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

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

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”

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:

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"

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.

Read more >>

Letter to the Editor - City leaders let residents down

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?

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

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"

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.