One week on from the final vote count, I wanted to give a huge shout out to the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds (likely over 1000) of volunteers who helped make the effort such a success, even if the measure didn’t pass.

Rules are rules, and we knew them going in, so I won’t complain about Measure E just barely missing the 2/3 vote mark. But I’ll happily point out that the embarrassing and shameful, No on E campaign can’t be happy about their “victory.” First a little perspective on the vote.

Measure E got 2500 more Yes votes than Measure H did, but lost very little ground in the results. The APLUS campaign turned out voters at 2 to 1 to the no side, in the worst economy in generations, with a proposed parcel tax that was over twice the amount of the current one. There’s no shame in the effort that created this result. Volunteers need to hold their disappointed heads up high.

Put another way, more people voted “Yes on E” than voted No on Measure B, the Alameda Point ballot initiative. Just because it needs to be put in perspective, more people in Alameda voted to double their school parcel tax in order to support our schools than voted against what is being called “the greatest electoral loss in Alameda History.” What does this mean? It means that Alamedans support our schools, and are willing to pay to do it. Again, heads held high!

The coming months are going to be painful and the fractures are being seen. While I personally dreamed of being able to hand the reins of the District over to those who fought Measure E, saying “you’ve obviously got all the bright ideas, now it’s your turn.” I didn’t actually think that there were any real ideas from the opposition, just a republican-like “no!”

To this point, Board member Trish Herrera Spencer, the only Board member to oppose the parcel tax, is now surprised to find that the impacts are exactly what “Yes on E” supporters said they would be. Ms. Herrera Spencer is now stoking divisive east/west issues around school closures, rather than working to pull the community together on a path forward. This is not the path we should be following and I hope that School Supporters will temper their disappointment and avoid looking for blame in the tiny handful of people who funded the embarrassing and shameful Committee Against Measure E. It should be enough to know that while they managed to subvert the will of 66% of Alameda voters, they lost more than a little bit of their soul in doing so.

School supporters need to breath deep, accept the loss and come together to find a path forward for AUSD that doesn’t require dismantling our education system. Time and energy spent hating on “evil businesses” etc. while understandable, in terms of the frustration we all feel, is energy wasted. New bridges need to be built, the School Board is going to need support in the coming months as difficult decisions are made. We need to support our local businesses, just like we need to support our local schools.

Personally, I’m taking a couple of weeks off from thinking of schools and school policy. I think that there are thousands of folks who probably need a recharge of their batteries. I am heartened by the energy and enthusiasm that is flying around the internet. Alameda is blessed to have such an engaged, intelligent, compassionate community. Thanks to everyone who worked on the APLUS, Yes on E campaign, you were astounding and amazing, and I hope to have the privilege to work alongside you again soon.

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.

A couple of notes, all local lines (and the “O”) end up serving either Fruitvale BART or 12th Street BART, so where you see them cross the estuary, you know where they are headed.

Afew things to check out:

• Bay Farm Service, the bus does a loop. I’ll have more presentations up later that show both directions of each line and more info about all of the new lines, but this one promises to be a little confusing.
• The new Line 20, it runs up Shoreline and it runs straight down Webster to Oakland, no more 20 minute loop of the Point.
• Line 51A goes to Fruitvale BART and stops in Oakland at Rockridge BART where you can transfer to the 51B to Berkeley
• O line now travels on High Street and continues to Fruitvale, maintaining a less frequent, but existing connection from the east end to Fruitvale BART.

As I mentioned back in September:

The school district was out in force, and was able to hook up with the planners of the school routes to make sure that everything works to the benefit of the students. One of the concerns that came up was regarding Island High and its non-standard school hours

And indeed it was. AC Transit’s school buses will run to Main and Singleton during “normal” school hours AND planners moved their proposed Line 31 to run on Midway (from Main street) in stead of Atlantic,  so that it could stop and pick up students from Island High School at non-standard times. And beyond serving the schools, this would benefit the Northwest side of Bayport as well.

There’s only one problem. There’s no stop on Main Street at Midway (see map for location…hint: it’s where the bullseye is). It turns out that after the community and schools came out and asked for the bus to run on Midway, AC Transit made the change and requested that the stops be put in. So far, so good. But it turns out that the City (Public Works in this case) refused. Apparently the stop location needed to be upgraded and there was a cost to do that work, so they just said “no.”

Had there been a TC meeting, there could have been a public discussion about how transit lines need stops in order to be useful to riders. I mean if you think about it, this isn’t just putting in a single stop-something that always gets sent to the TC anyway. but planning the entire  infrastructure for new routes.

The result? West End transit riders, students at that, are getting the shaft and yet again, Alameda’s transit ends up running past, instead of stopping and serving a whole mess of households.

Did I miss the memo that the City Council had decided to disband the Transportation Commission last year? There hasn’t been a meeting since the special meeting in Mid-August, which wasn’t really a meeting either. And staff isn’t even bothering to list it on the City Calendar anymore (See January or February).

And it’s not like there isn’t work that needs to be completed, unfinished is the Pedestrian Plan, which was suppose to come before the TC last April, the Bicycle Master Plan update which should have been before the TC last summer, the city’s Transportation Demand Management plan and the update to the City’s Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP).

All of these were approved for work by the city council which granted staff the ability to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the preliminary work for these documents. In fact, all of them (except the LRTP) were scheduled to move forward well over a year ago, many of them have had countless hours of staff and volunteer time. You might be saying, “but staff cuts have made it difficult to staff boards and commissions!” And in fact, that’s what I heard last summer/fall when I inquired, but then I looked at all of the other commissions in the city:

(quick note, above data is from July 1 to Jaunary 31 and does not include December when many commissions/boards do not hold meetings).

Only the Historic Advisory Board, which has a very limited purview and the Public Arts Commission, which has no money to spend on Public Art have seen their meetings cancelled like the TC.

Heck, even the Commission on Disability Issues, which is staffed by the same department as the Transportation Commission, managed to hold meetings.

More telling that this is purposeful, not just work overload is that when it the TC Chair recommended that staff bring the Measure B Election Report on traffic for presentation, staff’s apparently responded that the council had not directed them to do so and so they would not. Yet the traffic report, sans council direction, was presented to the Economic Development Commission last October?

Which brings us back to the initial question. Did the City Council take a vote to eliminate this commission mid-work? And if not, who’s running the show here?

Updated: 7:28 – added note about meeting info.

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.

For those who are new to the issue, here’s a single example of the subterfuge that has guided this expensive ($492,000,000) project that BART staff expects to serve 600 new daily riders. {For quick background, the project will replace the AirBART bus, which current runs financially neutral with a system that will be slower than today’s service and will require operating subsidies from BART’s core-system to keep it financially whole.}

Last February, this issue sprang back from the dead when $340 million in stimulus (job creating money) became available. But here’s the thing, MTC never looked at whether the project was a good jobs creation vehicle.

In response to an email sent by Oakland Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan’s office, MTC acknowledged that:

MTC did not perform/release any reports related to projected jobs created from stimulus funding.

This fact, that MTC did not even consider the job creation potential of this project, was confirmed by KALW reporter Jill Replogle.

OAC job creation numbers take a miraculous jump into the thousands!

In 2001, during the OAC Environmental process, BART’s EiR claimed the OAC would generate 689 jobs, 273 of which would be directly related to the project (construction, etc.)

On May 5, 2009, Kerry Hamill, BART Government Relations (PR), sent a letter to the Oakland City Council saying:

JOBS…The Oakland Airport Connector will create 200-300 local construction jobs over the next several years, and create 30 permanent jobs operating and maintaining the
system.

On September 15, 2009, BART then submitted an application for a loan from the FTA using stimulus money stating that “The OAC would create approximately 689 direct and indirect jobs during the construction period.” THis would be in complete agreement with both thw 2001 EIR and BART’s statements to their Board and the Oakland City Council (back in May).

Which was really strange, because on September 8, at the same time that the FTA application was being finalized for the Feds, BART Staffer Hamill (of the May 5th email telling the Oakland Council that there would be 200-300 jobs generated by the OAC), sent an email to supporters of the OAC providing four separate numbers for jobs creation ranging from 2500-15,000 and tell supporters “Use whatever #you prefer.”

That’s right, when it started becoming clear that the OAC would generate few new jobs, the only thing anyone cared about with this project. PUblic employees started to use inflated, generic jobs numbers instead of their own calculations and were actively encouraging their supporters to use any-old numbers, as long as they weren’t the actual calcuations from BART’s analysis of the project.

And strangely, BART’s recent letters to the FTA and MTC, as well as the media, have quoted the higher, generic, non-OAC specific numbers ever since.

And there are similar stories relating to the OAC Fare, ridership projections, travel speeds, project costs, and system convenience, but they’ll have to wait for another day.

On Wednesday, January 27th, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will decide whether to gamble on a half-billion dollar glorified ski-lift to the airport by continuing to pursue funding for the project, and risk the loss of $70 million in desperately needed stimulus funds or they can act in the interest of Bay Area Commuters and low-income families and moving the funds to save jobs and transit service for hundreds of thousands of Bay Area residents.

Take Action Now!

Attend the Rally for Justice and Jobs on January 27 and tell MTC to stand up for commuters, low-income families and Bay Area jobs by putting $70 million to Bay Area Transit, not a risky, rinky dink ski-lift to the airport.

Rally for Justice and Jobs Info:
Wednesday, January 27
9:00am
MTC Headquarters
101 Eighth Street, Oakland
RSVP: Will@UrbanHabitat.org

If you can’t attend:

Send a letter to MTC telling them not to risk $70 million in jobs creating stimulus funds on a risky OAC project that has been found out of compliance by the FTA. Tell commissioners to save jobs and transit now, by sending an email here (If it’s possible, please write your own message, it makes a bigger impact. It can be as short as one or two sentences!)

More interested in this issue? I’ll be on the KPFA morning show tomorrow at 8:30am talking about it. Check it out.

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.

The key moment in the meeting came right before the public comment, when Pat Keliher had explained that SunCal’s intention in writing the initiative was that the Alameda Point TDM program is separate from the Public Benefits package (something I would argue is correct based on the fact that they are separately called out in the initiative) and Alameda’s Public Works Director Matt Naclerio said he disagreed. At that moment, City Manager Ann Marie Gallant summed up the difference as “the problem is the intent and the initiative language are two different things, and we opted to go with what the initiative language says.”

This is really important. First, she’s absolutely correct, and at the same time, she set up a completely false premise, one that says the City’s analysis is not an opinion, and very pessimistic one at that, but an arguable piece of fact. It was reminiscent of the election date scheduling meeting, where the City Attorney presented a vague, complex legal opinion as “the only reading there is,” even though there was no way to be definitive in that case.

Gallant is correct that anyplace where the initiative sets out clear language, the initiative is the ruling document of the day. But she starts to veer into disingenuousness when she presents the election analysis as some sort of “this is what will happen” every time they found the language to be vague or unspecific. In that sense, the city has taken on the role of NIMBY, whereby any argument that can be found, no matter how small the possibility, becomes the ruling fact.

Which is not to say that the City’s election reports are wrong, just that they are presenting a single reading, a “worst-case scenario” if the City Council (and City Manager) turn out to be the worst negotiators in the world.

The Public Benefits discussion is a case in point. SunCal’s argument in defense of the $200 million cap is: 1) The city is including project infrastructure costs that SunCal does not consider Project Benefits, 2) that the cap refers to “hard costs” not including “soft costs” like contingencies, plan review, etc. and 3) that the Public Benefits are separate from the TDM program. Adding “We’ve given you this information in writing.” All of this is consistent with the initiative.

The City’s response is: “The initiative isn’t specific in those areas, so we assume that all of those costs are a part of the public benefits,” a position that is also consistent with the initiative.

The problem, as I see it, is that both views are valid and will be resolved through negotiations of the DDA, where SunCal’s written assurances of what is and isn’t a Public Benefit will have actual weight and legal meaning. Yet the city is promulgating the fiction that only their point of view, which is the worstest case in the world scenario, is valid, and have written a document that does nothing to acknowledge this.

Now don’t get me wrong, the city is doing its due diligence in presenting “what could possibly go wrong.” But they would also be that if they had just presented what they wrote initially, that because of the vagueness of the language, it’s possible that the $200 million cap will not cover all the costs. Instead, they decided to go a step further and define a range for their pessimistic world view and then choose the biggest end of the range as “our number of what those costs will be.” No gray room, no doubt, despite the fact that there is a lot of doubt.

For another day, we can discuss Frank Matarrese defending the “no on B’s” $500 million shortfall number as valid, the way he jumped on it, I wonder if he isn’t the one who developed it. On the day he announced he was running for mayor, it was a real low point showing he either has a hard time with financial numbers (I don’t think so) or he’s willing to stretch his credibility with numbers that not even the City Manager is willing to accept. It was a real disappointment.