains consistent with the objectives stated by the community and set forth in the city's own plans.

At the Oct. 20 city council meeting, the mayor requested a briefing on the Alameda Point Development Election Report. It was also revealed that the city and SunCal have been negotiating areas of concern. We feel it is imperative that the council makes every effort to educate the public on this process.

The initiative will go before the voters sometime in 2010. Public discussions about the negotiations with SunCal need to happen sooner rather than later so that everyone in the city can evaluate for themselves the merits of this plan. This initiative will decide the future of Alameda Point, which has sat underutilized and blighted for far too long. We have all been through this process for long enough to know that there is still much work ahead of us. It would be important that the city grasp the urgency of the situation with a thorough, public discussion.

HOMES endorses AlPo Specific Plan
By Joan Konrad

HOMES is a citizens group that has been advocating for environmentally sustainable, mixed-use, transit-oriented development at Alameda Point since 2003. We believe the Revitalize Alameda Point Specific Plan fulfills these objectives as well as the community vision for Alameda Point.

We understand the Revital-ize Alameda Point Initiative must be approved by the voters of Alameda and that the mayor has concerns over this Initiative.

Therefore, we were extremely interested to hear at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast on October 22 the interim city manager speak of a city "contingency plan" should the Initiative fail.

Since the voters will determine the future of Alameda Point through this initiative, we need to know what the city's contingency plans are should the initiative fail.

We were pleased by the commitment to transparency on the issue of negotiations between the city and SunCal shown by the council at its Oct. 20th meeting. In this spirit, we ask that we be informed about the city's contingency plans.

CITY PUZZLE - By Helen Sause

2009-10-29T10:45:00.001-07:00

Let’s see...City offers property. City selects Developer. City has Developer agree to certain terms including funding City staff and consultants for the planning process. Developer and City plan together for development. Okay so far...

Developer working in worst economic economy since the 1930’s. Developer apparently does what they have said they would do, including funding City staff and consultants. Developer, with City support, produces plan that incorporates years of community comments and the latest in city planning expertise. Because changing the City’s restrictive charter amendment prohibiting building anything residential beyond 2 (two!) units requires a voter initiative to allow condos, apartments, triplexes, etc., Developer gathers signatures and files required initiative for plan. Still okay...

Previous City staff leaves or is reassigned and new Interim City Manager begins process at ground zero and uses more conservative assumptions than the professionals have used. Voila! Discrepancies appear. Alarms are sounded! Misstatements issued! A process for discrediting Developer flowers. NOT OKAY!

So what is missing? Apparently people negotiating in good faith. Why is the City and its agent (the Chamber of Commerce) doing everything it can to discredit the plans of the Developer/City partnership and all the work done prior to the ICM’s evaluation? Doesn’t seem to make sense, eh? Why repudiate the work done in partnership? It seems what’s missing is real expertise applied to the process. Or is it transparency?

One can only conclude that the City has some other scheme in mind. The one that seems most likely is to milk the Developer for an additional $2 million to do an EIR now on this unapproved plan and use the results for the City’s future Plan? One doesn’t like to attribute such chicanery to our elected officials, but if this isn’t the obvious conclusion then what is the cause of such inconsistency?

The Public Deserves Some Answers - By Diane Lichtenstein

2009-10-28T13:38:00.000-07:00

In light of Frank Matarrese’s statement late yesterday afternoon that he now opposes the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative, we have to wonder just what does the Council know that the public does not?

This initiative has been out for seven months. Did the Council just now read it? Or has new information come to light? Has the City created an alternative plan?

Matarrese cites the cost of the land transfer and other financial concerns that have emerged. What are they? The City has always known the price tag on the land was $108.5 million. That hasn’t changed. They’ve seen the finance projections, so there’s nothing new there.

What has prompted these out-of-the-blue wake up calls from the Mayor and Councilmember Matarrese, who just last week seemed to embrace the idea of public disclosure of ongoing negotiations between SunCal and the City?

These last minute proclamations are certainly insulting to SunCal after all the time and dollars they’ve spent – and are being asked to continue spending. Let’s remember the unanimous vote just last week by the Council to proceed with a SunCal financed $2 million EIR.

Whatever happened to transparency?!

The EIR Process - By Helen Sause

2009-10-27T09:49:00.000-07:00

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a law passed in 1970 shortly after the Federal Government passed the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQA requires development projects to submit documentation of their potential environmental impact. The EIR assesses impact on the natural, social and economic environment. The EIR may also suggest mitigations to alleviate any negative impacts of the project.

In a vote of the Alameda City Council/ARRA (the Council acting as the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency) last Tuesday, October 20th, a contract to hire the agency to conduct the EIR was approved. SunCal is required to foot the bill, which is estimated at $2 million.

There are two particularly ironic aspects to this process. First, an EIR is normally done on an approved project. Voters must approve the plan in the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative because it allows housing that is not Measure A compliant. The Council is scheduled to select an election date at their November 3rd meeting. Yet, before an election is set, SunCal is being asked to pay for this very expensive process without the normal assurance that they have an approved plan.

And, of course, the second irony is that the Mayor (and, it appears, the Interim City Manager), is opposing the very same plan the Council is asking SunCal to invest an additional $2 million dollars in.

We do have to admire the good faith move of SunCal to invest in an EIR at this time. Click here to read the SunCal press release on the EIR decision.

Letter to the Editor - City changes game plan on SunCal

2009-10-26T09:46:00.000-07:00

(From the Alameda Journal)
By Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES

The city of Alameda selected SunCal as its master developer for Alameda Point, and the parties entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). SunCal has spent more than $12 million for expert geotechnical, historical and other professionals, as well as for one of today's most renowned planners, to prepare a design reflecting the desires of Alamedans as expressed at dozens of community meetings over 16 years.

Now, here comes the Peanuts version of the football swipe: SunCal has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (per their ENA) to support city staff and consultants to work on plans, including financial forecasts to make them financially feasible. The city of course knows that the plan includes a variety of housing types not compliant with Measure A. It wasn't a surprise that the developer wrote an initiative and gathered signatures for a ballot. There was no outcry from the city.

So now we have a Charlie Brown situation: Lucy has the football (completion of negotiations with SunCal), and Charlie (SunCal) starts to give it a mighty kick (submitting the signatures to qualify the initiative). Not only does Lucy whip the ball out of reach, but she calls her friends (the Chamber of Commerce) to kick Charlie a few times while he's lying there.

Yet he keeps trying (months of good-faith negotiations with the interim city manager). I doubt that Charlie Brown will start over with "something creative," as the chamber's Lorre Zupan opines in last Friday's Alameda Journal. And unlike Blake Brydon's comment in the same article, I haven't heard of any other developers waiting in line to repeat this football debacle.

Come on city and Chamber, I know you want the best for Alameda. Find some experienced negotiators to assist you, sit down with SunCal and don't just kick that football — score a touchdown.

My Word: SunCal's plan offers solutions

2009-10-23T13:01:00.000-07:00

Read AAPR advisory committee member Jon Spangler's op-ed in today's Sun and Journal.

AAPR Encouraged by Council’s Interest in Providing More Public Information on Alameda Point Initiative

2009-10-22T10:14:00.000-07:00

Group Responds to October 20th City Council Meeting

Contact: Diane Lichtenstein, 523-1235

Members of Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization (AAPR) said today that they are encouraged by the Council’s apparent willingness to continue good faith negotiations with the City’s Alameda Point development partner, SunCal, and to provide more disclosure to the public as to the issues and resolutions being discussed.

“What I heard is that even with the constraints of the development agreement issues in the initiative, there are ways to modify them and SunCal is very willing to proceed along these lines,” said AAPR’s Diane Lichtenstein.

“Negotiations have been happening for five months now,” added Honora Murphy. “It is time to move forward, even if the City has to hire a mediator to get things worked out.”

In a letter to Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant dated October 19, 2009, SunCal’s Pat Keliher reiterated that SunCal has been meeting weekly with the Interim City Manager and staff for several months to address City concerns and “incorporate additional commitments by the developer through legally binding agreements prior to the vote on the Initiative.”

“The decision will ultimately be in the hands of the voters,” continued Lichtenstein. “SunCal has agreed to discuss the issues. We are pleased to see the Council moving in that direction as well. The community deserves a full public airing of the issues.”

Added AAPR member Helen Sause, “We finally have a plan that fulfills the community vision and is fiscally feasible. We just cannot let this opportunity pass us by. We urge our city leaders to negotiate in the best interest of the community.”

John Knox White - "Who's minding the Alameda General Store?"

2009-10-21T13:07:00.000-07:00

Read here another post by John Knox White, regarding the Mayor's position on the initiative on her website.

John Knox White - "Just the Facts….on Alameda Point"

2009-10-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

John Knox White wrote about the Mayor's support for the SunCal initiative. You can read it here.

Complex and Creative Plan for Alameda Point

2009-10-19T12:12:00.000-07:00

In Friday’s Journal article, the Chamber’s Lorre Zuppan says that if the initiative fails, SunCal “can be creative and make something happen.” Maybe we should take a look at just how creative the plan to revitalize Alameda Point actually is.

The Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative addresses a complex array of issues. SunCal spent over two years and several million dollars doing geotechnical, historical and economic analyses as well as holding dozens of community meetings to come up with a plan that fulfills the community goals, incorporates the City’s General Plan principles and that is financially viable.

World-renowned architect and urban planner Peter Calthorpe was secured as the project designer. Calthorpe specializes in designing environmentally sustainable, walkable, people-oriented neighborhoods.

The December 19th Draft Redevelopment Plan clearly illustrates the expertise and creativity that went into this design. Take a look at the principles that guided the development on page 17. The sustainability strategies begin on page 123 - Alameda has the very real opportunity to establish a world model for a cutting edge environmentally sustainable design!

Check out the executive summary on transportation solutions on page 98, then look at the myriad of strategies proposed on page 102. Page 115 shows when phasing of the mitigations occurs and how that supports transit-oriented development.

The many geotechnical challenges that had to be evaluated before coming up with a viable plan are daunting. Sea rise, issues of soil stability, and flood plain considerations are all challenges to the design principles that the community established for Alameda Point. You can find those on pages 6 – 11.

So many complex details went into the historic preservation and adaptive reuse strategies, which were developed by Phil Tagami, who led Oakland’s Rotunda Building and Fox Theatre’s restoration project.

We encourage you to educate yourself. Take a look at what all went into this complex plan. Review the potential this new neighborhood has to contribute to the City’s vitality and economic strength. It’s not just creative; it’s good for Alameda.

New HOMES Newsletter

2009-10-16T11:25:00.000-07:00

HOMES (Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense), a longtime advocate for a sustainable, mixed-use, transit-oriented development at Alameda Point, has just posted their October newsletter. We invite our readers to view it here: http://www.homesalameda.org/newsletter/front.html

SunCal Response to Alameda Mayor

2009-10-15T09:29:00.000-07:00

Read this letter that SunCal sent to Alameda Mayor Beverly Johnson yesterday, as a response to the press release her office issued on Tuesday.

Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization Responds to Mayor’s Concerns about Financial Impact of SunCal Ballot Initiative

2009-10-15T09:15:00.000-07:00

October 14, 2009

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Barbara Kahn, 865-1341
Jon Spangler, 864-2144
Doug Biggs, 898-7849

AAPR, a citizens group supporting the plan to revitalize Alameda Point, responded this afternoon to the city’s October 13, 2009 press release expressing the mayor’s concerns about the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative.

“After over 15 years of community input, we finally have a plan to transform Alameda Point from a blighted, largely unusable area that is a financial drain to the city into a vibrant community that will be a benefit for all Alamedans,” said AAPR member Barbara Kahn. “We hope that the mayor’s statement doesn’t mean that the mayor is giving up trying to implement this plan.”

The Alameda Point Specific Plan is based on the community’s vision for Alameda Point redevelopment. The Specific Plan calls for an environmentally sustainable, transit-oriented, mixed-use community at Alameda Point that creates retail and commercial opportunities and jobs.

In the press release, the mayor expressed concerns about fiscal issues in the initiative, which was submitted for signatures in March 2009. “We appreciate the mayor’s concern for our community’s well-being and the City of Alameda’s financial health,” said Jon Spangler, also a member of AAPR. “As concerned citizens, we also want an initiative and development plan to be in the best financial interest of Alameda and have encouraged SunCal to address City concerns. SunCal has been responsive and has been meeting regularly with the Interim City Manager, Ann Marie Gallant, in order to resolve these issues,” Spangler added.

AAPR noted that SunCal had no option but to go the initiative route since the plan is not Measure A compliant and, therefore, requires voter approval.

AAPR is pleased that the Alameda County Registrar of Voters has certified the Revitalize Alameda Point initiative. “We’re glad that the decision will ultimately be in the hands of the voters,” noted AAPR’s Doug Biggs. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Alameda to turn the former Navy Base into an asset for all of Alameda. We encourage our city leaders to negotiate in good faith with SunCal to ensure that this opportunity is not lost.”

#####

Discovery of Body Highlights Need for a Revitalized Alameda Point

2009-10-13T13:45:00.000-07:00

The tragic discovery of human skeletal remains in an abandoned building at Alameda Point should instill a new sense of urgency in the effort to approve a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the former Navy base.

The Oakland Tribune reports that on Monday a homeless person was “rummaging through an abandoned residential building on the former naval base (and) came across the remains…”

After the fire at the old abandoned hospital at Alameda Landing we were grateful that nobody was hurt and hoped that the incident would lead people to realize how dangerous the situation has become at nearby Alameda Point. Abandoned buildings, empty roads, crumbling docks and vast stretches of cracked and worn-out asphalt dominate the landscape at Alameda Point.

We, the taxpayers of Alameda, continue to be financially liable for the old base, which every year costs more and more to maintain as it falls further into disrepair. Yes, there are some commercial and residential leases out there, but no, they don’t cover the costs associated with up-keep.

For 17 years the old base has sat and decayed further into blight with each passing day. For many of those years we have talked and planned and started and stopped and finally came up with a good plan, thanks to the efforts of hundreds of regular Alamedans, the city staff, elected leaders and SunCal Companies.

These terrible incidents remind us that if we fail to approve the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative when it goes before voters next year, we risk having to deal with serious health and safety problems for decades to come.

Why an Initiative is Necessary for the Alameda Point Plan - By Helen Sause

2009-10-12T09:55:00.000-07:00

At the Chamber of Commerce panel discussions last Thursday and in the Chamber’s numerous recent written reports, the Chamber has repeatedly said they like SunCal’s plan for Alameda Point, but object to “development by ballot box.”

But the truth is, in the case of Alameda Point, we have no choice but to have a ballot box development.

The community vision for Alameda Point of a vibrant new neighborhood that de-emphasizes the automobile and creates a walkable community requires a range of housing types, including apartments over retail, work-live units, townhomes and condos. The inclusion of compact housing, along with single-family homes, supports walking and biking, neighborhood retail, job creation, various transit options, and conserves land for use as trails, parks and sports facilities.

But this plan also does not conform to Measure A (Alameda’s Charter Amendment XXVI). Measure A can only be modified by the voters. And Alamedans are not about to give carte blanche to overturning Measure A without seeing exactly what they will get in return.

So, the simple fact is: the Alameda Point plan does not conform to Measure A; therefore, an initiative must be approved by the voters.

How Dense Are You?

2009-10-09T11:55:00.000-07:00

We mentioned that the SunCal plan includes an array of housing types from single family homes to townhomes to work-live units to multi-family units (e.g. apartments) in densities that range from 4.1 to 70 dwelling units per unit. But we wondered, just what do those densities actually look like?

HOMES put together a density quiz illustrating different densities around the main Island of Alameda. We invite you to take a look. You might be surprised.

Take the Density Quiz.

SunCal - update on Oak Knoll

2009-10-08T13:37:00.000-07:00

An update was recently posted on the Oak Knoll property in Oakland. Today SunCal issued a press release announcing that it has acquired the funds for clean up, maintenance and security. The press release can be read on SunCal's Alameda Point blog and below:

SunCal Secures Funds to Clean Up Oak Knoll Property
Money to be Used for Weed Abatement, Security and Maintenance

Oakland, Calif. (Oct. 8, 2009) – SunCal Companies today released the following statement regarding critical cleanup and maintenance issues at the Oak Knoll property in Oakland:

“We are pleased to announce that we have reached a stipulation with the project’s bankruptcy trustee and Lehman Brothers to effectively address some of the concerns about the site that are of an immediate nature. Contingent upon the court’s approval, the trustee has agreed to release funds for property-wide weed abatement, cleaning up wood piles and repairing of perimeter fences. In addition, there would be a team of armed security guards on duty 24 hours per day to help secure the property from trespassers.”

“The resumption of property maintenance and security is an important matter we have consistently advocated with Lehman Brothers, the financial partner for SunCal Oak Knoll, LLC, the owner of the Oak Knoll property. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008 and this has affected the funding for Oak Knoll and other projects that the firm provided financing for.”

“We are continuing our discussions with Lehman and the trustee about the outstanding issues at Oak Knoll and are working with them in an effort to resolve these matters. SunCal remains committed to the long-term potential and vision of the Oak Knoll master-planned community.”

Oakland City Councilmember Larry Reid thanked SunCal for continuing to bring these important health and safety issues to light throughout the ongoing legal proceedings involving Lehman Brothers and Oak Knoll.

“For more than a year, SunCal has been working with Lehman and the court to indentify these problems,” Reid said. “This stipulation ensures that the health and safety of our residents remains our number one priority now and into the future as the Oak Knoll property is brought back into productive use.”

A total of more than $500,000 for cleanup and maintenance at Oak Knoll, once approved by the bankruptcy court, will address the most urgent concerns throughout the property. The money is coming after SunCal’s ongoing, repeated efforts to obtain funding for Oak Knoll that predates the current Lehman court proceedings and extends back to Lehman’s bankruptcy in September 2008.

SunCal is continuing to work through the court to bring in a new source of funding to address the remaining issues at the 167-acre property and move the development forward. The plans for the Oak Knoll community include 960 homes with a diversity of housing types, 82,000 square feet of commercial retail, and 50 acres of parks and open space.

# # #

Traffic Report Part II: Higher Density = Less Traffic

2009-10-07T14:17:00.000-07:00

The City’s Preliminary Traffic Impact Report presents the traffic impacts of three scenarios of development at Alameda Point: The General Plan, Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative Plan without traffic mitigations and the Initiative Plan with traffic mitigations.

(click on chart below for larger version)

The report uses 2,000 houses for the General Plan scenario and 4,599 for the SunCal scenario. Yet, in spite of the difference in the number of housing units, the AM Peak outbound traffic travel times with the Initiative with mitigations is, on average, anticipated to increase by only 21% (inbound is actually anticipated to decrease slightly).

How is this possible?

The answer lies in the type of residential units that would be built under the two scenarios. The General Plan scenario considers only single-family or duplex houses (the only type of units permitted under Measure A) while the SunCal plan includes a mix of housing types, including condos, townhomes, apartments, and live-work units. The inclusion of more compact housing types reduces automobile usage per unit. Take a look at some facts:

• Single-family detached houses generate an average of 10 car trips per day (a trip is defined as any time a car leaves or returns home) while condominium and townhouse residents average 5.6 trips per day. (Source: “Higher-Density Development, Myth and Fact. Urban Land Institute).

• Single-family homes average 2 cars per household compared with 1.3 cars per household for multi-unit households (Source: http://www.abag.ca.gov/services/finance/fan/housingmyths2.htm)

• People who live within ½ mile of transit are 10 times more likely to use it. (Source: Greenbelt Alliance)

• In the greater Bay Area, annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by residents in Central Valley single-family homes is 32,000 compared to 15,000 for Bay Area Infill areas. (Source: Alameda Point Workshop III, August 7, 2008 presentation)

• The Rockridge area of Oakland, with a density of 14 households per acre, generates about half the VMT per household than does the Danville-San Ramon area, with a density of 3.8 households per acre (15,707 annual VMT vs. 31, 291 VMT). (Source: http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/cheers.html) .

• The SunCal plan includes a range of densities from 4.1 to 70 dwelling units (source: Specific Plan, table 311 and table 7-1) per acre and includes an array of housing types from large single-family homes to townhomes, live-work and multi-family.

Next: Take a Density Quiz

Traffic Report

2009-10-06T10:49:00.000-07:00

The City of Alameda has released its analysis of what will happen to local traffic once the Point is developed. The impact of Alameda Point’s redevelopment on traffic is a key concern for both the developer and for many Alamedans.

The Alameda Point Development Initiative Election Phase II Preliminary Traffic Impact report compares the expected traffic generated from the SunCal Revitalize Alameda Point plan with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (a.k.a. traffic mitigations), the Revitalize Alameda Point plan without TDMs, and the current General Plan for the Point. All three scenarios are analyzed based on cumulative conditions at build-out in 2035. The report does not consider no development at the Point as an option.

To make the plan easily understandable, the report includes estimated commute times to compare the impact of the plans.

The most impact to commute time will be from Alameda Point to 880 via the Posey Tube during the AM Peak commute. The report says that at build-out (in 2035), the Revitalize Alameda Point plan with TDMs could increase AM Peak commute time from Alameda Point to 880 via the Posey Tube by about 4 minutes and 4 seconds over the General Plan scenario (table 14, page 25). The report also looked at other key intersections, including the intersection of Tilden, Blanding and Fernside. The AM Peak commute time there could increase with the SunCal plan with mitigations by 30.3 seconds over the commute time of the General Plan (table 10, page 19).

It is important to note that this report did not take into account many of the mitigations proposed under the Revitalize Alameda Point plan, making the numbers come out much more conservative, or higher, than they would with additional mitigations in place. SunCal’s proposed mitigation strategies are flexible so that as build-out continues appropriate alterations or additions in mitigations can be implemented. The Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative plan’s phasing strategy enables planners to come up with the best mix of strategies for each phase of the development so that new phases of the build-out proceed along with appropriate strategies to address the traffic needs at the time.

The report also does not consider the changes in working habits that America has seen over the last few years and how these trends will affect traffic. For example, telecommuting has increased 74% since 2005 (source: Telework Research Network). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are currently over 18.3 million home-based businesses in the United States. What will the landscape look like in 2025? The traffic report assumes that transportation patterns in 25 years will be identical to today’s, but current driving patterns are likely to change.

One also wonders what the impact of future fuel costs might have on commuting. Gasoline will probably get more expensive in the future, putting more pressure on people to telecommute, chain together trips, and use non-automotive forms of transportation.

AAPR recognizes that the City must base its report on current transportation use patterns and commends the City for providing Alamedans with a conservative scenario for what they can expect in the future in terms of traffic due to development of Alameda Point.

Next: How does density affect automobile usage?

Councilmember Lena Tam Expresses Strong Support for Revitalized Alameda Point

2009-10-05T09:41:00.000-07:00

Alameda Councilmember Lena Tam weighs in today with strong support for the initiative to revitalize Alameda Point. She says that Alameda residents have a "great opportunity" and the plan that will go before voters for their consideration has "the right mix of open space, public amenities, homes, businesses, jobs, and transportation solutions." Read her complete post here.

“A Reason for Serving” - by Jon Spangler

2009-10-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Alameda Point: No Ducking Opinion

2009-10-01T10:21:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting post on the HOMES website:

"This morning, Sam and I headed out to Alameda Point. We’ve decided to downsize from our large single-family home and are excited to preview some of the smaller homes available at the Point. Read more...

The Cost of Blight

2009-09-30T09:22:00.000-07:00

The continuing cost to Alamedans of doing nothing at Alameda Point is way too high.

There is a tremendous financial liability to taxpayers of maintaining and repairing the crumbling infrastructure and buildings. Of the millions of dollars the City has collected in rent over the years, a very small amount remains in reserves due to these costs. The fire last March at the former Naval medical facility cost the City $1.6 million in reserves to cleanup.

More important, the cost to the health of Alamedans is too high. This same fire released asbestos and other hazardous materials into the air jeopardizing the health of all Alamedans.

There are dozens of buildings like the former medical facility out at the Point. It’s time we support a plan to revitalize Alameda Point, clean up these toxins, and make the Point save and usable for all Alamedans.

Letter to the Editor - Get behind the plan

2009-09-29T16:18:00.000-07:00

By Honora Murphy: Alameda Journal: Aug. 13, 2009

I have worked for more than 30 years for libraries in Alameda, from promoting school library services to the development of an adequate main library and branches to provide library services to the whole community. As I visit the main library and its branches, it is obvious that students, from preschool to elementary, high school and college, to adults and seniors are making use of these facilities.

The Revitalized Alameda Point plan includes 47 acres of civic spaces including a new branch library, a community center, schools, fire house and post office. These new facilities will benefit not just future residents of the Point, but current residents as well. The new facilities will pay for themselves through new revenues that will be generated by the project itself, not from current taxpayers.

Right now Alameda taxpayers are paying for maintenance on roads, pipes, sidewalks and sewers at the Point that date back to World War II. These are in areas that few people can use and are a constant drain on the taxes we pay today.

The longer we wait to move forward on this project, the more money we are forced to spend on the upkeep of this idle and decaying infrastructure. The more money we spend on the upkeep of this idle infrastructure, the more we lose out on using our resources for new schools and public safety.

I urge Alamedans to get behind the plan that will bring prosperity to this ignored portion of our city and put it to good use for all Alamedans.

Principle-y Speaking

2009-09-28T11:20:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it’s helpful to go back to one’s roots, in the case of Alameda Point the roots are the principles developed by the community to guide the future of this newest neighborhood.

When the Base was decommissioned in 1993, the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) was formed to help guide the conversion of the Base back to civilian use. In 1996, a Community Reuse Plan was created by BRAG that outlined seven key principles to direct the development. These principles are embedded in the City of Alameda’s General Plan and are as follows:

• Seamless integration of Alameda Point with the rest of the City. Policies in the General Plan encourage development that is community-oriented and in keeping with Alameda’s traditional character and scale.
• Fostering a vibrant new neighborhood. The General Plan seeks to create new and energetic areas, encompassing a variety of uses. However, policies ensure that new development will not unduly impact established neighborhoods.
• Maximizing waterfront accessibility. With an emphasis on a perimeter shoreline trail along the San Francisco Bay and Oakland Estuary, the policies aim to provide a publicly accessible waterfront.
• De-emphasizing the automobile and making new development compatible with transportation capacity. Policies promote the use of alternative modes of transportation—such as bicycles, shuttles and water taxis—to reduce present and potential future congestion.
• Ensuring economic development. The envisioned long-term reuse of Alameda Point will result in replacement of jobs lost due to cessation of Naval operations, and will foster economic growth and development that benefits the community at large.
• Creating a mixed-use environment. The General Plan encourages development of a variety of uses in Alameda Point that promote transit and a pedestrian-friendly environment. A mixed-use approach will allow for the development of transit friendly neighborhoods with a strong pedestrian character that will foster the development of the desired small town feeling.
• Establishing neighborhood centers. Each neighborhood in Alameda Point should have a neighborhood center as a focal point that allows for commercial, civic, community support services, cultural and recreational uses. Centers should allow for human interaction and public events. Centers should be distributed so all residents can walk to accomplish multiple purposes and have an access point to local transit. Integration of multiple forms of transportation is essential to a successful neighborhood center design. Similar to existing neighborhood business districts, these centers should provide critical local services, such as grocery stores, launderettes/cleaners and small restaurants that can rely mainly on customers who walk from their homes.

In 2008, SunCal created planning principles to guide the Revitalize Alameda Point plan. They are:

• One Island Character
• Job Creation and Economic Development
• Small Town Feeling
• Respect for History
• De-Emphasis of the Automobile
• Transit Orientation
• Mixed-Use Development
• Neighborhood Centers
• Open Space Network
• Sustainable Development and Design

The community of Alameda came up with a vision that promotes an environmentally sensitive, vibrant neighborhood that offers civic, recreational and economic benefits for Alameda. We believe the Revitalize Alameda Point plan does an excellent job of fulfilling these community principles.

The Signatures are In!

2009-09-25T09:57:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, September 23, 2009, SunCal submitted signatures to the Alameda City Clerks’ office to qualify the Revitalize Alameda Point Initiative for the ballot.

“This is a tremendous milestone on the journey to finally redeveloping Alameda Point, “ said Doug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative and a member of the Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization (AAPR) group. “Most importantly, this finally puts the matter in front of the people that count the most – the voters of Alameda.”

This moment has been a long time coming. The former Alameda Naval Air Station was decommissioned in 1993 and closed in 1997. Since 1993, there have been numerous community meetings and several plans to set a course for the future of the site. Community input led to a vision for the redevelopment that is now a part of the City’s General Plan. This community vision provided the guiding principles for the Revitalize Alameda Point plan.

“Those of us who have worked for over fifteen years to achieve an environmentally friendly, sustainable, mixed-use development rising from this blighted part of our Island can now see the possibility of that happening,” said fellow AAPR member and HOMES president, Helen Sause.

The City Clerk has 30 days from September 23rd to verify the signatures. It will then be up to the Council to schedule an election date.

Says Biggs: “This is an important decision for Alameda to make, and I hope my fellow voters will take the time to learn about the facts of the plan. I am confident they will see the merits, as I have.”

The Whole Enchilada - By Helen Sause

2009-09-23T09:14:00.000-07:00

In our discussions with citizens around Alameda, many have asked: Why did SunCal put the entire plan in the initiative instead of just an exemption to Measure A?”

A very valid point and heartfelt as one reads through the hundreds of pages that make up this initiative! As one who has been involved with Measure A and its affect on Alameda Point’s future through years of work with HOMES, I can tell you, this is an issue I have been pondering for years.

The question is, will the public approve simply exempting Alameda Point from the Charter Amendment that prohibits building any type of multifamily housing (think condos, apartments, retirement homes)? Or to achieve agreement, does one have to provide the plan that will be built without Measure A?

The community vision for Alameda Point calls for a mixed-use, walkable, economically vibrant new neighborhood with plenty of open space. To achieve this vision means being able to include townhomes, condos, small cottages and apartments in the plan. Apartments or condos over retail make for vibrant neighborhood centers. Pockets of compact housing centered around transit nodes help de-emphasize reliance on the automobile and leave open space for parks, fields and trails.

So, on the idea of changing Measure A and coming up with the Plan later, those of us at HOMES have come to realize that Alamedans are simply not going to give a blank check to change Measure A. The campaign recognized this and provided a plan with the modification of the City’s Charter. Alamedans want to know and understand what the change will look like at Alameda Point and how it will impact the rest of Alameda. Having the entire Plan as part of the initiative provides Alamedans with the detailed plan they desire. It also provides Alamedans with the security that the exemption to Measure A is just for this Plan and just for the Point and will not lead to any erosion of Measure A for the rest of the Island.

Believe me, the Developer couldn’t possibly be in this position by choice! The millions of dollars they have spent using superb professionals to prepare a plan that incorporates the City’s General Plan and the public goals without any assurance the initiative will be successful is an awesome risk, especially in this economy. We should all have our good luck totems out and fingers crossed that they will actually go forward and submit the signatures! That is the first step to revitalize the deteriorating, blighted tax dollar sinkhole that Alameda Point now is and turn it into a new neighborhood built for the 21st century.

Why we are called an “advisory” group?

2009-09-22T09:29:00.000-07:00

While the primary goal of Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization is to advocate for revitalizing Alameda Point, some have asked why we are called an “advisory” group. Simply put, we are Alamedans who want the best possible development for Alameda Point and for our community. Our roles are to share the perspectives of citizens and fellow residents with the developer, and to advise and guide the developer so that the revitalization remains consistent with its stated objectives as outlined in the Plan.

While the playing fields, varied housing types, and sustainable green development standards will be carried out by SunCal, many future decisions remain that will affect how well Alameda Point fulfills our community’s vision for this newest neighborhood. This group aims to represent the views of a broad cross section of Alamedans during the planning and development process.

The City is already losing money repairing the infrastructure at the former base, and faces terrible financial exposure if we continue to do nothing at Alameda Point. The condition of the base’s buildings and infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating, and the cost of replacing the entire base infrastructure of antiquated streets, sewers, the electrical grid, and more is almost $700 million. The wake-up call was the terrible fire at the former Navy Hospital property that cost the City $1.6 million in cleanup costs and put the entire community at risk due to the release of asbestos into the atmosphere.

One of our group’s members mused that the result of this hazard stands in sharp contrast to the enormous success of the Alameda Theatre and Cineplex that has helped revitalize Park Street. The Theatre is already providing income to the City in excess of its projections. Once developed and revitalized, Alameda Point will similarly contribute to the city’s economy and budget on a much larger scale.

The long-neglected and underserved West End now, at last, has the opportunity to shine with a neighborhood library, new schools, jobs, open space, sports fields, bike paths, retail, and more frequent bus service. Alamedans for Alameda Point Revitalization wants to see this third of the island become a productive and desirable part of Alameda.

Oak Knoll Property and Fire Danger

2009-09-21T09:39:00.000-07:00

The recent KTVU-TV report, as well as concerns expressed by Oakland residents, has highlighted the need to clean up the property at the former Oak Knoll Naval Hospital.

Here is a statement that SunCal posted to their official Alameda Point blog earlier today on this issue:

Oak Knoll Update from SunCal Companies

As the development manager of the proposed Oak Knoll community in Oakland, we’d like to provide an update about this development since it has recently been in the local news. The resumption of suspended demolition work and property maintenance is an important matter we have been advocating since last year with Lehman Brothers, which is the financial partner for SunCal Oak Knoll, LLC, the owner of the Oak Knoll property.

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008 and this affected the funding for Oak Knoll and other projects that the firm provided financing for. However, we are presently engaged in discussions with Lehman about the outstanding issues at Oak Knoll, and we are working with them in a cooperative effort to resolve this and the respective matters at other properties. SunCal remains committed to the long-term potential and vision of the Oak Knoll master-planned community.

Dear neighbor,

2009-09-15T10:02:00.000-07:00

Like you, we care a great deal about Alameda. Some of us worked to secure funding to build the new Main Library and keep Alameda Hospital open. Some worked to generate stable local funding for our schools. Others worked to improve parks and sports fields for children. Others of us are active in programs that benefit seniors and children.

Now we have come together to tackle another critical issue for Alameda—revitalizing Alameda Point.

You have probably heard talk about plans for the future of Alameda Point, the site of the former Alameda Naval Air Station on the west end of Alameda. The Naval Air Station closed permanently twelve years ago. Since that time, many plans have been developed but little progress has been made to transform the base into a safe and productive part of our community. Costs to maintain the crumbling infrastructure and decaying buildings at Alameda Point continue to grow, making it a burden on the city and Alameda taxpayers.

But now there is an opportunity to change that.

We are writing to tell you about a plan that we believe will enable Alameda Point to become a tremendous asset to our community and to ask you to join us in making this plan a reality.

The City, the Navy, and SunCal, the planning and development firm hired by the City to plan the revitalization of Alameda Point, are working out the final details of the Plan. The Plan will then be put before the citizens of Alameda as an initiative to be voted on by our citizens. Voters, not city council members, developers, or special interests, will have the final say on whether this plan makes sense for our community.

The Plan to revitalize Alameda Point is based upon input from the citizens of Alameda over the course of many years. It will clean up the toxins at the site to a safe standard.

It provides civic and recreational amenities for all Alamedans in the form of hiking and biking trails, a new library, a fire station, schools, and sports and recreational facilities. It will create jobs, provide an array of housing choices and, over time, generate significant revenue for our city and our schools. Restoration of historic buildings are also part of the plan.

We feel confident that if you study the plan for Alameda Point you will support it as well. But we need your help to make sure that voters approve this important ballot measure.

Working together we can make Alameda Point an asset to our community and a part of our community that we can all be proud of.

Working together we can make Alameda Point an asset and a part of our community that we can all be proud of.

Thank you.

Doug Siden, Diane Lichtenstein, Helen Sause, Josh Cohen, Kathy Moehring, Jon Spangler, Doug Biggs, Ron Matthews, Brad Shook, Barbara Kahn, Honora Murphy, Kevin Gorham, Chris Seiwald