Alamedans.com City Council Questionnaire Part 2
Alamedans.com’s local election coverage continues today with the second in a multipart series of questions for the candidates running for city council.
You can check out Council question number one if you didn’t get a chance.
Today’s City Council Question:
List the top 5 issues you see moving forward and a brief description of how you would like to deal with them?
Justin Harrison:
1) Alameda Telecom
I see an immediate need to address Alameda Telecom’s growing troubles. I would purpose selling AT to a private company or investment group and would negotiate the best return for Alameda.
2) Alameda Point
Alameda Point is currently generating less revenue that it costs for the city to maintain it. I would push for a master redevelopment plan to be adopted and implemented or push to immediately start re-developing sections of the Point through partnerships with new businesses.
3) Education
Alameda home owners and business owners were asked to fill a vital need this past spring when Measure H was introduced. Although I am a supporter of measure H, I know that it is a short-term fix and will not be a sustainable option in the long term. I want to facilitate a partnership between the city and AUSD that can help subsidize some of the costs that existing parcel tax dollars now cover e.g. Art, after-school programs and sports.
4) Financial Growth
We are loosing tremendous amounts of money to other cities because of a low consumer-spending rate here in Alameda. As a council member I would aggressively pursue more retail, entertainment and tech-based business to begin occupying our business districts.
5) Small Business
Small business is struggling and as much as new larger businesses contribute to bringing visitors to Island our charming small businesses will keep them coming back. I believe we need to begin assessing taxes on businesses based on revenue and not square footage. I would propose a measure that would re-structure the current parcel tax to draw less from small business and more from larger companies.
Marie Gilmore:
The development of Alameda Point, traffic, fiscal sustainability, the city budget and retail sales leakage are important issues confronting Alameda. Alameda Point comprises about one third of the island. It must be developed so that it becomes an integral part of the City. We must give residents who don’t live or work at Alameda Point a reason to go there. Accordingly, the best way to achieve that is through a mixed-use environment: housing, retail and commercial, as well as recreational opportunities. Along with the development of Alameda Point comes an increase in traffic. I believe that a viable, concrete plan to cope with the traffic must be in place on day one regardless of what type of development is pursued at Alameda Point. Moreover, other large-scale developments must be responsible for mitigating their own traffic impacts.
The City has made commitments to its employees, particularly public safety, for retirement and post employment medical benefits that total millions of dollars. We must start paying for these liabilities now, instead of pushing it off into the future. Paying for these commitments and managing the City budget in order to continue delivering the level of services residents desire is a challenge. We need plan for the future and take advantage of our economic opportunities so we can meet these needs and not overburden our residents with too many taxes.
Doug deHaan:
Conversion of Alameda Point:
For the past eleven years, The City of Alameda has actively been in the process of the conversion of Alameda Point for public use. In the last 8 years we have been engaged with two different master developers. During this period the city has bonded $15 million in support of public services and the conversion planning process. The present cooperative agreement with the Navy and our inability to generate enough lease revenue is costing our General Fund $1 million to $2 million annually.
I believe the city must maintain the present city/master developer Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) timeline. This has been very difficult during the present turbulent national fiscal crisis. Our challenge is 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.
Alameda Power and Telecom and Golf Course Viability:
AP&T Telecom Business: The city is currently in the process of determining the disposition of AP&T’s telecom business. In February of 2006, AP&T lowered their telecom sales forecast for FY2009 from $15.2 million to $8.3 million (a decline of 45%). The telecom business had incurred over $80 million of debt, which included (to date) a $44 million inter-departmental transfer from AP&T’s electrical operation to the telecom operation. In March of 2006, as a closed session action item, I requested an operations review and market appraisal of the telecom business. This review provided AP&T and the city with the necessary information to determine the fiscal viability of the telecom system and develop future funding and operational strategies.
AP&T’s electrical business is thriving! The city must continue to use the electrical business as our showpiece for environmentally sound electrical services. AP&T’s outstanding environmental efforts have been in place over the years, and they have recently renewed their commitment. Congratulations to AP&T and Public Works and our Planning Department, as they have continued to take the lead in city’s environmental sustainability program.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex: With the recent downturn of economy, ongoing surcharges to support the City’s General Fund, and loss of golf play, all of these events have had a major impact on the City’s Chuck Corica Golf Complex operating revenue. 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. Over the last year the city has taken significant steps to improve the complex’s fiscal viability, but we still face some key challenges. I will continue to support this city’s asset, and will ensure that it has an ongoing future in our community…because once it’s gone, it’s gone. I will not let it become another developer’s dream.
City of Alameda Operation Budget:
Alameda is now at an unprecedented junction in its history. Due to the country’s major economic downturn, 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. Alameda is faced with a projected $5 million shortfall in the General Fund for the fiscal year. To further compound this problem it is projected that the property tax revenue will be most likely be flat for the next four years. Therefore, the council has placed on the ballot this November a measure to increase the Property Transfer Tax to help balance the city’s budgets. If this measure does not succeed, and the city is not able to generate additional revenue or reduce operation cost, some of the most essential city services (police and fire protection) might have to be cut. All California cities could be further impacted by the proposed State budget recommendations to divert our City Property and Transportation Taxes to the State level to cover their (State) $15 billion budget deficit.
The city must maximize ways to increase our sales tax revenue by increasing retail opportunities within our retail areas. That is, without unnecessarily impacting our existing retailers and traffic corridors. Within the next few months we will be losing the Toyota dealership to Oakland (annual $350,000 sales tax), 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: RETAIL: 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), Grand Marina, Northern Housing (old Coast Guard Housing), Ballena Bay.
Present entitled, planned and proposed development projects provide the city with many opportunities. There are over 1,800 additional housing units (excluding the proposed Alameda Point’s 1,800 to 6,000 housing units) and up to 1.3 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 that 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 74,000+ residents in this city, I have yet to see more than a few hundred residents (usually the same groups) directly involved in the community process, which will formulate Alameda’s future. This is YOUR city. Therefore, the City Council’s outreach to our citizens’ input is most vital.
Transportation and Traffic:
Transportation/Traffic is one of the main factors to be considered in existing and further development of Alameda. 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. SunCal, the Alameda Point developer, proposes an elevated transportation system (Personal Rapid Transit) that utilizes the old Beltline Railway right-of-way down Atlantic Avenue, to Clement Avenue, and over the Fruitvale rail bridge to BART. All of the above suggestions would rely upon major Federal and local funding, gaining additional right-of-ways and may take at least ten to twenty years to become a reality. Our best sources are improved bus service, not only Transbay, but point-to-point services and the expansion of our existing ferry services. 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 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/Encinal Station retail districts. To assist in developing a comprehensive transportation plan the city is in the process of updating 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. The Oak to Ninth EIR showed a direct impact to Alameda’s Atlantic/Webster Street, and the proposed Atlantic/Stargell intersections. Alameda’s capacity to our tubes will be further eroded, thus directly impacting the development at Alameda Point and the West End.
Tracy Jensen:
The top 5 issues for Alameda, in my opinion, are appropriate development of Alameda Point, updating the Transportation policies in the City Master Plan, ensuring the city’s fiscal solvency in the face of reduced revenues, ensuring island retail and other services for residents of all neighborhoods, and preserving – even expanding – open space for recreation and wildlife.
The first two of these issues, development of Alameda Point and updating the city’s transportation policies, must proceed together. At this time the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission are reviewing updates to the Transportation Element of the City Master Plan. The results of the public discussions and officials’ analysis of the new policies will be presented to the city Council later this year. These guiding principles for transportation must be in place before any development is approved at Alameda Point, or elsewhere in Alameda. I volunteered to be a member of the Transportation Subcommittee reviewing policies for pedestrian and bicycle traffic because I am committed to expanding the use of those healthy transportation options.
I support development that encourages public transportation but I don’t believe that “encouraging” ridership is enough. There must be incentives to make it attractive to take public transportation and leave the car at home. Like health care, transportation must be viewed by employers as a benefit that pays dividends to both parties. Employers in Alameda and elsewhere must see a benefit to providing a tax-free subsidy to employees which will encourage them to take public transportation. But employer subsidies and expansion of public transportation options will not ensure the success of Alameda Point, Alameda Landing or any other development on the West End.
Alternative and/or expanded access to the West End must be part of the solution. With the approval of the Transportation Element of the Alameda Master Plan the city can move forward in development of transportation options. Then Alameda can apply to receive state funding for transportation projects – including projects that will provide on and off-Island access to the West End. As demonstrated in San Jose and other local cities, there is funding – Measure A1 and other state bonds, available for development that includes innovative transportation options. The voters of California supported these measures two years ago and Alameda can be on the cutting edge of transportation policy as we move forward to develop Alameda Point.
Once our transportation plan is in place I will enthusiastically support economically and environmentally appropriate development at Alameda Point. It is critical that any development take place only after a viable, community-driven transportation plan has been established. That plan must be done in cooperation and coordination with the local transportation authorities, and using supportable data. And development on the West End will improve the retail opportunities for nearby Alameda residents. Recently a group of Alameda youth under the direction of Alameda Point Collaborative staff undertook a study of the opportunities to purchase fresh produce and other food west of Webster Street. The unfortunate results of the analysis were that these commodities were note available. Economic improvement at Alameda Point will benefit everyone on the West End – and across the island.
After 6 years on the Alameda Unified School District Board of Education I have the experience to make tough fiscal decisions. The current state budget stalemate has resulted in much uncertainly at the local level. I know very well how difficult it is for local policymakers to address local needs when funding decisions are done at the state level. I know how quickly revenues that have been relied upon for essential programs can be taken away, or “unfunded”, during state budget negotiations. The state budget deficit will certainly be felt in Alameda, and after 6 years of doing whatever it takes to keep the Alameda Unified School District fiscally sound I can ensure that our city remains solvent.
Finally, I am committed to retaining and expanding the open space in Alameda. I believe that it is imperative for any Alameda Point development to recognize the environmental fragility of certain areas, and preserve those areas for the future. Alameda has a tremendous opportunity to provide more parkland, with pedestrian and bicycle trails, after the 2006 court decision affirming the city’s right to the Beltline parcel. Alameda Point, the Beltline, and the completion of the Bay Trail around Alameda are projects that will make this city more livable, while increasing the opportunities for residents to get out of their cars.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Candidates should be required to define what they mean when they use the word “sustainable” I don’t understand hoe promoting and building higher density in Alameda can in any way be more sustainable.
Tracy – Have you read the “transportation element” you are supporting? Have you looked at the EIR on it? Check this out it is right there on the website:
This Draft EIR clearly states (pg 192) that if this TE is approved then the “Cumulative Traffic Impacts” will be “Cumulatively Considerable” and “Significant and Unavoidable”. Together this is the worst rating the EIR process can give. See page 50 for the definition of these ratings. The EIR also points out 9 or 10 major intersections at our tubes and bridges that will also be negatively impacted to a degree considered “Significant and Unavoidable.” This is exactly what we want to avoid on our island. People get frustrated, irate and angry in heavily restricted traffic flows. It makes people stressed, erratic and more dangerous. This is what we want to avoid getting in Alameda as a by-product of over development. John Knox White say’s it should be understood and accepted as a by-product of development. That is the crux of the opposing views, do we want debilitating traffic for our residents or not? At the last meeting with Sun Cal’s presentation for Alameda Point it was simplified as clearly as urban vs suburban.
Which side are you on Tracy, which side are you on? I hear on the grapevine, you are proud of getting an endorsement from Don Perata. From the news surrounding the June primaries – he gives them to everyone – or are you more interested in the funds he can channel from developers to campaign funds?