The Facts and Issues

By Doug deHaan

Various FACTS

CONVERSION OF ALAMEDA POINT: For the past thirteen (13) years, The City of Alameda has actively been engaged in the process of the conversion of Alameda Point for public use. In the last eight years the city has been involved with two different master developers. During this period the city has bonded over $15 million in support of public services and the conversion planning process. The City presently has under lease two million square feet of office and commercial spacing, while employing approximately 1,600 personnel.

The present lease agreements at Alameda Point generate $13 million annually. As of July 20, 2010, the city council has allowed the master developer Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) to expire. Now that the ENA has expired this mandates the City of Alameda to continue to convert Alameda Point with zero fiscal impact (fiscal neutrality) to the City of Alameda, while fulfilling the community's goals and expectations. The city must make sure that the community is fully engaged in the process and understands all aspects of this complex redevelopment project.

SUNCAL: I voted for SunCal to become the master developer of Alameda Point. After receiving a phone call from one of their representatives the next day,I was offered courtside seats to the Golden State Warriors playoff game, which I refused, a red flag. I was looking forward to working with whatever developer we selected. I was anxious to proceed with developing Alameda Point.

After several meetings with SunCal, it was apparent to me that they were not going to be in complainces with the guidelines that were set forth in the City's Request For Proposal (RFP) that reflected the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC). SunCal wished to pursue development of 6,500 homes, compared to the 1,900 homes that had been approved and adopted in the PDC. What became further problematic to me is that SunCal lost their financial partner, Lehman Brothers. SunCal replaced Lehman Brothers with a hedge fund, D.E. Shaw. Upon request, financial partner D.E. Shaw would not provide detailed financial statements to the City of Alameda. The nation soon learned that hedge funds operate under a veil of secrecy. Also, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) mandated that SunCal provide a minimum of 20% of the overall funding via its own financial resources (not D.E. Shaw's). During this period it became very apparent that SunCal had over twenty-nine (29) bankruptcies in process. This further impacted their financial abilities. Red flag! Any and all support I previously had for SunCal vanished.

SunCal then put forward a ballot initiative, Measure B for the voters of Alameda. As we all know, this initiative included everything but the kitchen sink. Everyone knew it was a bad deal. I'm proud to say that I was the only councilmember at this point that did not support this ill-conceived ballot initiative. Late in the game three other councilmembers joined my position. Subsequently, SunCal's Measure B Initiative was defeated by a resounding 85%.

SunCal has recently stated that they will be involved in the current November 2010 election.

FORMER AP&T TELECOM BUSINESS: In 2004, when running for council my prime platform was questioning the viability of the telecom business. One year later I realized my concerns were well founded. Records showed that AP&T had $32 million in bond obligations and $42 million of inter-departmental transfer of funds between the electrical and telecom business. It came to my attention that AP&T had also lowered their telecom sales forecast for 2009 from $15.2 million to $8.3 million (a decline of 45%). I immediately requested a closed session (business sensitive) meeting to mandate that AP&T conduct an operational review and market appraisal of the telecom business. The telecom business was consequently sold to Comcast for $17 million, a substantial loss to the citizens of Alameda. This is an excellent example of why councilmembers must have the financial abilities and business knowledge to serve you in the proper manner. The financial uncertainties that face the City of Alameda, as well as the State of California for the next eight years are immense. Leadership, financial expertise and integrity are owed to the citizens of Alameda.

ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL POWER (Electrical): The electrical business is thriving! The city must continue to use the electrical business as our showpiece for environmentally sound electrical services. AMP's outstanding environmental efforts have been in place over the years, and they have recently renewed their commitment. Congratulations to AMP and Public Works and our Planning Department, as they have continued to take the lead in the City's environmental sustainability program.

CHUCK CORICA GOLF COMPLEX: In May of 2006, during budget hearings, I noted that golf play on our courses had dropped over 30% to 50% in the last 10 years, and that council needed to conduct an immediate operations review. The council and former City Manager ignored my request until eighteen (18) months later. The city has now taken significant steps to improve the golf complex's fiscal viability by outsourcing the operation, but we still face some key challenges. I am totally committed to support the City of Alameda's two 18- hole Championship Golf Courses, and the Executive 9-hole "Mif" Golf Course. We must ensure that the entire Chuck Corica Golf Complex has an ongoing future in our community, because once it's gone, it's gone. I will not let it become a developers dream.

CITY OF ALAMEDA OPERATING BUDGET: Alameda is now at an unprecedented junction in its history. Due to the country's economic/housing spiral, Alameda is facing its own budget crisis with a decrease in revenue, while trying to maintain quality services: Fire, Police, Parks, Library, Schools and Public Works etc. To further compound this problem, it is projected that the property tax revenue will most likely be flat for the next eight years. The city presently has an Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability of $75.4 million, and another $80 million of deferred maintenance needs that must be addressed and funded. All California cities could be further impacted by the proposed State budget recommendations to divert our City Property and Transportation Taxes, and Redevelopment Funds to the State level to cover its $19 billion budget deficit.

The city must maximize ways to increase our sales tax revenue by increasing retail opportunities within our retail areas, without unnecessarily impacting our existing retailers and traffic corridors. We recently lost our automobile retail sales. Replacement sales tax is paramount! The city needs to look at companies that can generate business-to-business sales tax.

RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES: Alameda Towne Centre, Del Monte (Encinal Terminals), Alameda Landing, Northern Park Street Strategic Plan (North of Lincoln), Alameda Point (Retail). HOUSING: Harbor Bay, Collins Property (Clement and Oak), Alameda Landing, Encinal Terminals, Grand Marina, Northern Housing (old Coast Guard Housing), Ballena Bay.

Present entitled, planned and proposed development projects provide the City of Alameda with many opportunities. There are over 1,600 additional housing units (excluding the proposed Alameda Point's 1,800 to 6,000 housing units) and up to 1.2 million square feet of new or existing retail spaces. There is also 1.2 million square feet of office/commercial, vacant and planned (excluding 3.5 million sq. ft. planned at Alameda Point) projects.

You can see the magnitude of opportunities/challenges that are facing the City of Alameda. The city must seamlessly integrate these development projects into the existing infrastructure, transportation and traffic, while maintaining the communities core values. We have set in place many review processes to ensure this is accomplished. However, we must be vigilant in seeing that these projects interface with each other.

We only have ONE opportunity to do this RIGHT, not to repeat past development/redevelopment oversights. Our challenge in the next four years is to build quality that we can enjoy now, as well as proudly leave this legacy to future generations. Don't forget, developers work for us. You can rest assured that I have never, or will I ever take funding (directly or indirectly) from any developer(s). Council members must remain impartial while providing the leadership and resources needed for Alameda to succeed. Of the 72,000+ residents in this city, I have yet to see more than a few hundred residents at the most (usually the same groups) directly engaged in the community process, which will formulate Alameda's future.

This is YOUR city and you need to get involved. Therefore, the City Council's outreach to our citizens for input is most vital.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Transportation/Traffic is one of the main elements to be considered in existing and further development of Alameda, but Alameda must have growth that fits. Many transportation experts agree that most new estuary crossings (bridges/tubes) are cost prohibitive and we might have to continue to rely upon private vehicle use. Future estuary crossings, using alternate transportation forms could include a bus barge and/or water taxi, not very efficient. SunCal, the former master developer for Alameda Point, proposed an elevated transportation system Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) that utilizes the old Beltline Railway right-of-way down Atlantic Avenue, to Clement Avenue, and over the Fruitvale rail bridge to Fruitvale BART and/or that goes over the estuary to West Oakland BART. The PRT would rely upon tens of millions of dollars of Federal and State funding and additional right-of-ways.

This may take at least twenty years to become a reality, if ever. Our best sources are improved bus service, not only Transbay, but point-to-point services and the expansion of our existing ferry services. AC Transit has proposed a Bus Rapid Transit System for the East Bay, but this system has yet to be built or funded and does not include Alameda. We must require developers and the city to look into the feasibility of having an internal bus system (shuttle) that services the community and the use of an eco public transportation pass system. When the community is developed, we must ensure that there is a balance of jobs to homes with supporting retail/businesses and accompanying open spaces. Exploration of traffic mitigation plans should include combined infrastructure improvements, such as, links to public transit and shuttles, walk-to-work and bike-to-work options and adjacent housing. Emphasis should be pursued on retail nodes very similar to the old Alameda railroad stations i.e., Bay Station or Chestnut Station retail districts. Alameda is fortunate to have a flat terrain.

The City of Alameda has updated the Transportation Element of the General Plan (Transportation Master Plan). Additionally, the Oak to Ninth project and future proposed Oakland developments would only further impact our critical access corridors (tubes and bridges). The Oak to Ninth EIR showed a direct impact to Alameda's Atlantic/Webster Street and the Atlantic/Stargell intersections. Alameda's capacity to our tubes and bridges will be further eroded, thus directly impacting the development at Alameda Point and the West End.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION INITIATIVES: The Alameda Theater Complex has been very successful in the economic rejuvenation of the downtown Park Street district. This is exactly what our Economic Development Commission (EDC) and City Council envisioned. I served on the EDC for 8 years, and I was chairman for 2 of those 8 years. All of the redevelopment projects were conceived during this time (Park and Webster Street, Bridgeside Shopping Center, Towne Centre, Alameda Theater, and the ongoing development of the Harbor Bay Business Park.

One of our tasks was the Theater/Cineplex and Parking Project. In1999, while serving on the EDC, we conducted a Downtown Visioning Plan for Park Street, which addressed the renovation of the historic Alameda Theater and supporting projects. The direct outgrowth of that visioning process was the Historical Theater/Cineplex and parking structure proposal(s). As chairman of the EDC, I personally lead the EDC (over a two-year period) in developing our final recommendations. I strongly supported EDC's recommendations that were forwarded to the Planning Board and City Council for action. Once the recommendations were forwarded, many of the conceptual elements of the Theater/Cineplex/Parking Complex were finalized in closed sessions before the public had a chance to review and/or comment on the EDC's original recommendations of parking locations and Cineplex requirements. I was not a councilmember during this period of time.

The initial cost for this project had been estimated to be $16 million, and ballooned to a final cost of $32 million, excluding $3 million for preliminary development costs. The council had to apply for a $7 million Housing and Urban Development loan and reallocate redevelopment funds to make it a viable project. When I became a councilmember, I personally took strong exception to the high cost and size/mass of the overall project, but I always supported the renovation of the historical grand old theater and the parking structure previously recommended to the EDC. This project could have easily still been successful at a substantially lower cost. Did you know that we have one of the most expensive parking structures (per space) in the Bay Area, including San Francisco ($33,000 for each parking space)?

FISCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Our Planning Department's Climate Protection Task Force was recognized for the completion of Alameda's award-wining Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. This will set the future benchmark for Alameda's Environmental Sustainability. The city council established a Blue Ribbon Fiscal Sustainability Task Group, which is headed by the City Treasurer and City Auditor. The group was made up of local citizens who are professional experts in their field. This Task Group reviewed all aspects of the city's budget.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: As an Alameda councilmember, one is restricted from receiving physical or monetary gifts over $100. I question, why would an individual running for public office in Alameda be allowed to receive campaign donations of unlimited amounts? I realize these are two different activities, but very similar.

For the past three years I have fought for the city council to pursue the adoption of Campaign Finance Reform in the City of Alameda. I have worked closely with the League of Women Voters (LWV) for Campaign Finance Reform. In January 2009, the LWV held a public forum on the implementation of a city policy for campaign finance reform. Also, the City Clerk performed an in-depth review of neighboring cities that currently have campaign finance limitations in place. It would be fair to say that 50% of the cities in the Bay Area practice campaign finance reform. Alameda cannot allow elections to be bought by individuals or groups. There is no convenient time to implement campaign finance reform...the sooner the better.

The Campaign Finance Reform was drafted and presented to the city council in June 2010. At the following council meeting, the amended Campaign Finance Reform was presented for final vote. With a vote of 3 to 2 (Johnson & deHaan) the reform was deferred until 2011 (after the current November 2010 election) for further consideration.