Alameda Chamber of Commerce Election Report on SunCal Ballot Initiative

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;

After the election (and assuming voter-approval), SunCal may amend the Development Agreement if it chooses to do so; However, SunCal will control whether and when it would seek such a amendment and it should not be assumed that any developer would voluntarily relinquish fiscal and other benefits gained from a voter-approved Initiative;

Inconsistent terms in any other negotiated agreement (such as a Disposition and Development Agreement, or "DDA") may be required to be resolved in favor of the terms in the Development Agreement. Accordingly, although the City and SunCal could negotiate a DDA to mitigate the impacts identified in the Election Reports, SunCal also would have to amend the Development Agreement in order to assure consistency and enforceability a of any such negotiated terms,

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.....INTRODUCTION
II....INITIATIVE PROCESS
III...DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE CONTROL MECHANISMS
IV....FISCAL IMPACT
V.....INFRASTRUCTURE
VI....LAND USE
VII...HOUSING
VIII..SCHOOLS
IX.....ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
X......ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

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

[Also includes a separate document with questions from John Knox White and responses from Renewed HOPE.]