• The meeting was a perfect example of how public involvement, even when its contentious, is good. Disparate voices, many who often disagree, came, ranted and then magically made the process for moving forward 10,000 times better. Instead of choosing from a list of 6 uninspiring trees picked by Public Works because they won’t possibly damage sidewalks in a decade or two, there will be a survey of characteristics that the public would like in their streetscape. Then professional landscape designers from the community will engage with Public Works to help select the trees that meet that criteria. A perfect example of planning and design trumping engineering-first principles.
• It was clear that the Public Works department is still unclear on what they did wrong. After stating that the Phase I project was a huge success, they then started presenting how they have changed every single aspect of the 2^nd phase, ignoring consultant advice and relying on the personal anecdotal evidence received by the PW Director. At one point, PW’s 2^nd in command responded that public input on parking kiosks was done in the form of calling city staff from other cities to see how kiosks have worked for them.
• Old plans and policies, not one of which stated that 21 trees would be cut down all at once, were trotted out to support the fact that this was all well planned and understood. Again and again, Public Works took the position that they did everything right, but that we’ll change the policies/rules for the future so that everything will be done differently.
• Apparently the Master Tree Plan exempts streetscape projects from noticing. PW wrote the plan. Not once did they explain what part of the community asked to have that exemption written into it. I’ll but $5 on the fact that that issue was never  discussed and that nobody ever really noticed it. Others, more involved in the development of the plan can correct me if I’m wrong.
• After saying that pedestrian bulb-outs were removed from the plan based on the feedback of PSBA, “a few phone complaints” and “concerns of the risk management office {apparently Alameda is a special place where bulbouts are a risk liability to the City, unlike the rest of the universe…I mean seriously}, it turns out that the bulb-outs were value-engineered out of the plan to save money. However, the ones in phase 1 are where the healthy trees are, etc. Irony?
• Some members of the public were looking to recall the council over this, convinced that just a council people approved the plan. This was put to rest hopefully.
• After making some compelling statements about public process, School Board member Trish Spencer stood up, pointed at PSBA Executive Director and started yelling “you don’t even live here” in what was the ugliest moment of the entire meeting. This followed the Public Works Director saying that City Staff rushed the Tree removal and streetscape work based on Ratto’s comments at the City Council. Ratto found himself in the unfortunate position of having to say “I’m an employee who expresses the opinions of my Board when they ask me too.” It was a really ugly and divisive way to end the meeting.
• The other jaw dropper was during a combative question from the audience about how PW could possibly have thought that the policies they were following (and had written) could make sense, the Public Works Director told an audience member “Then you should have gotten involved in developing the Master Tree Plan a few years ago.” {To this day, Public Works doesn’t seem to understand that the Master Tree Plan policy allows for the non-notification of trees in a streetscape, but doesn’t require it. Therefore, they still made a decision not to notice the trees.}
• It’s clear that significant changes to the way that the city plans public works projects have to be undertaken. I think after last night, the City Manager’s office, who were in attendance, should have a very good idea of what the problems are with the “planning” that is coming out of the PW dept.
• Lastly, Deputy City Manager Alex Nguyen “guaranteed” that staff would be bringing the council a Public Participation Policy for the city in the next couple of months. (that’s #2 on the petition, #1 is plant bigger trees, which we’ll get as well, though they may come in the form of smaller trees that grow 2-3 feet a year, two done, one to go).

Here’s the twitter feed, all the un-identified ones are mine, many of them are quotes from people in the meeting, though I rarely used “‘s, still getting used to twitter:

Staff presentation interupted twice by angry people. #alamtg

#alamtg parking meter uproar. Folks hate the kiosks.

#alamtg pw did outreach on parking meters. Asked cities what is the best way to implement there predetermined decision

#alamtg had to remove trees for streetlights.

#alamtg had to remove parking meters for trees

#alamtg eek. Support for kiosks! I’m personally fan

#alamtg parking kiosks are a pilot.

#alamtg calls get out “get back to the trees”

#alamtg didn’t it occur to you in the last five years to talk to the public

#alamtg comment “you have to notice trees in residential areas. It didn’t occur to you to notice?”

#alamtg tree master plan says trees should be kept under most circumstances

#alamtg streetscape plan says shade is undeairable….(laughter)

#alamtg 2002 plan says “over time” trees will be removed.

#alamtg exception for streetscape to clear cut

#alamtg PW director is getting testy with people’s questioning of PW de isions

#alamtg Only plans that show streetscape drawings are in 2000 vision plan

#alamtg apparently no drawings done for streetscape work during committee work

#alamtg PW says tree plan requires no notice for streetscape. And community approved

#alamtg school board member Spencer shouts “I wonder what they are thinking now!

#alamtg oh joy. Dot activity to decide tree types for the project.

#alamtg Speaker demands promise that what was done in this phase will not happen in the future.

#alamtg people want to know who to recall

#alamtg PW director just told an audience member that they “should have been involved in the tree plan” if they really cared

#alamtg businesses received notice that “site prep” would begin. No mention of trees.

#alamtg shop owner. We don’t speak for PSBA and sometimes PSBA doesn’t speak for us.

@HRiderReed: Just said my piece… Here’s to moving forward. Lots of bogus goin on here #alamtg

#alamtg detailed list of trees being discussed. Caonpy. Damage to sidewalks. Size. Yawn

#alamtg we get to vote on six trees

@HRiderReed They’re letting everyone share their opinion via voting for species of tree #alamtg

#alamtg brisbane box. Mature at 50ft with 30 ft crown

#alamtg crape myrtle. 25 ft with 15 ft crown

#alamtg silver linden. 50 ft with 40 ft crown

@MonkeyBarsCA Hooray!! They’re using my online voting idea! Nice work #Alameda – way to go! #alamtg

@HRiderReed Hooray!! They’re using my online voting idea! Nice work #Alameda – way to go! #alamtg

#alamtg “starbucks tree might regrow. Will PW allow it to grow. Ans. No

#alamtg New trees will be 10-12ft

#alamtg chinese pistache 65 ft crown: 50

#alamtg frontier elm. 40 ft crown:30 ft

#alamtg hedge maple 35 ft crown: 35

#alamtg petition with 400+ sigs delivered

#alamtg process issues back on the forefront

#alamtg SB Spencer, when people are upset. A project should stop until its worked out.

#alamtg “Time to move forward in the process, so lets slow done and plan”

#alamtg landscape architect says tree options inappropriate for Alameda.

#alamtg Ezzy Ashcraft says: know the landscape designer, highly respect her

#alamtg a.nguyen says. Funding limits options. Master tree plan is the limit of what can be done.

#alamtg B. Mooney: stop saying “we can’t do that” and start working to do things different

#alamtg Tree officianado A. Dimushiva says tree plan gives more choice than PW is offering. All we need is in there.

#alamtg drop dead deadline for funding is: Oct. 2012. Then most of it disappeared.

#alamtg Economic Development did the design work. Then AMG killed it and PW took it over.

#alamtg Spangler jumping on bulbouts. When were changes made.

#alamtg PSBA asked for bulbouts to be removed and PW got a few calls.

#alamtg PW removed bulboutz to lower costs in third RFP attempt to save costs.

#alamtg Apparently people can take avoid parked cars at corners. But bulbouts the same size as that car are a problem.

#alamtg trees in previous bulbouts are the ones that are doing well

#alamtg Ratto there were no bulbouts in the plan originally.

#alamtg apparently thousands were saved by removing no existent bulbouts?

#alamtg Ratto. Streetscape plan was approved by council. Does he mean vision plan?

#alamtg SB Spencer. Lets do everything but trees so that we can decide on types of trees.

#alamtg back to kiosks

#alamtg now planning for moving forward.

#alamtg staff to meet with tree experts.

#alamtg consensus forming around the idea of asking public what characteristics the want and then let community experts choose the trees

#alamtg like the occupyoakland general assembly. Without the cool hand signals

#alamtg trees unite many people

#alamtg business owner reading a statement about impact on local biz during fourth quarter holidays. “thanks a lot city”

#alamtg PW Director says PSBA Exec asked the council to start as fast as possible.

#alamtg clarifies that PSBA Director comments were at Council

#alamtg PSBA ED clarifies that his comments at the behest of his board.

#alamtg Ugly “you don’t live here comments” starting.

#alamtg people leaving

#alamtg next steps. Back to identifying criteria

#alamtg shade. Growth rate. Canopy width. Damage to hardscape

#alamtg common sense recommendation. Just ask for positive attributes. Let experts figure out how to make it work

 Central to Encinal West Side-

• Prunus Caroliniana  —-Poor Condition
• Ligustrum    —-Very Poor Condition
• Prunus Carolina  —-Very Poor Condition

Central to Encinal East Side-

• Ficus Nitide   —-Very poor Condition
• Prunus caroliniana—Poor Condition

Central to Encinal west Side-

• Ligustrum    —- Poor Condition
• Prunus       —–Very poor

Yet more reason that there should have been public discussion of the plan. There was no “Health of trees” issue. The information apparently doesn’t address whether better care could have returned these trees to health, but the numbers certainly suggest that the clear-cutting was more a matter of convenience (to the building of the project, for future maintenance issues, etc) than of necessity.

It’s not too late to join the 374 people who have signed the petition for the trees

Public Hearing / Scoping Session of the Environmental Impact Report for the proposal to reconfigure the Chuck Corica Golf Course, build up to 130 housing units on the lands currently occupied by the Mif Albright 9-hole course and build playing fields on 12 acres of land on North Loop Road in the Harbor Bay Business Park.

The Planning Board will not be allowed to even discuss issues unrelated to the scoping of the EIR, this would include taking a position on the project. So heading off to the meeting to try and convince the Board that it’s a bad project and they should tell the council is a poor use of your time. The only outcome of that action is a longer meeting, one is asking for something that can’t legally happen.

It might help manage expectations if people realize that it is very unlikely that the EIR, if it is ever conducted, will have findings that will stop this project. EIR’s are information documents, designed to make sure that decision-making bodies, and the public, are aware of the impacts of projects before they get built. They may find impacts, but only need to mitigate them, or make a finding of “overriding considerations” to move forward. However in the case of this EIR, it’s likely that “traffic” will be the big concern, and the EIR isn’t going to find a huge one. Consider the current traffic situation (actually 2007, pre-economic meltdown):

There are 5326 housing units on Bay Farm Island according to the Census and these generate 1726 trips down Island Drive during the peak hour commute (per the Harbor Bay Village VI EIR). That’s .324 trips per household in the morning peak rush hour. The peak hour is when the crush happens for 20 minutes at Island and Robert Davey Jr. So you can extrapolate that information and find that 130 homes will likely generate about 42 car trips during the peak hour through Island and Doolittle. An increase of 2.4%. Given that these are slightly smaller homes (meaning likely fewer children), the number is likely a little high. Wither way, it’s not insignificant, but it’s not going to blow out the intersection enough to stop a project.

So tonight, consider the State’s guidelines on scoping and why it’s a good idea:

Scoping has been helpful to agencies in identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in an EIR and in eliminating from detailed study issues found not to be important.

EIRs have to look at alternatives, so if there is one that is not “don’t do it” (which will already be studied), bring it up and ask to have it looked at. If there are plans and programs within the City that this will negatively impact, ask to have an analysis of the impact included in the EIR. The State’s guidelines include a checklist for possible issues on page 239, they are:

• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and ForestryResources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology /Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology / Water Quality
• Land Use / Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population / Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
• Utilities / Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings of Significance

The Checklist then has a list of questions for each category that can be answered on the pages that follow.

The 12.2 acres of possible future open-space in the business park isn’t a single contiguous piece of property. There are buildings in the middle of it and its three distinct pieces of property. Here’s the map from the presentation:

Proposed Sports Complex at Harbor Bay Business Park

But it was pointed out to me today that I wasn’t looking at this very closely and that there are existing buildings and parking lots breaking up this land and the buildings that I thought were going to be parks buildings, are actually a daycare facility and some other businesses. Here’s the same map with the 12.2 acres highlighted:

Yellow is the actual open space

The light yellow circle in the bottom left indicates a piece of land that may, or may not, be a part of the swap. I can’t tell. Here’s the thing, it’s clear that Cowan and company are aware that this is a problem. Watching their promotional video after learning about this, you realize that every time the fly-over gets to a private building or a break in the park, it quickly cuts to a new shot.

And here’s the problem that this possibly causes. The City Charter states, “The City Council shall determine that said “new public park” is of comparable size and utility and serves the same service area with substantially the same amenities and improvements.”

Which brings us to the Charter, which says, “The City Council shall determine that said “new public park” is of comparable size and utility and serves the same service area with substantially the same amenities and improvements.” This is a wiggly word, and I’m sure smart people can argue that “comparable” doesn’t mean “all together” because “the numbers add up the same.” But given that that logic would mean that you could break a 10 acre park into a 1000 pieces and zone them open space and call it comparable and be done with it. This is probably a bit of a stretch. It’s clearly not the spirit of the Charter.

This isn’t like for like in any way, but more on that later.

The original video can be found at YouthSports4Alameda, which had to be set up because none of the sports organizations in town have actually stepped up to support this proposal. Alameda has a need for more sports fields, but I’m not sure anyone ever said “Hey, lets put them in the business park” before this swap idea came up.

Political campaign tactics like this are only going to enflame the community (witness the recent reaction to HBIA’s campaign letters. The council should have heard this issue next week as was planned and let it die the quick death it was headed for. Did we really need two more months of this?

This was by design. A way for members of the board to avoid the political difficulties of saying “Yes, we like that” but, as Tracy Jensen so rightfully pointed out on the campaign trail last fall, it also was a massive failing of the Board, giving all the power in decision-making to City Staff and what ever developer the Council had told them to work with at the time. The Council encouraged SunCal to go to the ballot, again looking to avoid responsibility, and SunCal overreached, setting up the Measure B debacle.

So in August, Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant brought forward a plan for Going Forward at the Point (fun-fact: originally the process was to be called “Moving Forward” but then Councilmember deHaan started using the name for his own set of personal meetings, something that made Gallant none-to-happy). The plan was presented as information item, and the Council was not given the option of giving direction on either the goals of the project, or the input that should be taken.

The resulting process includes an internet component for those who couldn’t make the in-person meetings (it takes about 20 minutes, but can be broken up into small chunks, start here). More on this another time.

Staff promised the Council that they’d be back by June with a plan, and the next step is to visit many of the boards and commissions to gather input.

The problem is, the process continues to be directionless. It may be that Gallant had a goal, but it was never expressly stated, and the Council never bought into it. Which brings us to January, Gallant is out on administrative leave, the process continues to move forward, it’s the municipal planning process version of Unstoppable.

With a new council, claiming a new commitment to oversight and public involvement. Now would be the time, before another Going Forward related meeting takes place, for the ARRA to give specific direction on what they want the process to achieve, what is the purpose and objective of it. As it sits now, Going Forward is a strategy without a purpose. The ARRA should discuss whether a planning process is the appropriate thing, when the development process is completely unknown, and shape the process to give information that will be useful under a number of scenario’s.

This all may be where the Going Forward process is headed (it’s being run by two very capable, competent, and smart folks, Andrew Thomas and Jennifer Ott). But without the direction of Alameda’s elected body , after all what is planning of 1/3 of the Island if not a huge policy decision, there are two likely outcomes. Either the lack of buy-in on the process means there’s no buy-in on the results, so the entire process becomes a waste of time. Or, we head off in a familiar direction, where the Council idly sits by, watching the decisionmaking process, but never participating. And a few years down the road, we’ll all find out that people are unhappy with the results or want changes, but those will be much more difficult to effect because of how much work has already gone into the process.

The good news is that Mayor Gilmore announced at the last ARRA meeting that staff would be bringing the process to the next ARRA meeting in order to have a discussion about it. Comments from both the Mayor and Lena Tam seem to indicate that they want to have the ARRA more involved in the process this time around, so the voters of Alameda might actually see the folks they elected taking control of this unwieldly, 15-year process and start moving it forward successfully…finally.

Th

Many neighbors in the area are hoping for half of this site being made into a park on the estuary (4.5 of the 9.5 acres) but the city has not ponied up the money to make that a reality and the owner, Francis Collins, has moved on. The site has been in litigation for years, with the city winning a pyrrhic victory in the last round. Which brings us to what appears to be the large unspoken drama with this project.

Collins sued the City under government code  65589.5 (the housing affordability act) which states:

A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development Project… for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards…

Essentially, this act, which is colloquially known as the Anti-NIMBY law, says that if a project has 20% affordable housing or more, cities are very constrained in their ability to deny the project. There are a few exceptions one of which is not zoning or Measure A:

Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact…

Collins, citing Boatwork 20% affordable housing, claimed an exemption, but Collins use of the density bonus caused the affordable housing percentage to drop below 20% and the courts ruled that the final amount of affordable housing is what counts. But they also pointed out that if Collins returned with a similar project that met the 20% threshold, they, that is the court, would approve the project right there in the court room, with the City on the hook for Collins legal fees and no say in the project’s design.

Which brings us to the compromise plan, which is discussed in the packet without all this boring legal background. Staff is encouraging Collins to create a plan that is more consistent with Alameda’s design guidelines (street grids, etc.) and about 2 acres of open space. (Less than some would like). The point, stealthy as it may be, is that the City has very few options and if the Planning Board just denies the project, it’s likely that Collins will march his amended plan back into the courtroom and have it approved with no say from the City. But if the City holds firm on something resembling the compromise plan, it’s possible that a non-perfect, but much better example will occur, with the community realizing many open-space and other benefits.

Under the density bonus law, Collins could build non-single family units in order to open the site up more and create a real roadway and open-space network. The Planning Board, followed by the City Council, will need to maneuver their way through this project carefully. Open space advocates would do well to realize what is possible, and how close they are to losing everything they want, save a five-foot walking path on the water.

As we head (thankfully) into the last weekend before Tuesday’s Measure B vote, I figured I’d layout why I’ll be voting “Yes.”

To me, Measure B is a choice between moving forward to develop a very good, sustainable (environmentally and economically) vision for Alameda Point. The question before us is, will we (the city) be able to see this vision come to fruition, and after much research and thought, I’ve decided that yes, we will.

No matter what path the city chooses to take, there will be risks and Alamedans will need to remain engaged in the process through to the end, Measure B is no different. The East Bay Express got it wrong in their endorsement, which for some reason decided to take shots at proponents, rather than clarify their position. Alamedans do not have to rely on the good-will of the developer to negotiate in good faith, they have to rely on their elected officials to negotiate in the best interest of the city. The same people who be involved in the same negotiations whether B passes or loses.

The financial arguments that are being used are “worst possible case” in the words of former Asst. City Manager David Brandt, who wrote the city’s election report, upon which much of the No on B talking points are based. Subsequent numbers are downright incorrect, outspoken critics can’t seem to find a number they can stick with, because every one they choose turns out to be wrong.

Measure B is a first step, not perfect, not what I would have written has I been in charge, but an OK first step that contains the protections the city needs to move forward in developing Alameda Point. It contains a vision supported by 4 city council members, the chamber of commerce, every media outlet that has made an endorsement and most community groups that have taken a public stance. It will be interesting to see if these individuals step up after the election and take control of the process to get this done, or not. I have very serious doubts.

At the end of the day, the city retains all the power it needs to make sure the project proceeds in the way that detractors claim it must. To quote from Renewed Hope’s “Doubtful Promises” report:

“If the initiative passes, the city’s only practical power to avoid environmental impacts would be to refuse to convey the property to a developer on a timeline required by the development agreement.”

SunCal has to come to the table and negotiate, or in the end, there’s no project for them to develop. The worst case scenario of Measure B is that we’re back where we started. Which is where we will be on Feb. 3 if it doesn’t pass.

I wanted to talk about the conversation around the leases, especially with Darcy Morrison running around claiming that Alameda Point has generated $126 million in net income over 12 years. As proof, she points to David “Action Alameda” Howard’s “analysis” of the ARRA’s cash flow analysis. That should have been her first tip off that she should check her math. The second should have been the overall post that she links to, which claims that Alameda Point is making money because they have revenue and then adds up a bunch of numbers that don’t mean what Howard claims they mean.

Morrison’s math, based on Howard’s sheet (and actually written on it) actually ignores $70 million in “Property Management Expenditures” (aka costs) which are clearly included in a line called “Total Expenditures” which totals $158 million. Of course, this line is wrong as well, Howard’s personal subtotals are missing over $3 million in costs because he forgot to total them.

I converted the PDF from Action Alameda (the base numbers are Howard’s, I’ve only corrected the totals and labels), it’s a google spreadsheet so you can see the math for yourself:

Second, Morrison and Howard manage to fall victim to some really bad labeling on the city’s part. The cash flow analysis shows two lines, “Total Lease Revenue” and “Total Revenue,” one of which is not what it says it is. “Total Lease Revenue” is the actual income from the Point.

“Total Revenue” should be labeled “Cash Balance after Revenue” because it is a combination of the Actual Revenue and the Beginning Fund Balance for the year (This is confirmed with Leslie Little at Development Services). Howard and Morrison are double counting $52 million as “revenue” the kind of accounting that got Enron in trouble.

Here’s what the City’s numbers show (I can’t figure out the 2005 numbers, so I’m starting in 2006).

2006 – Beginnig Fund Balance: $6,591,526

2017 – End Fund Balance: $3,167,008

Somehow, Morrison and Howard would like Alamedan’s to believe that despite the fact that Alameda Point will have lost $3.4 million over 12 years (without major capital expenditures like the FISC fire), the Point’s revenues “generally exceed the expense to maintain it.

As per usual, numbers, simple math and accounting comprehension escape David Howard, who Pat Bail says is “always 100% right on the facts” (some day I’ll dig up that video gem!)

High on that list is the less-than-tight rope walk that staff did in ignoring the controls that the City Council holds over this project after the vote, including the ability to keep the project from moving forward. I checked in with an expert on redevelopment law, former Assistant City Manager David Brandt, who re-confirmed to me that it’s the DDA that controls what happens to the development and not the DA.

The city’s presentation ignored this even in the face of direct questions from Boardmember Spencer about SunCal’s ability to transfer the land with no say from the City. The City said “yes,” but that’s not true.

The DA allows for the transfer of the development rights, but the land transfer will be handled in the DDA, where the ARRA (aka City Council) can, as they have in other land agreements, make sure that they have oversight in what happens to the land, including approvals of transfers.

Look the dirty little secret of this initiative is that it does not cut the City out of the process moving forward. The only way that could happen, again confirmed with David Brandt, who knows this process inside and out, is if the city sends a cardboard box in to negotiate with SunCal.

On February 3, the City Council (those who aren’t against everything) will have an opportunity to put their money where their mouths have been. Either the initiative passes, whereby the council needs to take control of this process and get it done, or it fails and the council needs to back up their “support for the plan” by using the final 5 months of the ENA to negotiate a deal.