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
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Citys initiative summary part one.pdf | 1.24 MB |
Excerpt:
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.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 09_09_Phase2.pdf | 1001.71 KB |
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.]
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| SunCal initiative report 9-24-09.pdf | 420.35 KB |
| Renewed-HOPE-JKW-QandA.pdf | 552.79 KB |
Excerpt:
The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society’s Board of Directors opposes the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| AAPSPositionAlaPtStatement.pdf | 57.67 KB |
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,
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Election_Report_Update_20091030.pdf | 70.43 KB |
Alameda Chamber of Commerce Election Report on SunCal Ballot Initiative
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| AlamedaChamberInitiativeSummary.pdf | 100.82 KB |
[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
Improvements
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
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2009-11-18LetterfromCMtoSunCal.pdf | 1.04 MB |
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,
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Legal_enforceability_SunCal1.pdf | 354.91 KB |
 Summary_Legal_Enforcement_of_Initiative_suncal.xls | 24 KB |
