Election Reports

Memo from City Manager to City Council regarding financial impacts of ballot initiative, October 30, 2009

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,

Election_Report_Update_20091030.pdf70.43 KB

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

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

Table of Contents

1. Scope of Election Report
2. Regulatory Framework
3. Subsequent DDA 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
10. Environmental Impact Report
11. Impacts on Capital Budgets
12. Community Facilities District (CFD)
13. Infrastructure Studies
14. City Review of Safety, Accessibility and Regulatory Mandates before Accepting Public
15. Use of Initiative as Place to Address Mitigation Measures
16. Geotechnical
17. Climate Change
18. Storm Drainage and Water Quality
19. Sanitary Sewer
20. Streets
21. Master Demolition, Infrastructure and Grading Plan
22. Affordable Housing Program
23. Provision of School Facilities
24. Economic Development
25. Environmental Remediation

2009-11-18LetterfromCMtoSunCal.pdf1.04 MB

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



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,

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

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


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
F. Schools

IV. School Implications

V. Executive Summary

35045_2010-01-05_Power_Point.pdf1.56 MB

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


Alameda Point Development Initiative Election Phase II Preliminary Traffic Impact, September 14, 2009


Public Benefit Cap.
The Initiative anticipates that at full buildout of the development, the property and business owners of the development will fund the operation and management of the TDM strategies. However, since the Initiative includes on-site and off-site traffic and transportation improvements in the public benefit cap, the capital improvements associated with the TDM programs appear to be included in the cap and it is unclear whether there will be sufficient monies to fully fund all the identified public benefit projects and necessary TDM capital projects.

EIR Mitigation vs. Project Improvement.
Since the Initiative does not commit to a specific TDM program as part of project-related public improvements, it is anticipated that the TDM program will be identified as mitigations through a subsequent EIR process, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since CEQA allows for mitigations measures to be waived through Statements of Overriding Consideration based on factors including financially infeasible, portions of the TDM program required to mitigate the project’s impacts may be determined to be infeasible based on the cost to implement the program. Therefore, the Initiative does not guarantee which specific TDM strategies will be included as part of the development. If the TDM program were committed to as part of the Initiative and not considered strictly as a potential EIR mitigation to the project’s traffic impacts, as currently proposed in the Initiative, there would be more certainty that the TDM measures discussed in the Initiative and analyzed in this report would be implemented and the corresponding traffic reductions will be achieved.

09_09_Phase2.pdf1001.71 KB