Attachments in order

Many thanks to Lara Weisiger, City Clerk, for being gracious enough to send over as many of the attachments for the SunCal submission as I was interested in.   So for those who haven’t had a chance to read the transmission letter that was sent as a part of the packet, here is a copy that you can download and copy and paste to your heart’s content, however I have excerpted highlights from the letter:

…The development plan we are submitting today is the same plan that is on the ballot on February 2, 2010. The scope of development is the same; the number of residential units and nonresidential building square footage and other provisions of the plan have not been modified. The public benefits and amenities are the same. The Alameda Point Sports Complex, the Seaplane Lagoon Park and other parks, a new fen’y terminal and transit hub, a new library and other public benefits contained in the ballot initiative are all provided.

As required by the ENA, this application seeks approval of the development plan utilizing MX Zoning, rather than utilizing a Specific Plan. As such, the application includes a Master Plan (together with a zoning amendment to MX Zoning) in lieu of the Specific Plan (and Specific Plan rezoning) that is included with the initiative. The main body of the Master Plan submitted
today is identical to the Specific Plan submitted with the initiative.

…

The land use plan described in this Optional Entitlement Application seeks the ability to construct, in some locations within the Alameda Point property, multiple dwelling units at a density of more than one unit per 2,000 square feet of land area.

This may be achieved either through an amendment to Article XXVI of the City Charter of the City of Alameda or through application of the City s density bonus ordinance. The state density bonus law expressly applies to charter cities like the City of Alameda for the purpose of encouraging the development of affordable housing, senior housing, and child care facilities. Either of these approaches will further the City s responsibilities under state law in meeting and in complying with regional general welfare requirements and achieving its fair share of regional housing and wil further the goals of the federal base reuse process to create economic growth for the community…

So there are lots of attachments, you thought that the nearly 300 pages of the Initiative was long,  according to the City Clerk’s office the entire packet was more than 480 pages long.   So here are some the the attachments that I thought would be interesting:

• F.  New Chapter 11, Alameda Point Community Plan
  
• G1. Zoning Text Amendment (MX Zoning)
• G2. Zoning Text Amendment (AP-SP)
• J. MX Zoning and Master Plan Compliance Table
• K. Development Plan
• L. Comparative Density Analysis
• M. Qualifications of Development Team
• P. Charter Amendment

In Attachment G, which is the request to change the zoning of Alameda Point to Mixed Use (MX) there is also language that would exempt Alameda Point from Measure A, if the Council choose to place the initiative on the ballot.  If the City choose not to go in that direction, then as stated in the letter, SunCal could opt to move forward with achieving its plan through the density bonus ordinance.

The Development plan, Attachment K, is also interesting as well because it includes this table which tentatively lays out how the phasing will proceed if everything goes to plan.

So, what does this all mean?   Well, as I said before, it means that if Measure B fails, the Plan that folks have said they really like even though they hate the Measure B initiative will have a second chance to be actually implemented.

Whether or not Measure B passes, we are looking toward another long slog.   Basically, this whole ordeal won’t end until either (1) the ENA period expires without the City and SunCal coming to a meeting of the minds or (2) the land is finally conveyed to the City and then the developer.   Otherwise be prepared once the Development Agreement objections are swept away for all the other complaints about developing Alameda Point, at all, are brought back to the forefront.

Also, in other news the Greenbelt Alliance has endorsed Measure B saying this about the City’s election report:

…Greenbelt Alliance commissioned an urban economics expert to review the City’s election report finding that the fiscal impacts of the proposed development would be negative for Alameda. This independent review found that the election report relied on several worst case assumptions. A more standard analysis would have likely revealed that the development’s fiscal impacts would be either neutral or slightly favorable for the City. Our analysis of Measure B also found that, while the measure would convey land use entitlements to the developer, it does not convey ownership rights or other regulatory permits. As such, the City Council or other regulatory agencies could require modifications to the development if further analysis, including CEQA review, indicates that changes to the development plan are warranted based on environmental, health or other concerns…