General Approach:
Getting Alameda Point going is the key part of my mayoral campaign. I am committed to redeveloping Alameda Point as a transit‐oriented mixed‐use development that is sustainable on a number of fronts, including stewardship of natural environmental resources, fiscal sustainability, sustainable with respect to improved carbon‐foot print, and sustainable with respect to balancing wide‐ range of career track jobs and housing for all income segments. To this end, one of the critical matters that I will pursue, if elected Mayor, is modifying “Measure A” for Alameda Point, as well as for Webster Street north of Buena Vista Avenue. As Mayor, I will lead the public in an effort to modify Measure A with respect to these important areas. As a professional urban planner and someone with a Master’s degree in City Planning from UC Berkeley, I am uniquely qualified to lead our community in this dialogue. In order to achieve the goals and targets I will pursue with respect to redeveloping Alameda Point along sustainable environmental and economic lines, I need to develop a range of stylish housing (including the 25 percent affordable housing set‐aside per 2002 agreement between Renewed Hope and Alameda) that ultimately will greatly help in paying for these worthy objectives: from a land‐use perspective, we need to cluster multi‐family townhouses, condos, lofts around transit / commercial‐ retail nodes that I will pursue at or near the Seaplane lagoon, so create the population densities that facilitate alternative forms of transit such as ferry ridership and bus ridership, including a bus rapid transit I will pursue that will go down Lincoln Avenue from the Point to Fruitvale, in an effort to leverage Alameda Point to provide alternative transit for mid‐island residents as well. When I was on City Council and even before as early as 1995, I championed Bayport, which was needed to create a tax base to jump start redevelopment: now, we need a mix of housing for all incomes, not just “McMansions.” In addition to transit‐oriented land‐uses, we need to provide incentives to new industries to hire local residents, or encourage local Alameda Point residents to work locally, so more and more people either walk, bike or take the bus to their local place of employment – get people out of their cars on long SOV commutes that pollute the air and harm the natural environments. At Alameda Point, we also need to take a look at parking regulations to see how we can incentivize households to get them to take alternative forms of transit and depend less on the auto: my home near 100 feet away from the Webster Street transit corridor does not have parking – I get along well taking the bus to BART, or car‐ sharing with my significant other. With respect to equitable redevelopment, on top of the 25 percent affordable housing set‐aside, we need to attract quality industries that provide a wide range of careers and pay‐scales, so that young adults hired by a quality industry can move‐up the ladder of success over time. Right now, the industries at Alameda Point are mostly warehouse‐oriented entities that place a premium on low‐cost space, i.e. businesses such as the winery, distillery, athletics merchandise wholesaler, the storage facility, Antiques By the Bay that, while quality and valued, don’t offer the breadth of occupations and income earning potential needed to allow young adults to move up a career ladder and earn enough to adequately live in the high‐cost San Francisco Bay Area. Moreover, these quality warehouse‐oriented businesses are the exceptions to the hundreds of industrial/commercial acres that remain in deteriorated, substandard condition. A mix of stylish new housing can provide the tax base to improve the commercial/industrial parts of Alameda Point so we can begin to attract quality industries with high‐paying, career‐track jobs.

Regional Development:
While Alameda is an island, it is not an entity unto itself: we depend on and have much to contribute to the region. To this end, modifying Measure A for Alameda and parts of Webster Street north of Buena Vista Avenue is critical to showing that, like other areas in the region, we, too, are prepared to plan our land‐uses with global warming and the need for improved air quality. Thus, we need transit‐oriented development to get more and more people out of SOV commutes and into mass transit, to improve regional air quality and improve traffic on our highways. We also need TOD to husband our land resources wisely, so we don’t develop every possible square inch of land, that we set‐ aside areas for passive and active open space for people and other species, endangered or not. The City of Pleasanton decision underscores that cities can no longer simply build homes without thinking through questions pertaining to jobs‐housing balance: redeveloping Alameda Point as a transit‐oriented mixed‐use community offers a way to pay for the improvements needed to attract quality industries that provide a wide breadth of industries to employ future Alameda Point residents, as well as other residents, to move people away from SOV commutes from Alameda to Silicon Valley or Bishop Ranch in San Ramon. Moreover, at Alameda Point, creating lofts will allow people to live and work in place. Having residential on top of commercial (office/retail) also achieves that. Alameda Point also needs new rental stock for families that are priced out of the market, as well as homeownership opportunities for low‐ and/or moderate‐income first‐time home buyers. The 25 percent 2002 affordable housing agreement that I joined Mayor Appezzato in crafting is a critical step in this regard: but we need to take it further by specifying **how** we are going to achieve the 25 percent target. For example, we need to strategize a FHA low‐down strategy for first‐time home‐buyers, as well as devise strategies that encourage interested seniors to sell their homes to qualified first‐time home buyers as a way to get bonus points to move into top notch units at future Alameda Point senior residences, i.e. kind of like a reverse mortgage program.

Wildlife Refuge:
I have always supported the establishment of a wildlife refuge at Alameda Point and, if elected Mayor of Alameda, I will continue to support the wildlife refuge as articulated to me in the past by local Audubon Society and Sierra Club members. I understand that the Veterans Administration is proposing a facility near or perhaps even on site originally set‐aside for endangered species ‐ the California Least Tern and California Brown Pelican. I also understand the US Fish and Wildlife Service refused to accept the runway area to create a refuge. But even so, it is my firm belief that this site should must remain a wildlife preserve for the Least Tern and Brown Pelicans. The VA proposal also fails to provide assurance that any residual contamination that is transferred with the property will be properly remediated. NAS Alameda is big enough for us to accommodate the VA facility elsewhere, but not at expense of prior and right commitments we made with regard to the ANWR.

Alameda Point Environmental Restoration:
On behalf of the People of Alameda, as vice mayor of Alameda, I formally accepted the part of
Alameda Point called the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), which was conveyed to Alameda on a special legislation basis, by signing in lieu of Mayor Ralph Appezzato the documents that transferred the FISC to Alameda. While the City of Alameda through the LRA ARRA manages Alameda Point (BRAC and special legislation)(1,500 land acres), in actuality, only a small fraction of Alameda Point has actually been officially conveyed to Alameda, such as the 70‐acre East Housing where Bayport community, the FISC, North Housing (conveyed to the Coast Guard), and 44‐acre Public Conveyance Parcel 1 (to Department of Interior). Based on these figures, I estimate roughly 10 percent of Alameda Point has been conveyed (i.e. 150 acres divided by 1,500 land acres denominator). A useful chart is at: http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2010/attachments/cc_sub_2903.pdf

If 10 percent of Alameda has been conveyed (based on a denominator of 1,500 land acres) because remediation have been deemed complete by the Navy, EPA and DTSC, then that implies 90 percent of the land area contain sites still subject to some level of remediation.
Residential standards of clean‐up must be higher than commercial and or industrial.

I believe that clean‐up standards are adequate, in so far as Navy, EPA and DTSC continue to review areas subject to clean‐up. I don’t think the issue really is “standards” per se but extent to which sites are properly characterized in terms of physical dimension of toxics (i.e. plumes) and types and levels of toxic. Let’s not forget what happened at Bayport even after the RAB, Navy, EPA and DTSC signed‐off?

Transportation hubs with high-density and low-income housing:
While Alameda is an island, it is not an entity unto itself: we depend on and have much to contribute to the region. To this end, modifying Measure A for Alameda and parts of Webster Street north of Buena Vista Avenue is critical to showing that, like other areas in the region, we, too, are prepared to plan our land‐uses with global warming and the need for improved air quality. I will be the Mayor who actively leads the process of engaging resident to modify Measure A – I will not play a hands‐off role in this. Thus, we need transit‐oriented development to get more and more people out of SOV commutes and into mass transit, to improve regional air quality and improve traffic on our highways. We also need TOD to husband our land resources wisely, so we don’t develop every possible square inch of land, that we set‐aside areas for passive and active open space for people and other species, endangered or not. The City of Pleasanton decision underscores that cities can no longer simply build homes without thinking through questions pertaining to jobs‐housing balance: redeveloping Alameda Point as a transit‐ oriented mixed‐use community offers a way to pay for the improvements needed to attract quality industries that provide a wide breadth of industries to employ future Alameda Point residents, as well as other residents, to move people away from SOV commutes from Alameda to Silicon Valley or Bishop Ranch in San Ramon. Moreover, at Alameda Point, creating lofts will allow people to live and work in place. Having residential on top of commercial (office/retail) also achieves that. Alameda Point also needs new rental stock for families that are priced out of the market, as well as homeownership opportunities for low‐ and/or moderate‐income first‐time home buyers. The 25 percent 2002 affordable housing agreement that I joined Mayor Appezzato in crafting is a critical step in this regard: but we need to take it further by specifying **how** we are going to achieve the 25 percent target. For example, we need to strategize a FHA low‐down strategy for first‐time home‐buyers, as well as devise strategies that encourage interested seniors to sell their homes to qualified first‐time home buyers as a way to get bonus points to move into top

What characteristics must a business development project have for you to consider it sustainable economic development that would benefit the local community?
A business should offer an abundance of occupations that are career‐track and at various wages and benefits, meaning that entry‐level workers should be able to acquire new skills and knowledge and work their way up the career‐ladder within a company, as well as create more value as a worker and thus earn higher and higher pay. While I admire the warehouse‐oriented businesses you find predominantly at Alameda Point right now – the winery, distillery, the athletic memorabilia wholesaler – these for the most part don’t provide career‐track jobs and occupations. We need these kinds of businesses; but we also must target quality industries that provide an abundance of career‐track occupations that are also provide ever‐increasing higher pay.

Environmental platform plank as it relates to Alameda Point:
Let me be upfront and open about where I stand on one of the most important issues of our time: I believe "Measure A" needs to be modified for Alameda Point so we can build a reasonable mix of housing there, including single-family homes, town houses, and stylish waterfront condos and lofts

Let's redevelop Alameda Point as a transit-oriented village with a mix of new industries and new housing -- with a keen eye on beautiful waterfronts

Why should the Sierra Club support your candidacy?
Has there ever been a viable candidate for Mayor of Alameda who has plainly indicated in his candidate’s statement that will be part of the ballot that he will change Measure A, even if it’s only for Alameda Point and parts of Webster Street? My history is such that, when I get engaged in something, it gets done, and things get done in an inclusive manner: close a toxic incinerator? Done! Build Bayport and, at the same time, help strike an agreement with affordable housing advocates? Done! Creat a municipal service district for Alameda Point so historic Alameda doesn’t subsidize the Point in the future? Done! ... Change Measure A for Alameda Point and Webster Street: I will get this done if elected Mayor.