Point.Counterpoint

FAQ or Point:

Topics:

Alameda Chamber opposes proposed SunCal initiative as 'development by ballot box' October 2009

Development Agreement

Suncal

Cost to the City

Point:

"Alameda Point is costing our city dearly" and will continue to do so for years to come unless we pass the initiative. (Source: SunCal campaign literature.)

Counterpoint:

The SunCal measure could cost our city dearly and would do so for years to come. Reports done by the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, the City of Alameda, and Renewed HOPE Housing Advocates all conclude that the SunCal ballot measure creates a significant level of financial risk for the City of Alameda and its taxpayers. The City of Alameda's own study finds that the project would have a negative impact on the city's budget with a shortfall of $17.7 million if a 15-year buildout is assumed, and a $4.8 annual deficit thereafter, unless mitigated. (Source: Executive Summary, p. 16.)

The initiative could also cost the city dearly because of a provision in the initiative that allows the developer(s) to not develop the property until the timing is advantageous to them. This could result in neglected property, with the city responsible for any dangerous situations that develop in the meantime, but without the lease revenues it currently receives.

Referring Documents:

City of Alameda Election Report Executive Summary-Part I, May 29, 2009

DOUBTFUL PROMISES: A REPORT TO THE ALAMEDA COMMUNITY ON THE SUNCAL/SHAW HEDGE FUND INITIATIVE (Renewed Hope), September 24, 2009

Press Release: ALAMEDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OPPOSES PROPOSED SUNCAL INITIATIVE AS "DEVELOPMENT BY BALLOT BOX," September 21, 2009

Fiscal neutrality

Point:

The plan will pay for itself and be fiscally neutral to the city. (Source: Initiative, sec. 3(j); Specific Plan, sec. 8.2; SunCal's campaign literature.)

Counterpoint:

Easy there cowboy! That's a hope, not a fact. The developer is supposed to "cooperate" with the city in trying to implement its fiscal neutrality policy, not obligated to meet it. The safety for the developer is built into the initiative through a dollar-for-dollar, lifetime credit requirement towards any services provided for new residents, including police and fire. This is regardless of how income from the project to the city turns out—income from the project is NOT guaranteed in the initiative.

In addition, the city's Executive Summary projects an $18 million shortfall of the General Fund for the next 15 years (during buildout, when the city will fund infrastructure for the developer), and nearly $5 million a year afterwards, for services. The hope is that Mello-Roos assesments on Point homeowners will cover any gaps between the city's expenditure and the developer's return, if any. There is, however, a cap on these assessments of 2%, which cannot increase even if the amount generated is not enough. And since development is not guaranteed at all (Section 2.9 of Development Agreement) the city could be on a hook for a long time, waiting for the Mello-Roos revenues to materialize.

Referring Documents:

Alameda Point Specific Plan

City of Alameda Election Report Executive Summary-Part I, May 29, 2009

Fixing Problems in Initiative

Point:

If the majority of voters adopt Measure B, which includes a development agreement, after the election another agreement (a DDA) can remedy the concerns raised by the opponents and city staff.

Counterpoint:

A voter-approved development agreement trumps any later agreement (DDA) in the event of a dispute. Also, the developer—not the city—controls the ability to amend the development agreement, and it is unlikely that the developer would choose to relinquish its financial and other benefits.

Referring Documents:

Letter from City Manager to SunCal regarding ballot measure, November 18, 2009

Letters from SunCal to City Manager Regarding City's Election Report, October 19 2009

Memo from City Attorney to City Council Regarding Enforceability of Agreements in Conflict with Alameda Point Initiative, December 17, 2009

FAQ or Point:

Topics:

Development Agreement

Exclusive Negotiating Agreement

Financial Issues

If voters reject the SunCal Initiative

Point:

If this initiative does not pass, the City of Alameda will not own the property or have control over its direction. (Source: SunCal's website.)

Counterpoint:

The City of Alameda will not own the property either way. If the initiative does not pass, the Navy will continue cleanup activities until the land is transferable. The existing businesses at the former base will continue to generate lease income to the city, currently around $12 million a year. The zoning laws of Alameda and normal project approval processes will continue to apply to anyone who wants to pursue building rights at the Point in the future.

See recommendations for a backup plan in the Fiscal Sustainability Committee Report, page 39-40.

Referring Documents:

Fiscal Sustainability Committee Report June 2009

FAQ or Point:

Topics:

Land Use Planning

Point:

The initiative provides a comprehensive land use plan for the redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Source: Initiative, sec. 2(q).)

Counterpoint:

SunCal’s land use plan is not comprehensive because there are no specific plans for the 225-acre area known as the Northwest Territories. The State of California has designated this parcel as Public Trust Land. SunCal has merely copied the list of land uses that are permissible on Public Trust Land, rather than creating a descriptive detailed plan for the entire development footprint as called for in the ENA.

Our current General Plan contains a commitment to a public park in the Northwest Territories with the active and affirmative phrase "Develop a public park, called Alameda Point Park, in this area." During the past two years SunCal has not only failed to produce any of THEIR own plans for the Northwest Territories, but they have stricken the park from OUR plans, claiming ignorance that such a park plan even existed.

Referring Documents:

FAQ or Point:

Topics:

Exclusive Negotiating Agreement

Recreational Facilities and Public Benefits

Local oversight

Point:

Development at Alameda Point will be subject to local oversight and an independent review process. (Source: SunCal's campaign literature.)

Counterpoint:

Each phase or project requires an EIR. If voters approve the proposed Specific Plan, section 9.2 says that after an EIR is certified,

"exemptions from CEQA [which mandates an EIR] may be applicable to future development in the Plan Area and it is the intent of the voters that such exemptions be utilized to the fullest extent permitted by law. For example, any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change [...] is exempt from CEQA."

In other words, voters are being asked to ignore the whole purpose for which EIR reviews were created—that is, to protect a community from unwanted or harmful consequences. Rather than initiating local oversight as advertised by SunCal, voters will be undermining it.

Referring Documents:

Alameda Point Specific Plan

FAQ or Point:

Topics:

Parks and open space

Point:

The development will include 145 acres of parks and open space. (Source: Initiative sec. 2(q).)

Counterpoint:

What is not widely known is that SunCal has eliminated Alameda Point Park from the city’s General Plan in their initiative. Alameda Point Park was supposed to be a region-serving park on the western shore of Alameda Point in the Northwest Territories and is part of the official Community Reuse Plan approved in 1996.

Parks and open space in the mixed-used area do not make up for the elimination of a big park along the premier western shoreline.

By striking out Alameda Point Park from the General Plan, SunCal opens up the possibility of prime waterfront property being occupied by private recreational uses instead of public ones. Eliminating the park from the General Plan does not demonstrate a commitment to public parks and recreation.

Referring Documents:

FAQ or Point:

Topics: