Election-Reports

Alameda Point Development Initiative Election Report Presentation
Joint Meeting Alameda Unified School District and City of Alameda
January 5, 2010

Contents

I. Initiative Process

II. Chronology of Process

III. Contents of Initiative
A. Summary of Initiative
B. Land Use Program
C. Development Agreement
D. Fiscal Impacts
E. Traffic

Excerpt:

CONCLUSION

Before the February 2, 2010 election, it will not be possible to enter into any enforceable agreement because no prior environmental review will have been completed;

[Response to SunCal's letter of October 19, 2009]

Table of Contents

1. Scope of Election Report
2. Regulatory Framework
3. Subsequent DDADisposition and Development Agreement Approval
4. Failure of Initiative and Effect on Maintenance of Base
5. Impact Fee Exactions and Exemptions
6. Public Benefits and Financing
7. $200 Million Public Benefit Cap
8. Fiscal Neutrality
9. Transfer of Rights

Alameda Chamber of Commerce Election Report on SunCal Ballot Initiative

Excerpt:
Re: City Council Request of October 20, 2009: Election Report Update

The purpose of this off-agenda communication is to provide further quantification on certain references to financial impacts contained within the Alameda Point Initiative. Council requested this information during its discussion of the SunCal letter presented in the public forum on October 20, 2009,

Excerpt:

The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society’s Board of Directors opposes the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.

Excerpt:

SUNCAL/SHAW HEDGE FUND INITIATIVE PROBLEM OUTCOMES: SUMMARY

The initiative, if approved by Alameda voters would

* give the developer the right to decide the overall project‟s size, mix of uses, open space plan, public facilities, transit options, and timing.

*give the developers the right to decide the size, density, mix of uses, open space plan, transit options, timing and other major characteristics of the development within each district.

* lock in a process of ministerial (i.e., no city discretion to modify or reject) approvals that prohibit the public, the Planning Board, and the City Council from reviewing or appealing permit approvals, with few exceptions

* fail to guarantee delivery of any specific public benefits or improvements, including those listed in the initiative

* divert scarce city and redevelopment resources from the rest of Alameda to the Alameda Point project and make it prohibitively expensive for the city to refuse to provide the project with redevelopment (tax increment) funds;

* allow the developer, to sell off Alameda Point piece by piece with these extremely valuable entitlements in place to developers it selects. The city would be obligated to honor the development agreement with developers falling short of the city‟s minimum financial, competence, and design qualifications.;

* undermine environmental review by postponing it until after the developer would already be in possession of full development rights that would hinder the city‟s ability to require mitigations or project alternatives; and

* prohibit amendments to correct any of the initiative‟s problems without the approval of the initial and subsequent developers, for at least 30 years

Excerpt:

Public Benefit Cap.