I think someone asked what the status of the redevelopment of the Del Monte site is currently.   According to a Planning Board agenda item, not a whole lot.

The Planning Board has been asked to consider three requests concerning the Del Monte property.   The first is a request from the current tenant ConGlobal.  Apparently their use permit has run out and while they were prepared for the move  they thought that their use permit expired in August 2010.   Turns out, their use permit expires at the end of September of this year.  Uh oh.

So while they were all prepared to move next year, they certainly weren’t prepared to move this year by any stretch of the imagination so they are asking for a 10 month extension on the use permit.   City staff is recommending granting the extension on the use permit, but with some key concessions in order to lessen the impact on the neighborhood which was supposed to be industry free when this use permit ended per the amended General Plan regarding this area.

• As of September 1, 2009, ConGlobal will stop receiving any new containers at the site. All container receipts will occur at the new Oakland site. This will reduce truck traffic by approximately 50%.
• As of August 3, 2010, all containers will be removed from the site, and ConGlobal will cease all operations at the site. To minimize trucking impacts on the neighborhood, containers will be removed gradually over the course of the next 10 months. Specifically, at least 30% of the containers will be removed by January 1, 2010; 50% removed by April 1, 2010; 90% by July 1, 2010 and 100% by August 3, 2010.
• The hours of operation for the structural division will be reduced from 6:00 a.m. to midnight to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m Monday through Saturday. Sunday operations for the structural division shall be reduced from 10 per year under the current use permit to two Sundays for the balance of 2009 and two Sundays in 2010.
• The hours of operation for the refrigeration division will be reduced from 24-hours seven days per week to 24 hours five days per week Monday through Friday, and 6:00 am to 7:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday.
• The maximum number of employees per shift shall be reduced from 75 to 50, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Shifts running from 6:00 p.m. to 6 a.m. shall be reduced from 30 to ten in the structural division, and from ten to five for the refrigeration division.
• The use of top loader vehicles Monday through Saturday will be reduced from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with no use on Sundays.

I know that this has been a hardship on the neighborhood which has anticipated the redevelopment of that area for a long time (see neighbor letters), but on the other hand, you sort of have to feel sorry for the business who anticipated that they would have to move and using the timeline given by their landlord prepared for that only to be notified by the City that their timeline was pushed up by no fault of their own.   I say, cut the business a break, it doesn’t appear that Peter Wang (owner of the property) has any plans to do anything soon. 

The second request is from the owner of the property, Peter Wang, who wants an extension on the same use permit for five more years.   Not only that he wants to expand the scope of the use permit to include:

…outdoor storage, warehousing, handling and repair of boats, watercraft, automobiles, RV’s, chassis, trailers, automotive equipment, vehicles, buses, trucks, mobile homes, containers, construction equipment and materials for businesses, homes, commercial and/or household goods, as well as container storage activities similar to the current use.

Mr. Wang appears to be waiting out the economic downturn before putting his plans into motion.  So this basically is the answer to the question, what’s going on with the Del Monte property.   The answer: nothing.  

The third request is submitted by staff to rezone the area from M-2 General Industrial to M-X Mixed Use in order to conform with the amended General Plan.    Although in conjunction with this site getting rezoned, four other sites in close proximity are under consideration for rezoning as well.   Including the storage facility adjacent to the Belt line.   Good timing.

As mentioned yesterday on In Alameda, the judge in the Beery case (RG08405984) has made a tentative ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (full text below)   The tentative ruling basically says that there is a there there and while Beery’s lawyers tried to use a very similiar argument to that of Borikas’ (VG08405316) just as he did not buy it then, he doesn’t buy it for this one either. 

There were two main arguments that the Judge Burr addressed at the core of the motion for summary judgment.   The first was that of uniformity.   Much like what happened when Borikas tried that course of action, the Judge said, nope, not going to happen:

…The Court previously ruled on essentially the same “uniformity” issue in denying the motion for summary judgment brought by the Borikas plaintiffs. The Court adopts its holding in its prior ruling that the parcel tax imposed by Measure H is uniformly imposed. The Court is not persuaded to change its prior ruling by the new arguments and evidence submitted by Plaintiffs. The argument concerning legislative history was made in support of the prior motion. The new evidence submitted elaborates on that prior argument. In general, the evidence offered shows that some non-legislators thought that the statute might be interpreted in the manner sought by Plaintiffs in this action…

He did say that the stuff thrown in about the equal protection clause was “interesting” but not “persuasive.”

The second argument that was not offered by Borikas’s attorney, but that Beery’s lawyer attempted to argue is the contention that Measure H was, in fact, a “general tax” as opposed to a “special tax.”   The purpose of arguing that it was a “general tax” rather than a “special tax” is the Schools Districts are unable to impose general taxes.   Beery’s reasoning for describing the tax as a “general” as opposed to a “special” tax is that he claims that the uses for the money are so broad that it is more appropriately defined as “general.”   The Judge disagreed citing case law which sets forth that:

…All that is required for a special tax is that its proceeds are earmarked or dedicated in some manner to a specific project or projects…

At 9:30 a.m. today, the judge will decide whether to affirm the tentative ruling.  If everything goes the same way as the Borikas case then this will be a fair hurdle passed by AUSD.  All in all, positive news for the school district.

In other In Alameda news and lawsuit breaks, John Knox White is reporting that the Beltline dispute is almost over, the railroad companies having decided that their money is best spent elsewhere rather than defending the indefensible.

_________________________________________________

This Tentative Ruling is issued by Judge Kenneth Mark Burr The motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication, by Plaintiffs John C. Beery, Alameda Gateway, Ltd., and Mariner Square & Associates (”Plaintiffs”) on their complaint against Defendant Alameda Unified School District (”District”) is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication of the First and Second Causes of Action is DENIED.

Plaintiffs contend that the parcel tax imposed on property owners in the City of Alameda by special tax Measure H must be invalidated because the tax it imposes is not uniformly applied, in violation of Government Code section 50079. Plaintiffs also contend that Measure H violates Government Code section 50079(b)(2), which only allows a district to impose “qualified special taxes” that do not include special taxes imposed “on a particular class of property or taxpayers.” Plaintiffs acknowledge that the claims under their First and Second Causes of Action are interrelated, since both causes of action are based on the premise that the parcel tax under Measure H is not being applied “uniformly to all property within the school district.”

The Court previously ruled on essentially the same “uniformity” issue in denying the motion for summary judgment brought by the Borikas plaintiffs. The Court adopts its holding in its prior ruling that the parcel tax imposed by Measure H is uniformly imposed. The Court is not persuaded to change its prior ruling by the new arguments and evidence submitted by Plaintiffs. The argument concerning legislative history was made in support of the prior motion. The new evidence submitted elaborates on that prior argument. In general, the evidence offered shows that some non-legislators thought that the statute might be interpreted in the manner sought by Plaintiffs in this action. Much of the evidence concerns attempts to add a provision to section 50079 allowing an exemption for seniors, which ultimately resulted in the language in section 50079(b)(1) allowing school districts to include an exemption for taxpayers 65 years and older and those receiving Supplemental Security Income. That provision allowing an exemption is not an issue in this motion. Plaintiffs have also added an argument claiming a distinction between the requirement of “strict uniformity” applicable to property taxes, and a looser requirement of uniformity in the operation of law that is analogous to the federal right of equal protection. This argument, although interesting, is not persuasive. The cases cited do not hold that there is a recognized distinction between the meaning of uniformity when used in a provision allowing special taxes, and the meaning of the same term as used in all other areas of the law. It is even less apparent that the Legislature would have or should have been aware of this distinction when it drafted Government Code section 50079. Finally, it also is not clear from the cases cited or Plaintiffs’ brief what is meant by the term “strict uniformity.” Plaintiffs do not explain whether strict uniformity means that every parcel, no matter how large, pays the same yearly assessment, or whether it means that taxes must be assessed based on the square footage of each parcel, without regard to its current use. The motion for summary adjudication of the Third Cause of Action is DENIED.

Plaintiffs assert that Measure H is not a special tax, but instead a general tax. A “general tax” is defined to mean any tax imposed for general governmental purposes; a “special tax” is defined as any tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into the general fund. Article XII C, Section 1, of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs contend that Measure H should be invalidated because under Article XIII A, Section 4, and Article XIII C, Section 2(a), school districts are only authorized to enact special taxes, and are prohibited from enacting general taxes. Plaintiffs argue that the enumerated purposes for the parcel tax imposed by Measure H are so broad that there is no effective limitation on the uses to which the revenue can be used. The Court does not agree that the “purposes” of the tax as set out in the resolution of the Alameda Unified School District in which the parcel tax was adopted provide no effective limitation on the uses to which the revenues can be used. All that is required for a special tax is that its proceeds are earmarked or dedicated in some manner to a specific project or projects. Neecke v. City of Mill Valley (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 946, 956. The specification of purposes in Measure H all relate to improvements to education within the Alameda Unified School District, is proper under the holding in N.L. Nielson v. City of California City (2005) 133 Cal.App.3d 1296, 1310-1312. Finally, District is a “special purpose” district, so every tax levied by District is deemed a special tax. Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 13-15.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of Exhibits A-E and G is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of Exhibit F is DENIED. Lack of relevance. District’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

While some folks may not be too fond of Peter Calthorpe in this city because of his connection to the SunCal project, there is no denying that he is a respected leader in the New Urbanist/Smart Growth/InsertCatchPhraseofChoicehere community.  

As part of the E2 series, there were podcasts that accompanied each broadcast, Portland’s podcast talks about the subject of Transit Oriented Development, which I’ve read some folks write about as though it is simply a theory in the minds of urban planners, but it is a land use tool that has been embraced by cities like Portland.

Peter Calthorpe on what makes a Transit Oriented Development from the podcast:

“The formula for Transit Oriented Development is very simple.  It’s diversity.   Diversity in population and in land use so you have a place where you have a range of housing opportunities.   You don’t want to ever say, this is a place for one  kind of person: lofts for young people  or condos for empty nesters or apartment buildings for seniors or anything like that.   You want it to be a complete neighborhood.  So you get a pretty broad range of household types, and age and incomes.

And then it has to be mixed with local destinations: local stores, cafes, shops, civic places, parks, schools, so diversity of population and of land use.  And that ’s not enough, I can show you places in the suburbs that are actually diverse.  There’s an office park on one corner, a shopping mall on another, and a condo on the third, and a subdivision on the fourth and there’s no walkability.  It’s all divided by these huge, massive arterials with giant pedestrian unfriendly crossings.  And we really had to work hard to make a local destination a car trip…

The next fundamental part of a TOD is the idea of a human scale, bringing the pedestrian back into the picture and creating streets that are pedestrian and bike friendly, as well as auto friendly, it’s quite a tricky job…

Walkability and pedestrian human scale plays out on many levels… What do you experience as you walk, is it a series of garage doors or is it a series of front porches?  Do you have that old tree canopy overhead?  You know there are lots of issues of how you shape the public domain so that it’s really truly pedestrian friendly and so I think those are the two fundamental design criteria of what makes a good TOD.

Density, intensity, these are things that vary place to place.  As our population matures and as the economy shifts, I think we’re going to see more and more density.  People are going to understand that living in a townhouse that’s truly in a town as opposed to floating off in the middle of nowhere makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.   So when you have so little that’s of value in the public domain, no wonder people want large yards to escape in to.  But if you no longer have to escape the public world you perhaps don’t need quite as big a private domain.”

This simply goes back to the issue of choice that was raised in the larger E2 broadcast.   But I would say that regardless of where we all stand on the issue of a topic like Measure A or even the larger development of Alameda Point in general, the items identified in as components of Transit Oriented Development is something, I hope, that everyone can get behind such as:

• Diversity of population
• Diversity of land use
• Mixed with local destinations
• Scaled for pedestrians
• Walkability

These aren’t radical ideas, but definitely something that we should all have in mind for any development moving forward in Alameda.

As a side note, word has come in that the judge in the Beery case has made a tentative ruling, I’ll talk more about this tomorrow.

These two comments reminded me of a PBS broadcast around the issue of the “economies of being environmentally conscious.”   The first brought up the idea that a way to stop sprawl is to institute urban growth boundaries.

As a side note, one of the Greenbelt Alliance’s most recent publications (Golden Lands, Golden Opportunities)  talks about open space policy and how to protect the greenbelt in the Bay Area.  

The second comment brought up the idea of who would agree to live with such “restrictions” on parking spaces and that people would act “stupid in their smart growth communities.”  I loved that quote by the way.

The E2 series on PBS ran in December of last year an episode on the city of Portland.  (to view click on webcasts and then on ”Portland: A Sense of Place“)  There is some discussion of Oregon’s urban growth boundary, probably the area that is most famous for having one.   But the urban growth boundary is combined with land use planning beyond just saying that all development must stop at this designated line.  

As mentioned by BC  in an earlier comment when the subject of an urban growth boundary came up once before.  One can’t merely say that this one line will stop all sprawl, just like “smart growth” won’t stop all sprawl either.   It’s a tool that has to be used in conjuction otherwise more problems are created.  

In the series it talks about once the urban growth boundaries are created by each city, urbanization of the city is allowed by right and it doesn’t become a battle.  

Additionally, the Greenbelt Alliance has long been a proponent and supporter of urban growth boundaries and points to the success of UGBs in Portland:

On the whole, the UGB has been a huge success. It has helped protect huge swaths of
forest and farm land at the region’s edge. It has helped increase the amount of housing planned inside the UGB — from 129,000 homes to 300,000 homes. And it has helped revitalize Portland’s downtown.

As to the issue about people acting stupid in their smart communities, the video also talks about Portland’s Pearl District redevelopment.  They created a transit oriented development with:

• less than one parking space per residential unit
• no dedicated parking for ground floor retail stores
• fixed streetcar

What the redevelopment of the Pearl District neighborhood has created, according to Charlie Hales Senior Vice President HDR Engineering, also a former City Council member:

“The trip behavior, what transportation planners call trip behavior, of the people who live in this neighborhood is fundamentally different to people in the suburbs, so there are literally millions of miles of avoided automobile use because people live here and live this way.”

The video is best summed up by these two comments, the first by Ethan Seltzer the Director the the School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University:

” A lot of people speak about sustainability as a kind of a burlap future.  Instead of wearing silk we’ll all  be wearing burlap.  It’s about somehow giving up on the American Dream, we’re giving up on a standard of living that we may aspire to.   I don’t think we should give up on the notion of having an American Dream, far from it.  On the other hand, I think we ought to really ask ourselves some tough questions about what we mean by that.

If having the American Dream is really about acquistion, I think we’re just in trouble.  But if the American Dream is about enabling people to make the most of themselves, have some aspirations, and to be able to act on them effectively, I think we can still offer that.  And I don’t think that’s about deprivation, actually, quite the contrary.  I think that’s about reprogramming where we’re putting our resources to make that American Dream work, accesible to more of us.”

And then by Charlie Hales:

“The only thing different about Portland is that we’ve actually put enough of this stuff in place that people do have a choice.  And that’s a very American idea.  And it turns out, that if you give them those choices in a place that’s as diverse Portland and Dallas and Houston and Minneapolis, a lot of people would like that choice.  They’d like to own one car, not two.  And spend more money on, maybe, remodeling their kitchen than buying another car.  And they’d like for their kids to be able to walk to school.   They’d like to be able to bike to work on nice days.   Not everyone has to live this way.  This is not some radical agenda forcing Americans out of their single family homes.  This is about choice.  That’s an American value and it actually resonates in all kinds of American places.”

The larger issue, for me, is not so much advocating for affordable housing, as in low-income housing, although I do feel as though that it is important for everyone, not just people who need low-income housing, to advocate for it.  But the understanding that not every family is built the same. 

Not every family is the 1950s ideal of one mom, one dad, two kids and a dog needing a split level single family home in the suburbs with a  big yard perferrably on a cul-de-sac.   Families come in all shapes and sizes.   That’s sort of what the Safe Schools initiative is trying to each our children, right?    There are families with children, or without.   There are older couples that may want to downsize their homes, there are young people just out of school who may only be able to afford a smaller space. 

Under Measure A, anything new that is built is pretty much one size fits all.   A single family home or a duplex.   Chocolate or Vanilla.   That doesn’t leave much in the way of choice.   There should be room for options, for choice, particularly in a development that will encompass such a large portion of the Island.

I’ll admit it, this is the first time I have actually ever been to the 4th of July parade.   I loved it.   My family enjoyed it, our friends we went with enjoyed it.  It was an all around good time.

My only complaint though, and it’s pretty small was that by the very end some parade folks had ended up conking out a bit.   Some bands decided to stop playing, people stopped throwing candy (they threw candy right?   I wouldn’t know since we were at the tail end), half of the VIPs decided to abandon their vehicles before the very end, it was a little surreal.

We were at the very very end of the parade right where it turned off and after three plus miles of walking I could understand that some people just wanted it to end at that point.

But, some paraders took the opposite approach and were determined to give one last show.  Like the fire eater from the Crucible.   And all the people from Rhythmix.   And the Encinal Cheerleaders.   Although the great thing about being at the very end was seeing the celebration from the people who had received trophies for their entries.   Like the super excited Victory Garden group.

Although, what parade is complete without the appearance of the indomitable Frank Chu?  For those wondering, the latest advertiser on the back of Frank Chu’s signs is 111 Minna.

And can I just mention how awesome that someone volunteered their Boss Hogg-like mobile for the Police Chief to ride in?

See my photos here, no artistic photography here, I think I did pretty well considering I was balancing a baby on my hip at the same time.  Oh, and my camera ran out of batteries so I wasn’t able to take photos of the whole parade.

Not much to say as I am in Long Weekend mode.  Race, Parade, Jubilee, Fireworks, you name it, it’s happening in Alameda tomorrow. 

Although, I’ve always wondered where folks would say the best place to view fireworks in Alameda is.   Last year, we thought to try out Alameda Point near Hangar One, but it was a little, um, hairy, so we ended up back at the park near Ruby Bridges which actually has a nice-ish view of the Jack London fireworks, so we’ll probably do that again.

I guess the Hornet would be a good spot, but that isn’t free, but it sounds like it will be quite fun with the live bands and all.

Happy Independence Day everyone!

The other day when I visited the visited the East Bay Express website to read Rin Kelly’s article for the fourth or fifth time I didn’t realize that EBX had already updated its website and had posted the July 1 edition early.   I ran across this headline: “You’re Not an Environmentalist If You’re Also a NIMBY” courtesy of Robert Gammon and I was intrigued.  I totally expected this to be a screed on how NIMBYs actually are environmentalists in that EBX model of being contrary about practically everything.    What I read completely surprised me in a OMFG way.   So OMFG, I read it twice in one sitting because I couldn’t believe what I was reading.

Gammon’s piece revolved mostly around the Greenbelt Alliance report “Grow Smart Bay Area” that I referenced about a week ago.   Highlights:

…For years, city dwellers who consider themselves to be eco-conscious have used environmental laws and arcane zoning rules to block new home construction, especially apartments and condominiums. In the inner East Bay, liberals have justified their actions by railing against gentrification and portraying developers as profiteers. But the lack of urban growth in Berkeley and in parts of Oakland during the past few decades also has contributed to suburban sprawl and long commutes. And all those freeways choked with cars are now the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the region.

Environmentalists who think globally say suburban sprawl and the destruction of rural farmland must stop…

…for the inner East Bay to grow the way it should, it will have to overcome the region’s well-developed not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sensibilities. In Berkeley and North Oakland, in particular, liberals who view themselves as environmentalists have been blocking dense housing developments for decades. They have complained about traffic, overcrowding, and the potential destruction of neighborhood character. But among those who are paying attention to the causes of global warming, there is a growing realization that no-growth activists have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Climate change has forced a paradigm shift in the environmental movement. If you live in an urban area, you can’t call yourself an “environmentalist” and continue to act like a NIMBY by blocking new housing.

…the people who have lived for years along the East Bay’s major transit corridors and consider themselves to be liberal environmentalists also need to finally start thinking globally and acting locally. The coming global warming crisis demands that they do more than just eat organic, install solar panels, or buy a Prius.

They also need to realize that dense development will make their neighborhoods and their cities better — not worse. More people means more shops, cafes, and restaurants — and more tax revenues. And when you think about it, who doesn’t want to be able to walk to the local store for a bag of groceries or grab a cup of coffee at the corner cafe — and save help save the planet at the same time?

There’s a whole section devoted to Berkeley and Oakland’s land use woes, but their debate over the height of the buildings has little to do with Alameda Point since the tallest proposed building in the project would only be five stories which is shorter than the shortest building quibbled over by Berkeley residents.   It is however, nice to see the “Mahattanization of X-city” is commonly used all over the Bay Area and not just confined to Alameda.

It’s an interesting read from Robert Gammon, I’m still unable to shake why I am still taken aback by it.  I guess it was unexpected by a publication that is so anti-transit.    I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I thought that John Knox White’s characterization of Rin Kelly’s piece in the East Bay Express as the “perfect Rorshach test for Alameda Point” was rather brilliant.   There has been a bit of a consistent hum from some folks snarking over the lack of reaction from “the blogs” over Rin K.’s piece as though it was some big “A HA!” moment that proved their theories right.   Personally, as I mentioned on In Alameda, I thought that Rin K. did a really excellent job on her piece, minus the title and subtitle which always has to be a little sexy to pull in the readers, particularly the readership the East Bay Express caters to.   Oh and the characterization of the hand push as a shove was a bit sensational too, but no biggie.

While some people think that the quotes in the article prop up the message they have been saying all along, contextually, there really is no there there, quote wise that is.   All of the quotes by either David Brandt or Ann Marie Gallant talk about the issues in very general terms. 

The issues that the City Management have with some of the terms in the Development Agreement is the product of the signature driven voter initiative.    As mentioned in this post, the City Council could have chosen at any time to place the initiative on the ballot themselves, thereby controlling the process and guiding the negotiations.   However, had this played out differently with a Council led initiative, we would be having a whole other conversation about the “will of the people” and the inability of SunCal to collect enough signatures so they paid off the Council majority to push it through.    In fact, I would argue that if the City Manager really believes that the issues with the current initiative as written are not in “the best interest of the city” then she should suggest and encourage that the Council place on the balllot the bare minimum SunCal would need to get them to a place where they have a project that can then have a Development Agreement and Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) negotiated. 

The only issues specified in Rin K.’s article were found in this paragraph which indicated:

Of particular concern to Brandt are the financial provisions included in the development agreement, especially the $200 million cap on the developer’s obligation to pay for public benefits. That obligation is contingent upon the city providing funding through redevelopment mechanisms overseen by agencies not party to a development agreement.

So that’s

1. $200 million cap on public benefits
2. Funding contingent on all available redevelopment money for the Alameda Point project area to be directed to this project alone (minus the pass-throughs and the affordable housing portion)

I don’t think that the City Management is necessarily wrong on item one, but I would disagree with them on item two.  

While clearly the cap on the money outlaid for the public benefits is to keep SunCal from locking itself into essentially writing a blank check for all the promises made in the Initiative, after all they are a business.  They aren’t stupid.  To quote David Brandt:

“If you’re going to do it, might as well grab everything you can…”

If they can put in place a cap on the amount they have to spend but then choose to spend more, then they look like your friendly neighborhood developer.   It’s a well worn strategy.   I’m not sure what the answer is or what the actual final number should be for the amount, but I think the correct number is somewhere between $200 million and blank check.  

I do think that if the City and/or SunCal is successful in renegotiating a price tag with the Navy for the land then that savings should go into the public benefits kitty.

As to item number two, as mentioned by JKW:

This raises a very real issue–one that is a concern to me personally—of whether redevelopment areas should be able to merge, thereby avoiding the sunsetting of the redevelopment district. It’s amusing to watch those who decry all redevelopment all the time pointing to the city’s desire to do just that, to use redevelopment money from Alameda Point to fund things in other redevelopment areas, as proof that this project is a stinker.

I’ll admit it, I’m not the most knowledgeable on all things redevelopment, I think few people are and some people who think they are, aren’t.     Since the redevelopment spectre was raised in Rin K.’s article it is only logical to assume that the reason why City Managment disagrees with making the public benefits contingent on the redevelopments funds for Alameda Point to solely go to Alameda Point is that they want to reserve the option of using it elsewhere in the City.  

Now if you come into this discussion with the ideology that all redevelopment is bad.  Period.  Then that sort of stymies the discussion in general.  But let’s pretend that we all can see redevelopment as a tool to be used in some circumstances.  ‘Kay?

I would think that we would all prefer that the City use redevelopment funds judiciously.  One way to encourage that the funds go to the purpose for which they were created would be to limit the redevelopment boundaries for project areas.   I know that cities that use redevelopment like to combine project areas together in order to lengthen the time left on the project areas, because, technically redevelopment areas are meant to not last in perpetuity, but rather end at some designated point in time.   However, based on this article and how the item is phrased in the development agreement, mixed in with some good old fashioned conjecture, I would say that this issue looms large and probably is a major sticking point for a City Management needing as many pots of money to keep close in order to keep the City running.

Personally, I think that this particular redevelopment area should be kept separate in order to ensure that the money secured from the tax increment financing goes toward the infrastructure in the distinct project area.   If the case is that City Management wants to keep the area combined or rather would like to combine it with some other area in order to access the funds for alternate projects not in the project area then the City is wrong on this one.

Something also mentioned by JKW, but not specifically called out in Rin K.’s piece is about the cap on property taxes.   The development agreement calls for a cap to be placed upon future residents that their tax rate can be no more than 2%.   Right now, most Alameda residents pay about 1%, some of us pay a little more because of added taxes like Community Facility District (CFD) taxes.   SunCal has proposed that the taxes for future residents be capped at 2% and this would include all property tax, parcel taxes, CFD/Mello Roos, and Ecopass.   Much like the redevelopment scenario above, I would imagine that a City Management wanting to have the option to generate new revenue sources would not want to be hamstrung by a development agreement that wouldn’t allow them to levy any additional taxes on a significant portion of the populace.

All in all, the situation is very complex.   As Rin K.’s piece illustrates, the real story behind why SunCal decided to not move forward with a November election is so much more complex than we will ever truly know.  Between the City looking out for its interests, SunCal looking out for their interests, the Navy looking out for its interests, we’ll just have to make sure that our interests are made known.   You can do that with a whisper or a shout, with a smile or with a scowl, but regardless, I think everybody is probably agitating for what they think is in the best interests of the City.  Even if they disagree with you.

I never understood how Don Roberts made the decision when to refresh his website and start on a “clean slate” so to speak.   Was it ten posts?  a weeks worth?  a gut feel?   It will always remain an Alameda mystery, like the Burrito tunnel.

Anyway, this particular post (and subsequent response) caught my attention.   Have you ever noticed that when Don doesn’t agree with a response letter to something he’s already posted he will put it below the first letter, but if he does agree with it he’ll put it above the initial letter.   But I digress.   The first letter was from Alamedan Lon Elledge who, after a visit to Mississippi , understood why AUSD is in the financial bind that it currently is in.  That’s right folks, it’s not what you would think such as items like fiscal mismanagement or me too clauses or unfunded mandates or reduced revenues from the state.  No, it’s…

Summer lunch programs.

That’s right summer lunch programs are beggaring the school district and forcing them to ask for handouts from taypayers for books and chalk.

Except that, it’s not. 

As the second letter writer, Michael Kusiak noted, the Summer Lunch Program is a federally funded program that helps kids not to starve during the summer.   See the federal government recognizes that some kids need these lunches both during the school year and summers to supplement their diets and therefore reimburses organizations that choose to provide these services to kids in their communities.  

Interestingly enough, in a 2007 report by the Alameda County Community Food Bank noted that in the 94502 zip code (Bay Farm/Harbor Bay) was one of the top five underserved areas as it had no sites to serve summer lunches to kids but  the Food Bank itself received calls for service from at least 34 kids in that zip code.

I imagine given the reports about how the number of clients at our own local Food Bank has risen dramatically, there is probably an increased need for programs such as these to help out our local children. 

There are two sites for the summer lunch programs in Alameda, one is at Ruby Bridges (351 Jack London Ave), the second is at Island High (290 Singleton Ave) both located on the West End.  

Personally, we should be proud that our school district sponsors and makes these programs possible and be encouraging other sites to open in areas — such as Bay Farm — where there is an unmet need for this service rather than denigrating them as nothing more than “charity” that causes our taxes to be “so much higher.”

Before word starts circulating around the Alameda grapevine in that awful form of telephone that ends up attributing statements to someone that they didn’t say, here’s the nutshellish version.   For those that haven’t ended up on the tail end of e-mail forwards or Google alerts, essentially rumors have circulated that the City Council is going to be modifying the Alameda Point Initiative to get it on the November ballot.

So this part Saturday while the rest of us was out enjoying (or sweating in) the heat of summer, the Alameda League of Women Voters were cooped up inside Otaez for its annual meeting.   One of the things that they were scheduled to discuss was the Alameda Point Initiative and what position, if any, the League should take on the issue.  The recommendation that the subcommittee came up with and that was adopted by the League Board — because at the time they adopted it in May the assumption was the the Initiative would be submitted for the November 2009 election — was to not take a position on the issue because there would not be sufficient time to review the Initiative and put it to a vote for the larger membership.    Rather the subcommittee made a recommendation to make a focused educational effort by providing analysis of the Initiative, host public meetings, etc…   Basically to do what the League is known for doing which is to provide information in a non partisan manner.

Some of the issues that the committee recommended be included in the analysis are:

• What is Measure A and how would it impact development
• The Development Plan in relation to transportation and transit-oriented
  development.
•  The Development Plan in relation to environmental clean up
• The Development Plan in relation to housing
• The Development Plan in relation to commercial development and job creation
• What are the options if there is a ‘no’ vote on the measure

From what I understand, it was during this presentation to the larger membership that people in the audience began adding items that they would like to be studied, such as fiscal impact.   One audience member asked that the Disposition and Development Agreement — I’ve also seen this written as Development Disposition Agreement — (DDA) be included  in the analysis.     Councilmember Lena Tam noted that the DDA is not part of the Initiative itself and therefore not subject to review.  In fact, when I emailed Lena Tam for clarification she noted that the DDA isn’t negotiated until after there is a project.   And since the project is part of the larger initiative, it can’t be negotiated until after the initiative is voted on by the general public.  

This was when Lena Tam mentioned that the City has looked into the possiblity of modifying some of the language in the SunCal initiative itself.   Apparently there are a lot of balls being juggled up in the air right now which is probably one of the reasons that SunCal decided to wait to submit their signatures.   Some of it was discussed on a larger scale in Rin Kelly’s piece in the EBX where the City Manager and Assistant City Manager talked around the issue of further negotiations with SunCal but never talked in detail about the contentious items, which would be more enlightening than vague political speak.  Other issues Councilmember Tam mentioned in her email included the on-going negotiations with the Navy and possible changes in conditions with the Navy which potentially need to be reflected in the Initiative.   And given the information that the Navy leadership is undergoing change due to the change in Presidential administrations, there could possibly be more negotiations which lead to more changes.  

But, the Council always has, at its discretion, the ability to place an initiative on the ballot if they so choose, if the changes negotiated with SunCal are substantive enough that it is substantially different from the petition that was submitted and signed by all those people, then this is one of the options that is available to the Council to ensure that the negotiations are memorialized correctly in the voter initiative.

In fact, a while back I emailed the City Attorney to ask if there was anything in the election code that would preclude the City Council from placing a similar, yet slightly different initiative on the ballot, and according to the City Attorney — and the election code– there is not.   If there are similar initiatives placed on the same ballot, which ever passes with the higher number of votes would be adopted.   We will probably see this in action in November with the Firefighter Initiative, as mentioned by Jon Spangler.  More on that some other time.

So the summary is, there are still negotiations on-going between all parties: Navy, City, SunCal.   The City isn’t doing anything right now.   The chances of going for a November ballot are slim to none because an Initiative that is placed on the ballot by the Council would have to have an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) done prior to the vote itself.   To produce an EIR by November on a project of the scale of Alameda Point would be near impossible.