From: Bryan Kato
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong Support for Item 7-A: Stardust Gardens Commitment Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:59:28 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am an Alameda Point resident writing in strong support of Agenda Item 7-A (authorizing the City Manager to sign the commitment letter for Stardust Gardens).
Passing this contingent backstop is critical to keeping Alameda Point redevelopment on schedule. It directly unlocks construction on 478 homes at West Midway, ensures the delivery of 171 net-new Below-Market-Rate homes, and protects over $55 million in state housing and infrastructure grants.
Most importantly for our neighborhood, breaking ground at West Midway creates the market momentum needed to end the construction freeze and clear out the blighted Navy warehouses near Site A.
Please vote YES on staff's recommendation for Item 7-A.
Sincerely,
Bryan Kato,
Alameda Point Resident
From: Jay
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Correspondence re Item 7A
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:40:52 AM
Good morning, Madam City Clerk
I would appreciate it if you would add the message below to tonight's Correspondence file for item 7A.
Thank you.
Jay Garfinkle
352 Capetown
94502
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
September 1, 2026
RE: City Council September 1, 2026 meeting Agenda Item 7A Dear Madam Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing in objection to the resolution in Item 7A regarding the Stardust Gardens supportive housing project. I believe that by employing bureaucratic jargon Staff is attempting to breach the concept of civic transparency: a $25 million financial commitment that has never once, to the best of my knowledge, been discussed as an agendized item in a public meeting of the Council.
Staff frames the resolution as a simple request for permission to send an informational letter to state agencies. However, to bureaucrats and, perhaps some Councilmembers, the request is, in effect, actually authorizing the commitment of annual subsidies of up to $1 million for 20 years. Factoring in the 2.5% annual increases, Alameda taxpayers will be on the hook for over $25 million.
It would seem to me that a fiscal commitment of this scale should have been presented as an agendized item during a City Council meeting. And to my knowledge, it has never been openly discussed let alone voted on by the Council or even presented to the community. Bypassing public discourse as Staff is attempting to do now with what I view as a deceptive request to simply inform state agencies rather than first seeking and obtaining a specific commitment from the Council is another example of the absence of transparency in our City’s governance.
I encourage the Council to defer action on Item 7A until it has been openly and thoroughly reviewed as an agendized item during a future meeting of the Council.
Please understand that I am neither opposing nor supporting the proposed subsidy. Rather I am objecting to what I perceive to be a lack of transparency in the current process of committing the taxpayers of Alameda to taking on a significant fiscal obligation, especially while, at the same time, we are being asked to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds totaling $300,000,000.
Jay Garfinkle
IN FAVOR – Stardust Gardens operating subsidy
RE: September 1st AGENDA ITEM: 7-A 2026-6247
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Jensen, and City Staff, Today’s item is a critical one for the future of Alameda’s liveability, but also one with major financial implications. As you weigh these fronts, I stress the importance of looking at the real human outcomes and impact this subsidy enables: Stardust Gardens is a real project, with real plans, with real timelines, and real funding, that will positively improve the lives of 80 families whose income is 30% of our area’s median income, many of them already Alamedans, in critical need of housing support like this.
A bridge to enable major housing
A million dollars a year is a large subsidy. The notion that this is a bridge is an important factor. I've followed this project for years, including in person community planning sessions at Alameda Point Collaborative with RESHAP residents (as Library Board President, I'm also tracking the future library site being considered there). It's clear that the current supportive housing there is reaching well past its intended lifetime, and projects like these meaningfully enable keeping these Alamedans here in modern apartments. The vouchers used today have a throughline toward transferring to this project when the residents move, and funding this gap the subsidy is targeted to back fill temporarily so the risk seems low and worth it.
This project critically unlocks further major projects across the Alameda Point including up to 2,300 more moderate- and market-rate housing direly needed here. A city survey earlier this year with statistical rigor has a strong message for all of you:
the top issue Alamedans are facing is the cost of housing. An overwhelming majority, 71%, said housing costs are an extremely/very serious problem, and handedly the top issue to Alamedans. Right now you have a clear path of being responsive, tempering that issue through increasing housing supply, and meeting our Housing Element goals we are behind on.
Clearly we have structural issues to address
Stardust Gardens is not a new project. RESHAP planning is many years deep. And yet we’re at, what feels like to me, a last minute juncture. From this vantage point something is clearly broken between the Alameda Housing Authority and the City of Alameda’s ability to communicate and align on projects. As you discuss this issue, I hope you push on finding–in a blameless way–what the misalignments are, why they sat for so long, and the structures needed to fix this acutely now as well as set us up properly for future projects. Because we have more to build. I believe that most people purely care about the outcomes: did we deliver for them and their neighbors that meaningfully improved their lives? Further, I think this is another signal our system of funding low-income housing is wildly broken. Stardust Gardens is backed by a stack of complex Jenga Blocks funding mechanisms. I’d urge you to use this issue with our representatives at the state, national and federal agencies like Housing and Urban Development to drive towards streamlined paths, and in the meantime continue to support market-rate housing, which produces 15% to 25% affordable housing through less complex private capital.
Thank you for backing this subsidy and making a real improvement in 80 Alameda families lives concretely, now.
Thushan Amarasiriwardena
- an Alamedan who has seen too many friends and neighbors leave our Island because of the cost of housing, President of the Alameda Free Library Board, and a father of two in Central Alameda From: Josh Hawn
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Agenda Item 7-A (Stardust Gardens Operating Subsidy Commitment Letter) Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 9:42:02 AM
Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My name is Josh Hawn, and I am a resident of Alameda Point (Site A). I am writing in strong support of Agenda Item 7-A, authorizing the City Manager to sign the commitment letter for the Stardust Gardens supportive housing project.
While committing up to $1 million annually from the Alameda Point Fund starting in FY2028 is a significant decision, viewing this strictly as an expense misses the substantial economic activity, public investment, and recurring revenue it unlocks for our city.
1. The Fiscal Return Far Outweighs the Contingent Backstop In Site A, roughly 128 townhomes generate approximately $2.5 million per year in property taxes. Based on the property taxes we pay at Site A, I estimate that the 478 homes entitled for Catellus and Brookfield at West Midway will generate an estimated $8.5 to $9 million annually in gross property taxes at full buildout. Providing a contingent $1 million annual backstop from Fund 290 unlocks a private tax base that delivers multiples of that amount back to local balance sheets every year, while also triggering the repayment of the City’s $9.5 million infrastructure loan.
2. Delivering 609 Net-New Homes and 28% Deed-Restricted BMR Together, the Catellus and Brookfield West Midway development (478 homes) and the MidPen/APC RESHAP campus (332 homes) replace 201 deteriorating WWII-era Navy units and deliver 609 net-new homes to Alameda Point. Of those net-new homes, 171 will be deed- restricted Below-Market-Rate (BMR) or permanent supportive homes, representing roughly 28% BMR delivery across these parcels.
3. A Hard Phasing Dependency
The staff report makes it clear that Catellus and Brookfield will not proceed with Phase 1 without certainty on Phase 3. Because Phase 3 requires relocating existing APC residents, no private construction can occur until Stardust Gardens breaks ground. Without this commitment letter, 609 net-new homes stall, and our Housing Element obligations are put at risk.
4. Safeguarding Over $55 Million in State Funding
Missing the September 8 LIHTC round forces the forfeiture of a $15 million state MHP allocation and jeopardizes over $40 million in AHSC grant funding. Those AHSC funds directly support critical infrastructure, including WETA's Seaplane Lagoon ferry charging float and West Alameda active transportation corridors.
5. Breaking Construction Inertia Across Alameda Point
Macroeconomic headwinds and force majeure pauses have frozen development at Alameda Point Site A, leaving blighted Navy warehouses standing adjacent to our completed neighborhoods. Approving this commitment letter is the single most actionable step Council can take to demonstrate market viability, which could unfreeze stalled phases here at Site A, and get the city further along on its infrastructure plans and Housing Element goals.
I urge Council to approve Option 1 to execute the commitment letter as drafted, and to direct staff to continue working to resolve the policy misalignment with the Alameda Housing Authority so local funds can ultimately be replaced by project-based vouchers before 2029.
Sincerely,
Josh Hawn
Alameda Point Resident
From: James Zhou
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Resident comment on Item 7-A: Stardust Gardens Commitment Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 8:06:19 AM
Dear City Council Members,
I am an Alameda resident writing in strong support of Agenda Item 7-A.
Our community has waited far too long. Bureaucratic hurdles and missed opportunities have repeatedly stalled redevelopment, leaving us staring at blighted, abandoned Navy warehouses.
The ongoing construction freeze is incredibly frustrating.
Tonight, you can turn this around. Approving the Stardust Gardens commitment secures over $55 million in state grants and acts as the vital catalyst to unlock 600+ new homes at West Midway. Breaking ground will prove market viability, eliminate the economic excuses currently stalling Site A, and finally clear out the remaining blight.
Past delays have been exhausting, but a YES vote tonight will spark immediate momentum and bring immense, tangible good to our neighborhood. Please approve staff's recommendation.
Sincerely,
James Zhou, AIA
Alameda Resident
From: Shelby S
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: public comment for upcoming City Council item 7A-OPPOSE $25 million gift to developers! Date: Monday, August 31, 2026 5:33:37 PM
here it is. thanks
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shelby S <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 2:36 PM
Subject: public comment for upcoming City Council item 7A-OPPOSE $25 million gift to developers!
To: City Clerk <[email protected]
>
Vote NO on 7A-- City is at it again--dipping into public money to pay developers in what can only be some sort of kickback scheme: The scant information provided in this item conceals more than just what the funds will be used for--there no indication of how this money will be spent, what other sources are being explored, or why there is an "ask" now when the Project isnt even operating yet.
Public records confirm that private developer MidPen Housing is the legal (and wrongful) owner of the RESHAP property--the LP is a shell company to conceal that the City converted the Supportive Housing Providers promise of a privately-owned 200 unit campus into an illegal gift to Midpen as a "public" affordable housing project in violation of the McKinney Vento Act and the Navy EDC Agreement. Just as bad if not worse, Brookfield has encroached their own 132 inclusionary units onto RESHAP that belong to the adjacent market rate site.
Developers are supposed to pay the City--not the other way around.
Brookfield got an estimated $100 million+ gain from the RESHAP Project encroachment, and Midpen's addition of RESHAP will add an estimated $100 million to their portfolio, while stripping the Supportive Housing Providers of their $80 million asset.
In addition to "NO" on Item 7A, An investigation into the illegitimate transfers of RESHAP's federal entitlement into the hands of private developers needs to be done by HUD, HCD, and all grant funders for false claims, extrinsic fraud, and official misconduct by all officials who continue to approve such actions.
We're looking at you, City Council.
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
"The righteousness of the oppressed will not go unheard." --
Shelby
510-435-9263
"The righteousness of the oppressed will not go unheard."
1 August 31, 2026
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft and Alameda City Councilmembers Via Email: [email protected]
Re: Item 7-A on the September 1 Council agenda
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council:
The West Midway development team of Brookfield and Catellus supports Item 7-A, which would provide a temporary operating subsidy commitment for Stardust Gardens and help keep MidPen on track to apply for tax credits this September. Importantly, the proposed commitment serves as a bridge during the resident relocation process, with the expectation that a substantial portion of existing operating vouchers will transition with eligible households into replacement housing, reducing or potentially eliminating the need for this subsidy over time.
We appreciate the tenacity, hard work and creative problem solving by staff to come up with a temporary urgent funding commitment that will enable Stardust Gardens to proceed, with the hope that the Alameda Housing Authority, or another entity, may be able to align its priorities with the City’s, and provide the vouchers in lieu of this subsidy when residents are relocated into Stardust Gardens.
Stardust Gardens, RESHAP, and West Midway are one interconnected redevelopment sequence: the projects physically overlap, since Alameda Point Collaborative residents currently live within portions of the future West Midway footprint and cannot simply be displaced to make way for development. RESHAP is designed to provide them with new, permanent replacement housing before their existing homes are removed, and Stardust Gardens is the first critical step in making that relocation possible.
We recognize that this request represents a meaningful commitment by the City. However, the alternative carries significant risk. Delays to Stardust Gardens could jeopardize the current tax credit application cycle, defer the delivery of replacement housing for Alameda Point Collaborative residents, delay critical infrastructure investments, and postpone the broader public benefits tied to West Midway. Viewed in that context, the proposed commitment is a reasonable and targeted investment intended to preserve momentum on a redevelopment effort that has been years in the making and that will ultimately leverage substantial private and public capital far exceeding the temporary subsidy commitment.
2 West Midway is an important example of that public-private strategy in action. Through the City’s partnership with Catellus/Brookfield, private development is helping deliver infrastructure necessary not only for West Midway, but also for RESHAP and the broader redevelopment of Alameda Point. In this sequence, Catellus/Brookfield serve, in effect, as the horizontal master developer for RESHAP: MidPen builds the vertical replacement housing itself, while Catellus/Brookfield construct the underlying infrastructure – including the coordinated streets, utilities, and other horizontal improvements necessary to turn this former military property into development-ready sites – and deliver the finished pads MidPen needs to build on. Catellus/Brookfield’s work is therefore one of the essential building blocks that makes RESHAP physically possible. Until that housing is complete, Catellus/Brookfield cannot access the portions of the site needed to complete subsequent phases of West Midway.
Catellus/Brookfield remain prepared to advance West Midway despite a challenging housing market, high development and financing costs, and broader economic uncertainty. But moving a project of this scale into construction requires mobilizing enormous resources – capital, contractors, workers, equipment, and materials – and a master developer cannot reasonably be expected to mobilize those resources only to stand idle indefinitely while residents on the next portion of the site await relocation. A prolonged stop-and-start sequence creates significant cost, financing, and schedule risk, making progress on Stardust Gardens important to the efficient execution of West Midway.
Catellus/Brookfield are preparing to advance West Midway, an approximately 478-home mixed-income development that includes market-rate and workforce housing. West Midway will also replace aging Alameda Point infrastructure and deliver major public improvements, including new streets and utilities, sidewalks and pedestrian improvements, bicycle connections, ADA improvements, lighting, parks and public spaces, and other neighborhood- serving infrastructure. These improvements will become part of the larger infrastructure network connecting Alameda Point internally and to the broader West End.
Catellus brings a long track record of development in Alameda. Catellus began work in Alameda’s West End in approximately 2002, helping clear and prepare former U.S. Navy property – including the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and East Housing – for redevelopment, laying the groundwork for what would become Bayport and Alameda Landing. Collectively, these projects reflect nearly 25 years of partnership with the City to transform obsolete military and industrial property into housing, infrastructure, and public amenities – a track record the City is now drawing on through this same partnership model, alongside Brookfield Residential Properties, to help replace this portion of Alameda Point’s aging World War II-era infrastructure.
3 Keeping Stardust Gardens moving helps keep an interconnected chain of public and private investment moving at Alameda Point, including:
• Stardust Gardens and the first phase of permanent RESHAP replacement housing; • Relocation of existing Alameda Point Collaborative residents into their new homes; • Continued construction of the horizontal infrastructure and finished pads needed for RESHAP;
• Approximately 478 new mixed-income homes at West Midway; • Replacement of portions of Alameda Point’s aging World War II-era infrastructure in the Reuse Area; and
• New streets and utilities, pedestrian, bicycle, and ADA improvements, and parks, lighting, and other public amenities.
Keeping Stardust Gardens moving therefore allows Catellus/Brookfield to keep moving West Midway forward – and allows the public-private infrastructure investment already underway at Alameda Point to continue.
We respectfully urge the Council to approve Item 7-A to maintain momentum on Stardust Gardens, support the first phase of RESHAP replacement housing, and enable continued progress on West Midway and related infrastructure improvements at Alameda Point.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Marshall
Josh Roden
BC WEST MIDWAY LLC
Cc: Gerry Beaudin, Alameda City Manager
Abby Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, City of Alameda
August 31, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda CA 94501
RE: Support for Staff Recommendation to Issue Commitment Letter for MidPen Housing's RESHAP Low- Income Housing Tax Credit Application
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers Boller, Daysog, Jensen, and Pryor, On behalf of Building Futures, I am writing to urge the City Council to approve the staff recommendation directing the City to provide the commitment letter that MidPen Housing needs to submit its Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application in early September. This commitment letter is a critical, time-sensitive step to keep the RESHAP project moving forward, and we respectfully ask for your support.
Building Futures has worked collaboratively with the City, MidPen Housing, the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), and Operation Dignity on RESHAP for nearly 20 years, with the shared goal of providing housing for the members of our community who need it most. This partnership reflects a long-standing, good-faith commitment from all parties to see this project through, though we understand there is an impasse regarding operating subsidies for a portion of the new homes.
RESHAP is essential to the replacement of Bessie Coleman Court and Midway Shelter, both of which are nearing the end of their useful lives. We have counted on RESHAP to allow us to relocate these facilities and continue offering uninterrupted services to homeless households in our community. However, this cannot happen until Stardust Gardens is complete. Until Stardust Gardens is built, the land necessary to serve Building Futures residents in new affordable homes remains unavailable. We need a clear path forward to get this catalytic development built.
Our residents have been engaged in the RESHAP development process from day one. Residents should not be held back from safe, dignified homes because of a stalemate outside of their control. We urge the City Council to rise above this impasse and support the staff recommendation so that this vital project can continue to move forward.
We ask the Council to approve the commitment letter so that MidPen Housing can meet its LIHTC application deadline. Missing this opportunity would delay the project further and prolong the uncertainty faced by residents and service providers alike.
Thank you for your continued partnership and for your consideration of this urgent request. We look forward to working together to bring RESHAP to fruition.
Respectfully,
Executive Director, Building Futures
From: Vadim Sidelnikov
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7A September 1 Council Meeting - Public Comment Date: Monday, August 31, 2026 1:43:58 PM
Honorable Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and members of the City Council, My name is Vadim Sidelnikov, and you appointed me to serve on the Alameda Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, where my fellow Commissioners have since appointed me Vice Chair of the Board.
I want to start by saying that I support Stardust Gardens and the continued development of affordable housing at Alameda Point and throughout Alameda. The record does not support the suggestion that the City and the Housing Authority have fundamentally different priorities when it comes to housing.
Furthermore, at our August 19 meeting, the Housing Authority Board did not reject the Stardust Gardens project. We were asked to make a long-term PBV commitment while there were still significant questions about the Housing Authority’s 2027 funding and whether the proposed selection process complied with HUD requirements. Given the potential long-term financial commitment, the Board believed good fiscal stewardship required a clearer understanding of the Housing Authority’s projected funding position before moving forward.
We therefore directed staff to update the budget and return in September so the Board could determine whether opening a competition was financially supportable.
Additionally, the Housing Authority’s position regarding PBVs has been consistent. Staff have been telling City staff for some time that the Housing Authority was operating close to its available voucher funding and that any new PBV award would have to comply with HUD’s selection requirements. Those issues did not suddenly arise in August in response to Stardust Gardens.
The last few weeks also show why the City and the Housing Authority need to communicate more directly and work from the same information. We were repeatedly told that MidPen could not accept its MHP award without the Housing Authority’s voucher commitment by August 21. MidPen accepted the award on August 20 without that commitment. Before a deadline is used to drive a major public decision, both agencies should understand exactly what the deadline requires and what actually happens if it is missed.
It was also disappointing to see the Housing Authority characterized publicly as an agency that has tried to obstruct the issuance of vouchers and as the only thing standing in the way of affordable housing development at Alameda Point. I do not think that characterization is accurate, and it makes the work ahead more difficult. The Housing Authority has a substantial record of developing and supporting affordable housing throughout Alameda, including at Alameda Point, and that work directly contributes to the City’s housing production and RHNA goals.
The better course now is to allow the Housing Authority to complete the financial work already underway for its September 16 meeting. If the updated numbers support opening a PBV competition, the Board will have the information it needs to consider doing so. City and Housing Authority staff should also be talking directly about whether the proposed City subsidy or another funding structure can address the remaining financing gap.
The staff report also raises the possibility of restructuring the Housing Authority based on what it describes as a misalignment of priorities. How the City chooses to structure its relationship with the Housing Authority is ultimately a decision for the Council. But the events of the last several weeks should be considered in the context of what the current structure is designed to do.
The Council appointed a Board to exercise independent oversight over an agency responsible for administering complex federal housing programs and protecting the resources entrusted to it. The Board is advised by Housing Authority staff who work with HUD requirements and the voucher program every day. We relied heavily on that expertise during the August 19 meeting.
Our responsibility also extends beyond Stardust Gardens. The Housing Authority currently provides housing assistance to approximately 1,800 Alameda households, and a decision involving a long-term PBV commitment has consequences for those existing obligations. The Board’s August 19 decision was an exercise of that oversight: we were not prepared to commit the agency to a long-term obligation before we had adequate information regarding the funding and the applicable federal requirements.
The Housing Authority expects to have updated financial information for the September 16 meeting. Between now and then, I would encourage City and Housing Authority staff to reconcile the project timeline, continue evaluating the City’s proposed operating subsidy, and identify what funding structure can realistically support Stardust Gardens while the Housing Authority determines whether it can responsibly open a PBV competition.
Sincerely,
______________________
Vadim Sidelnikov
Vice Chair
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
From: Shelby S
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] public comment Item 7A-- 9/1/26 City Council Meeting--CEQA Petition challenges Midpen unlawful ownership of RESHAP/Illegal gifts to developers
Date: Monday, August 31, 2026 11:41:49 AM
Attachments: 2026-07-20 STAMPED Amended Petition FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR 1085 WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIR.pdf
VOTE NO on "committing" $1 million per year to secure Midpen's illegal gains from the RESHAP Project. MidPen was illgally gifted the RESHAP Project by illegitimate City actions, while Brookfield has not paid a dime for their required very low/low income units externalizedonto the RESHAP Property.
Illegitimate City Actions
Documentation in the City's application for the $44 million AHSC grant and in filings by the City demonstrate unequivocally that the federally-mandated RESHAP Project has been illegally co-mingled with Brookfield's inclusionary affordable housing Project.
Rather than gifting that Project to the RESHAP Providers as their own private property for supportive housing in perpetuity, the City signed the Project over to Midpen for $1, and has retained ownership to the land beneath it--in violation of federal, state, and local laws.
At the same time, Brookfield (the adjacent market rate developer) has paid absolutely zero money to the City of Alameda for their 132 affordable housing units illegally encroaching on the RESHAP Property, illegally turning it into a public housing project.
The current CEQA case
(# 26CV197638)
against the City of Alameda addresses these
illegitimate gifts to developers. At the very least, no more public monies should be awarded to the Project and the development undergoes a full investigation by the various agencies.
The petition exposes this theft of the federal entitlement and egregious violations of federal, state and local law. Alamedans need to know what this corrupt regime has been up to for the last 8 years.
About the Petition
The Current CEQA Petition Case (see attached) challenges illegal Alameda Point development for Tract 8696, consisting of the RESHAP, West Midway and Food Bank Project components.
The case involves complex layers of
municipal law, hist
oric preservation, and land-use agreements
circumvented by the City of Alameda with improper CEQA Exemptions.
The Petition exposes hundreds of millions of dollars of federal fraud and illegal gifts of public money to developers, as well as blatant disregard for the City's own land use laws to overdevelop Alameda Point as a high density housing project and social services hub.
The City doesnt want the public to know about it: Tony Daysog, Tracy Jensen, and Malia Vella all voted to illegally convert RESHAP's private property into a developers' public housing Project owned by Midpen, while lying to different agencies to get public funding for these illegitimate acts. Brookfield's 132 inclusionary units encroached onto the RESHAP Project without paying a dime in "in lieu" fees or other costs, allowing them a windfall of an estimated $100 million by externalizing their affordable housing burden.
How did they get away with it so far? The City "self-certifies" compliance with the law and no agency verifies it.
More about the Petition
The central issue is the theft of RESHAP Project federal entitlement. The local, independent homeless providers were originally promised fee-simple title to 10-plus acres of prime land next to Main Street. Instead, the City forced them onto a shrunken 8-acre footprint re-configured as a dense public housing project inside a commercial hub at Pan Am Way owned by MidPen Corporation.
The City then credited these relocated units as private developer Brookfield Residential's mandatory local inclusionary housing contribution.
This cleared the prime Main Street real estate for the developer's market- rate builds while using federal McKinney-Vento assets to wipe out the private entities' federal homeless housing entitlement, resulting in a $200,000,000 windfall shared between MidPen and Brookfield.
These separate entitlements and obligations cannot be lawfully co-mingled.
Furthermore, the filing highlights a $44,000,000 state Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grant secured by misrepresenting the site to state authorities as a voluntary, benevolent local "Affordable Housing" scheme, masking its restricted federal status and the encroachment of Brookfield's units. The suit also challenges a federal environmental certification executed by City Manager Jennifer Ott on August 22, 2025, to secure HUD funding for the RESHAP Project.
Vertical construction on Phase A (PLN25-0256) and the RESHAP Project has not yet begun. Alamedans should demand an immediate halt to all project approvals and an independent audit of the city's conflicting funding records before ground is broken.
Thank you.
--
"The righteousness of the oppressed will not go unheard." --
Shelby
510-435-9263
"The righteousness of the oppressed will not go unheard." --
Shelby
510-435-9263
"The righteousness of the oppressed will not go unheard." 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Tod Hickman
PO Box 431, Bangor Ca 94914
510-872-1710
[email protected]
and
Shelby Sheehan
909 Marina Village Pkwy #265, Alameda CA 94501
510-435-9263
[email protected]
in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
TOD HICKMAN,
and
SHELBY SHEEHAN,
Petitioners/plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF ALAMEDA, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY,
and
CITY AGENTS DOES 1-50 inclusive,
Respondents/Defendants,
Case No.: 26CV197638
(CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT)
CEQA CASE
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION
FOR §1085 WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT CHALLENGING THE
REDEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF TRACT 8696
AT ALAMEDA POINT
[Code Civ. Proc., §1085, Public Resources
Code,§§ 21168.5 et seq.)]
BC WEST MIDWAY LLC,
BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL CALIFORNIA LLC,
CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION,
ALAMEDA POINT COLLABORATIVE,
BUILDING FUTURES WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN,
OPERATION DIGNITY,
ALAMEDA EMERGENCY FOOD DBA ALAMEDA FOODBANK,
and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
Real Parties in Interest
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I..INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………… … 4
II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE….……………………………………… 9 III. THE CHALLENGED PROJECT(S) ……………………………. 13
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 15
B. PLANNING BOARD EXCEEDED DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY 16
C. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND FOR PHASE A PROJECT 16
D. CEQA DETERMINATION AND INVALID NOD … 17
E. NOI SERVED JANUARY 5, 2026 18
F. PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS 19
G. PETITION NOT SUBJECT TO PROCEDURAL DISMISSAL 20
IV. FEDERAL TO LOCAL CONVEYANCE/REDEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK….…23 A. ALAMEDA POINT REDEVELOPMENT BRAC AND EDC PROCESS ….…… 24
1. 1996 Community Reuse Plan Governs Redevelopment 26
2. 2000 Economic Development Conveyance MOA 30
3. 2012 EDC MOA Amendment No. 2:1425 total Residential Units 32 B. STATE REAFFIRMATION OF FEDERAL REDEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 35 C. ALAMEDA POINT PROGRAM EIR FRAMEWORK 36
1. Scope, Scale and Limits of a Program EIR 38
2. Alameda Point Approved Project: Current Redevelopment Program 39
3. AP EIR Mixed-Use Economic Development Framework 40
4. Supportive Housing Replacement Campus=RESHAP 42
5. Zoning Code and Codified Local Implementation Plans Enforce Program EIR 44
6. Codified Local Land Use Plans per GC § 65455 45
7. Continued Consistency of the Zoning Code with the Federal Framework 46 D. ALAMEDA POINT REMAINS GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK 49 V. ILLEGAL TRANSFORMATION OF ALAMEDA POINT 47
A. “SOUTH OF WEST MIDWAY PROJECT” LOCAL REGULATORY LIMIT……. 50 B. RESHAP: CONVERSION OF FEDERAL HOMELESS- ENTITLEMENT 53
1. Specific Plan Design, Location, and Size of the Replacement Campus 54
2. Illegal Conversion of the Specific Plan's Codified RESHAP Framework 56
3. Current Conversion of the RESHAP Federal Replacement Entitlement 62
4. CEQA Independently Requires Further Environmental Review 67
5. Respondents Exceeded Their Authority 71
6.Diversion of the Federal RESHAP Entitlement to Private Developers 73
7. Self-Certified Representations Created the Appearance of Compliance 81 (cont. next page)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE TOC, cont.
C. WEST MIDWAY PROJECT — Externalization of Inclusionary Housing 83
1. Original Redevelopment Program 84
2. Illegal Transformation of the Original West Midway Redevelopment Program 86
3. Current City-Adopted Redevelopment Condition is Inconsistent with Law 90
4. CEQA Independently Requires Further Environmental Review 92
5. Respondents Exceeded Their Authority 95
6. Improper Economic Benefits to Brookfield 97
7. Regulatory Evasion Achieved Appearance of Compliance 98 D. PERMANENT RELOCATION OF FOOD BANK PROJECT ……… ……… 98
1. Original Food Bank Expansion Entitlement at Jean Sweeny Open Space 99
2. Replacement of the Adopted Jean Sweeney Food Bank Project 100
3.Current Food Bank Project Operating Beyond Planning Board Approval 105
4. Failure to Proceed in the Manner Required by Law 107
5. Ultra Vires Food Bank Actions are Reversible 109
6. Improper Public Funding Benefits Obtained Through the Food Bank Project 111
7. Self-Certified Representations Created the Appearance of Compliance 112 E. RELATED PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CUMULATIVE REVIEW 114
1. Cumulative Residential Redevelopment 115
2. Cumulative Prohibited Governmental Support-Service Redevelopment 117 F. OTHER REDEVELOPMENT EXCEEDING RESPONDENTS' AUTHORITY 119
1. Historic District Alterations — Radium Theater and Historic Taxiway 120
2. Public Trust Violation Project — Enterprise Surf Park 120
3. Financial Interdependence of the Redevelopment Program — Building 92 120 G. ABSENCE OF LAWFULLY ADOPTED CEQA PROCEDURES 121
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ….. ….. 122
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 126
/
/
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE I. INTRODUCTION
1. Petitioners TOD HICKMAN and SHELBY SHEEHAN seek judicial relief pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21168.5 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 arising from the City of Alameda Planning Board’s December 8, 2025 purported approval of the West Midway Phase A Project (PLN25-0256), including Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map, related inclusionary-housing and RESHAP implementation, and other related actions regarding approval of 284 new market-rate residential units within the unified Tract 8696 redevelopment at Alameda Point.
2. The challenged approval collectively implements the Tract 8696 redevelopment program and requires CEQA review of the whole of the action and its cumulative impacts across the whole of Alameda Point. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130, 15162, 15378.)
3. Tract 8696 consists of the West Midway new mixed-use residential development and the 200-unit federally mandated “RESHAP” Project (“South of West Midway Project”) governed by the 2017 Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan. The redevelopment presently being implemented within Tract 8696 also includes the Alameda Food Bank Project (Parcel 23) located across Pan Am Way within the Alameda Point Historic District.
4. Petitioners allege that the South of West Midway Project, as codified in the 2017 Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), was illegally altered through successive illegitimate discretionary approvals in excess of the City’s local implementation authority under the federally-mandated framework and the City’s own Specific Plan (Gov. Code, §§ 65454, 65455.).
5. Petitioners further allege that each successive modification substantially altered land-use allocation, residential intensity, and cumulative development impacts and therefore requires subsequent environmental review under Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a).
6. These improper municipal approvals improperly externalized the developer's inclusionary- housing burden by shifting it onto land designated for the federally mandated RESHAP supportive-housing campus, thereby appropriating the federal supportive-housing 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE entitlement by converting it from a benefit for the Supportive Housing Providers into a mechanism for satisfying the City and private developers' mandatory obligations to the federally approved Supportive Housing Providers pursuant to the 2012 Navy No-Cost Conveyance.
7. As a result, the redevelopment presently being implemented throughout Tract 8696 impermissibly and materially differs from the redevelopment mandated by the federal BRAC and McKinney-Vento redevelopment framework, including the Base Reuse Plan, the Navy EDC Agreement, the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("MSP"), the Renewed Hope Settlement, the 2022 Surplus Lands Act Amendment, and related federal, state, and local laws governing Alameda Point.
8. Nonetheless, Respondents continue to implement that materially altered redevelopment through improper CEQA exemptions and audience-specific self-certifications, thereby obtaining governmental approvals, environmental clearances, and public funding despite noncompliance with the governing redevelopment framework.
9. Petitioners bring this action to enforce mandatory duties imposed by federal and state law, restore compliance with the governing redevelopment framework, protect public assets and federally protected homeless-assistance commitments, protect the interests of supportive-housing residents whom the RESHAP Project was created to serve, and compel Respondents to proceed in the manner required by law.
Self-Certifications Created the Appearance of Compliance
10. The governing redevelopment framework entrusts the City with truthfully certifying compliance. Governmental agencies and public funding programs rely upon those official certifications rather than independently verifying them.
11. To maintain the appearance of compliance, the City repeatedly characterized the same operative redevelopment differently depending upon the governmental agency, funding program, or regulatory approval then being sought.
12. Those audience-specific, self-certified representations created the appearance of compliance without actual compliance, facilitating governmental approvals, certifications, 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
6 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE permits, environmental clearances, and public funding through materially different descriptions of the same operative redevelopment.
13. Most egregiously, the City transformed the federally mandated RESHAP Project from a privately owned supportive-housing replacement project into a materially different redevelopment satisfying Brookfield's inclusionary-housing obligations, fundamentally altering the federal redevelopment commitments upon which Alameda Point was conveyed and approved.
14. While doing so, the City simultaneously represented that transformed redevelopment differently to HUD, state agencies, public funding programs, and other governmental decisionmakers depending upon the governmental approval, certification, or funding then being sought.
15. These varying “RESHAP” representations are irreconcilable with one another, suggesting a deliberate scheme of misrepresentation that likely could lead to investigation for extrinsic fraud, official misconduct and violations of the false claims act.
Federal to Local Redevelopment Framework Strictly Limits City Authority
16. The City acquired Alameda Point pursuant to a federally conditioned redevelopment framework established through the BRAC process, the McKinney-Vento homeless- assistance requirements, the Navy Economic Development Conveyance Agreement, and redevelopment consistent with the Base Reuse Plan.
17. The Base Reuse Plan constitutes the governing redevelopment framework for Alameda Point and is implemented through the Alameda Point Program EIR, the 2017 Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("MSP"), redevelopment agreements, and related local planning documents. In 2022, the California Legislature, through amendments to the Surplus Lands Act, reaffirmed that redevelopment at Alameda Point must remain consistent with the Base Reuse Plan.
18. The 2017 Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("MSP") implements the Base Reuse Plan within the South of West Midway planning area and establishes the governing redevelopment allocations for the RESHAP Project and the West Midway mixed-use redevelopment.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
7 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
19. Redevelopment proposals materially inconsistent with the governing specific plan and the City's implementing land-use regulations cannot be lawfully approved. (Gov. Code, § 65455.)
Tract 8696 Projects at Issue as Parts of the Program EIR and Alameda Point as a Whole
20. Through adoption of Tract 8696 in January 2024, the City established a unified subdivision framework combining the West Midway market-rate and inclusionary- housing redevelopment, the federally mandated RESHAP Project, and the Food Bank Project within a single, interdependent redevelopment footprint constituting the whole of the action under CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). (See also City Council Resolution 16089)
21. With the exception of Parcel 23 (the Food Bank Parcel), the current Tract 8696 boundary substantially corresponds to the South of West Midway redevelopment area governed by the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("MSP").
22. Accordingly, the approval of West Midway Phase A as a stand-alone project within that unified Tract 8696 footprint constitutes impermissible segmentation of an integrated redevelopment program and requires evaluation of the whole of the action, including cumulative impacts to Alameda Point as a whole, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378, 15130, and 15162.
23. Timely Challenge to Ongoing Redevelopment Program. This action was timely commenced following the purported stand-alone approval of Phase A, and as part of the City’s ongoing changes of the current redevelopment program within Tract 8696. The controversy therefore remains live and judicial relief remains available.
Absence of Delegated CEQA Authority
24. CEQA Guidelines, § 15040 expressly provide that lead agency authority does not grant an agency new powers independent of those granted by other laws and does not authorize an agency to exercise authority denied by other laws. (CEQA).
25. Discretion Limited to Consistency Determinations. Although Respondents may exercise some discretion in reviewing redevelopment proposals at the local level, that authority limited by conformance with the governing redevelopment framework and were required to reject, deny, or require modification of proposals that are material deviations from the regulatory framework, including the City’s own zoning code. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
26. Respondents possess no authority to approve, endorse, or implement redevelopment changes inconsistent with the framework from which their authority derives.
27. Lack of Current Implementation Procedures. Importantly, Respondent City of Alameda has not identified valid current CEQA implementation procedures as required by Public Resources Code § 21082 and CEQA Guidelines § 15022 and therefore have not demonstrated the lead agency delegated authority necessary to exercise the discretion purportedly relied upon herein;
28. Absent duly adopted and implemented CEQA procedures, the City lacks authority to issue CEQA determinations, exemptions, and related discretionary approvals in the manner challenged in this action.
Impermissible Ultra Vires Transformation of the Redevelopment Program
29. Alameda Point is subject to specific federal commitments, redevelopment obligations, homeless-assistance requirements, and public-trust responsibilities that were incorporated into local law through the MSP and related implementation measures.
30. Respondent City of Alameda therefore exceeded the limited authority granted by that framework and used successive approvals and exemptions to implement redevelopment changes inconsistent with the governing plans upon which their authority depends.
Need for Immediate Judicial Intervention
31. Petitioners bring this action to enforce mandatory duties imposed by federal and state law, restore compliance with the governing redevelopment framework, protect public assets and federally protected homeless-assistance commitments, protect the interests of the supportive-housing residents whom the RESHAP Project was created to serve, and compel the City to proceed in the manner required by law.
32. Respondent City of Alameda progressively transformed a lawfully approved redevelopment program into one materially exceeding the limited authority conferred by the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework, then advanced that transformation through successive approvals, administrative determinations, subordinate agreements, and irreconcilable, self-certified representations to different governmental agencies, funding programs, and regulatory bodies.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
9 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
33. This Petition seeks comprehensive judicial review of the challenged governmental actions to ensure that redevelopment at Alameda Point is measured against the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework, that the environmental review addresses the redevelopment actually being implemented, that the commitments upon which Alameda Point was conveyed remain enforceable, and that the vulnerable populations for whom those federal homeless-assistance protections were established remain protected, rather than the City's shifting characterizations of the same operative redevelopment.
34. Petitioners therefore seek issuance of appropriate writ and equitable relief vacating the challenged approvals and related CEQA determinations, requiring lawful review of the whole of the action, restoring compliance with the governing redevelopment framework and applicable law, preventing further implementation of unauthorized redevelopment activities, and granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
A. Petitioners
35. Petitioner Tod Hickman is a Navy submarine warfare veteran, retired environmental regulator, former elected water district official, former Alameda Point commercial tenant, and NAS Alameda historic-preservation advocate. He has participated extensively in public proceedings concerning redevelopment at Alameda Point, including proceedings relating to the RESHAP Project, West Midway, Alameda Food Bank, and related redevelopment approvals challenged herein.
36. Petitioner Shelby Sheehan is a semi-retired environmental consultant, former environmental regulator, NAS Alameda historic-preservation advocate, environmental- justice advocate, and Alameda County resident. She has submitted written comments and provided public testimony concerning redevelopment at Alameda Point, including the actions challenged in this Petition.
37. Petitioners have participated extensively in administrative proceedings concerning Alameda Point redevelopment and have monitored implementation of the challenged approvals and related governmental actions.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
10 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
38. Petitioners bring this action in the public interest to compel Respondents’ compliance with CEQA, Code of Civil Procedure § 1085, and binding federal, state, and local laws governing redevelopment of Alameda Point.
39. Petitioners further bring this action as taxpayers seeking to prevent unlawful governmental actions affecting public property, public assets, federally conveyed property interests, and redevelopment obligations associated with Alameda Point.
B. Respondent City of Alameda
40. Respondent CITY OF ALAMEDA (“City”) is a charter city and municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California.
41. At all relevant times, the City purported to act as the lead agency under CEQA with respect to the approvals, exemptions, permits, conveyances, redevelopment actions, agreements, and related governmental conduct challenged herein.
42. Petitioners allege that the City approved, authorized, implemented, ratified, or facilitated the challenged actions without proceeding in the manner required by law, without legally required environmental review, without required implementing procedures, and in excess of its lawful authority.
43. Petitioners further allege that the challenged actions conflict with binding federal conveyance requirements, redevelopment restrictions governing Alameda Point, and applicable provisions of state and local law.
44. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the City Council approved, authorized, ratified, directed, implemented, or otherwise participated in one or more of the challenged actions alleged herein.
C. Real Parties in Interest — Federally Designated Homeless-Assistance Beneficiaries
45. Real Parties in Interest are: ALAMEDA POINT COLLABORATIVE, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation; BUILDING FUTURES WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation; OPERATION DIGNITY, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation;
46. These parties are the supportive-housing providers designated through the federally approved homeless-assistance framework governing Alameda Point redevelopment. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
11 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
47. Petitioners allege that these entities were allocated specific housing units, land interests, implementation rights, or related benefits through the Standards of Reasonableness process and associated federal redevelopment framework governing the RESHAP Project.
48. Petitioners further allege that the challenged actions materially affect, alter, encumber, reduce, substitute, reallocate, or otherwise interfere with federally mandated housing allocations and associated ownership interests protected under the governing federal redevelopment framework constituting federal preemption and illegal conversion of a private asset.
D. Improper Real Party in Interest — Alameda Emergency Food
49. Real Party in Interest Alameda Emergency Food (DBA Alameda Food Bank) is a California nonprofit public benefit organization whose Alameda Point property interests, approvals, entitlements, and redevelopment actions are challenged in this Petition.
50. Petitioners allege that the Food Bank’s asserted Alameda Point interests arise from improper municipal approvals and actions undertaken by Respondents and challenged herein, constituting improper gift of a public asset.
51. Petitioners allege that this entity knowingly relied upon unlawful approvals, transactions, redevelopment actions, and conveyances challenged herein and claim interests that may be affected by the relief sought in this proceeding.
E. Real Parties in Interest — Private Redevelopment Beneficiaries
52. Real Parties in Interest are: BC WEST MIDWAY LLC, a California limited liability company; BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL CALIFORNIA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation.
53. These parties are entities that have improperly received, benefited from, participated in, or seek to benefit from the redevelopment approvals, conveyances, density allocations, land- use decisions, redevelopment actions, agreements, and related governmental conduct challenged in this Petition.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
12 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
54. Petitioners allege that these entities knowingly relied upon unlawful approvals, transactions, redevelopment actions, and conveyances challenged herein and claim interests that may be affected by the relief sought in this proceeding.
55. Petitioners allege that under the federal homeless-assistance framework governing Alameda Point, fee-title interests in RESHAP property are restricted to recipients designated through the federally approved Standards of Reasonableness process and related federal conveyance framework,
56. Petitioners further allege that the challenged actions affect property interests, allocations, and redevelopment rights governed by that framework.
57. Petitioners additionally allege that these entities are improperly benefiting from the federal homeless-assistance framework governing Alameda Point, fee-title interests in RESHAP property are restricted to recipients designated through the federally approved Standards of Reasonableness process and related federal conveyance framework.
F. Improper Real Party in Interest — Stardust Commons, L.P
58. STARDUST COMMONS, L.P. is a California limited partnership and a project-specific "Developer Affiliate" created pursuant to the challenged redevelopment agreements to implement the challenged RESHAP redevelopment.
59. Petitioners allege that Stardust Commons, L.P. derives its interests through MidPen Housing Corporation, which is not a federally designated Supportive Housing Provider or beneficiary under the governing federal redevelopment framework. Petitioners further allege that the creation and use of Developer Affiliates to implement and acquire interests in the federally mandated RESHAP Project materially departs from and exceeds the authority granted under that governing framework.
G. Unknown Real Parties in Interest
60. Petitioners are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Respondents and Real Parties in Interest sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue such parties by fictitious names. Petitioners will amend this Petition to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
61. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each Respondent, Real Party in Interest, and DOE party acted as the agent, employee, representative, successor, 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
13 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE affiliate, partner, joint venturer, beneficiary, or co-participant of one or more of the remaining parties and acted with their knowledge, consent, authorization, or ratification.
H. Inclusivity of Real Parties in Interest
62. To the extent any other person, agency, or corporate entity holds a contract, property, or development interest in the West Midway or RESHAP site footprints, such parties are adequately represented by the master entities named herein, or are included fictitiously as DOES 1 through 50.
63. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21167.6.5, Petitioner has joined every applicant and approval recipient identified on the face of the official Notice of Determination issued by Respondent City of Alameda for the entitlements challenged in this action. Petitioner is legally protected from any subsequent assertion that an indispensable party has been omitted from this action, as the burden to accurately identify all necessary parties on the public CEQA notice rests solely upon Respondent City of Alameda.
I. Jurisdiction and Venue
64. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1085, Public Resources Code § 21168.5, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1060.
65. Petitioners seek writ, declaratory, and related relief arising from Respondents’ failures to proceed in the manner required by law, unlawful reliance on CEQA exemptions, ultra vires governmental conduct, and violations of controlling federal, state, and local law.
66. Venue is proper in Alameda County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 393 and 394 because the challenged approvals, redevelopment actions, conveyances, exemptions, and related governmental conduct occurred in Alameda County and the affected property is located in Alameda County.
67. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law and therefore seek extraordinary relief from this Court.
III. THE CHALLENGED PROJECT(S)
68. Redevelopment of Alameda Point remains governed by the federal-to-local redevelopment framework described above, including the Base Reuse Plan, the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), redevelopment 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
14 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE agreements, land-use regulations, housing obligations, and related implementation requirements. The challenged Project(s) is/are located at Alameda Point, the former Naval Air Station Alameda, an approximately 2,107-acre former United States Navy installation transferred to the City of Alameda
through a federally governed
redevelopment process involving BRAC,
the McKinney-Vento Act, the Navy
Economic Development Conveyance
Agreement, environmental review, land-
use planning, and related implementation
requirements.
69. Alameda Point is surrounded by the San Francisco Bay, the Seaplane Lagoon, and the Oakland Inner Harbor Estuary. The western portion includes a 511-acre federal nature reserve containing a federally protected California least tern nesting site.
70. The challenged Phase A Project is one component of the ongoing redevelopment program occurring within Tract 8696 and Alameda Point and is legally, physically, and functionally connected to Phase B of the West Midway redevelopment, the federally mandated RESHAP Project, the Alameda Food Bank Project on Parcel 23, shared infrastructure, public improvements, and related redevelopment activities occurring throughout Tract 8696 and the rest of Alameda Point.
71. Governance of the Specific Plan. The Project is governed by the 2017 Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("MSP"). Chapter 8 provides as follows:
"The Specific Plan serves as a regulatory document for the development of the Plan Area and provides guidance for the City, developers and builders for Plan Area development. All private and public investment and improvements in the Plan Area will be required to be consistent with the regulations, standards and guidelines in this Specific Plan."
"This Specific Plan's chapters, procedures, regulations, standards and specifications shall supersede the relevant provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) as they currently exist or may be amended in the future.... Where the Specific Plan and the AMC are inconsistent, the Specific Plan shall prevail." Regarding CEQA. "Subsequent discretionary project approvals required by this Specific Plan will require appropriate environmental review under CEQA."
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
15 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
72. Local discretionary authority is further limited by the governing federal-to-local redevelopment framework under state law, and must remain consistent with the Specific Plan or be subject to judicial invalidation.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
73. The challenged “Phase A Project” is
identified by the City of Alameda as PLN25-
0256, West Midway Phase A at Alameda
Point, located within the Main Street
Neighborhood Specific Plan area (in yellow
on map below) and Vesting Tentative Map
Tract 8696. (See 12/08/25, Item #2025-5598)
74. The Planning Board purported to “approve”
the Phase A Project, including the vesting tentative map, design review, and street names; claiming no further review is needed pursuant to “…the streamlining provisions of PRC §§ 21166 and 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15183” under the Program EIR and the General Plan Update 2040 EIR.
75. The Phase A Project is a 100% market-rate residential development consisting of the proposed construction of 284 residential units on an approximately 12.4-acre portion of the West Midway Project site located at the southwest corner of West Midway Avenue and Main Street. (See orange star on map.)
76. As described in the December 8, 2025 Item Summary Report, before this latest purported "approval," the Planning Board, on or about May 22, 2023, approved a 478 Development Plan for the larger West Midway market-rate project for redevelopment of approximately 26 acres (i.e., four acres more than approved in the Specific Plan) for 478 market-rate residential units and 10,000 square feet of "commercial corner" uses with less than one acre of open space.
77. Earlier Development Plans (2018–2022) identified the project as 290 residential units on the originally approved 22-acre site adjacent to Pan Am Way, together with 500,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, consistent with the maximum number of residential units authorized under the approved redevelopment framework.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
16 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
78. However, even the earliest Development Plans already departed from the Specific Plan by relocating the market-rate developer's Low- and Very Low-Income inclusionary housing obligation to the RESHAP Project.
79. 100% Market Rate Residential Violates Framework. Pursuant to the federal-to-local framework, new residential development must integrate mixed-use commercial elements and open space throughout the neighborhood, with 25% of the units for inclusionary housing, including 16% very low/low units with
similar density and design within the market-rate
parcel.
80. Illegal RESHAP Displacement. The 12.4 acre
Phase A Project location adjacent to Main Street
(See Phase A Exh. 2 at right), currently occupies
the rightful location of the federally-encumbered
location of the RESHAP Project parcel as
codified in the Specific Plan (See Section V)
B. PLANNING BOARD EXCEEDED DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY
81. Specific Plan limitations and CEQA requirements for further review notwithstanding, the Plan also limits the Planning Board's approval authority to “…final site layout, street design, building design and landscaping"; and does not authorize the Planning Board (or staff) to make CEQA determinations or other legislative approvals such as vesting tentative maps.
82. Further, neither the Alameda Point EIR and General Plan EIR authorize expansion of the maximum residential units at Alameda Point, nor authorize conversion of the RESHAP federal entitlement or incur debt for Brookfield’s inclusionary housing obligations.
C. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND FOR PHASE A PROJECT
83. Following additional subsequent applications and proceedings, on December 8, 2025, the Planning Board considered Item #2025-5596 for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map approval, and Street Names approval for the Phase A Project.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
17 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
84. The Item Summary report lists the prior actions relevant to the Project as follows (see Petitioners’ errata and corrections in bold):
• February 2014 City Resolution No. 14891, City Council adoption of the Certified Alameda Point Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 201312043) ("APP FEIR") under CEQA, California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.,
• March 2017, City Council approved the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan which establishes the City's specific development policies and standards for development of the area bounded by West Tower Avenue, Pan Am Way, and Main Street (the "Main Street Neighborhood"), stating “One of the primary objectives of the Specific Plan is to facilitate the consolidation and rebuilding of the existing (200-unit) supportive housing that is currently scattered across 34 acres of the Main Street Neighborhood in 70+ year old deteriorating housing (RESHAP)”.(correction/addition: RESHAP is a mandated is a federal entitlement set-aside that the City is responsible to pay for, build, and transfer in simple fee title to the Supportive Housing Providers. It is legally independent and physically separate from the Developer’s requirement to provide 25% inclusionary affordable new mixed use residential units; as limited by the Alameda Point EIR--so says as certified above--to 90 inclusionary affordable/267 Market Rate given 800 new units at Site A and 258 existing units at baseline)/ units and • I n 2018, the Planning Board and City Council approved a Development Plan and Development Agreement for the RESHAP project for a 8-acre (correction: 10+ acre) site at the corner of West Midway and Main Street to allow 309 multi-family units including 201 replacement units and 108 new units.(correction: 200-unit RESHAP site plus 67 Developer AH units) • December 2021 City Resolution No. 15841, the City Council certified a FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021030563) ("General Plan Update EIR") under CEQA,…
• N ovember 2022, the City Council approved the Alameda Housing Element for years 2023- 2031. Housing Element Program #1 commits the City of Alameda to take all necessary actions to facilitate and expedite the construction of 1,482 housing units on Site A, the RESHAP project site, and the West Midway project site (correction: the Housing Element did not assign specific unit counts to any one area of the former Base)
• ( correction/addition: May 2023 , Planning Board Resolution for relocated 8.5 acre parcel next to Pan Am Way with 309 units at RESHAP)
• September 2023, City Council adopted Disposition and Development Agreement ("ODA") (Ordinance 3347) and Development Agreement ("DA") (Ordinance 3348) for the development of approximately 26 acres of land for the West Midway project.
• December 2023, the Planning Board approved an amendment to the RESHAP development plan to increase the total number of units from 309 to 332 including 201 replacement units and 131 new units (correction: the additional units are used to satisfy the Developer’s L/VL inclusionary affordable housing requirements and this item treats RESHAP as discretionary inclusionary affordable housing). • In March 2024, the City Council amended the RESHAP development agreement to be consistent with the development plan and DDA.
• In January 2024, the City Council approved Vesting Large Lot Tentative Map Tract 8696, that subdivided a 160 acre parcel into 23 lots and three remainder parcels. Lots 10 - 17 of the approved Tract 8696 make up the 8 lots and streets in Phase A that are subject to this Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map application.(correction/addition: Lot 23 of Tract 8696 is the Food Bank parcel on the other side of Pan Am Way in the Historic District, joining it as a directly related project) • The West Midway site is located within the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan. The site is designated as Mixed-Use in the General Plan and zoned AP-MS, Alameda Point - Main Street District.
The West Midway Property is a Housing Opportunity Site and a priority program in the Housing Element….
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
18 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE D. CEQA DETERMINATION AND INVALID NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
85. On December 8, 2025, the Planning Board concluded that the environmental effects of the challenged Project had previously been evaluated through the Alameda Point Project Final Environmental Impact Report and the General Plan 2040 Update Environmental Impact Report.
86. The Draft Resolution (Exh. 9) states that no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Codes §§ 21083.3 and 21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15183, claiming “consistency with the Specific Plan” and the Alameda Point EIR.
87. Planning staff Henry Dong, Planner III, thereafter filed a Notice of Determination ("NOD") reflecting the approval and a CEQA determination and describing Phase A as a stand-alone project “consisting of construction of 62 residential buildings containing 284 residential units on an approximately 12.4-acre portion of the West Midway Project site”, apparently “fully tiering” from the 12-year old Program EIR.
88. The NOD was filed with the State Clearinghouse on or about December 10, 2025 and was filed with the Alameda County Clerk on January 6, 2026.
89. The State Clearinghouse record identifies the Alameda Point Program EIR (SCH No. 2013012043), and related projects as: the Pacific Fusion Project at Site B (commercial use within the Enterprise District; blue area on the above zoning map; ~0.5 miles from the Phase A Project), the Pyka Use Permit (commercial use adjacent to Seaplane Lagoon; orange area on the map; ~ one mile from the Phase A Project) as related projects.
90. Neither the State Clearinghouse record nor the County CEQA filing identifies the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment, Alameda Food Bank Project, remaining West Midway phases, or the unified Tract 8696 redevelopment, notwithstanding their physical proximity, shared infrastructure, coordinated approvals, and interdependent implementation.
E .NOI SERVED JANUARY 5, 2026
Petitioners served a Notice of Intent (NOI) on January 5, 2026, to file a CEQA Petition and Request for CCP § 1085 Writ of Mandate upon the City concerning the challenged approval and related actions.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
19 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
91. The Notice advised the City that Petitioners intended to challenge the approval on grounds including but not limited to: piecemealing of related redevelopment activities, defective CEQA determinations, ultra vires governmental conduct, and failure to proceed in the manner required by law.
92. This Petition was timely filed on June 5, 2026, and timely amended and served thereafter.
F. PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS CONCERNING THE CHALLENGED APPROVAL
93. The City improperly relied upon streamlining from the 12+year old AP Program EIR and approved Phase A as a stand-alone project notwithstanding its physical, functional, regulatory, environmental, and economic relationship to broader activities occurring within Tract 8696 and Alameda Point.
94. Implementation of Phase A depends upon related governmental actions affecting the federally mandated RESHAP Project, the Alameda Food Bank Project, inclusionary affordable-housing obligations, infrastructure improvements, land-use allocations, redevelopment phasing, and project relationships extending beyond Tract 8696 and affecting Alameda Point more broadly.
95. In approving Phase A and determining that no further environmental review was required, Respondents failed to proceed in the manner required by law, thereby rendering the challenged determination subject to judicial invalidation. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.)
96. The City’s blank “CEQA Checklist” to establish consistency with the Alameda Point Program EIR, CEQA streamlining provisions, and self-certified consistency determinations merely created the appearance of regulatory compliance where none legally exists. Under California law, an agency's self-certification checklist is a tool for objective environmental analysis, not a shield to conceal explicit zoning and density violations.
97. A project is only eligible for Program EIR streamlining if it is fundamentally "within the scope" of the original master analysis (§ 15168(c)). By utilizing a shorthand checklist to clear the West Midway and Site A amendments, the City has intentionally masked a systemic "shell game" that shunts affordable housing allocations, violates absolute density caps, and physically obstructs public access grids. Because the physical and mathematical 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
20 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE reality of the project directly contradicts the text of the self-certified checklist, the City has failed to proceed in a manner required by law, rendering the approval void.
98. These actions raise issues under CEQA including piecemealing, unstable baseline conditions, cumulative impacts, improper streamlining, and failure to evaluate the whole of the action. (PRC §§ 21083.3, 21166, 21168.5; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126, 15130, 15162, 15165, 15183, 15378, and others)
99. These improper government actions substantially increased residential development allocations, shifted inclusionary affordable-housing obligations, altered parcel configurations, changed ownership and beneficiary relationships, introduced prohibited social-service functions into the Project, and converted the federally mandated privately- owned RESHAP parcel into the developers’ allotment for inclusionary affordable housing. 100. CEQA Guidelines § 15040 expressly provide that lead agency authority does not grant an agency new powers independent of those granted by other laws and does not authorize an agency to exercise authority denied by other laws. (CEQA). 101. Further, the City has not identified valid current CEQA procedures as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15022 and therefore have not demonstrated the statutory authority necessary to act as a CEQA lead agency or to exercise the discretion relied upon herein. 102. As stated above, the current configuration materially departs from federal, state, and local regulations governing Alameda Point, and therefore exceeds the City's lawful authority under applicable federal conveyance requirements and CEQA, constituting ultra vires governmental conduct and warranting judicial review and invalidation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) Sections IV and V of this Petition discuss the factual and legal bases of the allegations herein.
G. PETITION NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS (CCP §§ 430.10, 430.30)
103. The challenged actions are subject to judicial review pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21168.5 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559)
104. The challenged claims involve failures to proceed in the manner required by law, defective CEQA determinations, jurisdictional defects, unauthorized governmental actions, and ultra vires conduct subject to judicial nullification.(Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
21 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937; County of Del Norte v.
City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965)
105. The challenged actions include CEQA determinations, Design Review approvals, Vesting Tentative Map approvals, redevelopment implementation decisions, and related governmental actions affecting redevelopment of Alameda Point that Petitioners contend were undertaken without lawful authority or in excess of lawful authority. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.) 106. The Planning Board lacked authority to alter, amend, supersede, or disregard requirements imposed by federal conveyance documents, the governing redevelopment framework, the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan, applicable redevelopment agreements, or CEQA; and further lacks authority under the Specific Plan to approve Vesting Tentative Maps; therefore the NOD that was filed is premature.
(California Clean Energy Committee
v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325.)
107. Because the Petition challenges failures to proceed in the manner required by law pursuant to CCP §1085 and PRC§ 21168.5, jurisdictional defects, unauthorized governmental actions, and ultra vires conduct, procedural defenses based upon statutes of limitation, exhaustion, notice, waiver, finality, or similar doctrines do not bar review of the claims asserted herein under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, 430.30. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311; Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281) 108. Petitioners participated in administrative proceedings concerning redevelopment activities at Alameda Point and submitted written comments, public testimony, administrative correspondence, and other materials concerning the actions challenged herein, 109. To the extent exhaustion of administrative remedies applies, applicable exhaustion requirements have been satisfied. (See AMC § 30-25.1(a); Specific Plan Ch. 8). No further administrative remedy is required following the challenged approval. (Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917; Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281)
110. The City is currently improperly relying on ultra vires actions regarding ongoing development and cannot be insulated from judicial review with public misrepresentations 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
22 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE of compliance. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152; County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965) 111. No vertical residential construction has commenced within Phase A or the RESHAP Project. The redevelopment remains in the infrastructure-construction stage and continues to require additional governmental actions as implementation proceeds.(Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116).
112. Petitioners timely commenced this action within the applicable statute of limitations as it has yet to commence tolling. The City has yet to conduct an operable evaluation of the current and ever-changing redevelopment of the South of West Midway Project, including cumulative effects on the whole of the Alameda Point redevelopment. Further, future review and permitting is still required for all or parts of the challenged project; or otherwise unpermitted activities in excess of the purported approvals have occurred.(Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 22; Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408 )
113. The challenged CEQA determinations, redevelopment assumptions, implementation activities, governmental authority, and jurisdictional facts remain legally and factually disputed and live and current.(Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4 th)
114. Resolution of the foregoing issues requires consideration of the administrative record, governing redevelopment documents, disputed jurisdictional facts, and other matters beyond the face of the Petition, likely including extrinsic fraud, official misconduct, and violations of the False Claims Acts. Dismissal at the pleading stage is therefore improper pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, 430.30. (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730)
115. Petitioners reserve the right to amend this Petition to conform to the administrative record and to assert additional facts, legal theories, and procedural violations disclosed through preparation of the administrative record.
IV. FEDERAL CONVEYANCE/REDEVELOPMENT
COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK
116. Redevelopment of Alameda Point is governed by an integrated federal, state, and local regulatory framework established through the federal Base Realignment and Closure 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
23 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE ("BRAC") process, the federally approved 1996 Community Base Reuse Plan (“Base Reuse Plan”), the Economic Development Conveyance ("EDC") Agreement, the Alameda Point Program EIR and implementing plans, the 2022 amendment to the Surplus Land Act (AB 2319), the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), and related implementing measures.
117. Together, these interdependent and concurrent planning, environmental, and legislative redevelopment documents establish the land-use framework, residential allocations, supportive-housing obligations, infrastructure assumptions, and redevelopment limitations governing Alameda Point and the Main Street Neighborhood. 118. Superseding governance of the local Specific Plan. The Specific Plan serves as the controlling local land-use plan governing redevelopment within the Main Street Neighborhood and codifies implementation of the governing redevelopment framework. (Gov. Code, § 65455.)
119. Within that framework, the Specific Plan provides for a mixed-use neighborhood while separately implementing the federally required RESHAP replacement project consisting of an approximately 200-unit permanent supportive-housing campus for the exclusive benefit of the Collaborating Providers in accordance with the HUD-approved Homeless Entitlement component of the Base Reuse Plan.
120. Accordingly, the City of Alameda’s discretionary authority for project approvals is limited to redevelopment that is consistent with this governing framework. Approvals materially departing from that framework exceed the City's lawful authority and cannot be lawfully approved or implemented.
121. Challenged Redevelopment. The challenged redevelopment is located within the Main Street Neighborhood and, as part of the overall redevelopment of Alameda Point, is governed by the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan, which implements the governing redevelopment framework at the local level. (Gov. Code, § 65455.) 122. Together, these regulatory documents—in accordance with the Base Reuse Plan--form the continuous federal-to-local redevelopment framework that continues to govern redevelopment at Alameda Point and the Main Street Neighborhood. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
24 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 123. The following sections examine each of these frameworks in turn and establish the governing obligations applicable to the challenged approvals, redevelopment within the Main Street Neighborhood area, and Alameda Point as a whole.
A. FEDERAL APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA POINT REDEVELOPMENT THROUGH
THE BRAC AND EDC PROCESS
124. Following closure of the former Naval Air Station Alameda under the federal Base Realignment and Closure ("BRAC") process, redevelopment and conveyance of the former military property east of Main Street and west of Main Street at Alameda Point became subject to a comprehensive federal approval framework governing disposal and reuse of surplus military property.
125. Acting as the designated Local Redevelopment Authority, the City submitted a Community Reuse Plan that incorporated the federally required homeless-accommodation program, and related environmental review documents and implementation measures in support of its application for a No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance ("EDC") from the United States Navy to transfer the former Navy property to civilian use. 126. Under the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and the McKinney-Vento Act, in order for the City of Alameda to receive the massive, free 1,300+ acre land transfer from the Navy under the EDC Agreement until they legally accommodated homeless service providers for a permanent, privately-owned entitlement. The city had to enter into a HUD-approved, legally binding agreement with the Alameda County Homeless Network, which undertook a rigorous screening process to determine the homeless accommodation at the former Navy Base, including at Alameda Point. 127. Federal approval of the EDC application was based upon approval of the “Base Reuse Plan” EDC application submitted to the Navy. The federal BRAC and McKinney-Vento homeless assistance process required the City, as the designated Local Redevelopment Authority, to accomplish two interdependent federal objectives through a single integrated redevelopment program:
1) Economic Development. economically redevelop the former Naval Air Station through the Community Reuse Plan and Economic Development Conveyance, and
2) Permanent Homeless Entitlement. permanently accommodate the federally approved homeless-assistance providers through the HUD-approved homeless- 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
25 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE accommodation process. The governing redevelopment framework was adopted to implement both federal objectives concurrently.
128. First Priority Homeless Entitlement. The permanent homeless entitlement set aside is a federal mandate that served as a condition precedent of transfer of Alameda Point from the Navy to the City of Alameda. The homeless housing providers hold absolute top priority, meaning the city could not legally acquire or develop the rest of the base for commercial profit unless these federal homeless accommodation requirements were fully satisfied. The entitlement was approved by HUD and submitted as part of the 1996 Base Reuse Plan; all alterations must be pre-approved by HUD and cannot be changed by any other parties, in particular at the local level.
129. The redevelopment framework and implementation measures contained in the approved redevelopment program and established the governing redevelopment framework for the Navy property east of Main St and at Alameda Point (shown in the map at right), including the approved land-use program,
residential allocations, homeless-
accommodation commitments,
environmental review, and
implementation requirements that
continue to govern redevelopment of
Alameda Point and the Main Street
Neighborhood to the west.
130. The Community Reuse Plan ("Reuse Plan") described in the following section establishes the continuing governing redevelopment framework for Alameda Point, including residential development, economic development, transportation, infrastructure, waterfront access, open space, historic preservation, and the federally required homeless- accommodation program incorporated through Chapter 9 of the Reuse Plan, the HUD- approved Standards of Reasonableness, and related federal approvals.
1. 1996 Community Reuse Plan Established Governing Redevelopment Framework 131. The 1996 Community Reuse Plan ("Reuse Plan") was prepared by the City and approved through the federal BRAC and Economic Development Conveyance ("EDC") process as
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
26 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE the governing redevelopment program for the portions of the former Navy Base, including the portion west of Main St for the area now known as Alameda Point. 132. The Reuse Plan governs the entirety of the approximately 1,817 acres of the former federal military property on the west side of Alameda (shown at right), including the Naval Air Station at Alameda Point (west
of Main St) and federal military properties
east of Main Street (including the Coast
Guard Housing, East and North Housing,
FISC Alameda) with a projected total
residential inventory of 2,737 residential
units distributed among subareas. (See
Reuse Plan, Tables 2-1, 2-2)
133. The Reuse Plan (as amended) organizes Alameda Point into designated planning areas and establishes the land-use constraints, residential allocations, and redevelopment areas that are implemented through the local Alameda Point Program EIR, the Master Infrastructure Plan, zoning regulations, and the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”), with the residential unit allocation for Alameda Point totaling a maximum of 1,425 units with 268 existing units at baseline, leaving 1,157 units available for new residential development in accordance with the EDC Agreement. 134. The governing redevelopment framework established by the Reuse Plan has been repeatedly reaffirmed and incorporated into subsequent federal conveyance documents, environmental review, redevelopment agreements, infrastructure planning, legislative enactments, and local land-use regulations,
135. 2022 Surplus Lands Act Amendment. In 2022, the state of California affirmed the supremacy of the controlling federal framework. The 2022 amendment (sponsored by the City of Alameda), exempts Alameda Point from the state affordable housing requirements due to the controlling federal redevelopment requirements to develop the Point in accordance with the Base Reuse Plan, the elements of which are described below
.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
27 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Reuse Plan New Residential Development Framework
136. The residential redevelopment program consists of 68 existing residential units and 1,157 new mixed-use residential development with 25% inclusionary housing requirements, as well as the federally approved 200-unit replacement supportive-housing program, each of which is a separate residential program serving separate redevelopment functions within the governing redevelopment framework.
137. New Mixed-Use Residential Units. The Reuse Plan establishes the residential redevelopment framework governing Alameda Point by allocating mixed-use residential development among designated planning areas and defining the residential program to be implemented through subsequent environmental review and local planning documents. 138. Inclusionary Housing Requirements for New Residential Development. The Reuse Plan provides that new mixed-use residential development is subject to the City's inclusionary affordable-housing requirements; while the federally approved homeless- accommodation program remains separately governed through Chapter 9 of the Reuse Plan, the HUD-approved Standards of Reasonableness, and related federal approvals.
Renewed Hope Settlement: 25% Inclusionary Units for New Market-Rate Development 139. In 2001, the City entered into the Renewed Hope Settlement resolving litigation challenging the adequacy of its 1999 environmental review of affordable housing at Alameda Point.
140. The settlement imposed an additional local requirement that 25% of all new residential development be developed as inclusionary affordable housing. 141. The settlement further expressly recognized that this inclusionary affordable-housing obligation was in addition to, and legally and physically separate from, the City's federal obligation to provide a permanent 200-unit supportive-housing campus for the Collaborating Providers, with each program serving different populations, purposes, and regulatory requirements.
142. This distinction reflects the fundamental differences between the two programs; The inclusionary housing obligations are directed toward providing housing opportunities for income-qualified households; while the federal homeless-assistance framework is designed to preserve provider-based homeless-assistance programs serving qualifying homeless and identified “vulnerable” populations through housing integrated with 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
28 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE supportive services, employment programs, case management, and related facilities, rather than solely on income-based need requiring additional screening. (See Comparison Table, below)
Reuse Plan HUD-Approved Homeless-Accommodation Framework 143. In addition to the general redevelopment program, the Reuse Plan incorporates the federally required homeless-accommodation framework approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") as the top priority for a permanent set-aside s a condition precedent for the free conveyance of Alameda Point. 144. The HUD-approved framework establishes the property interests, housing allocations, provider facilities, supportive-service functions, and operational requirements governing the federal homeless accommodations at Alameda Point and can no longer be modified subject to that federal jurisdiction.
145. Standards of Reasonableness: Approved Providers. Through the federal homeless- assistance planning process, homeless-service organizations submitted requests for property, housing, facilities, and related accommodations. Those requests were evaluated through the HUD-approved Standards of Reasonableness ("SOR"), which identified every organization approved to receive federal homeless-accommodation rights at Alameda Point. The approved accommodations were incorporated into the Community Reuse Plan, the Legally Binding Agreements, and future related federal approvals. 146. Supportive Housing Providers: Sole Federally-Approved Beneficiaries. By the year 2000, all federally approved homeless-accommodation rights at Alameda Point had been relinquished, reassigned or relocated, or otherwise consolidated into the three remaining SOR-approved Collaborating Providers of Supportive Housing: Alameda Point Collaborative, Operation Dignity, and Building Futures with Women and Children. 147. Collectively, these Collaborating Providers (AKA Collaborating Partners) hold the exclusive federally approved homeless-accommodation entitlements remaining at Alameda Point. No other organizations can ever be approved under the federal homeless- accommodation process to receive those entitlements as no others are eligible under the SORs and 1996 approval process.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 148. Permanent and Transitional Housing Programs Only. Pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Reuse Plan the federally approved homeless-accommodation framework for the former Nav Base provides only for permanent and transitional housing programs serving qualifying homeless and special-needs populations together with the associated supportive-service, educational, employment-training, child-care, warehouse, administrative, and related provider-support functions necessary to operate those housing programs.
149. No Emergency Shelter, Overnight Shelter, Day Center, or Drop-In Programs. The approved accommodation program operates through participating providers serving referred and screened individuals enrolled in established homeless-assistance programs. It does not authorize permanent emergency shelters, overnight shelters, homeless day centers, or drop-in programs at Alameda Point. As the ARRA contemporaneously explained, "Only permanent and transitional homeless programs will operate at NAS." (EXHIBIT 1: 07/11/1997 ARRA Memo: "Response to Councilmember Tony Daysog RE: Status of Homeless Housing at NAS Alameda,”) 150. Integration with the Approved Economic Redevelopment Program. The 1996 Alameda County Coalition of Homeless Providers exempted City of Alameda from drop- in service requirements due to the lack of accessibility and to not overburden the former Navy base as a magnet for social services to preserve the Point as intended for economic development. Therefore, the federally approved homeless-accommodation framework intentionally limited accommodations to the SOR-approved Collaborating Providers and their enrolled program participants.
151. By integrating permanent and transitional supportive housing into the overall redevelopment program, rather than permitting emergency shelters, overnight shelters, day centers, or drop-in facilities, the framework fulfilled the federal homeless-accommodation requirements while preserving the Community Reuse Plan's concurrent economic redevelopment objectives.
152. Separate Federal Supportive-Housing and Local Inclusionary Affordable-Housing Obligations. The governing redevelopment framework consistently treats the federally required supportive-housing program and the City's inclusionary affordable-housing requirements as separate and independent housing obligations. They arise from different 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
30 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE legal authorities, serve different populations, fulfill different governmental purposes, and operate under different ownership, funding, and regulatory requirements. 153. Regulatory Distinctions Between Replacement Supportive Housing and Inclusionary Affordable Housing. The accompanying table shows the difference between Supportive housing programs and inclusionary housing requirements. These separate obligations are the foundational assumptions of subsequent redevelopment planning, environmental review, housing implementation, and supportive-housing planning at Alameda Point.
Characteristic Replacement Supportive Housing
(RESHAP) Inclusionary Affordable Housing
Legal Basis Federal replacement homeless-
accommodation entitlement
State and local affordable-housing
requirements
Obligor City replacement obligation Developer inclusionary obligation Purpose Replacement supportive housing Income-restricted housing Ownership &
Intended Beneficiaries
Fee-simple replacement for designated
Collaborating Providers and qualifying
supportive-housing residents
Ownership and occupancy governed by
applicable affordable-housing program
requirements
Eligibility, Services &
Design
HUD-Continuum-of Care target
populations; vulnerability, integrated
service delivery; accessibility, case
management; program space
Low income qualification; maximizing unit
count; residential occupancy; conventional
housing design;
Redevelopment
Function
Independent federal replacement
obligation
Affordable-housing component of market-
rate development
Funding & Grant
Focus
Homeless assistance; replacement
obligations; supportive service delivery,
operational subsidies
Housing production; affordability priorities;
income restrictions, neighborhood amenities
zero supportive service funding.
Operations HUD supportive housing and services
program
State and local affordability compliance-
market rentals subsidize low income set-
asides
Re
use Plan Historic Preservation, Open Space, and Environmental Protection Elements 154. The Reuse Plan further requires redevelopment at Alameda Point to preserve the historic district, maximize public access to the waterfront, retain significant view corridors, protect public-trust resources, preserve open space, wetlands, habitat areas, and biological resources.
155. These objectives are incorporated into the approved redevelopment program through appropriate planning, preservation, and implementation measures. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
31 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 156. As stated above, the City sought conveyance of Alameda Point through the Economic Development Conveyance ("EDC") program established under the federal Base Realignment and Closure ("BRAC") disposal process.
157. The City's EDC application incorporated the Community Reuse Plan, the HUD-approved homeless-assistance framework, environmental review, and related implementation measures as the federally approved redevelopment program for Alameda Point. 158. On or about June 6, 2000, the United States Navy and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority executed the Economic Development Conveyance Memorandum of Agreement ("EDC MOA"). The EDC MOA recites that the Authority applied for a no-cost Economic Development Conveyance for portions of NAS Alameda "to be used and developed in accordance with the 'NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan' ('Reuse Plan')."
159. The EDC MOA implemented conveyance of Alameda Point pursuant to the federally approved redevelopment program and incorporated the redevelopment commitments, homeless-assistance obligations, land-use assumptions, implementation measures, and related requirements upon which federal approval of the conveyance was granted. 160. 1990 Environmental Baseline Adopted. Resolution No. 13228, also adopted June 6, 2000, established the environmental baseline for military reuse planning and determined that 1990 constituted the last year of full military operations because anticipated base closure caused military operations to be curtailed thereafter. 161. Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance for Alameda Point ("LIFOC"). The City further determined that Alameda Point thereafter remained in interim reuse under a Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance ("LIFOC") pending implementation of the federally approved redevelopment program.
162. Interim Uses Not To Be Considered as “Baseline” or “Conforming”. Interim uses during the LIFOC period reflected temporary occupancy pending implementation of the approved redevelopment program and do not alter the governing redevelopment framework established through the Community Reuse Plan and federal conveyance process; and therefore cannot be considered a “conforming” permanent use. Interim uses cannot operate for more than 5 years (See Specific Plan Ch. 8.4.15)
2. 2000 Economic Development Conveyance Memorandum of Agreement (“EDC MOA”) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
32 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 163. Continuing Governance. Subsequent redevelopment planning documents, environmental review, redevelopment agreements, legislative enactments, zoning regulations, subdivision approvals, and local implementation measures derive from and remain subject to the governing redevelopment framework incorporated into the federal conveyance structure. 164. East-West Geographic Separation of Federal Affordable Housing and Supportive Housing. By 2000, implementation of the federally approved redevelopment program reflected a geographic and functional separation between federal affordable-housing obligations and federal homeless-assistance obligations. Federal affordable-housing entitlements were assigned to parcels east of Main Street and disposed of before 2012. 165. This geographic allocation implemented the governing redevelopment framework by maintaining the legal, functional, and physical separation between the federally required supportive-housing program and affordable-housing obligations. That separation remained a foundational assumption of the federal conveyance documents, subsequent environmental review, redevelopment planning, and local implementation measures. 166. Federal Mandate to City to Provide Permanent Private Supportive Housing. As a condition of receiving the No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance under the EDC MOA, the City is required to permanently satisfy the federally approved homeless- accommodation requirements by funding, constructing, and conveying in fee simple a privately owned permanent supportive-housing campus for the exclusive benefit of the SOR-approved Collaborating Providers. (See: Reuse Plan Amendment 2009) 167. As of 2000, the Collaborating Providers held interim 59-year Legally Binding Agreements for 200 “dilapidated” former Navy housing on 34 acres of developable land in the Main Street Neighborhood area, preserving the federally approved 200-unit supportive-housing entitlement pending permanent implementation and land transfer (See: Resolution 13585).
Those interim leasehold interests were subsequently to be relinquished as a "fair exchange" for the City's transfer in fee simple title to the SOR-approved Providers of a permanent privately-owned supportive-housing replacement campus as required under the federal redevelopment framework.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
33 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 168. In 2012, the United States Navy and the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ("ARRA")
executed Amendment No. 2 to the Economic
Development Conveyance Memorandum of
Agreement ("EDC MOA"), which governed the
conveyance of the former Navy Base west of Main
Street (Alameda Point, shown at right)
169. The Amendment memorialized the parties' agreed implementation of the governing redevelopment framework for Alameda Point—west of Main Street-- accepted through the EDC, including the mixed-use redevelopment program, residential development framework, affordable-housing obligations, permanent supportive-housing implementation, economic-development objectives, historic preservation, Public Trust implementation, infrastructure planning, and related redevelopment commitments carried forward from the Base Reuse Plan into the Alameda Point Program EIR and subsequent implementation documents.
Overa
ll Residential Development Framework Total = 1,425 Units 170. Conveyance of Alameda Point. Consistent with the accompanying Term Sheet, Amendment No. 2 implemented the agreed mixed-use redevelopment framework for Alameda Point, including an overall residential development program of approximately 1,425 residential units, while preserving the governing land-use allocations and redevelopment assumptions from the Base Reuse Plan for the position of the former Navy Base west of Main street; and upon which the Alameda Point Program EIR was subsequently prepared (EXHIBIT 2: 01/10/2012 “Russo Term Sheet Memo” to ARRA). 171. Residential Baseline. The agreed redevelopment framework further recognized an existing residential baseline of 268 residential units, consisting of 200 federally approved permanent and transitional supportive-housing units together with 68 City-owned market- rate rental units, including 18 historic Officers' Quarters retained as part of the historic- preservation program.
172. New Market-rate and Inclusionary Units. The residential development program further contemplated construction of approximately 1,157 new residential units, consisting of exactly 1,067 new market-rate units and 290 new inclusionary affordable-housing units
3. 2012 EDC MOA Amendment No. 2 Agreed-Upon Redevelopment Framework 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
34 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE (25% per the Renewed Hope Settlement). These residential development assumptions formed the basis for preparation of the Alameda Point Program EIR. 173. Separate Inclusionary Housing and Supportive Housing Obligations. Amendment No. 2 preserved the legal, physical, and financial separation between the City's inclusionary affordable-housing obligations applicable to new mixed-use residential development and the City's continuing federal obligation to permanently accommodate the SOR-approved Collaborating Providers. Consistent with the agreed redevelopment framework, inclusionary affordable housing remained the responsibility of new residential development, while permanent supportive housing remained a separate federal obligation of the City of Alameda as a condition precedent for conveyance of Alameda Point.
Permanent Supportive Housing Implementation for Replacement Campus 174. “RESHAP” Negotiations. At the time Amendment No. 2 was executed, ARRA and the Collaborating Providers were actively negotiating permanent implementation of the City's continuing federal supportive-housing obligation. Those negotiations contemplated the negotiated "fair exchange" described above, whereby the Collaborating Providers would relinquish their interim leasehold interests in exchange for a permanent, privately-owned supportive-housing replacement satisfying the City's obligations under the federal redevelopment framework.
175. Exclusive SOR-Approved Beneficiaries. Amendment No. 2 continued implementation of the federally approved homeless-accommodation program exclusively for the SOR- approved Collaborating Providers. The agreed redevelopment framework neither created nor authorized additional SOR-approved providers, beneficiaries, or federally approved homeless-accommodation entitlements beyond those previously approved through the HUD “Standards of Reasonableness”.
Economic Development, Historic Preservation, and Public Trust Implementation 176. Amendment No. 2 further implemented the agreed redevelopment framework by carrying forward the Community Reuse Plan's economic-development objectives together with its historic-preservation program, Public Trust implementation, shoreline and waterfront- access commitments, view-corridor preservation, infrastructure planning assumptions, and related land-use allocations reflected in the accompanying exhibits and incorporated into the subsequent Alameda Point Program EIR.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
35 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 177. Program Environmental Impact Report. Consistent with the agreed redevelopment framework established through Amendment No. 2, the parties required preparation of a comprehensive Alameda Point Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") to evaluate implementation of the Community Reuse Plan as the preferred redevelopment alternative, as described in Section C below.
178. The Program EIR was to evaluate the integrated redevelopment program, including the mixed-use land-use framework, residential development program, permanent supportive- housing implementation, affordable-housing obligations, economic-development objectives, historic preservation, Public Trust implementation, infrastructure planning, transportation improvements, and related redevelopment commitments carried forward through the federal approval process.
B. STATE REAFFIRMATION OF FEDERAL REDEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 179. AB 2319 enacted in 2022. the California Legislature enacted AB 2319 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 494) to “…preserve Alameda Point's unique statutory treatment and exemption…” from the Surplus Land Act requirements because redevelopment remains governed by the federal Base Reuse Plan and related redevelopment framework. (Gov. Code, § 54221 et seq.; Health & Saf. Code, § 33492.125 et seq.)
180. The Surplus Land Act generally requires local agencies disposing of surplus public land to comply with specified notice, negotiation, and inclusionary affordable-housing disposition requirements.
181. AB 1486 Created a Conflict with Alameda Point's Governing Redevelopment Framework. In 2019, AB 1486 amended the Surplus Land Act in a manner that created a conflict between the Act's disposition requirements and Alameda Point's governing redevelopment framework.
182. City-Sponsored Legislation Created a Statutory Exemption for Alameda Point. In response, Assembly Member Mia Bonta introduced AB 2319, legislation sponsored by the City of Alameda, creating a statutory exemption for Alameda Point. 183. Exemption Based Upon Continued Implementation of the Base Reuse Plan. This a
mendment therefore reaffirmed that the Surplus Land Act does not apply to certain 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
36 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Alameda Point property subject to the federal reuse framework and Base Reuse Plan requirement. (Gov. Code § 54221 et sec, Health & Saf. Code § 33492.125 et seq.) 184. Legislative materials supporting AB 2319 further support that implementation of the Base Reuse Plan "was a requirement placed on the City in the conveyance agreement and a condition that remains on the property", warranting the exemption contingent upon development in accordance with the Base Reuse Plan.
185. Redevelopment Inconsistent with the Federal Framework Violates State Law.
Through AB 2319, the Legislature reaffirmed that Alameda Point's unique statutory treatment is premised upon continued implementation of that governing framework.
Redevelopment inconsistent with the Base Reuse Plan’s federal framework violates state law and is subject to the statutory remedies and penalties established by the Legislature. 186. Alameda Point Remains Governed by the Federal Redevelopment Framework.
Alameda Point received the exemption because the Legislature concluded that redevelopment remains governed by the federal conveyance framework, Community Reuse Plan, the AP EIR, and current regulations associated with the property.
C. ALAMEDA POINT PROGRAM EIR FRAMEWORK
187. Consistent with Amendment No. 2 and the agreed redevelopment framework, the City prepared and certified the 2013 DRAFT Alameda Point Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") to “…facilitate redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point consistent with the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan (p. 1-1), and related federal approvals.
188. The Program EIR evaluated the approved redevelopment program as an integrated whole, including land use, residential development, transportation, infrastructure, historic preservation, Public Trust implementation, biological resources, public services, utilities, and cumulative environmental impacts.
1. Scope, Scale and Limits of a Program EIR
189. Program EIR Development Limits. As a Program EIR, it established the environmental baseline, redevelopment assumptions, mitigation measures, and cumulative environmental analysis governing the approved redevelopment program while reserving site-specific environmental review for subsequent discretionary projects. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
37 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 190. To rely solely on the old EIR, the project must match the exact geography, density, land use, and infrastructure assumptions laid out in the original program (CEQA Guidelines § 15158). If a project proposes something that wasn't explicitly anticipated—like taller buildings, relocation or number of housing units—a Supplemental EIR is required. 191. Required Site-Specific Tiering. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15152 and Public Resources Code § 21094, subsequent discretionary redevelopment proposals could tier from the Program EIR only to the extent they remained within the approved redevelopment program and governing redevelopment framework. Tiering did not eliminate the lead agency's continuing duty to evaluate site-specific environmental impacts or determine whether additional environmental review was required.
192. Subsequent Review Required. When examining a later activity under Section 15162- 15164 govern necessary further review; and the baseline for “further analysis” is the project that was analyzed in the original EIR—including when the originally approved project has not yet been fully implemented. (Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937) 193. Program EIR Streamlining Limits. Accordingly, full streamlining from a Program EIR is entirely inapplicable as a matter of law. The Program EIR did not authorize blanket reliance on its environmental analysis for future redevelopment proposals materially departing from the approved redevelopment program. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307; Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.) 194. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Program EIR adopted a comprehensive Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") establishing project-specific mitigation measures, development limitations, and performance standards governing subsequent redevelopment. The MMRP addressed historic resources, Public Trust obligations, biological resources, hazardous materials, transportation, infrastructure, utilities, and other environmental resources.
195. Continuing CEQA Compliance. Subsequent redevelopment approvals were required to demonstrate consistency with the Community Reuse Plan, the Program EIR, and the governing redevelopment framework; implement and enforce the MMRP; and, only to the extent the City possessed lawful discretionary authority to modify the approved 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
38 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE redevelopment program, conduct further environmental review whenever redevelopment exceeded the approved redevelopment assumptions, altered the environmental baseline, or resulted in new or more severe or cumulative environmental impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21081.6, 21166; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15152, 15162–15164.)
2. Alameda Point Approved Project: Current Redevelopment Program 196. The Program EIR divided Alameda Point into planning subareas to implement the approved redevelopment program while achieving the adopted redevelopment objectives of economic development, mixed-use development, housing diversity, transit-oriented development, historic preservation, waterfront-oriented design, and coordinated infrastructure planning.
197. Approved Redevelopment Goals. The approved redevelopment program was designed to facilitate a mixed-use, transit-oriented community; replace jobs lost through base closure with commercial and employment-generating land uses; provide new housing; maximize public waterfront access; preserve public shoreline access and view corridors; protect the NAS Historic District; preserve open space, wetlands, habitat areas, biological resources, and other environmental resources; and provide the transportation and infrastructure improvements necessary to support redevelopment consistent with the Community Reuse Plan and federal remediation requirements.
Approved Project: Full Build-out Development Limits
198. The Alameda Point Program EIR establishes a strict, non-negotiable cap of 1,425 residential units for 3,240 residents, with 5.5 million SF of commercial space for 8900 jobs, and 291 acres of open space. (See Table 2-7 from the AP EIR below).
2. Un
der the federal framework and the EIR, these legally-enforceable regulations limit the City’s discretion to approve projects. Any subsequent project must be measured against
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
39 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE these specific baselines as well as the legal constraints of the federal conveyance structure that protects the Supportive Housing Homeless Entitlement.
Rejected Alternative: 1,928-Unit Residential Alternative 199. The Program EIR necessarily evaluated a range of redevelopment alternatives reflecting differing balances among housing, employment, commercial development, historic preservation, infrastructure, environmental resources, and other redevelopment objectives established through the Community Reuse Plan and implementing planning documents. 200. Among the alternatives evaluated was the Existing 2003 General Plan Alternative providing approximately 1,928 residential units and 6,000 jobs. The City rejected this alternative, instead certifying the Program EIR in accordance with the Reuse plan, for the approved redevelopment program consisting of approximately 1,425 residential units and 8,900 jobs. Therefore, the Program EIR already evaluated and rejected the higher-density residential development scheme above the approved redevelopment program. 201. Independently, the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework establishes a maximum 1,425-unit residential development program for Alameda Point.
Neither additional environmental review nor subsequent planning documents may lawfully expand that approved redevelopment framework.
3. AP EIR Mixed-Use Economic Development Framework
202. Consistent with the Community Reuse Plan and Amendment No. 2, the Program EIR incorporated historic preservation, Public Trust implementation, waterfront access, shoreline resources, open space, wetlands, habitat areas, biological resources, and other environmental commitments as integral components of the approved mixed-use redevelopment program; thereby requiring remaining land be used for mixed-use, commercial, employment-generating, civic, recreational, waterfront, and other redevelopment consistent with the approved redevelopment framework. 203. Historic Resource Protection. The Program EIR required continued protection of the NAS Alameda Historic District through project-specific historic resource review, compatibility standards, preservation of contributing resources, and compliance with the City's Certificate of Approval requirements. (See: Reuse Plan, the City’s General Plan policies, PRC § 21084.1, CEQA §15064.5, and AMC § 30-4.24. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
40 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 204. Preservation of Historic Views and Public Access. The Program EIR further emphasized preservation of historic view corridors, public shoreline access, and other environmental resources as components of the approved redevelopment framework. (See EIR Historic Resources and Aesthetics sections)
Residential Development Program Total=1,425 Units
205. Consistent with the EDC Agreement and the Reuse Plan, as one component of the integrated mixed-use redevelopment program, the Program EIR contemplated a residential development program consisting of 1,425 total residential units, including 268 existing residential units and 1,157 new residential units. (See EXHBIT 2. 2012 “Russo Term Sheet Memo”)
206. Existing Residential Baseline=268. The existing residential program consisted of 200 federally approved permanent and transitional supportive-housing units (i.e., 200 replacement units), together with 68 City-owned market-rate rental units, including the 19 historic Officers' Quarters (“Big Whites”) retained as part of the historic-preservation program.
207. New Mixed-Use Residential Development Program=1067 MR and 290 IH Units. In accordance with Amendment No. 2 and the 25% allocation of inclusionary units due to the Renewed Hope Settlement, the Program EIR evaluated construction of 1,157 new residential units, consisting of 1,067 new market-rate (MR) units and 290 new inclusionary-housing (IH) units, together with the supporting infrastructure (2014 Master Infrastructure Plan, as amended) which included transportation improvements, utilities, public facilities, and open-space improvements necessary to implement the approved mixed-use redevelopment program.
208. Separate Supportive Housing Program. Consistent with the governing redevelopment framework and the Renewed Hope Settlement, the Program EIR separately identified and evaluated the 200-unit federally approved replacement supportive-housing program legally and physically distinct from the developers’ burden to provide 290 new inclusionary housing units, each serving different statutory purposes, beneficiaries, ownership structures, funding mechanisms, and redevelopment mandates. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
41 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
4.Supportive Housing Replacement Campus=RESHAP (“Rebuilding Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point”)
209. As preserved under the federal Base Closure Act and the RESHAP negotiated Agreement, the City has a non-negotiable
duty to construct a 10+-acre specially designed 200-unit “replacement” Supportive Housing campus adjacent to Main Street at Alameda Point to be transfer
red in simple fee title to private ownership for the Collaborating Providers as a “fair-exchange” for relinquishment of the 22+ portion of the 34-acre long-term leasehold for the benefit of the City to create new residential Market Rate/Inclusionary Housing to promote
economic development, jobs, and revenue for the City.
210. The Program EIR evaluated the contemplated 200-unit supportive-housing replacement project for the exclusive benefit of the three
Collaborating RESHAP Providers consisting
of: 120 units for Alameda Point Collaborative, 52 units for Building Futures with Women and Children, and 28 units for Operation Dignity. Consistent with the Base Reuse Plan (as amended), the
replacement project integrated permanent and transitional supportive housing with on-site supportive services, employment training, social enterprise, community
facilities, and related program uses to support long-term housing stability. 211. Private Secluded Enclave=Therapeutic Neighborhood Design. The contemplated replacement project was designed as
a unified, walkable neighborhood centered around a
highly visible and accessible village center serving all three Collaborating Providers.
Housing was organized into provider-specific residential blocks with individual street-
facing
entrances, shared private open space, community gardens, and integrated community facilities to create a safe, secure, and therapeutically supportive residential environment--
and does not include an emergency shelter as part of the project. 212. AP Program EIR (2014): New 200-unit Replacement Campus North of West
Midway. The AP Program EIR contemplated a replacement campus of exactly 200 units on more than 13 acres located north of West Midway, adjacent to Main Street and the Alameda Point Collaborative's Ploughshares Nursery, with the privately -owned campus housing integrated into the surrounding mixed-use neighborhood. (See AP EIR Concept Plan next page, and EXHIBIT 3-Supportive Housing Excerpt from EIR). 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
42 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 213.
Project Relocation after PEIR-Certification
214. After certification of the Program EIR, the contemplated replacement project was relocated from the area adjacent to Main Street north of West Midway next to Ploughshares Nursery to south of West Midway.
215. The relocation preserves the existing CPO housing, utilizes existing infrastructure along Main Street, and retains the same integrated supportive-housing secluded design concept while the replacement project continued through the federal settlement process before later being fully evaluated over the next two years and codified in the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan and AMC 30-4.24 as described in the Specific Plan. 216. Therefore, the replacement project reflected in later planning documents differed materially from the campus evaluated in the Alameda Point Program EIR with respect to location, size, and configuration—expressly barring full-streamlining from the EIR. 217. Protected Exclusive Federal Entitlement. RESHAP’s 200 replacement units and private property rights are not interchangeable or transferable and cannot be lawfully re-assigned to meet the developer’s inclusionary affordable housing burden; nor can the developer or the city re-assign or take away any ownership or land, or benefit from the federally- mandated entitlements that belong exclusively to RESHAP; nor cause the RESHAP Providers to hold or otherwise incur debt that is the burden of the City/City’s developers.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
43 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
5. Zoning Code and Codified Local Implementation Plans Enforce Program EIR 218. Following certification of the Program EIR, the City implemented the approved redevelopment framework through a series of subsequent planning documents, including the 2014 Master Infrastructure Plan and EIR and Zoning Code amendments addressing the Alameda Point Ferry Terminal, the Waterfront and Town Center planning area, the RESHAP redevelopment framework, and the Specific Plan.
2014 MIP capacity for 1,425 total residential units
219. In conjunction with certification of the Program EIR, the City adopted the 2014 Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan ("MIP") to implement the approved redevelopment program. The MIP expressly states that its land-use program is based upon the Reuse Plan (p.4) and the 1,425 residential unit redevelopment program evaluated in the Alameda Point Program EIR.
220. Maximum Capacity Based on 1,425 Units. The MIP established the maximum build-out capacity for the transportation, utility, drainage, public facility, and other backbone infrastructure necessary to implement that approved redevelopment. Development in excess of this capacity cannot be lawfully implemented. (See also Specific Plan Ch 6.1.2) 221. Supportive Housing 200-Units Located Adjacent to Main Street. Further, the Master Infrastructure Plan assumes the supportive housing units will be relocated to a new facility in a secluded, private enclave in the eastern corner of the Main Street Neighborhood Sub- District, away from the Pan Am commercial hub.
222. No Changes upon Amendment. The 2021 Master Infrastructure Plan amendment addressed limited infrastructure and regulatory updates, primarily technical changes in CEQA transportation-impact methodology (Vehicle Miles Traveled), but did not amend the approved redevelopment program, increase the planned residential capacity, expand the planned infrastructure capacity, or otherwise modify the governing redevelopment assumptions established by the Community Reuse Plan, the Program EIR, and the Master Infrastructure Plan, limited to 1,425 total residential units. 223. 2014 Ferry Terminal EIR Addendum. The Ferry Terminal Project required a Supplemental EIR that evaluated and mitigated impacts from moving the Ferry Terminal Project to inside Seaplane Lagoon.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
44 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 224. 2014 Zoning Code AMC § 30-4.24 Amendment. Pursuant to the EIR, AMC § 30-4.24 was amended to codify the AP EIR redevelopment framework. It explicitly mandates that all new development at Alameda Point must strictly comply with the EIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), historic preservation standards, the Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP), and the Specific Plans once incorporated. (Ordinance No. 3333) 225. No plan or zoning code amendments have materially changed this section of the zoning code; the EIR limits remain governing.
6. Codified Local Land Use Plans per GC § 65455
226. Following certification of the Program EIR, Alameda Point redevelopment was implemented through codified local land-use plans, including the Waterfront and Town Center Precise Plan and the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan. 227. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65455 and the City's zoning regulations, those plans implement the approved redevelopment framework and govern subsequent discretionary approvals through legally enforceable land-use standards and consistency requirements. 228. The Zoning Code requires compliance with two local plans, both of which are required to be comprised of “mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood commercial and employment” components:
229. The City of Alameda must enforce its own zoning code governing project approvals.
Where a proposed project is inconsistent with a local Plan, the City lacks the statutory authority to approve the project, rendering any such approval legally invalid as an abuse of administrative discretion.
2014 Waterfront and Town Center Precise Plan (“Precise Plan”) 230. This Precise Plan establishes a transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly destination surrounding the Seaplane Lagoon with strict Public Trust and BCDC regulated public shoreline access and historic preservation requirements. 231. The 2014 approved and codified Plan for the 68-acre “Site A Development” is comprised of 800 new (600 MR/200 IH units) residential units, with 600,000 SF of (mostly ground floor) commercial space, and 15 acres of open space and a shoreline park, including protection of the unique historic and panoramic vistas on the Taxiway. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
45 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 232. Changes to the Site A development plan that do not comply with the Precise Plan cannot be lawfully approved or implemented and are subject to judicial nullification. 2017 Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan
233. The challenged project is located in area governed by this Specific Plan. It serves as the principal local “South of West Midway Project” which implements the governing redevelopment of the Main Street Neighborhood.
234. With the exception of Parcel 23 (Food Bank Parcel), the current Tract 8696 boundary substantially corresponds to the “South of West Midway” redevelopment area identified in the Specific Plan.
235. South of West Midway Project. The Plan codifies and establishes the land-use allocations, development standards, and compatibility requirements governing implementation of both project components, with RESHAP as its own, separately fixed, 200-unit fully-designed development plan next to Main Street; and framework for the “West Midway” new mixed-use residential neighborhood parcel adjacent to the commercial hub at Pan Am Way consisting of 75% market-rate and 25% inclusionary residential units, with approximately 500,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial, civic, open-space, and urban-agriculture uses. (See 2015 ENA) 236. RESHAP 200 Replacement Units. The RESHAP campus is intended to satisfy the City's federal obligation to provide a fully funded, constructed, and privately-owned permanent 200-unit consolidated therapeutically-designed (i.e. private and secluded) supportive housing community to the Collaborating Providers.
237. No Additional New Units Permitted = 267MR/90AH. Consistent with the EDC Conveyance, after the 800 units were allotted to Site A, the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan allocated the remaining 357 new residential units to the West Midway mixed-use neighborhood, consisting of 267 market-rate units and 90 inclusionary affordable units. Of those, 267 were available as Market Rate units, while 90 units must be reserved to meet the developers’ Inclusionary Housing requirements as part of their new mixed-use residential development project.
238. No Waivers or Density Bonus to increase building heights or number of units. No additional new residential units over 1,425 total are allowed at Alameda Point pursuant 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
46 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE to the AP EIR, the federal Reuse Plan, and the 2022 Surplus Lands Act Amendment.
Increases using “Density Bonuses” are prohibited; “waivers” are limited building design waivers for workforce housing only. (See Specific Plan Ch 6.1.2) 239. The lawfully approved distribution of 1,425 units of existing, replacement, and new MR/IH residential units are shown below. Ownership for the units is listed for each type.
Area Market Rate Inclusionary
Affordable Housing Supportive Housing
North of West Midway
(~28 ac)
68*
City of Alameda 0 0
South West Midway-East
(RESHAP=10+ acres) 0 0 200*
Collaborating Providers
South West Midway-West
(New Development=22+acres)
267
Developer
90 Developer/City 0
Site A 600
Developer
200
Developer/City 0
Total=1,425 935 290 200
*Existing / Replacement units
No Other Economic/Homeless Support Projects Allowed
240. Supportive Housing Only. Pursuant to the HUD-approved entitlements incorporated into the Reuse Plan, the only “support” allowed at Alameda Point are those held by the Collaborating Providers on-site for the Supportive Housing residents. 241. No Shelters or Other Social support Services. No emergency shelters, homeless day centers or other emergency services (including “Alameda Emergency Food”) may occupy or operate at Alameda Point (other than as interim sublessees of Alameda Point Collaborative, which currently has relinquished all former leases back to the City). 242. No non-approved Support Providers on Alameda Point Parcels. The City cannot sell or otherwise allow occupation of any economic parcel (not occupied/owned by the Providers) to be operated/leased/owned that is otherwise prohibited, including but not limited to any that were not approved under the 1996 SOR-process. Once a parcel leased by the Collaborating Providers reverts back to the City, that parcel then must be used for economic development.
7. Continued Consistency of the Zoning Code with the Federal Framework (2020–current) 243. Between 2020 and 2022, the City adopted the General Plan 2040, General Plan EIR, 2023–2031 Housing Element, 2021 Master Infrastructure Plan Amendment, 2022 Surplus 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
47 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Lands Act (AB 2319) implementation measures, amendments to AMC § 30-4.24, and related planning documents.
244. 2040 GP EIR Deferred to the AP EIR. Specifically, the GP EIR expressly deferred to and incorporated by reference the Alameda Point PEIR.
245. Housing Element Did Not Assign Specific Unit Counts to Alameda Point. Likewise, neither the General Plan nor Housing Element Update assigned a specific number of Units expressly to Alameda Point—nor could they have lawfully done so. 246. No Subsequent Legislative Modification of the Alameda Point Framework. None of those plans or enactments assigned a revised residential-unit allocation to Alameda Point, amended the approved 1,425-unit residential development framework, increased the infrastructure capacity planned for Alameda Point, modified AMC § 30-4.24 or the adopted specific plans, or otherwise altered the governing redevelopment framework. 247. Accordingly, any subsequent reliance upon later planning amendment documents does not establish legislative authorization to depart from the approved Alameda Point redevelopment program.
D. ALAMEDA POINT REMAINS GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK 248. Alameda Point remains governed by the federal redevelopment framework implemented through the Community Reuse Plan, Amendment No. 2, the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Master Infrastructure Plan, AMC § 30-4.24, the adopted specific plans, and the 2022 legislative reaffirmation of that framework. None of those governing enactments has been materially amended to authorize the redevelopment challenged herein. 249. Respondents cannot lawfully expand their authority through administrative approvals, development-plan amendments, contracts, implementation agreements, or reliance upon generally applicable planning, housing, zoning, or environmental statutes. Such actions do not amend the governing redevelopment framework and cannot lawfully authorize redevelopment inconsistent with the federal, state, and local laws governing Alameda Point.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
48 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE V. ILLEGAL TRANSFORMATION OF ALAMEDA POINT
250. As established above, the challenged approvals arise from a single redevelopment framework originating in the federal homeless-accommodation process, the federal conveyance requirements, the negotiated Renewed Hope Settlement ("RHS"), the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Master Infrastructure Plan ("MIP"), applicable state law, and ultimately the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("Specific Plan").
251. The governing framework delegated only limited implementation authority to the City.
The City lacks discretion to approve plans, permits, agreements, environmental determinations, or related governmental actions that fail to conform to the adopted federal, state, and local redevelopment framework.
252. Instead the City progressively transformed the original redevelopment bargain by segmenting governmental review, allowing the market-rate redevelopment to capture the benefits of the unified redevelopment while shifting corresponding obligations onto the federally mandated RESHAP project.
253. Accordingly, this Petition challenges governmental actions that impermissibly transformed the adopted redevelopment into one that no longer conforms to the governing federal-to-local redevelopment framework, rendering those actions ultra vires and subject to judicial review and appropriate relief.
A. SPECIFIC PLAN LOCAL LIMIT ON CITY DISCRETION
254. The Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") implements and codifies the adopted redevelopment for the “South of West Midway Project”. It provides that redevelopment shall occur consistently with the Reuse Plan, the General Plan, the Master Infrastructure Plan, applicable federal and state law, and the Specific Plan itself. 255. Upon its adoption, the Specific Plan became the controlling local land use framework governing redevelopment within the South of West Midway and carries the full force of law. The City administers the Specific Plan in accordance with the Reuse Plan, the General Plan, and applicable state and federal law. Where the Specific Plan and the Alameda Municipal Code are inconsistent, the Specific Plan prevails. Accordingly, the City's remaining discretion is limited to implementing the redevelopment established by the Specific Plan. (Ch. 8.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
49 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 256. The Specific Plan identifies and builds upon the area's existing community-serving, urban farming, open-space, and historic resources to establish "…a new, distinct Alameda neighborhood…while celebrating and building upon the legacy of the historic fabric." The sub-district seeks to reinforce Alameda Point's goals for a mixed-use neighborhood that is "…economically and socially diverse, environmentally sustainable, and compatible with and supportive of the NAS Alameda Historic District."
257. The Specific Plan establishes two primary interrelated redevelopment objectives for the South of West Midway Project:
(1) West Midway. Creation of a mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood with neighborhood-serving commercial uses, employment opportunities, urban agriculture, parks, open space, varied housing, and community services; and (2) RESHAP. Reconstruction of the existing supportive housing accommodations for APC, Building Futures, and Operation Dignity within a new permanent supportive housing campus. (Ch. 1.)
258. The Specific Plan further provides that "facilitating the Collaborating Partners' relocation and construction of their new campus at their preferred location is one of the main goals of the Specific Plan," thereby allowing the Collaborating Providers to own their own property and construct facilities specifically designed for their long-term needs. (Chs.1, 6.) 259. It further provides that "…[a]ll private and public investment and improvements in the Plan Area will be required to be consistent with the regulations, standards and guidelines in this Specific Plan." (Chs. 1, 8.)
Codified “South of West Midway Project” Carries Full Force of the Law 260. By adopting the Specific Plan, the City further limited its remaining discretion to approving plans, permits, agreements, and related governmental actions conforming to the adopted South of West Midway redevelopment. (Gov. Code, § 65455) 261. The South of West Midway redevelopment consists of the complementary RESHAP and West Midway projects. The mixed-use West Midway neighborhood was planned to support the federally required RESHAP replacement campus, while the RESHAP campus fulfilled the City's federal homeless-accommodation obligations and implemented the Specific Plan's second primary redevelopment objectives. (See also City Council Resolution 16089)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
50 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 262. Fixed RESHAP Project. To accomplish those objectives, the Specific Plan establishes the location, function, scale, intensity, and interrelationship of the principal redevelopment components together with the arrangement of public and private streets, infrastructure, parks, open space, housing, neighborhood-serving commercial uses, urban agriculture, community services, and associated public improvements necessary to implement the adopted South of West Midway Project.
Tract 8696 Integrates the Food Bank Project into the South of West Midway Project 263. The current Tract 8696 redevelopment footprint substantially corresponds to the adopted South of West Midway redevelopment area, except that Parcel 23 extends across Pan Am Way to incorporate the adjoining Food Bank parcel within the Historic District. 264. By incorporating Parcel 23 into the Tract 8696 redevelopment footprint, the challenged governmental actions affect three interconnected redevelopment components—RESHAP, West Midway, and the Alameda Food Bank Project—comprising one integrated redevelopment program.
Independent CEQA Obligations Requires Review of the Altered Redevelopment 265. The South of West Midway redevelopment—including the Phase A Project—forms part of the larger Alameda Point redevelopment program established through the Reuse Plan, the Alameda Point Program EIR, Master Infrastructure Plan, and the Specific Plan.
266. Even if the City possessed discretion to approve the challenged redevelopment—which Petitioners allege it did not—CEQA independently requires further environmental review before additional approvals could lawfully issue because the redevelopment had materially changed, relied upon an unstable redevelopment baseline, and was evaluated through piecemeal approvals rather than as the whole of the action. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162–15165, 15378.)
Governmental Actions Exceed the City's Delegated Authority 267. The challenged governmental actions affecting the West Midway Project, the federally required RESHAP Project, the Phase A Project, and the Alameda Food Bank Project exceeded the City's delegated authority by materially departing from the redevelopment established by the governing redevelopment framework.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
51 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 268. Nevertheless, the City continued implementing that redevelopment while affirmatively representing it as complying with the governing plans, prior environmental review, and applicable legal requirements. Those actions culminated in conversion of the federally required RESHAP replacement entitlement to serve additional local redevelopment objectives, as described below.
269. Those official representations concerning the same redevelopment cannot all be reconciled with one another or with the redevelopment actually approved and implemented. 270. the resulting inconsistencies reflected throughout the administrative record extend beyond the approvals challenged herein and likely warrant further investigation concerning potential extrinsic fraud, illegal gifts of public funds, and violations of the state and federal False Claims Acts.
271. Accordingly, the challenged approval is subject to judicial review and invalidation under Public Resources Code section 21168.5 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
The Resulting Controversy Remains Live and Warrants Judicial Review 272. The challenged redevelopment continues to be implemented, governmental actions undertaken in excess of delegated authority or without required environmental review remain subject to judicial review notwithstanding subsequent approvals, project modifications, continued implementation, or changing administrative characterizations. 273. The controversy therefore remains live and appropriate for judicial intervention, including invalidation through traditional mandamus, relief under CEQA, and other appropriate equitable relief to the full extent allowed by law.
274. The following sections describe the principal components of the integrated redevelopment and the material changes affecting each component. Those components collectively comprise the integrated redevelopment presently being implemented and remain subject to ongoing judicial review.
B. RESHAP: ILLEGAL CONVERSION OF THE FEDERAL HOMELESS-
ACCOMMODATION ENTITLEMENT
275. RESHAP (Rebuilding Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point) originated as a federally mandated homeless-accommodation replacement entitlement arising from the BRAC process, the McKinney-Vento Act, and the Surplus Military Property Screening 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
52 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE and HUD Review ("SOR") process. As a condition precedent of accepting and redeveloping Alameda Point under the Navy No-Cost EDC Agreement, the City is required to deliver the HUD-approved homeless-accommodation mandate for a permanent supportive housing campus to the SOR-approved providers. 276. Priority Superseding Interests. Pursuant to the EDC Agreement, the permanent homeless entitlement is a condition precedent of transfer of Alameda Point from the Navy to the City of Alameda; all other interests are subordinate to this mandate. This entitlement is not subject to modification at the local level.
277. 59-Year Interim LBAs: 200 Units on 34 Developable Acres. By the time of the 2000 EDC Agreement, the Collaborating Providers became the exclusive SOR-approved homeless entitlement beneficiaries, comprised of Alameda Point Collaborative ("APC"), Operation Dignity, and Building Futures for Women and Children. The Providers held HUD-approved Legally Binding Agreements ("LBAs") for 59-year interim leases for 200 “deteriorating” units of former Navy multi-family housing on 34-acres of developable land in the Main Street Neighborhood.
278. “Fair Exchange” Replacement Value The leases and equivalent value preserved the permanent entitlement to be relinquished as a “fair exchange” for an equivalent value fully-built permanent campus; to be relinquished for the equivalent value (over $44 million in 2018) of 22+ developable acres only upon conveyance of the negotiated RESHAP replacement campus in fee simple to the Collaborating Providers of a permanent, specially designed, privately owned 200-unit replacement campus on more than 10 acres adjacent to Main Street. This entitlement is not subject to change at the local level. (See AP EIR, 2014 MIP (as amended), 2017 Specific Plan Ch.8). 279. RESHAP Negotiated Agreement Controls Replacement. Between 2013-2015, the City and the Collaborating Providers negotiated a consolidated replacement strategy under which the existing dispersed facilities would be replaced with a newly constructed 200- unit permanent supportive housing campus to be funded by the City and conveyed to the HUD-approved Collaborating Providers in fee simple and free of debt, as negotiated and codified in the 2017 Specific Plan (Chs 1, 8; See also 2014 RFQ, Item 2018-5428:Exh. 6) 280. Exclusive SOR Beneficiaries. The RESHAP entitlement is reserved exclusively for the Collaborating Providers. Neither the City nor private developers could lawfully reassign 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
53 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE its benefits, burden the Providers with project debt or development costs, or otherwise alter the negotiated replacement entitlement.
281. No Other Entitlements Permitted at Alameda Point. Pursuant to the federal framework, no additional economic-support providers or emergency social-service providers are permitted at Alameda Point except as expressly authorized as interim APC sublessees. (See Specific Plan Section 8.4.15 and EXHIBIT 1. 1997 “Tony Daysog” Memo) 282. Separation of Developer Inclusionary Housing Burden. Inclusionary housing obligations associated with surrounding market-rate redevelopment remained separate responsibilities and could not lawfully satisfy, diminish, replace, encroach upon, or otherwise alter the City's independent duty to fund and deliver the federally required replacement campus to the Collaborating Providers.
283. Illegal Conversion of RESHAP by City of Alameda to Benefit Developer Inclusionary Housing Project. As described below, under the guise of legitimate legislative action, the City subsequently relocated the RESHAP Project from its preferred site, reduced its acreage, increased unit size and density, integrated it in Tract 8696 with the Alameda Food Bank Project, shifted the market-rate developer's inclusionary housing land, infrastructure, and vertical development obligations onto the RESHAP Project. 284. This materially different exchange became the economic foundation for the successive redevelopment agreements, financing arrangements, and implementation documents.
Everything that follows—ownership, financing, AHSC, MidPen, infrastructure—is built on this redefined exchange.
285. 2024 Relinquishment of Leaseholds. The RESHAP Providers (also referred to here as the Collaborating Providers) relinquished their leasehold interests in 2024. Rather than deliver the debt-free, fee-simple replacement campus required by the governing redevelopment framework, Respondents progressively converted the federally negotiated RESHAP replacement project into the mechanism for satisfying obligations that belonged to the adjacent market-rate redevelopment while simultaneously shifting substantial portions of the City's replacement obligations into the RESHAP development agreement through debt financing and by absorbing the market-rate redevelopment's transferred inclusionary housing, infrastructure, and vertical development costs. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
54 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 286. Loss of Asset Ownership. As a result, the Collaborating Providers no longer receive the permanent, privately owned, debt-free replacement campus required under the federal exchange. Instead, they receive occupancy and program space within a redevelopment financed, owned, and controlled through a materially different ownership and financing structure, with ownership and control residing in the City and MidPen. (See: Item 2025- 5018; Stardust Gardens Grant Application materials).
287. Unlawful City Actions Require Reversal. Petitioners allege the City’s actions constitute theft of the federal entitlement, warranting judicial reversal under CEQA and reversion under applicable state and federal law; and likely warrants referral for investigation of official misconduct, extrinsic fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, illegal gifts of public funds, and violations of the False Claims Act.
1. Original Framework: 2017 Specific Plan Codified the Design, Location, and Size of the Replacement Campus
288. As stated above, the RESHAP Project constituted the negotiated "fair exchange" under which the Collaborating Providers relinquished substantial federally protected leasehold interests in exchange for a permanent replacement campus to be conveyed in fee simple and free of debt. In return, the City recovered land for economic redevelopment upon the express condition that it fund, construct, and transfer the federally required replacement campus pursuant to the Navy No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance Agreement. 289. Specific Plan Governance. The 2017 Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") incorporated and codified the federal RESHAP replacement framework with the full force of law. (Gov. Code, § 65455) (Chs. 1, 8)
290. State Reaffirmation of Limited Local Discretion. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65455, and the 2022 “Bonta” SLA Amendment, the City's discretion is therefore hlimited only to implementing the adopted framework Specific Plan and does not extend to materially redefining or repurposing the federal replacement entitlement under the limited local discretionary authority to “..honor commitments to the Homeless Collaborative (Ch 1) 291. Privately-Owned Permanent Replacement Campus. The Specific Plan provided that RESHAP would enable the Collaborating Providers to "…own their own property and build new much-needed facilities designed specifically for their needs," honoring the City's commitment "...to provide housing for formerly homeless households in connection 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
55 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE with closure of the Alameda NAS."; thereby codifying they privately owned permanent supportive housing campus to be conveyed in fee simple to the Collaborating Providers. (Chs. 1 & 8).
292. Preferred Main Street Location on 10+acres. As shown below, the Specific Plan codified the 10+ acre replacement campus at the RESHAP Providers' preferred location between Main Street and
Orion Drive, established its
relationship to the adjacent
mixed-use West Midway
neighborhood, and refined
the campus to more than ten
acres. (Ch. 1; See also AP
EIR, 2104 MIP as amended).
293. Note: the 2015 ENA describes a
13+ acre campus that was
reduced to 10+ acres by the time
it was codified in the Specific
Plan for an undisclosed reason;
by the first 2018 DDA, it had
been reduced from the required
10.4 acres to 9.7 Ac, as shown at
right)
294. Purpose-Built Cohesive Therapeutic Campus. The Specific Plan codified the purpose- built, therapeutically designed, and consolidated replacement campus, with the RESHAP Providers' individual residential communities “…clustered around a cohesive campus…”. 295. Under the HUD-approved negotiated agreement, the new RESHAP campus consists of exactly 200 permanent supportive housing units, approximately 40,000 square feet of office and program space, integrated wraparound services, community facilities, urban agriculture and employment opportunities, and more than two acres of privately owned open space dedicated exclusively to the RESHAP Providers and their residents.
From: Item 2018-5428, RESHAP DDA
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
56 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 296. Integrated Private Community. The Main Street location provided convenient pedestrian access to transit, neighborhood-serving uses, the urban farm, Ploughshares Nursery, employment opportunities, and community services while preserving a separate, dedicated supportive housing campus.
297. Note: The HUD-approved negotiated RESHAP Project does not incorporate emergency shelters, emergency food distribution, day centers, or other unrelated economic-support services that are prohibited at Alameda Point (Chs. 1, 5, 8) 298. Separate Market-Rate Inclusionary Development. Consistent with the Base Reuse Plan, the Renewed Hope Settlement, and the Specific Plan, the RESHAP replacement campus implements the City's independent federal homeless-accommodation obligation:
299. The adjacent West Midway redevelopment remains independently responsible for its own market-rate development, including the land, infrastructure, vertical construction, and inclusionary housing required to support that redevelopment. 300. The original redevelopment exchange was straightforward: the market-rate redevelopment received valuable adjacent development land, while the federally mandated RESHAP replacement project received the Backbone Infrastructure necessary to implement the negotiated replacement campus.
301. That exchange did not include transferring the market-rate redevelopment's separate inclusionary housing obligations to the RESHAP Project.
2. Illegal Conversion of the Specific Plan's Codified RESHAP Framework 302. The governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework established a purpose- built, therapeutically designed 200-unit replacement campus adjacent to Main Street, consisting of the RESHAP Providers' residential communities clustered around a cohesive campus with integrated services, community facilities, employment opportunities, and more than two acres of private open space.
303. Beginning with the 2018 redevelopment agreements, Respondents materially altered the negotiated redevelopment exchange by incorporating the adjacent market-rate redevelopment's inclusionary housing obligations into the RESHAP Project while continuing to characterize the resulting infrastructure obligations as fulfillment of the original exchange.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
57 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Encroachment of the Adjacent Market-Rate Redevelopment's Inclusionary Housing Units 304. The governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework established a fixed federal entitlement for exactly 200 permanent supportive housing units on 10+acres paid for by the City and dedicated exclusively to replacing the RESHAP Providers' relinquished facilities.
305. To implement the federally entitled RESHAP replacement project, the City entered into an agreement with the adjacent market-rate developer under which the developer would fund and construct the Backbone Infrastructure serving the 200-unit replacement project in exchange for approximately 22 acres of development land. (See Specific Plan Ch 6.1.2) 306. That agreement governed only the relationship between the City and the adjacent market- rate developer. The RESHAP Providers were not parties to the agreement, did not relinquish any portion of their federal entitlement, and did not agree that the adjacent market-rate redevelopment could satisfy its separate inclusionary housing obligations within the RESHAP replacement project. The RESHAP Providers were not parties to that agreement.
307. However, beginning with the 2018 Development Agreement, Respondents improperly incorporated the adjacent market-rate redevelopment's low/very low income inclusionary housing obligations into that federal entitlement, increasing the redevelopment from 200 to 267 residential units.
308. Misuse of the Density Bonus Waiver Increasing Market-Rate Units. Respondents thereafter relied upon successive applications of the State Density Bonus Law to progressively increase the redevelopment from 267 units to 291 units, then 309 units, and ultimately to the currently approved 332-unit redevelopment. 309. The encroachment of the adjacent market-rate redevelopment's inclusionary housing units into the federal entitlement fundamentally altered the composition of the RESHAP replacement project and improperly increased the units and density of the 200-unit replacement project, violating the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework and the RESHAP agreement signed and codified by the City. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
58 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 310. As previously stated, these additional residential units were not part of the original federal entitlement, but instead represented inclusionary housing obligations assigned to the adjacent market-rate redevelopment illegally relocated to the RESHAP parcel. 311. This encroachment and increase in units also exceeds the capacity of the MIP and cannot lawfully be approved or implemented under the governing framework Improper Closed-Door Relocation of the RESHAP Campus to Pan Am Commercial Hub 312. The governing redevelopment framework established the RESHAP replacement project on a 10+acre site adjacent to Main Street following an extensive public planning process that evaluated multiple alternatives and selected that as the preferred location for the federally entitled replacement campus.
313. From the Specific Plan: “Facilitating the Collaborating Partners’ relocation and construction of their new campus at their preferred location is one of the main goals of the Specific Plan” (Ch. 6.1.2)
314. Nevertheless, between 2021 and 2023, Respondents relocated the replacement campus from the adopted Main Street “preferred” site to the designated Pan Am Way “commercial hub” in a non-public meeting, in a new location inconsistent with the governing Specific Plan.
315. The relocated campus occupies a materially different location adjacent to the Alameda Point Historic District, introducing commercial relationships and Historic District compatibility constraints that were not present at the preferred Main Street site. 316. During subsequent public proceedings, City staff acknowledged that the relocation better accommodated the surrounding West Midway redevelopment and had been pursued because it offered "material advantages to all parties involved," thereby admitting that the relocation served broader redevelopment objectives beyond the negotiated RESHAP replacement project.
317. The relocated campus also occupies a substantially smaller 7.9 acre site, a 20% loss in parcel size. Along with the 65% increase in units, the acreage loss results in increased density to 40 du/acre instead of 20 du/acre, with building heights of 4 stories high next to the Historic District.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
59 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 318. Lack of compatibility with the adjacent Historic District also has yet to be reviewed, independently demonstrating CEQA review is still incomplete. (See:General Plan, Specific Plan Ch 5.2 RE ensuring compatibility of adjacent architecture) Loss of the Therapeutic Design, Value, and Function of the Replacement Campus 319. The negotiated RESHAP replacement project was intentionally designed as a therapeutic residential community. Throughout the public approval process, Respondents represented that the campus would provide "safe spaces for residents who may have suffered from past traumas through strategic building placement and interior street design." 320. Respondents further represented that the buildings would be arranged around a central community plaza with interconnected open spaces, resident amenities, and integrated supportive services to create a unique therapeutic environment. 321. Relocation of the replacement campus to a substantially smaller site required a material redesign of the adopted campus, increasing residential density, building height, and building mass while reducing private open space and increasing paved areas. 322. The redesign fundamentally altered the adopted relationships among the residential buildings, central community spaces, open-space system, and other therapeutic design features incorporated into the negotiated replacement project. 323. As redesigned, the replacement campus no longer provides the secluded therapeutic setting, integrated campus design, or resident-oriented physical environment established by the governing redevelopment framework.
Additional Material Departures from the Negotiated Replacement Project 324. Beginning in 2018, Respondents introduced additional material departures from the negotiated RESHAP replacement project by adding new project components, eliminating adopted resident-oriented uses, and relocating integrated services and employment opportunities.
325. Emergency Shelter Introduced in 2018, Approved in 2023. The 2018 Development Agreement introduced a 54-bed emergency shelter as a new project component not included within the negotiated RESHAP replacement project. (See 2023 DA) 326. Public-Oriented Ground-Floor Commercial Uses. Following relocation of the replacement campus, Respondents introduced neighborhood-serving ground-floor 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
60 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE commercial uses on the RESHAP property. The Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan designates such commercial uses as neighborhood-serving functions. Their introduction converted portions of what was negotiated as a private therapeutic residential campus for the exclusive use of the RESHAP Providers into public-serving mixed-use space. (See 2025 AHSC Grant materials, current RESHAP permit materials) 327. Resident-Oriented Enterprise Replaced with Public Civic Uses. Respondents eliminated the planned urban farm enterprise and replaced it with a proposed public library and expanded public use of the barn, substituting resident-oriented therapeutic and workforce components with public-serving civic uses.
328. Integrated Employment Opportunities Eliminated. Respondents relocated the planned workforce enterprise from the replacement campus to the REAP Center approximately three miles away, eliminating the integrated on-site employment opportunity intended to promote resident self-sufficiency.
329. Integrated Supportive Services Displaced. Respondents progressively relocated supportive services originally planned to remain integrated within the replacement campus to the Alameda Food Bank property, requiring residents to leave the replacement campus to obtain services originally intended to be provided on-site. 330. Collective Effect of Departures. Collectively, these additional departures further transformed the negotiated replacement project by replacing resident-oriented therapeutic components with broader public-serving uses and relocating integrated services, employment opportunities, and other project features away from the replacement campus.
Conversion of the Ownership, Governance, Financing, and Beneficiary Structure 331. Notwithstanding the fixed federal replacement framework described above, Respondents progressively converted the negotiated ownership, governance, financing, implementation, and beneficiary structure of the RESHAP Project through successive redevelopment agreements, financing arrangements, implementation actions, and related funding activities.
332. Operative Agreements Altered the Negotiated Beneficiary Structure. Although legislative approvals, staff reports, and summary documents continued to represent that the replacement campus would ultimately be owned by the HUD-approved RESHAP 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
61 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Providers, the operative redevelopment agreements established a materially different implementation and beneficiary structure.
333. Redefinition of the "Developers" Improperly Collapsed Roles and Beneficiaries.
Beginning with the 2018 agreements and culminating in the operative 2023 Development Agreement, Respondents collectively defined MidPen, its affiliated entities, and the HUD- approved RESHAP Providers as the "Developers," collapsing legally distinct parties into a single contractual category and materially altering the negotiated implementation, governance, and beneficiary structure. (See Stardust Gardens LP structure, 2018-2023 DDAs, AHSC Grant materials)
334. Financing and Implementation Structure Converted. Rather than fulfill the City's negotiated obligation to provide the replacement campus, Respondents restructured the project through layered public subsidies, tax-credit financing, private lending, and third- party funding while transferring primary implementation responsibility to MidPen. The resulting financing and implementation structure materially differed from the negotiated replacement framework through the DDA/DA contracts.
335. Material Conversion of the Negotiated Exchange. Although the operative agreements progressively departed from the adopted RESHAP framework, Respondents continue to characterize the evolving redevelopment in staff reports, resolutions, CEQA determinations, funding applications, and other official documents as satisfying the federal RESHAP replacement mandate and remaining consistent with the governing federal-to- local redevelopment framework.
336. Respondents thereby converted the adopted federally mandated 200-unit supportive housing replacement project into a materially different public-oriented inclusionary housing redevelopment, diverting the federally protected replacement entitlement from its negotiated purpose to advance unrelated market-rate redevelopment and other municipal objectives.
337. The resulting conversion shifted redevelopment burdens from the City and the adjacent market-rate redevelopment onto the RESHAP Project while reallocating corresponding redevelopment benefits, ownership interests, financing advantages, and contractual rights away from the HUD-approved RESHAP Providers. The structural implementation of that transformation is described in Section #6 below.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
62 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Contemporaneous Public Objections by Petitioners
338. Throughout the redevelopment process, Petitioners repeatedly objected during public meetings and submitted written comments that Respondents were materially transforming the federally entitled RESHAP replacement project by incorporating the adjacent market- rate redevelopment's inclusionary housing obligations, relocating the replacement campus, and departing from the governing redevelopment framework. See, e.g., Petitioner Sheehan, Public Comment, July 18, 2023, Item 7D ("New RESHAP Proposal Increases Inequities, Disenfranchises Supportive Partners"), and subsequent public comments submitted by Petitioners throughout the approval process. 339. Petitioners allege these material departures exceed the City's authority to implement the negotiated replacement project and therefore cannot be lawfully approved or implemented under the governing redevelopment framework.
3. Current Redevelopment Constitutes Conversion of the RESHAP Federal Replacement Entitlement
340. The current RESHAP redevelopment no longer consists of the negotiated federal replacement project established through the governing federal redevelopment framework and codified by the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan. Instead, the redevelopment presently being implemented reflects a materially different residential, physical, operational, financial, and institutional configuration integrated into the broader Alameda Point redevelopment. (Current Site Plans; Phase A Exhibits.) Residential Development Impermissibly Includes 132 Inclusionary Units 341. The current RESHAP redevelopment consists of approximately 332 residential units, including approximately 132 inclusionary affordable housing units transferred from the adjacent West Midway redevelopment. (2023 Development Agreement; Current Site Plans.)
342. The current residential configuration illegally concentrates affordable housing obligations, residential density, land allocation, infrastructure, and vertical development within the RESHAP redevelopment.
Private Therapeutic Community Converted into a Public-Oriented Mixed-Use Development 343. Current redevelopment materials reflect an operational model in which therapeutic functions have been eliminated, fragmented, or relocated. (April 16, 2024 Site Plan.) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
63 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 344. Current project components include neighborhood-serving commercial space, an emergency shelter, expanded public use of the barn, relocated supportive services, employment programming relocated to the REAP Center, and a proposed public library. (April 16, 2024 Site Plan; Current Implementation Materials.) 345. Current implementation materials depict the proposed public library as part of the RESHAP redevelopment even though it was not included in the Planning Board approval or the environmental determination supporting that approval. (Current Implementation Materials; Planning Board Record.)
346. The rendering below illustrates the differences between the compliant v Project design and features resized, increased density, commercial hub location with a 4-story building height prohibited adjacent to the Historic District (increased from 2-stories at the preferred site) , showing the loss acres and loss of the original design features, dominated by public roadways and parking.
347. Replacement of Urban Farm Enterprise Element with Public Library. The planned urban agriculture “farm” was eliminated in 2024 and replaced with a proposed public library and public use of the “barn” component for the “broader Alameda community”, substituting a resident-oriented therapeutic and workforce features with prohibited public- serving civic mixed-use elements. (See:Exh 1. April 16, 2024 RESHAP Site Plan; Item 2024-4069 “Presentation”)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
64 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 348. Note: As you can see by comparison with the rendering above, the “library” configuration increases the amount of paved area and a large parking lot compared to the 2023 “relocated” plan. This configuration has
not yet been officially adopted by the City
decision-making body, making the NOE filed
April 2025 premature, which also
demonstrates the current and ongoing unstable
baseline, as well as the City’s illegal
“piecemealing” of the Project, as discussed
below.
Replacement Campus Occupies Improperly Located, Low-Value Public-Oriented Parcel, Violating Specific Plan
349. The Specific Plan expressly states: “Facilitating the Collaborating Partners’ relocation and construction of their new campus at their preferred location is one of the main goals of the Specific Plan.”
350. Displacement from Preferred Site. Under the current configuration, the former Main Street “preferred” site is now occupied by West Midway, including the challenged Phase A approval, in violation of the Specific Plan (Tract 8696; Phase A Plans.) 351. Decreased Acreage by 20%. the current RESHAP campus has decreased from 10+ to less than 7.9 acres at the Pan Am commercial hub adjacent to the Alameda Point Historic District, losing its value as a “trauma-informed” campus, in violation of the Specific Plan. 352. Loss of Private Ownership. Current redevelopment plans depict a four-story residential development with reduced open space, expanded paved and parking areas, and integration with inclusionary housing, retail and other commercial uses and surrounding public improvements, rather than as a specially designed private property parcel---in violation of the City’s own Specific Plan.
Demolition and Construction Increased Impacts from Relocated Site 353. The Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan designated the replacement campus on unoccupied undeveloped property adjacent to Main Street. That “preferred" location permitted demolition and construction activities to occur at a distance from the occupied residential campus.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
65 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 354. The relocation of the replacement campus materially altered the construction setting by placing demolition and prolonged construction activities immediately adjacent to occupied supportive housing serving formerly homeless residents. 355. The DDA itself identified resident relocation as a major implementation milestone, yet the administrative record contains no evidence documenting compliance with those milestones or evaluating the changed construction setting created by relocation of the project, therefore the City cannot simply continue relying on earlier CEQA determinations without considering whether further environmental review was required. 356. The May 2026 West Midway/RESHAP Annual Report (Item No. 2026-6036) likewise does not report on demolition or construction-related conditions affecting the occupied residential campus, any monitoring of those conditions, or implementation measures addressing those impacts.
City and Developer Appropriation of Original Federal RESHAP Provider Entitlement 357. Alameda Point Conveyance Conditioned on Permanent Homeless Entitlement.
Through the Navy's Economic Development Conveyance ("EDC"), the City acquired approximately 1,000 acres of developable land for economic redevelopment, revenue- generating activities, employment creation, commercial and residential development, and the long-term public revenues generated by Alameda Point. 358. Governance of Mckinney Vento Act. The EDC was expressly conditioned upon the City's permanent implementation of the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance entitlement.
Pending negotiation of a permanent fair exchange, the HUD-approved Collaborating Providers occupied approximately 34 acres of land with 200 dilapidated Navy units under long-term interim leaseholds.
359. RESHAP=”Rebuilding Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point”. The federally approved replacement entitlement required the City to deliver a completed campus as the permanent fair exchange for the surrendered leasehold interests. It was not an inclusionary housing contribution owed by the Collaborating Providers, and it was not an asset available to satisfy the obligations of an adjacent market-rate developer. 360. That permanent fair exchange became the RESHAP Project: a separate, therapeutically designed 200-unit supportive housing campus that the City would construct and convey 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
66 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE this estimated $80 million asset; debt-free to the Collaborating Providers to satisfy their obligations under the EDC Agreement.
361. Fair-Exchange. The Collaborating Providers relinquished approximately 22-26 acres of long-term leasehold interests, valued at approximately $50 million (2018 value), returning those redevelopment parcels to the City for economic development. The City's estimated net cost of satisfying its replacement obligation was approximately $30 million, while the returned land became available for additional private redevelopment and revenue- generating activities. (See City of Alameda Legislative Actions, City and MidPen Press Releases, News Items etc)
362. RESHAP Providers: Sole Federally-Approved Beneficiaries. The RESHAP Collaborating Providers are the sole approved federal recipients of the RESHAP Project, and not proper parties to the City's subsequent development agreements with private developers to fund and build the project (or incur debt), and no one but the approved federal recipients could receive any ownership or other benefit from the RESHAP Project. 363. Illegal Transfer of Beneficiaries Through Improper Development Contracts.
Beginning with the 2018 Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA"), however, the City fundamentally changed the implementation of that obligation. Rather than treating RESHAP as a public replacement obligation to be fulfilled by the City, the DDA incorporated the federally required replacement project into a private mixed-finance development model, under which RESHAP was converted to a 332 unit Brookfield Inclusionary housing Project, privately financed, and implemented through developer agreements and affiliated entities, removing ownership and property rights from the RESHAP Providers. Transferring those rights to Midpen and the City. (See 2018-2023 Developmetn Agreements, 2025 AHSC Grant Applications Materials, City of Alameda Legislative Actions)
364. Illegal Conversion of Federal Entitlement. The current RESHAP Project therefore no longer consists of the separate debt-free replacement campus contemplated by the federal redevelopment framework. Instead, it has been restructured as a layered mixed-finance affordable housing development utilizing Developer Affiliates, City ground leases, Low- Income Housing Tax Credits, public subsidies, private financing, affordability covenants, and long-term operating restrictions.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
67 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 365. All of which appropriated the RESHAP benefits to unlawful parties and leave the RESHAP Providers not only with zero asset value but debt owned by the City and Brookfield. This amounts to an unlawful benefit of approximately $144 million, inclusive of Brookefiled debt for 132 Inclusionary housing units—at an estimated $500,00 per unit (2026 cost).
366. In total, that amounts to an illegal gift of public funds for over $60 million, as well as a full 26 acres of 100% market rate units that rightly should be carrying the 25% inclusionary housing. The structural implementation of that transformation is discussed in Section #6 below.
4. CEQA Independently Requires Further Environmental Review (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21082, 21083.3, 21166; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162–15164, 15378.) 367. As described above, Respondents' discretion was limited to implementing the redevelopment established by the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. They possessed no discretion to materially reallocate or alter that redevelopment.
368. To the extent Respondents contend they possessed discretion to approve the redevelopment presently being implemented, that discretion independently triggered CEQA and required environmental review of the redevelopment under review. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)
369. Material Inconsistency with Governing Regulations Requires Further Environmental Review. As demonstrated in Sections II and III, the redevelopment presently being implemented materially differs from the compliant redevelopment established through the governing federal redevelopment framework, codified by the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan (Gov. Code, §§ 65454, 65455), and evaluated under the Alameda Point Program EIR. Therefore, Respondents could not continue relying upon prior environmental review and are required to determine whether subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)
Integrated Redevelopment Requires Unified Environmental Review 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
68 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 370. Throughout planning, funding, implementation, subdivision, and infrastructure planning, the City consistently treated RESHAP, West Midway, Phase A, the Alameda Food Bank, and related public facilities as components of a single integrated Alameda Point redevelopment as the “whole” of the Project (See Phase A Exhibits; Tract 8696; Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan, Specific Plan)
371. Respondents departed from that integrated approach at the local level only for CEQA purposes, where the same redevelopment components were repeatedly characterized as separate stand-alone projects to avoid evaluating the environmental impacts of the “approved” redevelopment as required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15378; Pub.
Resources Code, §§ 21065. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.)
Failure to Review the Whole of the Action
372. Rather than reviewing the materially altered redevelopment as a single project, Respondents continued approving successive components independently while relying upon environmental review prepared for a materially different redevelopment program. By evaluating those interdependent redevelopment components separately, Respondents improperly segmented the redevelopment, obscured cumulative environmental impacts, and improperly avoided evaluation of the unified redevelopment actually being implemented.
373. CEQA Guidelines § 153165 requires evaluation of the whole of the action, including RESHAP, West Midway, Phase A, the Alameda Food Bank, transferred inclusionary housing obligations, relocated supportive services, shared infrastructure, and related redevelopment activities. (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918.)
Failure to Conduct Further Environmental Review
374. Respondents continued relying upon environmental review prepared for a materially different redevelopment notwithstanding substantial changes to the Project and changed circumstances. Those changes require further environmental review (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
69 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 375. The redevelopment requires evaluation of the environmental consequences associated with the materially altered redevelopment program, including infrastructure capacity, transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, parks and open space, historic resources, land use compatibility, and cumulative impacts throughout the Main Street Neighborhood and Alameda Point redevelopment program. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.) 376. Relocated Construction Impacts. For example, relocating the replacement campus from the designated Main Street site to a location immediately adjacent to occupied supportive housing materially changed the environmental setting in which the Project would be implemented. Construction impacts previously associated with development on an unoccupied site instead became prolonged impacts affecting occupied supportive housing.
Respondents nevertheless relied upon earlier environmental documents without evaluating whether those changed circumstances or the potential for more severe demolition and construction impacts requires subsequent or supplemental environmental review. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310)
377. Unstable Project Baseline. The RESHAP redevelopment has never remained a stable project. Since the City first departed from the federally approved replacement project in 2018, Respondents have repeatedly modified the redevelopment by changing its location, acreage, density, ownership structure, financing, development phasing, program components, and relationship to surrounding redevelopment is still evolving, including the proposed addition of additional new housing in the Main Street Neighborhood, new review is required. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)
Improper April 2025 Ministerial Determination for Application PLN24-0536 378. On April 8, 2025, City Planning Department employee Henry Dong approved PLN24- 0536 (Stardust Gardens/RESHAP Phase 1a/1b) through a staff-level ministerial determination as a stand-alone project. The 04/14/25 Notice of Exemption improperly claimed the Project qualified for statutory CEQA streamlining pursuant to Gov Code § 65583.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15268.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
70 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 379. Respondents' reliance upon Government Code § 65583.2 and CEQA Guidelines §15268 did not expand their authority to depart from the governing redevelopment framework, merge legally distinct housing obligations, or avoid CEQA's continuing obligation to evaluate substantial changes to the Project.
380. Lack of Authority and Invalid Determination. In addition to staffs’ lack of expertise and lack of authority to make that ministerial determination, the NOE is independently invalid because the “project” materially departs from the governing Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan or the binding federal redevelopment framework, including the Base Reuse Plan as reaffirmed by the 2022 amendments to the Surplus Land Act-- Respondents therefore could not invoke Gov. Code § 65583.2 to avoid CEQA or the environmental review otherwise required by law.
381. Premature NOE/Unstable Project. The redevelopment remains under active planning and continues to evolve as of the filing of this Petition. For example, the proposed Phase 1B library has not received independent discretionary approval, yet City permit materials consistently depict it as a completed component of the Project. Respondents nevertheless treated environmental review as complete while continuing to modify the integrated redevelopment, rendering the NOE invalid and the controversy live. (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116.)
382. Improper Piecemealing. The NOE also improperly segmented the integrated redevelopment by evaluating Stardust Gardens as a stand-alone ministerial housing project while excluding interdependent components of the same redevelopment, including West Midway, the entirety of the RESHAP campus, the proposed library, shared infrastructure, the Alameda Food Bank, and related housing redevelopment. CEQA requires review of the whole of the action rather than successive, piecemeal approvals. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15268, 15378; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263; Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)
Effective Judicial Relief Remains Available
383. Respondents continue to approve, finance, permit, and implement the materially altered redevelopment while relying upon prior environmental review and the April 2025 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
71 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE ministerial determination. Effective judicial relief therefore remains available. (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116.)
384. The redevelopment presently being implemented is materially different from the redevelopment previously evaluated under CEQA. Respondents therefore cannot lawfully avoid further environmental review by progressively changing the Project while continuing to rely upon environmental review for a materially different redevelopment. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)
385. Note: Petitioners previously commenced a CEQA action challenging the April 21, 2025 Notice of Exemption (Case No. 25CV125501). Before service of process, however, the redevelopment continued to evolve through additional approvals, environmental determinations, and project modifications that materially expanded the scope of the controversy. Petitioners therefore requested dismissal without prejudice before the action was served. The present Petition challenges the redevelopment as subsequently implemented and the cumulative CEQA violations arising from those later actions.
5. Respondents Exceeded Their Authority Under the Governing Redevelopment Framework
386. The RESHAP Project is governed by a continuous federal-to-local redevelopment framework established through the federal homeless-accommodation process, the Renewed Hope Settlement, the Base Reuse Plan, the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Master Infrastructure Plan ("MIP"), the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("MSP"), and applicable federal, state, and local law.
387. The MSP implements and codifies that framework at the local level. (See: Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan; Base Reuse Plan; Alameda Point Program EIR; RESHAP Agreement)
388. Together, those governing documents define the adopted RESHAP Project by establishing the negotiated Main Street location, approximately 200-unit supportive housing program, land allocation, therapeutic design, ownership structure, financing responsibilities, implementation obligations, intended beneficiaries, and the limits of Respondents' lawful authority, as well as the lawful beneficiaries and obligor roles for RESHAP and the inclusionary housing debts and responsibilities.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
72 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Respondents Possessed Authority Only to Implement the Adopted RESHAP Project 389. Respondents possessed authority only to implement the adopted approximately 200-unit Main Street supportive housing replacement campus. They possessed no authority to relocate the negotiated replacement campus, reduce its acreage, expand the residential program, transfer inclusionary housing obligations onto the RESHAP site, restructure ownership, financing, governance, or beneficiary relationships, reassign the adopted Main Street site, redistribute therapeutic functions, or otherwise replace the adopted replacement project with the materially different redevelopment presently being implemented. 390. Development agreements, disposition and development agreements, financing agreements, implementation documents, administrative approvals, and related governmental actions derive their lawful authority from the governing redevelopment framework. They cannot enlarge Respondents' delegated authority or authorize redevelopment inconsistent with that framework. (2018 Development and Disposition Agreement; 2023 Development Agreement; [Implementation Documents])
Administrative Actions Cannot Create Authority
391. Respondents cannot establish lawful authority through findings of consistency, reliance upon prior environmental review, or other isolated, audience-specific representations.
Whether governmental action is lawful depends upon the redevelopment actually approved and implemented and its consistency with the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506; Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.)
392. Administrative findings cannot substitute for actual consistency nor create authority the governing redevelopment framework does not confer (Gov. Code, § 65454). Respondents could not lawfully implement a materially different redevelopment while continuing to represent that it remained consistent with the unchanged governing framework. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506.) The Current RESHAP Redevelopment Is Prohibited as an Ultra Vires Action 393. Respondents never amended the governing federal, state, or local redevelopment framework authorizing the adopted RESHAP Project; nor do they have the authority to do so. Instead, Respondents amended development agreements, financing arrangements, 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
73 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE implementation documents, and related subordinate governmental actions that are inconsistent with the governing the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan, governing zoning framework, Master Infrastructure Plan, and Alameda Point Program EIR. (2018 Development and Disposition Agreement; 2023 Development Agreement; Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan; Alameda Point Program EIR)
394. By altering subordinate agreements while leaving the governing redevelopment framework unchanged, Respondents avoided the legislative amendments, public review, regulatory oversight, and environmental review that ordinarily accompany amendments to the City's governing land use framework. Therefore, the redevelopment presently being implemented exceeds the authority delegated under the governing redevelopment framework.
395. No agreement, implementation document, administrative approval, or other governmental action can create authority the governing redevelopment framework does not confer, n or validate redevelopment exceeding its governing limits. The challenged redevelopment is therefore ultra vires, subject to judicial invalidation, and warrants the equitable relief requested herein under Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.
6. Unlawful Structural Diversion of the Federal RESHAP Entitlement to Private Developers 396. As discussed in Section #3 above, the RESHAP Project originated as the federally negotiated fair exchange under which the Collaborating RESHAP Providers relinquished their long-term federally protected leasehold interests in exchange for a permanent, 10+ acre, debt-free, 200-unit replacement campus to be conveyed to them by the City in fee simple. Under the governing redevelopment framework, the City's obligation is to deliver the replacement campus, and the Collaborating RESHAP Providers' consideration is the surrender of those federally protected leasehold interests. (See 2017 Specific Plan) 397. The ongoing and current governing framework assigns separate rights, obligations, and benefits to the City, the West Midway developer (Brookfield, AKA BC West Midway LLC or Brookfield/Brookfield-Catellus), and the Collaborating RESHAP Providers.
MidPen's role is derivative of the City's and limited to implementing the City's replacement obligation. It acquired no independent ownership rights in the federal RESHAP entitlement.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
74 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 398. The West Midway Development Agreement governs the separate exchange between the City and Brookfield. In exchange for approximately 22-26 acres of former RESHAP property and the right to develop the adjacent mixed-use market-rate and 25% inclusionary unit neighborhood, Brookfield agreed to construct its own required West Midwy backbone infrastructure, satisfy its own inclusionary housing obligations, and contribute $10 million toward RESHAP infrastructure (through a private City loan). The Collaborating RESHAP Providers are not parties to the agreement and remain the sole beneficiaries of the City's separate federal obligation to deliver them a debt-free, 200-unit replacement campus in fee simple.
399. Proper implementation preserved the federally negotiated exchange by conveying a debt- free replacement campus in fee simple to the Collaborating RESHAP Providers while keeping the federal replacement obligation separate from market-rate development debt, developer obligations, and commercial financing structures. Nothing in the governing redevelopment framework authorized those independent obligations to be combined or the City's federal replacement obligation to be converted into a financing mechanism for Brookfield's adjacent market-rate redevelopment.
400. Lawful Funding Mechanism for RESHAP Project. Congress established the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 together with Title V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to provide Local Reuse Authorities with multiple lawful options for implementing approved homeless assistance redevelopment. Those options included no-cost federal land conveyance, public housing and community development funding, HUD homeless assistance programs, and Local Reuse Authority redevelopment revenues. This approach, which separates the 201 federal replacement units from market-rate debt and developer obligations, protects non-profit operators through fee-simple ownership, eliminates corporate LIHTC waterfall dependencies, and provides insulation from commercial foreclosure risk and provides a lawful mechanism for the City to fund the RESHAP Project and transfer debt-free private ownership to the RESHAP Providers.
City DDA/DA Impermissibly Reallocated Beneficiaries and Debtors 401. Rather than implementing the federally negotiated exchange, the operative 2018-2023 Development Agreements reallocated the consideration, obligors, beneficiaries, and 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
75 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE obligations established under the governing redevelopment framework. The City's federal replacement obligation was restructured to also satisfy portions of Brookfield's contractual infrastructure and inclusionary housing obligations for the adjacent market-rate redevelopment.
402. Encroachment of Inclusionary Housing. The 2023 Development Agreement expressly provide that supportive housing constructed in excess of the original 200-unit replacement obligation is developed "in exchange for" Brookfield's payment for and construction of RESHAP backbone infrastructure and is "intended to serve as the inclusionary units required for the development of the adjacent property." Those provisions convert the City's federal replacement obligation into consideration for Brookfield's independent contractual obligations.
403. City-retained Land Ownership. The Development Agreement implements that restructuring by retaining City ownership through a ground-lease structure, conveying development rights through "Developer Affiliates," and incorporating the replacement campus into a layered Low-Income Housing Tax Credit financing structure administered through MidPen and affiliated entities.
404. Improper Grouping of Parties. The agreements collectively redefine MidPen and the Collaborating RESHAP Providers by grouping them as the "Developers," notwithstanding their separate rights, obligations, beneficiaries, and consideration under the governing redevelopment framework, thereby reallocating rights, obligations, and financial responsibilities among parties to whom they were never assigned. 405. Implementation of Public Housing Project. The Development Agreements and other related City actions also fundamentally altered the character of the replacement property.
Rather than conveying a privately owned replacement campus in fee simple to the Collaborating RESHAP Providers, the legal owner of the built units is Midpen, and the Project has become a publicly owned, mixed-use development incorporating public amenities, public open space, and other community-serving uses under continuing City ownership and control.
406. The federally negotiated replacement asset was thereby transformed from a private replacement conveyance into a public redevelopment parcel. (See also AHSC Grant application materials)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
76 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 407. Inversion of Federal Entitlement. The result is a fundamental inversion of the original federal exchange. The Collaborating RESHAP Providers, who were entitled to receive a debt-free replacement campus in fee simple in exchange for relinquishing their federally protected leasehold interests, instead became participants in an approximately $144 million financing-dependent redevelopment subject to commercial financing, lender requirements, performance obligations, and continuing operational responsibilities, while receiving none of the ownership, appreciation, development opportunities, or economic benefits associated with the replacement asset promised under the governing redevelopment framework.
Conversion by Redistribution the Economic Benefits and Burdens 408. Rather than utilizing the lawful implementation and funding options provided by the BRAC and McKinney-Vento framework, the City elected to restructure the federally negotiated RESHAP exchange by replacing its ownership and funding structure with a financing-dependent LIHTC development model.
409. In doing so, the City diverted ownership interests, development authority, economic benefits, and portions of the federally negotiated replacement asset from the Collaborating RESHAP Providers to the City, Brookfield, MidPen, and affiliated development entities.
Unlawful reversal of Legal Positions
410. After the DDA the parties and obligors improperly reversed legal positions. The resulting illegal redistribution is summarized below.
411. City of Alameda — Landowner, Federal Obligor, and Guarantor Under the governing federal redevelopment framework, the City owned the replacement property and assumed the obligation to finance, construct, and convey a debt-free replacement RESHAP campus in fee simple to the Collaborating RESHAP Providers in exchange for their relinquishment of federally protected leasehold interests.
The Development Agreements materially altered that role by allowing the City to retain fee ownership of the replacement property through a long-term ground lease while transferring development responsibilities to MidPen through a financing-dependent public LIHTC structure.
The City thereby improperly retains ownership of the eight acres of Alameda Point, receives all future appreciation associated with that property and long-term control of a redevelopment presently valued at approximately $144 million, while simultaneously claiming the redevelopment as satisfaction of its federal replacement obligation.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
77 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE The City thereby benefited by retaining substantial ownership interests and economic benefits that the governing redevelopment framework required it to convey to the Collaborating RESHAP Providers, fundamentally altering the federally negotiated exchange. 405. Brookfield/Brookfield-Catellus — Market-Rate Developer, Obligor Under the governing redevelopment framework, Brookfield acquired approximately $50 million in developable property in exchange for assuming approximately $9.5 million in RESHAP infrastructure costs, together with the right to develop and own the mixed-use and market-rate residential improvements constructed thereon and to satisfy the required 25% inclusionary housing obligations within the West Midway redevelopment.
The Development Agreement instead considers Brookfield's preexisting RESHAP infrastructure obligations as the basis for satisfying Brookfield's inclusionary housing obligations with additional RESHAP units, even though Brookfield had already been fully compensated for assuming those infrastructure obligations through its receipt of approximately $50 million in developable property.
In doing so, the Development Agreement rewrote the original redevelopment exchange by converting obligations that had already served as consideration for the conveyance of the West Midway property into the basis for transferring the current 132 affordable housing units, representing an estimated economic value of approximately $66 million to the market-rate redevelopment and encumbering the RESHAP Project.
Brookfield also retained the ability to develop its approximately 26-acre West Midway redevelopment as an essentially all market-rate residential neighborhood rather than integrating the required low- and very-low- income inclusionary units within its own redevelopment.
Instead, the Development Agreements shifted those higher-density inclusionary units, together with the infrastructure necessary to serve them, to the restructured RESHAP Project, thereby preserving the substantially greater economic value associated with unrestricted market-rate residential development and conferring an additional economic benefit of approximately $400,000 to $700,000 for each inclusionary unit transferred.
As a result, the RESHAP Project was required to absorb Brookfield's inclusionary housing obligations, increasing the project's residential density, infrastructure and operational burdens, and transforming the replacement project into a vehicle for satisfying obligations that belonged to the market-rate redevelopment.
The City thereby diverted substantial economic value from the RESHAP Providers to satisfy financial and land allocation obligations that properly belonged to the City and market-rate redevelopment, resulting in an improper gain of economic benefits to the wrong parties and beyond what the law allows. 406. MidPen Corporation –City’s Implementation Partner
Under the governing redevelopment framework, MidPen possesses no independent rights or beneficial interest in the federal redevelopment exchange. MidPen's lawful role is limited to implementing the City's federally obligated RESHAP replacement project in exchange for reasonable compensation for development 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
78 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE and administration services or, separately, for developing affordable housing on behalf of third parties, including Brookfield's own inclusionary housing obligations.
MidPen is not a federal obligor, a federally approved beneficiary, or otherwise entitled to receive ownership, control, or the long-term economic benefits of the federally obligated RESHAP replacement project because it was never a participant in the 1996 McKinney-Vento/SOR process.
However, the Development Agreement instead designates MidPen, through a "Developer Affiliate," as master developer of the restructured redevelopment while relegating the federally approved RESHAP Providers to subordinate "Affiliate" status and collectively redefining all parties as the "Developer." The agreements thereby collapse legally distinct parties and merge the City's federal replacement obligations with Brookfield's private inclusionary housing obligations into a single MidPen-controlled development, owned by Midpen Corporation, with the RESHAP Proviers listed as “service operators”. (See May 2025 AHSC Grant Application materials)
As master developer and owner of the affordable housing improvements, MidPen acquires the economic interests associated with a redevelopment having an estimated total development cost of approximately $144 million.
That ownership position carries the right to receive the present and future economic benefits generated by the redevelopment, including developer compensation, tax-credit-related economic benefits, partnership interests, appreciation, refinancing opportunities, residual equity, and the continuing economic benefits of owning and controlling the affordable housing improvements. Those benefits were intended to accompany the federally required replacement project but were instead transferred to MidPen's ownership structure.
During the initial tax-credit financing and compliance period, those economic interests reasonably include developer compensation on the order of approximately $10 to $20 million, together with partnership interests, tax-credit financing benefits, asset-management fees, property-management income, deferred developer compensation, and other economic benefits generated through the redevelopment's ownership and financing structure.
Following expiration of the initial compliance period, MidPen continues to receive the future economic value generated through its ownership position, including appreciation, refinancing proceeds, residual equity, continuing operating income, and the other long-term economic benefits associated with ownership of a stabilized affordable housing asset throughout the remaining useful life of the redevelopment, easily in excess of $100 million.
Had MidPen served solely as the City's implementation contractor, once construction was completed and those fees were paid, MidPen's economic interest would have been limited to a one time payout of about $15 million. Instead, by acquiring ownership through its affiliated entities, MidPen's economic interest expanded far beyond developer compensation to include the long-term economic benefits generated by ownership of the approximately $144 million redevelopment.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
79 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE In addition, the RESHAP Providers receive none of these ownership interests or long-term economic benefits. They receive no ownership of the affordable housing improvements, no partnership interests, no developer compensation, no tax-credit financing benefits, no asset-management or property-management income, no appreciation, no refinancing proceeds, no residual equity, and no continuing economic interest in the approximately $144 million redevelopment.
Thereby, the Development Agreements transfer not merely implementation of the City's federal obligations, but the ownership position—and with it the tens of millions of dollars in present and future economic value generated by the federally obligated replacement project—from the federally approved RESHAP Providers to MidPen, effectively substituting MidPen as the long-term economic beneficiary of the federal redevelopment exchange in direct violation of federal law.
None of those benefits are received or shared with the federally approved RESHAP Providers, notwithstanding that they derive from the federally obligated replacement project, thereby improperly adding MidPen as the primary beneficiary in direct violation of federal law. 407. RESHAP Providers—Rightful Federal Beneficiaries of the RESHAP Project Under the governing federal redevelopment framework, the federally approved Collaborating Providers— Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures, and Operation Dignity—were the sole beneficiaries of the RESHAP Project. In exchange for relinquishing approximately 26 acres of Alameda Point property and their long-term leasehold interests, they were entitled to receive a debt-free permanent replacement campus conveyed to them in fee simple as their permanent supportive housing asset, funded in accordance with the governing McKinney-Vento redevelopment framework.
The Development Agreement fundamentally altered the replacement project itself. Rather than receiving and operating an approximately $80 million debt-free replacement campus designed to satisfy the original 200- unit federal replacement obligation, the Collaborating Providers became participants in an approximately $144 million financing-dependent redevelopment expanded to approximately 332 supportive housing units.
The restructured redevelopment imposed responsibility for approximately 132 additional supportive housing units together with the substantially greater staffing, administration, compliance, maintenance, and operational demands associated with a larger, vertically integrated affordable housing development, increasing the burden on the Providers without any corresponding ownership interest or long-term economic benefit.
The Development Agreement likewise fundamentally restructured the ownership and beneficiary relationship. Rather than conveying the replacement project directly to Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures, and Operation Dignity in fee simple, the City retained ownership of the land, incorporated the replacement project into a larger financing-dependent redevelopment, conveyed phased ground-lease interests to Developer Affiliate entities within MidPen's ownership structure, and designated the RESHAP Project to satisfy Brookfield's private inclusionary housing obligations. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
80 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE The Development Agreement further extinguished the independent organizational and beneficiary structure established under the governing federal redevelopment framework. The federally approved Collaborating Providers ceased to exist as separate entities within the RESHAP Project and were instead absorbed into a single commercial development structure in which all parties were collectively redefined as the "Developer." Their rights and responsibilities thereafter became governed by the commercial financing, operating, and related contractual agreements comprising the restructured redevelopment rather than by the governing federal redevelopment framework. The Collaborating Providers were thereby reduced to replaceable supportive-service operators and Developer Affiliates within MidPen's commercial ownership structure.
The restructuring likewise reallocated the economic benefits of the federally required Supportive Housing Project. The Collaborating RESHAP Providers no longer receive the debt-free capital asset and autonomous fee ownership. Instead, the Development Agreement imposes long-term financial obligations upon the Collaborating Providers while simultaneously withholding the ownership interests, economic returns, and contractual funding mechanisms necessary to satisfy those obligations. This financial structure practically guarantees the Collaborating Providers' financial default within approximately ten years.
Deprived of the debt-free capital asset, ownership position, institutional autonomy, and long-term economic benefits intended to sustain their organizations while simultaneously bearing the operational burdens and financial obligations of the substantially larger financing-dependent redevelopment without any corresponding share of the redevelopment's economic returns, participant substitution and eventual organizational dissolution become the foreseeable consequence of the restructuring, leaving MidPen in the ownership position and the Collaborating Providers in default rather than as the permanent beneficiaries guaranteed under the governing federal redevelopment framework.
Thereby, the Development Agreements transferred not merely implementation of the City's federal obligations, but the ownership position, institutional stability, and present and future economic value generated by the federally obligated replacement project from Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures, and Operation Dignity to MidPen, without any identified amendment to or approval under the governing federal, state, or local redevelopment framework.
As a result, the Collaborating Providers lost the $80 million debt-free capital asset the governing redevelopment framework was intended to secure, while retaining the long-term operational responsibilities and financial risks of a substantially larger redevelopment, and improperly substituted MidPen as the principal long-term beneficiary of the RESHAP Project, in violation of the federal mandate.
The federal land entitlement was thereby converted into a commercial redevelopment asset, transforming the federally approved beneficiaries from permanent owners into subordinate, replaceable project operators, and serving to satisfy the developers obligations instead.
412. As currently “approved” the City converted a sovereign federal entitlement designed to provide unhoused families with permanent stability into an unpaid subsidy for local redevelopment. The private developer realized tens of millions of dollars in economic 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
81 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE benefit through satisfaction of affordable housing obligations, the master developer secured long-term development and project administration opportunities, and the City advanced its redevelopment and state housing objectives—all while the Collaborating Providers were effectively extinguished, without the promised debt-free asset, fee ownership, burdened with the long-term financial and operational risks of the transformed redevelopment, and ultimately replaceable project participants within the very project their federal entitlement made possible.
7. Self-Certified Representations Created the Appearance of Regulatory Compliance 413. Respondents progressively converted the RESHAP Project from the negotiated federal replacement entitlement into a developer-serving inclusionary housing project while simultaneously submitting official certifications concerning the same operative redevelopment to different governmental agencies and public funding entities. 414. The governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework depends upon governmental agencies relying upon one another's official certifications, approvals, and determinations within their respective jurisdictions. Governmental agencies reasonably relied upon Respondents' official representations when carrying out their respective statutory and regulatory responsibilities.
415. Those official certifications obtained environmental clearance, funding approvals, permits, contracts, and other governmental determinations by portraying the redevelopment as compliant with the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework, notwithstanding representations that are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable when compared as a whole.
416. When considered together rather than in isolation, those official representations are materially inconsistent and irreconcilable with one another, creating the appearance of continuing compliance while describing the same operative redevelopment differently for different governmental purposes.
417. Collectively, those audience-specific certifications frustrated informed governmental decisionmaking by preventing any agency from evaluating the same operative redevelopment based upon a complete and internally consistent factual record. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
82 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 418. The following official representations demonstrate how the same operative redevelopment was successively characterized differently for separate governmental purposes. 419. Federal Environmental Review and Community Project Funding Representations.
Respondents represented and certified to HUD that the redevelopment satisfied the federally approved RESHAP replacement framework, thereby obtaining federal environmental clearance, release of approximately $2 million in HUD Community Project Funding, and authority to use those federal funds. (2024 HUD Environmental Assessment; Finding of No Significant Impact; Request for Release of Funds; Authority to Use Grant Funds)
420. Federal Homeless Accommodation Representations. Respondents represented to the Alameda County Community Development Agency, acting in its HUD-assigned role administering the Homeless Accommodation and Legally Binding Agreements, that the revised RESHAP plan provided a fair exchange for the federally approved Homeless Accommodation, thereby obtaining authority to renegotiate and terminate the Legally Binding Agreements and release the City from its previously approved Homeless Accommodation obligations. (Alameda County Board Agenda Letter dated February 13, 2024)
421. Affordable Housing Funding Representations. Respondents represented to state housing agencies that the operative redevelopment consisted of the 80-unit Stardust Gardens first phase, with MidPen serving as the housing developer and Alameda Point Collaborative providing supportive services, thereby obtaining AHSC funding, tax-credit financing, grants, and related public funding. (AHSC Grant Application; AHSC Award; HCD Funding Submissions; Grant Agreements and Reallocation Amendments) 422. CEQA Compliance Representations. Respondents represented that the same redevelopment qualified for streamlined environmental review and ministerial implementation, thereby obtaining Notices of Exemption, ministerial determinations, and avoidance of further environmental review. (April 2025 Ministerial Determination; Notices of Exemption; Notices of Determination)
423. Development Agreement Representations. Respondents represented through the operative Development Agreements that MidPen, its affiliated entities, and the federally approved Collaborating Providers collectively constituted the "Developer," thereby 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
83 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE conferring contractual rights, implementation authority, and redevelopment benefits under a single defined term. (2023 Development Agreement; DDA Amendments; Implementation Agreements)
424. Planning Consistency Representations. Respondents represented through Planning Board proceedings, staff reports, resolutions, Development Plan approvals, and related planning documents that the same redevelopment remained consistent with the governing planning framework, thereby obtaining planning approvals and continued implementation authority. (Planning Board Staff Reports; Planning Board Resolutions; Development Plan; Consistency Findings)
425. Surplus Land Act Representations. Respondents represented to the California Department of Housing and Community Development that the RESHAP and West Midway redevelopment comprised a single, contiguous 34.5-acre mixed-income housing project to be implemented through the approved Development Plans, Development Agreements, and Disposition and Development Agreements, thereby obtaining HCD's determination that the property qualified as exempt surplus land under Government Code sections 54221(f)(1)(A) and 37364. Respondents further represented that the redevelopment would generate mixed-income housing "in a holistic manner over the contiguous 34.5 acres" consisting of 798 residential units, including 320 affordable units. (City Resolution No. 16089; HCD Review Letter dated July 31, 2023) 426. When considered together rather than in isolation, those official representations are materially inconsistent and irreconcilable with one another, creating the appearance of continuing compliance while describing the same operative redevelopment differently for different governmental purposes. Collectively, they prevented governmental decisionmakers from evaluating the same operative redevelopment as a whole and instead induced separate governmental approvals based upon isolated, audience-specific representations that cannot all be true about the same Project.
C. WEST MIDWAY PROJECT — EXTERNALIZATION OF INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING AND LOSS OF MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT
427. Consistent with the federal redevelopment framework, the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") established West Midway as the mixed-use neighborhood implementing the South of West Midway redevelopment.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
84 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 428. Located west of the federally mandated RESHAP Project and anchored by the Pan Am commercial hub, West Midway was planned as a walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood integrating residential, commercial, civic, employment, and open-space uses while remaining architecturally and spatially compatible with the adjoining Adaptive Reuse District and NAS Alameda Historic District.
429. Commercial and civic uses were to be distributed throughout neighborhood blocks and concentrated along the Pan Am commercial hub, creating an integrated mixed-use district promoting neighborhood-serving retail, civic activity, employment, and economic development rather than predominantly residential development. (Ch. 1; See also Item 2017-4225.)
430. The federally compliant redevelopment program includes approximately 357 residential dwelling units, neighborhood-serving inclusionary housing, commercial and employment- generating uses, civic amenities, open space, and supporting community functions.(Ch. 1.) 431. The federally compliant redevelopment program includes approximately 357 residential dwelling units, neighborhood-serving inclusionary housing, commercial and employment- generating uses, civic amenities, open space, and supporting community functions.(Ch. 1.) 432. The current West Midway redevelopment is implemented together with the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment and Alameda Food Bank project as a unified Tract 8696 redevelopment through coordinated governmental approvals, shared infrastructure, and interdependent implementation.
433. At the same time, Brookfield's inclusionary-housing obligations became increasingly implemented through the adjoining federally mandated RESHAP Project rather than within the West Midway redevelopment. As implemented, the unified redevelopment now encompasses approximately 610 residential dwelling units, materially exceeding the residential program established by the governing redevelopment framework. 434. Although coordinated through the governing redevelopment framework, West Midway and RESHAP remained legally distinct redevelopment programs occupying separate parcels with separate beneficiaries, development rights, obligations, financing mechanisms, implementation structures, and redevelopment objectives. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
85 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 435. Over the last eight years, once the current mayor’s tenure began, successive City actions impermissibly relocated the federally mandated RESHAP Project, increased residential development beyond the Alameda Point residential limit, and shifted Brookfield's inclusionary-housing obligations onto the federally protected RESHAP Project. These actions exceeded the City's local implementation authority and warrant judicial review. 436. Those actions materially increased residential intensity, reduced commercial uses, reallocated land uses, and transformed the redevelopment program originally analyzed under CEQA. They therefore required reevaluation of whether the infrastructure, circulation system, utilities, and public facilities evaluated in the prior environmental documents remained adequate and compliant with the 2014 MIP, as amended.
1. Original Redevelopment Program for New Mixed-Use Neighborhood Serving Commercial and 357 Total Market-Rate and Inclusionary Residential Units 437. The Specific Plan establishes West Midway's 22-acre parcel as one of Alameda Point's principal walkable, transit-oriented mixed-use neighborhoods, integrating approximately 357 residential dwelling units with approximately 500,000 square feet of neighborhood- serving commercial, civic, employment-generating, and recreational uses, more than three acres of public open space, urban agriculture, and a connected pedestrian and street network designed to achieve LEED-ND Gold neighborhood standards. (Chs. 1, 4; See also 2017 RFQ; 2020 ENA.)
438. Integrated Neighborhood Commercial Uses. Neighborhood-serving commercial and civic uses include corner stores, daycare centers, community centers, places of worship, small offices, neighborhood grocery markets, health clinics, urban agriculture, art galleries, institutional uses, and other compatible commercial uses. (Ch. 1.) 439. The Main Street Neighborhood also includes commercial land uses supporting neighborhood retail, light artisanal industry, live/work spaces, maker spaces, and other employment-generating uses, particularly along the southwesterly and southern edges adjoining the Adaptive Reuse District and Town Center. (Ch. 1.) 440. Consistent with the Reuse Plan and Renewed Hope Settlement, new residential development remains subject to the City's inclusionary-housing requirements. The Specific Plan separately regulates those inclusionary-housing obligations and the federally 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
86 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE mandated RESHAP supportive-housing program as legally distinct redevelopment programs serving different beneficiaries through different implementation mechanisms. 441. No Density Bonuses Allowed. The Specific Plan authorizes only limited residential flexibility through workforce-housing building-design waivers and related development standards. (Chs. 4, 5.) It does not authorize residential development beyond the program established by the governing redevelopment framework.
442. Historic Resource Protection. Development also remains subject to the Specific Plan's land-use, transition, architectural compatibility, and building-height standards protecting the adjoining Adaptive Reuse District and NAS Alameda Historic District. (Ch. 5.2.) 443. Alameda Point New Market-Rate and Inclusionary Housing=267 New M-R Units.
The governing redevelopment framework limits Alameda Point to exactly 1,425 residential dwelling units, including 357 dwelling units allocated to West Midway. That allocation consists of 267 market-rate dwelling units and 90 affordable dwelling units, including 67 very-low- and low-income inclusionary units and 23 moderate-income units, satisfying Brookfield's 25-percent inclusionary-housing obligations under the Renewed Hope Settlement. (2020 ENA.)
New Residential Development Rights and Financial Responsibilities 444. The Specific Plan requires Brookfield to construct the market-rate redevelopment, satisfy its own Renewed Hope inclusionary-housing obligations, and finance the backbone infrastructure serving both the West Midway redevelopment and the adjoining federally mandated RESHAP Project. In exchange, Brookfield received ownership of more than 22 acres of developable land valued at approximately $50 million. (Item 2018-5428.) 445. Those obligations remained legally, financially, and operationally separate from the City's federal obligation to fund, construct, and deliver the RESHAP replacement-housing project.
446. Separately, the City retained responsibility for implementing its federal obligation to fund, construct, and deliver the RESHAP Project to the Collaborating Providers. Under the RESHAP Agreement, MidPen served as the City's development partner, while the Supportive Housing Providers remained the designated beneficiaries, intended owners, and long-term operators of the replacement-housing campus. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
87 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
2. Illegal Transformation of the Original West Midway Redevelopment Program 447. From the first redevelopment agreement presented to the City Council in 2018, the operative redevelopment agreements incorporated material departures from the redevelopment program established by the governing redevelopment framework. 448. Those material departures were embedded within the operative contractual provisions, while the accompanying staff reports, proposed resolutions, consistency findings, CEQA determinations, and other official representations described the same redevelopment as consistent with the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. 449. As a result, the public approval materials neither disclosed nor reconciled those material departures, depriving the City Council and the public of a meaningful opportunity to understand the redevelopment changes being approved.
450. Illegal Increase in Residential Units from 357 to 610 New Units. As presently implemented, the unified West Midway and RESHAP redevelopment encompasses approximately 610 dwelling units, materially exceeding the 357-unit residential program established by the governing redevelopment framework and resulting in a 100% residential redevelopment that no longer reflects the walkable, transit-oriented mixed-use neighborhood established by the Specific Plan. (Ch. 1; See also 2020 ENA; 2018 Development Plan; Tract 8696; 2017 RFQ; 2023 Development Plan; Phase A Project) Misuse of the Density Bonus Law
451. Consistent with the Base Reuse Plan and the Specific Plan, the only residential flexibility authorized at Alameda Point consists of limited building-design waivers for workforce housing. The governing redevelopment framework fixes the total number of residential dwelling units permitted at Alameda Point.
452. Nevertheless, the City relied upon the Density Bonus Law to increase residential development while simultaneously implementing Brookfield's inclusionary-housing obligations through the adjoining federally mandated RESHAP Project.
Progressive Loss of Mixed-Use Redevelopment
453. The Specific Plan established West Midway as a walkable, transit-oriented mixed-use neighborhood containing approximately 500,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
88 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE commercial, civic, employment-generating, and recreational uses integrated with more than three acres of public open space.
454. By 2023, the approved redevelopment retained approximately 10,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses concentrated at the Pan Am commercial corner. The challenged Phase A Project contains no integrated commercial development, incorporates sidewalks narrower than seven feet, and provides less than one acre of public open space. 455. Displacement of the Preferred RESHAP Site. The challenged Phase A Project occupies acreage designated by the Specific Plan and governing redevelopment framework as the Collaborating Providers' preferred RESHAP replacement-housing site. By incorporating that site into the West Midway redevelopment, the City materially altered the land-use relationship established by the Reuse Plan, Renewed Hope Settlement, and Specific Plan. (See Renewed Hope Settlement; Item 2018-5428, Exh. 5; Tract 8696; Phase A Project.) 456. Externalization of Brookfield's Inclusionary-Housing Obligations. Under the original redevelopment framework, Brookfield's inclusionary-housing obligations accompanied the West Midway mixed-use redevelopment. Later redevelopment agreements, financing documents, and project approvals instead implemented those obligations through the adjoining federally mandated RESHAP Project, converting the federal replacement- housing program into the implementation mechanism for inclusionary housing originally assigned to West Midway. (WM/Phase A DDA Amendments; Development Plan; RESHAP financing; AHSC Application.)
457. Improper Shifting of the City's and Brookfield's Financial Burdens. Under the original redevelopment framework, Brookfield was required to finance the backbone infrastructure serving both West Midway and RESHAP while funding the infrastructure and vertical improvements necessary to satisfy its own inclusionary-housing obligations.
Later redevelopment agreements and financing approvals shifted those financial burdens to implementation of the publicly financed RESHAP Project. 458. The record further reflects that Brookfield's inclusionary-housing costs and land allocations are implemented through the RESHAP Project. (2018 DDA; Infrastructure Agreement; $9.5 million City loan; $44.5 million AHSC award; 2023 financing documents.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
89 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Resulting Non-Compliant Redevelopment Condition
459. The redevelopment presently being implemented no longer reflects the walkable, transit- oriented, mixed-use neighborhood established by the governing redevelopment framework or the land-use, architectural, and neighborhood-transition principles intended to provide a compatible interface with the adjoining Adaptive Reuse District and NAS Alameda Historic District.
460. Nevertheless, Respondents continue approving and implementing successive redevelopment actions while finding the redevelopment consistent with the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. Findings of consistency cannot lawfully authorize implementation of a redevelopment that materially deviates from the governing redevelopment framework.
3. Current City-Adopted Redevelopment Condition is Inconsistent with Law 461. Under the governing redevelopment framework, West Midway was to be implemented as a mixed-use neighborhood containing approximately 267 market-rate dwelling units, 90 inclusionary dwelling units, approximately 500,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial, civic, employment-generating, and recreational uses, and substantial public open space.
462. The redevelopment presently being implemented occupies the unified Tract 8696 redevelopment and encompasses approximately 610 dwelling units, including approximately 478 dwelling units within the West Midway redevelopment together with approximately 132 dwelling units implemented through the adjoining federally mandated RESHAP Project.
463. As implemented, the Density Bonus Law operates in conjunction with a redevelopment program materially different from the governing redevelopment framework and the original allocation of Brookfield's inclusionary-housing obligations.
Impermissible Phase A West Midway Project Alterations (12/08/2025) 464. Phase A purportedly authorizes approximately 284 dwelling units on approximately one- half of the redevelopment area and improperly occupies the Collaborating Providers' preferred RESHAP replacement-housing site. (Specific Plan, Phase A Project Materials) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
90 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 465. It contains no integrated commercial development and implements none of Brookfield's Renewed Hope inclusionary-housing obligations within the West Midway redevelopment itself.
466. The only neighborhood-serving commercial development approved for the entire West Midway Project consists of token commercial corner of approximately 10,000 square feet located at the Pan Am commercial hub. The remainder of the redevelopment is overwhelmingly residential in character and contains less than one acre of public open space.
Brookfield Inclusionary Housing Externalized to the RESHAP Project 467. Current redevelopment agreements identify the adjoining federally mandated RESHAP Project as implementing Brookfield's Renewed Hope inclusionary-housing obligations through approximately 132 very-low- and low-income dwelling units located within the RESHAP redevelopment rather than within the West Midway redevelopment. 468. The concurrent RESHAP financing agreements count those same units solely toward the City's 332-unit replacement supportive-housing obligation owed to the Collaborating Providers. (WM and RESHAP DDAs; Phase A Exh. 7; 2025–26 AHSC materials.) Financing Structure Burdens the RESHAP Project with Brookfield’s Obligations 469. The current Development Agreement financing structure materially differs from that established by the governing redevelopment framework. Brookfield received approximately $9.5 million in City infrastructure financing on favorable repayment terms. 470. While the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment contributes public grants, including approximately $44 million in AHSC funding, tax-credit financing, private debt, and other affordable- and supportive-housing funding sources guaranteed by the Collaborating Providers that benefit the market the project and other adjoining parcels. 471. As implemented, the Collaborating Providers incur long-term project debt while MidPen owns the vertical improvements, the City retains ownership of the land, and the Providers no longer possess the ownership interests contemplated by the governing redevelopment framework.
472. RESHAP Subsidization of Brookfield's Inclusionary-Housing Obligations. As presently implemented, the approximately 478-unit West Midway redevelopment satisfies 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
91 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE its required inclusionary housing through the adjoining publicly financed RESHAP redevelopment. Assuming development costs of approximately $500,000 per inclusionary dwelling unit, implementation of approximately 132 inclusionary units through the RESHAP redevelopment represents more than $60 million in housing costs shifted from the West Midway redevelopment. (See B. RESHAP Section above for further details) 473. The public record identifies no documented in-lieu housing payment or other financial arrangement explaining how Brookfield independently satisfied those obligations or the legal and financial basis for implementing them through the publicly financed RESHAP redevelopment and likely constitutes an illegal gift of funds warranting further investigation beyond the scope of the administrative record. (DDAs; AHSC Award; financing documents)
Current West Midway Condition Violates Federal, State, and Local Law 474. As stated above, the redevelopment presently being implemented materially differs from the redevelopment program established by the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework notwithstanding Respondents' continuing findings that it remains consistent with that framework.
475. The City does not demonstrate where this materially transformed redevelopment was lawfully approved within the overlapping federal, state housing, and local redevelopment governance structure governing Alameda Point redevelopment. This redevelopment therefore requires both CEQA review and lawful authorization under the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework, warranting judicial intervention.
4. CEQA Independently Requires Further Environmental Review of West Midway Proe (Gov. Code, § 65454; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21082, 21083.3, 21166; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, 15162–15164, 15183)
476. The redevelopment presently being implemented materially differs from the redevelopment established by the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. As described in Section #3 above, those material changes independently required further environmental review under CEQA notwithstanding Respondents' continuing findings that the redevelopment remained consistent with the governing redevelopment framework.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
92 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 477. As described above, Respondents' discretion was limited to implementing the redevelopment established by the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. Respondents possessed no discretion to materially reallocate land uses, alter redevelopment obligations, or otherwise transform that redevelopment without lawful authorization.
478. To the extent Respondents contend they possessed discretion to approve the redevelopment presently being implemented, that discretion constituted discretionary governmental action requiring environmental review under CEQA. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.) 479. Because no such environmental review has ever been prepared, the challenged approvals and continuing implementation remain subject to judicial review and invalidation.
Failure to Evaluate the Current Altered Redevelopment
480. Petitioners incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above concerning the unified Tract 8696 redevelopment, the transformation of the West Midway redevelopment, the transformation of the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment, the Alameda Food Bank Project, and the challenged Phase A Project as though fully set forth herein. 481. As alleged herein above, Respondents failed to evaluate the whole of the action, improperly segmented the unified Tract 8696 redevelopment, relied upon an unstable and materially altered project baseline, and failed to prepare the subsequent or supplemental environmental review required. (Public Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 -15164,15165, 15378)
482. As a result, Respondents failed to evaluate the environmental consequences of the redevelopment actually being implemented, including impacts to infrastructure capacity, transportation and vehicle miles traveled, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, utilities, public services, parks and open space, land-use compatibility, historic resources, and cumulative impacts throughout the Main Street Neighborhood and Alameda Point redevelopment program. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.)
483. Instead, Respondents continued relying upon environmental review prepared for a materially different redevelopment program notwithstanding substantial project changes, 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
93 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE changed circumstances, and resulting environmental effects without preparing the required further environmental review. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens, supra) Defective Phase A Project CEQA Determination
484. The Planning Board determined that the challenged Phase A Project remained consistent with the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan and further concluded, pursuant to Public Resources Code §§21083.3 and 21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15183, that the environmental effects of the Project had been adequately evaluated in the Alameda Point Program EIR and General Plan 2040 Environmental Impact Report and that no further environmental review was required. (Phase A Summary Report, Planning Board Resolution)
485. Assuming arguendo that the Phase A Project could lawfully be treated as a stand-alone project—which it could not—the City's CEQA determination nevertheless failed to proceed in the manner required by law by failing to conduct further review. 486. Neither the Planning Board Resolution, the accompanying Staff Report, nor the CEQA documentation contains meaningful project-specific analysis demonstrating the legal or factual basis for determining that the Phase A Project remained consistent with the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan or that no further environmental review was required.
Instead, the determination consists primarily of conclusory findings, standardized forms, and an essentially blank, non-narrative CEQA checklist. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.) 487. Upon review of the Phase A Project approval, Resolution, Staff Report, CEQA checklist, and Notice of Determination, those documents merely create the appearance of CEQA compliance while providing little or no project-specific analysis demonstrating the legal and factual basis for the determination that no further environmental review was required for the redevelopment actually approved. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.
County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506.)
488. Absence of Planning Board CEQA Authority. The administrative record identifies no locally adopted CEQA procedures delegating authority to the Planning Board to make the challenged CEQA determination. Rather, the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan limits the Planning Board's authority to design review, including final site layout, street design, building design, and other non-legislative actions. Accordingly, the challenged 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
94 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE CEQA determination was made by a body whose delegated authority does not appear in the administrative record. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15022, 15025, 15040.) 489. The challenged approval also included a Vesting Tentative Map requiring City Council approval before becoming final. The administrative record identifies no local enactment authorizing the Planning Board to exercise final approval authority over Vesting Tentative Maps or final CEQA decision-making authority for the challenged Project. Administrative exhaustion therefore does not apply under these circumstances. (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325.) 490. Premature Notice of Determination. Unlike every other Vesting Tentative Map approved at Alameda Point, the challenged Vesting Tentative Map was never presented to or approved by the City Council. This departure from the City's established approval process is particularly significant where the challenged redevelopment materially departs from the redevelopment established by the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan and evaluated in the Alameda Point Program EIR.
491. Because City Council approval remained necessary before the challenged Project could become final—but never occurred—the Notice of Determination was filed before completion of the discretionary approval process. A Notice of Determination filed before final project approval does not trigger CEQA's shortened statute of limitations. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 22; Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408.) Effective Judicial Relief Remains Available
492. Phase A and the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment remain in the infrastructure- construction stage. No vertical residential construction has commenced, additional governmental approvals remain necessary, and redevelopment continues through phased implementation within the unified Tract 8696 redevelopment. Effective judicial relief therefore remains available. (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116.)
5. Respondents Exceeded Their Authority Under the Governing Redevelopment Framework 493. The West Midway redevelopment is governed by the federal reuse framework, the Base Reuse Plan, the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Master Infrastructure Plan ("MIP"), the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan ("MSP"), the Renewed Hope Settlement, and applicable federal, state, and local law.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
95 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 494. The MSP codifies and implements that framework at the local level and requires redevelopment consistent with the governing federal redevelopment framework, the Reuse Plan, CEQA, and all other applicable legal requirements. 495. Together, those governing documents establish the adopted West Midway redevelopment program by allocating residential development capacity, commercial development, open space, the developer's Renewed Hope inclusionary-housing obligations, infrastructure obligations, financing responsibilities, land uses, and implementation responsibilities among the redevelopment components comprising the Main Street Neighborhood. Those allocations define the limits of Respondents' lawful authority.
Respondents Possess No Authority to Reallocate the Adopted Redevelopment Program 496. As with the RESHAP Project, Respondents possessed authority only to implement the adopted redevelopment program. They possess no authority to reallocate residential development capacity, transfer the developer's Renewed Hope inclusionary-housing obligations to the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment, reduce commercial development or open space, occupy land designated for the RESHAP replacement-housing campus, alter redevelopment responsibilities, or otherwise replace the adopted mixed-use redevelopment that materially reallocates the adopted redevelopment program by increasing residential development from approximately 357 to approximately 610 dwelling units, transfers implementation of the developer's Renewed Hope inclusionary-housing obligations to the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment, reduces commercial development and public open space, occupying acreage designated for the RESHAP replacement-housing campus, and reallocates redevelopment responsibilities among the components. 497. Therefore, no development agreements, implementation documents, administrative approvals, or related governmental actions derive their legal effect from the current redevelopment framework where they enlarge Respondents' delegated authority, authorize material reallocations of the adopted redevelopment program, or validate redevelopment exceeding that framework.
Administrative Actions Cannot Create Authority
498. Respondents cannot establish consistency with the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan, the Master Infrastructure Plan, the Program EIR, or the governing redevelopment framework through findings of consistency, administrative determinations, or reliance 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
96 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE upon prior environmental review. Whether the redevelopment is lawful depends upon the redevelopment actually approved and implemented.
499. Material reallocations of the adopted redevelopment program cannot be rendered lawful through findings of consistency, reliance upon prior environmental review, phased implementation, or other administrative actions. Administrative findings cannot substitute for actual consistency or create authority the governing redevelopment framework does not confer.
The Current Redevelopment Is Ultra Vires
500. By materially reallocating the adopted West Midway redevelopment program, Respondents exceeded the authority delegated under the governing redevelopment framework. The redevelopment presently being implemented therefore constitutes an unauthorized redevelopment program rather than lawful implementation of the redevelopment adopted under the governing federal, state, and local framework. 501. No agreement, implementation document, administrative approval, or other governmental action can create authority the governing redevelopment framework does not confer or validate redevelopment exceeding its governing limits.
502. The redevelopment presently being implemented materially exceeds and reallocates the adopted redevelopment framework, and is still evolving. Therefore it has never received lawful authorization. The continuing redevelopment therefore remains subject to judicial review and appropriate equitable relief.
6. Improper Economic Benefits to Brookfield Due to Inclusionary Unit Reallocation 503. As described in the RESHAP section above, the Development Agreement reallocated approximately 132 of Brookfield's inclusionary-housing obligations from the West Midway redevelopment to the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment. At estimated Bay Area affordable-housing development costs of approximately $450,000 to $500,000 per affordable dwelling unit, those transferred obligations represent approximately $59 million to $66 million in affordable-housing development costs. 504. The Development Agreement instead permitted Brookfield to satisfy those approximately 132 inclusionary-housing obligations through the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment while Brookfield remained responsible for repayment of only approximately $9.5 million 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
97 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE in backbone infrastructure obligations already associated with the West Midway redevelopment.
505. Brookfield also received the economic benefit of developing the approximately 7.9-acre site originally designated for the federally mandated 200-unit RESHAP replacement campus as part of its substantially market-rate West Midway redevelopment. As described above, that land was reallocated from the federally mandated replacement project to Brookfield's market-rate redevelopment, while the replacement project was compressed onto a smaller, higher-density site, retaining the lower density for the Market-rate parcel. 506. The same restructuring materially reallocated financial risk. Rather than the City directly funding and delivering the federally mandated replacement project as contemplated by the adopted redevelopment framework, the restructured RESHAP redevelopment became dependent upon layered affordable-housing financing, including tax-credit equity, public grants, private lending, and long-term project debt and operational responsibilities assumed by MidPen and the Collaborating Providers.
507. The resulting financing structure also created economic benefits unavailable under the adopted redevelopment framework by allowing affordable-housing tax-credit financing, public grants, private investment, developer fees, and asset-management revenues to support implementation of the restructured RESHAP redevelopment while simultaneously permitting Brookfield to satisfy its local inclusionary-housing obligations through that publicly financed project.
508. The City likewise received significant financial and regulatory benefits from the redevelopment reallocation by obtaining credit for approximately 332 affordable dwelling units toward its Regional Housing Needs Allocation while avoiding the direct financial responsibility for delivering the federally mandated replacement project through the funding structure originally contemplated under the adopted redevelopment framework.
509. Collectively, these redevelopment reallocations conferred substantial economic benefits upon Brookfield while simultaneously shifting substantial financing obligations, long-term debt, and operational risks to the restructured RESHAP redevelopment, MidPen, and RESHAP Providers, as previously described in the RESHAP section above. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
98 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
7. Regulatory Evasion Through Improper Segmentation Achieved Appearance of Compliance 510. For CEQA purposes, Respondents characterized Phase A as a stand-alone market-rate redevelopment eligible for reliance upon prior environmental review and determined that no further environmental review was required.
511. By isolating the market-rate redevelopment from the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment, Respondents avoided environmental review of the unified redevelopment and its combined environmental consequences.
512. As shown by the administrative record, the market-rate redevelopment continues to rely upon the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment to satisfy substantial redevelopment obligations, including implementation of the developer's inclusionary-housing obligation and other redevelopment components necessary to implement the unified redevelopment. 513. Those redevelopment components nevertheless were never independently presented for governmental review as part of the market-rate redevelopment itself. 514. Instead, Respondents routed governmental review of those redevelopment components through the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment while separately approving the market-rate redevelopment through local consistency determinations and project-specific approvals, thereby isolating the market-rate redevelopment from comprehensive independent governmental review of the unified redevelopment actually being implemented. 515. Collectively, those segmented governmental reviews created the appearance that the unified redevelopment complied with the governing redevelopment framework when, in reality, its principal redevelopment obligations, financial burdens, and implementation responsibilities had been materially reallocated to the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment. 516. That appearance of compliance enabled the market-rate redevelopment to obtain the regulatory approvals, financial benefits, and development rights associated with the adopted redevelopment framework while implementing a materially different redevelopment. Thereby offloading corresponding inclusionary-housing obligations, implementation responsibilities, and financing burdens onto the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment and its Providers.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
99 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE D. PROHIBITED PERMANENT RELOCATION OF FOOD BANK PROJECT TO
ALAMEDA POINT
517. Unlike the RESHAP and West Midway projects, the
Alameda Food Bank already possessed an adopted,
permanent by-right entitlement and expansion project on approximately two acres within the Jean Sweeney Open
Space Park pursuant to the 2016 Master Plan as shown
in the image at right taken from the City’s current
website.
518. The Alameda Point project nevertheless was publicly presented as the Food Bank's "permanent home" even though an equivalent, if not superior, permanently entitled expansion project already existed.
519. Rather than implement that previously adopted project, the Planning Board approved a different permanent Food Bank facility at Alameda Point in November 2023. Although the project materials identified the Food Bank as related to the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment, Respondents nevertheless reviewed and approved the project as a stand- alone redevelopment. (Planning Board, November 13, 2023) 520. Following Planning Board approval, City staff approved additional permits, plan revisions, zoning determinations, and other administrative actions without returning the project to the Planning Board.
521. Those subsequent approvals improperly authorized a substantially larger facility, expanded operational uses, and additional redevelopment within the NAS Alameda Historic District. The redevelopment presently being implemented has never undergone Planning Board or environmental review in its current form and therefore remains subject to challenge in this Petition. (See Permit No. PWD-24-0011; Permit Records 2024-2026.)
1. Original Food Bank Expansion By-Right Entitlement Exists at Jean Sweeny Open Space 522. The 2016 Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Master Plan designates a permanent Food Bank expansion site adjoining the approximately two-acre Community Garden and Urban Farm.
The permanent facility is incorporated into the adopted park program as a community- serving use intended to replace the existing temporary trailer with a larger permanent building. (See: Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Master Plan; Memorandum of
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
100
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Understanding Between the City of Alameda and Alameda Food Bank (2016); City Council Staff Report and Resolution Approving the MOU; 2016 City Press Release Announcing the Food Bank Expansion Project.)
523. Existing Funding. Unlike the Alameda Point location, the adopted Jean Sweeney Park Food Bank Project required no additional redevelopment approvals, major infrastructure construction, or historic-district redevelopment. The permanent Food Bank expansion was already incorporated into the adopted park program to be implemented through availalbe public and private funding.
524. The Jean Sweeney entitlement remains in effect. The City presently subleases the site at 1900 Thau Way for one dollar per year and authorizes occupancy through a revocable use permit for nonprofit storage. The adopted permanent Food Bank expansion site therefore remains available for implementation. (See: City Agenda Item No. 2023-3421; City Sublease; Revocable Use Permit.)
525. The City's current Urban Agriculture Program continues to reserve community garden plots for Alameda Food Bank constituents, confirming the continuing implementation of the adopted Jean Sweeney park program. (City 06/05/2026 JS Urban Ag Website)
2. Replacement of the Adopted Jean Sweeney Food Bank Project to Alameda Point 526. During the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, the Alameda Food Bank was allowed to temporarily relocate its food distribution operations to Building 92 at Alameda Point to facilitate drive-through food distribution.
527. Interim Use Only. The Food Bank occupied Building 92 solely as a sublessee of Alameda Point Collaborative ("APC"), which held the property pursuant to its long-term Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance under the governing federal redevelopment framework until relinquished as consideration for the RESHAP Project. (See: COVID emergency approvals; APC Sublease; APC LBA Building 92 and Building 607, Specific Plan Ch 2)
528. Permanent Nonprofit Use/Ownership Prohibited on EDC Parcels. Alameda Emergency Food (DBA “Alameda Food Bank” operates as a 501(c)(3) public charity.
Under the California Health and Safety Code, a food bank is formally classified as a "Food Recovery Organization" (Section 113783). In county emergency management 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
101
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE records, they are contractually designated as an "Emergency Food Distribution" network.
It does not engage in commercial trade, holds no state seller's permit, and generates zero taxable retail revenue. It therefore lacks the legal and financial mechanisms to satisfy EDC requirements as a “revenue-generating” use.
529. Further, as a non-SOR approved entity, the Food Bank's occupancy at Alameda Point therefore remained entirely derivative of APC's federally governed leasehold interest, possessing no independent long-term right to occupy Alameda Point. Once APC relinquished its long-term leaseholds of Buildings 92 and 607, those parcels reverted to the City's Economic Development Conveyance inventory for subsequent disposition to generate property and sales tax revenue. (See Navy EDC Conveyance Agreement) 530. However, between 2023 and 2024--in violation of the EDC Agreement-- rather than implement the adopted permanent Food Bank expansion project at Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, the City progressively transformed the interim Alameda Point relocation into a relocated Food Bank Project at Building 607, on a former APC-leased parcel that had been relinquished to the City for Economic Development activities, prohibiting use and ownership by non-SOR entities and non-profit uses in general.
Coordinated Redevelopment Sequence Exploited APC Interim Leaseholds 531. Relinquishment of Building 92. On May 16, 2023, the City approved payment of approximately $850,000 from the Base Reuse Fund to APC in exchange for early termination of APC's long-term leasehold interest in Building 92, thereby returning it to the City’s EDC inventory, facilitating redevelopment of the surrounding properties 532. Relinquishment of Building 607. Internal City correspondence details how the City coordinated APC's relocation from Building 607 and advanced the permanent relocation of the Alameda Food Bank into Building 607 through recovery of Buildings 92 and 607, including backbone infrastructure funding mechanisms, approval of Tract 8696, and implementation of the surrounding Alameda Point redevelopment, 533. City staff further acknowledged that the Food Bank occupied Building 92 solely through APC's leasehold and planned additional knowingly improper actions to advance the illegal sale of the parcel to the Food Bank. (See Item No. 2023-3013; PRA No. 24-124; Andrew Thomas correspondence; Building 607 Termination and Release.) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
102
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Parcel 23 Conveyed as Part of Tract 8696 for the Permanent Food Bank Project 534. On March 19, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3365 authorizing execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement conveying approximately 1.67 acres identified as Parcel 23 of Vesting Tentative Map 8696 to the Alameda Food Bank. This action officially integrated the Food Bank into the RESHAP/West Midway Project. 535. City staff further acknowledged that Final VTM Map approval constituted a condition- precedent of closing for the Food Bank Purchase and Sale Agreement, anticipating receipt of more than $3 million for infrastructure upon closing. 536. Throughout the original approval process, the City acknowledged that the permanent redevelopment remained subject to the governing redevelopment framework, including the Alameda Point restrictions, applicable laws and ordinances, the Tentative Map and its Conditions of Approval, and the NAS Alameda Historic District requirements. 537. Certificate of Approval Requirement Ignored. Internal City planning correspondence acknowledged that Parcel 23 lies within the NAS Alameda Historic District, that the Alameda Point Program EIR requires a Certificate of Approval for new construction within the Historic District. Public permit materials also admit that Historical Advisory Board review formed part of the contemplated approval sequence before the property sale proceeded. (See 2023 Food Bank permit materials, 2023 Andrew Thomas Internal emails) 538. Contemporaneous Public Objections by Petitioners. On January 8, 2024, after receiving correspondence from Petitioner Shelby Sheehan regarding Historic District compliance, City Councilmember Tracy Jensen requested guidance from City staff concerning whether Historical Advisory Board review was required. City Manager Jennifer Ott advised that a Certificate of Approval "would apply to the Food Bank" because the project is located within the NAS Alameda Historic District. (January 8, 2024 Jensen/Ott/Tai email chain; PRA No. 24-124.)
539. Nonetheless, the City soon thereafter conveyed Parcel 23 and continued implementation of the permanent Food Bank redevelopment without obtaining a Certificate of Approval. (See Ordinance No. 3365; 2024 Purchase and Sale Agreement) 540. As previously stated herein, the Food Bank entitlement never existed independently of the governing Alameda Point redevelopment framework. Rather, the City ignored the 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
103
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE governing federal regulations and conveyed the property and permitted the use anyway, while continuing to assert the sale and use by the Food Bank was lawfully implemented despite being located on property returned to the City's Economic Development Conveyance inventory.
Food Bank Project Continues to Transform in Excess of Planning Board Authorization 541. Incompatible Contemporaneous Functional Descriptions. The approved project is for the Alameda Food Bank's permanent nonprofit emergency food distribution facility. The official project description submitted for environmental review identified three principal operational components: office space, shopping space, and warehouse space. However, in the Planning Board Resolution 2323 and the 08/06/24 NOE, the facility is referred to as a “Community Market” even though the City's own official materials explicitly describe the operation as a non-profit providing municipal social support services, directly contradicting the characterization filed in the NOE.
542. The Permanent Food Bank Redevelopment Continued to Transform. Following conveyance of Parcel 23, the City progressively transformed the permanent Food Bank redevelopment through successive governmental approvals, permit revisions, funding amendments, and administrative determinations extending through at least May 2026. 543. Unauthorized Increase in Building Footprint. During the November 2023 and July 2024 Planning Board approvals (PLN224-0279, 0292), City staff presented the Project as an approximately 18,000-square-foot expanded new building. However, the 08/08/24 Notice of Exemption described a substantially smaller redevelopment of 15,000 SF in area. Subsequently, the October 2024 plans submitted to the Planning Department depicted an approximately 21,520-square-foot building, while later permit materials reflected an approximately 23,500-square-foot completed redevelopment. The difference between these varying representations demonstrates substantial noncompliance with the building size approved by the Planning Board of in excess of 5,000 SF and warrants investigation.
544. Unauthorized Increase in Building Height Impacting Historic Resources. The City's description of the building height likewise changed during successive approval stages. The original approvals represented the redevelopment as approximately 33 feet in height. The 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
104
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE October 2024 Design Review plans identify a maximum building height of approximately 41 feet 8 inches, again warranting investigation and potential enforcement actions. 545. Ongoing Unauthorized Operational Changes. As time progressed, subsequent staff approvals and administrative records progressively described the same project through additional operational functions, including new zoning clearance for retail, service, and other community-serving activities. For example, in March 2026, the City issued a zoning clearance identifying the project as Retail, and in May 2026, the City issued a second zoning clearance identifying the same project as Service. The nonprofit doesn't operate a retail business or hold a state seller's permit or pay local sales or property tax; doing so would compromise its nonprofit status and mission.
546. Other later City and Alameda Food Bank publications further expanded the project's operational role beyond the approved office, shopping, and warehouse functions by describing broader community, citywide, and countywide services, including space for partner organizations providing housing, health care, employment, and other community services prohibited at Alameda Point. (2024-2026 City publications; Alameda Food Bank social media materials)
547. These operational changes were implemented without returning the modified redevelopment to the Planning Board or conducting additional environmental review. 548. Collectively, those successive administrative actions progressively authorized and implemented a materially different redevelopment than the project originally presented to and approved by the Planning Board.
Transformation from Private to Public Financing
549. In the original governmental approval materials, the Food Bank Project was represented as a privately funded nonprofit project. As implementation progressed, the redevelopment incorporated funding and expenditures from multiple governmental sources. 550. Public financing included expenditures from the Base Reuse Fund, Community Development Block Grant funding, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding, and subsequent governmental funding amendments supporting continued implementation of the permanent redevelopment. (City Items for Base Reuse Fund approvals; CDBG records; AHSC documents; subsequent funding approvals.) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
105
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 551. Subsequent governmental funding documents further expanded the redevelopment's stated public purposes by describing infrastructure serving the Food Bank together with RESHAP and the surrounding Alameda Point redevelopment and broader community- serving functions. (AHSC grant application; staff reports; ASCH funding amendments) 552. Collectively, the physical redevelopment, operational program, and public financing impermissibly transformed the permanent Food Bank redevelopment while further integrating permanent social-service functions into property returned to the City's Economic Development Conveyance inventory for economic redevelopment.
3.Current Food Bank Project Operating Beyond Planning Board Approval 553. The Project presently being implemented continues to evolve through ongoing permits, funding actions, operational changes, and administrative determinations. As a result, the redevelopment lacks a stable baseline and continues evolving beyond the redevelopment approved by the Planning Board.
554. The Project likewise continues functioning as an integrated component of the broader Alameda Point redevelopment, including West Midway, the RESHAP redevelopment, related public infrastructure, affordable housing, supportive housing, and other publicly funded redevelopment activities.
Unauthorized Physical Redevelopment
555. The Food Bank Project presently exceeds the Planning Board's authorized building size.
Current Design Review plans and permit records depict an approximately 23,500-square- foot facility, substantially larger than the redevelopment approved by the Planning Board. 556. The Project likewise exceeds the Planning Board's authorized building height. Current plans and permit records depict a maximum building height of approximately 41 feet 8 inches, exceeding the height approved by the Planning Board by almost a foot; while no Historic Resource Impacts have been evaluated.
557. Those physical modifications were implemented through subsequent staff-level permits and administrative approvals without renewed Planning Board review, notwithstanding their potential implications for compatibility with the NAS Alameda Historic District. (Design Review approval; Permit No. PWD-24-0011; Historic District records.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
106
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Operational Redevelopment
558. The redevelopment presently operates as an emergency food distribution facility, the Island Community Market, a City-funded service provider, and a community hub providing space for partner organizations delivering housing, health care, employment, diaper distribution, and other community services.
559. Current governmental records characterize the redevelopment as Retail, Service, and as supporting broader community, citywide, and countywide public-service functions. (Supporting Evidence: March 2026 Retail Zoning Clearance; May 2026 Service Zoning Clearance; City records.)
560. The Project also accommodates operational functions associated with the broader Alameda Point redevelopment, including relocated RESHAP-related supportive service functions.
Evolving Administrative Implementation
561. City staff continues revising the redevelopment through permits, permit revisions, zoning clearances, funding amendments, contractual amendments, and other administrative determinations beyond those authorized by the Planning Board. 562. Current governmental funding applications, service agreements, and public records increasingly integrate the redevelopment with West Midway, the RESHAP redevelopment, Stardust Gardens, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures, related public infrastructure, and other Alameda Point redevelopment activities. 563. Public funding likewise continues through expenditures from the Base Reuse Fund, Community Development Block Grant funding, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding, subsequent funding amendments, and City service-provider agreements supporting continued implementation of the redevelopment. 564. As a result, the Project presently being implemented continues to evolve beyond the redevelopment approved by the Planning Board, in addition to the illegally operating in violation of federal law. As presently implemented, it differs materially in its physical characteristics, operational program, governmental implementation, and integration with the surrounding Alameda Point redevelopment without corresponding amendments to the governing federal, state, or local redevelopment framework. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
107
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Current Public Funding Inconsistent with City Approval Materials 565. The redevelopment originally presented for approval was primarily represented as a privately funded nonprofit redevelopment, including donated design services by Joe Ernst, one of the City’s “Favorite Developers” who owns numerous projects at Alameda Point and who is on the current Mayor’s Economic Development Committee. 566. The redevelopment presently implemented has received public funding through expenditures from the Base Reuse Fund, Community Development Block Grant funding, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding, subsequent CDBG amendments, and City service-provider agreements supporting continued implementation.
567. Current funding documents increasingly bundle the redevelopment with surrounding Alameda Point housing, supportive housing, infrastructure, and public service projects when seeking federal and state funding.
568. Overall, the redevelopment presently implemented bears little resemblance to the redevelopment originally presented for public approval. It continues expanding in physical scope, operational program, functional integration, public funding, and administrative implementation integrated with the broader Alameda Point redevelopment and remains a live controversy subject to judicial review.
4. Failure to Proceed in the Manner Required by Law Under PRC § 21168.5 and CCP §1085 569. To the extent Respondents possessed discretion to approve or implement any aspect of the redevelopment, CEQA independently required environmental review commensurate with the redevelopment actually proposed and implemented. Instead, Respondents relied upon streamlining and exemption procedures that failed to evaluate the redevelopment as defined, approved, implemented, and integrated with the broader Alameda Point redevelopment.
570. Petitioners incorporate by reference the preceding allegations concerning CEQA's requirements to evaluate the whole of the action, maintain a stable environmental baseline, conduct subsequent environmental review, and evaluate the redevelopment actually approved and implemented. Those requirements apply equally to the Alameda Food Bank redevelopment integrated into the Tract 8696 Implementation Projects. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
108
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Defective Notice of Exemption and Improper CEQA Streamlining (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080, 21082, 21083.3, 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15004, 15061, 15125, 15126.2, 15162-15164, 15183.)
571. At the July 22, 2024 Planning Board meeting, Respondents determined that no further environmental review was required and instead relied upon CEQA streamlining, a Notice of Exemption, and prior environmental review. The NOE for “PLN224-0279, 0292” was filed on August 6, 2024.
572. As alleged throughout this Petition, the redevelopment presently implemented is materially inconsistent with the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan, and the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. Respondents therefore improperly relied upon CEQA streamlining in lieu of the environmental review required by CEQA.
573. By proceeding in this manner, Respondents avoided preparation of environmental review evaluating the Food Bank's relocation from its previously entitled Jean Sweeney framework, the existence of alternative locations and configurations, the relationship between the project and the broader Tract 8696 redevelopment program, the project's relationship to RESHAP, West Midway, Site A, and related redevelopment activities, and the cumulative consequences of integrating the facility into the evolving redevelopment condition at Alameda Point.
574. Planning Board materials identified additional approvals required before the redevelopment could lawfully proceed, including a Certificate of Approval for work within the NAS Alameda Historic District.
575. Respondents nevertheless filed the Notice of Exemption, conveyed Parcel 23, issued permits, approved revisions, authorized construction, and continued implementing the redevelopment before completing the contemplated approval process. 576. Since filing the Notice of Exemption, the redevelopment has continued evolving through subsequent permits, plan revisions, administrative approvals, funding actions, operational changes, and other governmental implementation. Respondents nevertheless continue relying upon the original Notice of Exemption and environmental determination despite the redevelopment's evolving condition and the incomplete approval process. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
109
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 577. Accordingly, the Notice of Exemption was premature when filed and remains legally defective, and the ongoing changes to the Project render the controversy live and subject to ongoing judicial review.
Live Controversy
578. The Alameda Food Bank redevelopment continues evolving through subsequent permits, plan revisions, administrative approvals, funding actions, operational changes, and other governmental implementation beyond the approvals originally challenged. The City likewise continues relying upon the Notice of Exemption despite the redevelopment's continuing evolution and incomplete approval process. Accordingly, the controversy remains live and subject to judicial review.
579. Note: Petitioners previously commenced a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 challenging earlier Alameda Food Bank approvals (Hickman et al. v. City of Alameda, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 24CV091053). That proceeding was dismissed on procedural grounds without an adjudication on the merits.
580. The redevelopment nevertheless continued to evolve through subsequent permits, plan revisions, administrative approvals, environmental determinations, funding actions, and other governmental implementation that materially expanded the scope of the controversy.
The present Petition challenges the redevelopment as subsequently implemented and the cumulative CEQA violations arising from those later actions.
5. Ultra Vires Food Bank Actions are Reversible, Conferring No Vested Rights 581. Petitioners incorporate by reference the preceding allegations concerning the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework applicable to Parcel 23 and the Alameda Point redevelopment.
582. Respondents’ discretion extends only to implementing redevelopment authorized by that governing framework. Respondents possess no discretion to approve, amend, convey, permit, fund, or implement redevelopment inconsistent with controlling federal law, state law, or their own legislative enactments.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
110
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 583. CEQA governs the exercise of discretionary authority otherwise conferred by law. It does not enlarge municipal authority or authorize redevelopment prohibited by higher-level federal, state, or local law.
Federal Law Controls the Permitted Redevelopment of Parcel 23 (U.S. Const., art. VI; McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; BRAC Record of Decision; Community Reuse Plan; Base Reuse Plan; Economic Development Conveyance.) 584. The federal BRAC disposition and Economic Development Conveyance framework governs the permitted redevelopment and disposition of former NAS Alameda property, including Parcel 23.
585. Following relinquishment by Alameda Point Collaborative, Parcel 23 returned to the City’s Economic Development Conveyance inventory subject to that controlling federal redevelopment framework.
586. Neither the City Council nor any subordinate municipal decisionmaker may approve, convey, or implement redevelopment of Parcel 23 inconsistent with the federal conditions governing its conveyance and reuse.
State Law Limits Local Implementation Authority
(Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7; Gov. Code §§ 65454, 65455, 54221; Health & Saf. Code § 33492.125.) 587. California law authorizes local regulation only when consistent with controlling federal and state law and independently requires implementation consistent with the adopted Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan and applicable redevelopment statutes. 588. The City may not use development approvals, property transactions, or administrative implementation to authorize redevelopment inconsistent with the governing Specific Plan or otherwise prohibited by state law.
589. Because the Alameda Food Bank Project is inconsistent with the governing state redevelopment framework, Respondents lacked authority to approve or implement it.
The City Is Bound by Its Own Local Laws
(Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan; Alameda Municipal Code; NAS Alameda Historic District requirements.)
590. The Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan, Alameda Municipal Code, zoning regulations, Historic District requirements, and adopted development standards govern redevelopment within Parcel 23 and Tract 8696.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
111
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 591. Respondents did not--nor could they--lawfully amend those controlling legislative enactments to authorize the Alameda Food Bank Project as presently implemented, instead evading scrutiny by approving development plans under the guise of compliance with the law.
592. The City cannot evade its own governing laws through a Development Plan amendment, Design Review, permit, zoning clearance, funding agreement, or other subordinate approval.
Delegated Authority Cannot Override Higher-Level Law
(Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7; Gov. Code § 65455; Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83.) 593. The Planning Board and City staff possess only the authority lawfully delegated by the City Council and constrained by controlling federal law, state law, and the City’s own legislative enactments.
594. Delegated authority to conduct Design Review, issue permits, make zoning determinations, administer funding, or implement CEQA cannot be exercised to authorize what higher-level law prohibits.
595. Development Plan amendments, CEQA streamlining, Notices of Exemption, permits, zoning determinations, funding agreements, and other administrative actions therefore cannot create redevelopment authority that does not otherwise exist.
Continuing Administrative Implementation Remains Ultra Vires 596. Respondents continue approving, permitting, funding, modifying, and operating the Alameda Food Bank Project through ongoing administrative actions. 597. Each subsequent approval depends upon the same underlying authority withheld by the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. 598. The continuing approval and implementation of the Alameda Food Bank Project therefore remain ultra vires and subject to judicial review.
6. Improper Public Funding Benefits Obtained Through the Food Bank Project Redevelopment Scheme
599. As alleged throughout this Petition, Respondents progressively transformed the Alameda Food Bank redevelopment from the adopted Jean Sweeney expansion project into a 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
112
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE materially different redevelopment integrated with the West Midway redevelopment, the RESHAP redevelopment, and broader Alameda Point implementation. 600. That transformation produced governmental benefits extending well beyond the redevelopment of Parcel 23. By integrating the Alameda Food Bank with affordable housing, supportive housing, public infrastructure, and coordinated social-service operations, Respondents positioned the surrounding redevelopment to qualify for additional governmental approvals, environmental determinations, grants, and public funding that otherwise may not have been available.
601. Respondents likewise utilized the Alameda Food Bank redevelopment in conjunction with Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures, the RESHAP redevelopment, and related public-service providers in federal, state, county, and local funding programs portraying Alameda Point as an integrated network of housing and supportive services. 602. The governmental benefits obtained through those integrated representations include, among other things, CEQA streamlining, Community Development Block Grant funding, affordable housing funding, public-service funding, infrastructure funding, property conveyances, governmental approvals, and other public financial assistance supporting the broader Alameda Point redevelopment.
603. By obtaining other governmental approvals and public funding for facilities, infrastructure, and supportive services integrated with the surrounding redevelopment, Respondents shifted costs that otherwise would have remained obligations of the broader redevelopment onto publicly funded programs.
604. In doing so, Respondents conferred substantial financial and regulatory benefits upon the surrounding private redevelopment while utilizing public funds and governmental resources to facilitate implementation of obligations that would otherwise remain the responsibility of the redevelopment project.
605. The inconsistent governmental representations through which those benefits were obtained are described above herein and further addressed in the section below.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
113
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
7. Self-Certified Representations Created the Appearance of Regulatory Compliance 606. Respondents repeatedly represented the same Alameda Food Bank redevelopment differently depending upon the governmental approval, funding, certification, or regulatory determination then being sought.
607. Those audience-specific representations progressively expanded the governmental purposes attributed to the redevelopment while the redevelopment itself progressively departed from the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework. 608. Collectively, those representations portrayed the same operative redevelopment as simultaneously satisfying multiple governmental funding, planning, regulatory, and redevelopment requirements despite describing materially different projects for different governmental purposes.
609. Local Land Use and CEQA Representations. For local land use approvals and CEQA purposes, Respondents represented the redevelopment primarily as an emergency food distribution facility requiring only limited local approvals and environmental review.
Those representations supported Design Review approval, CEQA streamlining, and the Notice of Exemption.
610. Federal Funding Representations. In federal funding applications and HUD planning documents, Respondents represented the redevelopment as an integrated public-service facility supporting emergency food distribution, community services, and the City's broader social safety net. Respondents further grouped the Alameda Food Bank with Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures, the RESHAP redevelopment, and related supportive-service providers in seeking and administering federal public funding. 611. State and Local Grant Funding Representations. In state and local funding programs, Respondents represented the redevelopment as a community-serving amenity supporting affordable housing, surrounding redevelopment, and coordinated public services. Those representations supported competitive public funding, governmental approvals, and continued implementation of the surrounding Alameda Point redevelopment. 612. Progressively Expanding Governmental Representations. Governmental documents progressively expanded the redevelopment's described purpose from an emergency food distribution facility to a Community Market, Retail, Service, community hub, and 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
114
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE supporting infrastructure for surrounding affordable housing and public-service programs.
Those materially different governmental representations exceeded the redevelopment presented during the local approval process and reflected the redevelopment's continuing transformation.
Governmental Benefits Obtained Through Audience-Specific Representations 613. Collectively, those audience-specific representations supported governmental approvals, CEQA determinations, property conveyances, federal, state, county, and local public funding, and other governmental benefits associated with the Alameda Food Bank redevelopment.
614. By representing the same redevelopment differently depending upon the governmental audience, Respondents portrayed the redevelopment as satisfying multiple governmental funding, planning, and regulatory requirements while obtaining governmental benefits supporting both the Alameda Food Bank redevelopment and the surrounding Alameda Point redevelopment.
E. RELATED PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
615. As discussed above, the governing federal redevelopment framework established a balanced redevelopment program for Alameda Point. The Base Reuse Plan established economic redevelopment as the primary reuse objective, while the separate federal homeless accommodation process established a fixed permanent supportive-housing program for the Collaborating Providers. Those separate but coordinated programs were incorporated into the governing redevelopment framework to be implemented by the City. 616. The redevelopment projects discussed below form part of the cumulative Alameda Point redevelopment that CEQA required Respondents to evaluate in approving the redevelopment challenged by this Petition. They demonstrate that Respondents progressively departed from the adopted redevelopment framework in two respects. 617. First, Respondents materially expanded residential development beyond the redevelopment program adopted for Alameda Point. Second, Respondents expanded, relocated, and integrated prohibited homeless-support and related governmental functions beyond the permanent supportive-housing program established through the federal homeless accommodation process. Together, those cumulative changes materially altered 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
115
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE the adopted redevelopment program without the governmental approvals and environmental review required by law.
618. The City’s own CEQA determinations and filings provide additional evidence that Alameda Point redevelopment projects are interconnected components of a broader redevelopment framework. Notices of Exemption, Notices of Determination, CEQAnet filings, permit applications, and related environmental documents frequently reference common planning documents, environmental review, redevelopment objectives, housing allocations, infrastructure assumptions, and public-benefit commitments. At the same time, these filings identify different and often inconsistent sets of related projects. 619. Some CEQA determinations expressly acknowledge relationships among Alameda Point projects, while other filings omit projects affecting the same planning area, housing allocations, affordable-housing obligations, supportive-service functions, infrastructure commitments, and redevelopment assumptions. These inconsistencies are significant because they demonstrate that redevelopment activities occurring throughout Alameda Point are not operating independently, notwithstanding their treatment as separate approvals.
1. Cumulative Residential Redevelopment
620. The governing redevelopment framework established an overall residential redevelopment program of approximately 1,425 residential units for Alameda Point. The residential redevelopment projects discussed below collectively comprise the cumulative residential development presently being implemented at Alameda Point and therefore form part of the cumulative redevelopment required to be evaluated in connection with the approvals challenged by this Petition.
621. No Authority to Exceed 1425 Units. Neither the General Plan 2040 EIR, the Housing Element, nor the amended Master Infrastructure Plan increased that adopted residential redevelopment framework. The General Plan 2040 EIR deferred redevelopment at Alameda Point to the Alameda Point Program EIR, the Housing Element did not allocate additional residential development to Alameda Point planning areas, and the amended Master Infrastructure Plan did not authorize corresponding increases in residential development or infrastructure capacity. (See: General Plan 2040 EIR; Housing Element; MIP Amendment)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
116
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 622. Evolving Residential Development. Respondents are presently proposing implementation of approximately 2,378 residential units, approximately 953 units beyond the residential redevelopment program adopted for Alameda Point. As recently as June 8, 2026, Respondents publicly identified redevelopment scenarios contemplating an additional 600 to 1,000 residential units within Main Street Neighborhood North, confirming that further residential expansion remains under active and evolving governmental planning. (See: June 8, 2026 Staff Report) 623. The cumulative residential redevelopment presently being implemented, together with the additional residential development presently under governmental consideration, has never undergone environmental review evaluating Alameda Point as presently configured, including the cumulative impacts upon land use, transportation, infrastructure, utilities, public services, parks and open space, historic resources, commercial and employment- generating uses, affordable housing, supportive housing, and other environmental resources.
624. Site A/Waterfront and Town Center Precise Plan was adopted as an 800-unit (600MR/200IH) mixed-use redevelopment incorporating substantial commercial development, employment-generating uses, parks, open space, and supporting infrastructure. Respondents subsequently amended the Development Agreement to authorize approximately 1,300 residential units while substantially reducing commercial development and open-space commitments. Those amendments materially altered the cumulative residential redevelopment program for Alameda Point and contribute to the cumulative redevelopment condition requiring environmental review. (See 2014 Original and Amended Development Agreements)
625. West Midway / RESHAP/ Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan. As discussed herein, West Midway consisted of approximately 357 (267MR/90IH) mixed-use residential units and the adjoining RESHAP Project consisted of 200 federally required replacement supportive-housing units. The redevelopment presently being implemented consists of approximately 810 new residential units together with substantial reallocations of land, infrastructure, financing, ownership, affordable housing, supportive housing, and implementation responsibilities. Those changes materially altered the cumulative residential redevelopment program and are challenged by this Petition. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
117
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 626. Storehouse Lofts was originally proposed as an approximately 43-unit work-live redevelopment and subsequently expanded to approximately 200 work-live units. Under the Base Reuse Plan and Alameda Point Program EIR, work-live units are counted as residential units for purposes of cumulative residential development. Accordingly, Storehouse Lofts consumes residential development capacity within the adopted redevelopment program and contributes to the cumulative residential redevelopment condition requiring environmental review—even though they do not comply with the Renewed Hope Settlement (2016-2018 Storehouse Lofts; Base Reuse Plan; AP EIR) 627. North of West Midway. The City is presently evaluating additional residential redevelopment within Main Street Neighborhood North in the Historic District. Recent public planning meetings, planning studies, and staff reports presented during 2026 identified redevelopment scenarios contemplating approximately 600 to 1,000 additional residential units within Alameda Point. Although no final development approval has been granted, those ongoing governmental planning efforts confirm that Respondents continue to evaluate substantial additional residential expansion beyond the residential redevelopment program adopted for Alameda Point.
628. Those publicly identified redevelopment scenarios further demonstrate that the cumulative redevelopment condition remains materially different from that evaluated in the Alameda Point Program EIR. See the summary table below showing the extra illegal units currently being planned.
2. Cumulative Prohibited Governmental Support-Service Redevelopment 629. The governing redevelopment framework established a permanent supportive-housing program for the Collaborating Providers as part of the federally mandated Homeless
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
118
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE Accommodation. That program consisted of approximately 200 permanent supportive- housing units together with associated on-site offices and supportive services. 630. The Base Reuse Plan expressly prohibits Alameda Point as a regional center for emergency shelters, county-operated homeless services, day-center operations, or other governmental support-service facilities beyond that federally required program. 631. Rather than remaining limited to the federally required permanent supportive-housing replacement program, the City has progressively increased emergency shelters, county- level homeless services, food distribution, day-center operations, and related governmental support facilities that are prohibited at Alameda Point. 632. The governmental support-service facilities discussed below collectively comprise the cumulative governmental support-service redevelopment presently being implemented at Alameda Point and therefore form part of the cumulative redevelopment required to be evaluated in connection with the approvals challenged by this Petition. Moreoever, the City itself characterizes these facilities as components of a broader homelessness-response system, despite the federal prohibition under the Base Reuse Plan. 633. Alameda Food Bank. As discussed above, the Alameda Food Bank redevelopment has become physically, functionally, financially, and operationally integrated with the redevelopment challenged by this Petition. Respondents relocated the project onto former economic-development property within Alameda Point, repeatedly represented it as supporting the adjoining RESHAP redevelopment, incorporated displaced RESHAP support services into the project, and progressively integrated the facility into the continuing implementation of the broader Alameda Point redevelopment. 634.
City-Owned Market-Rate Historic Houses Used as Low-Barrier Emergency Shelters in Low Density Residential Neighborhood. The City has illegally converted multiple City-owned historic Navy residences within the Main Street Neighborhood from residential leasing inventory into Emergency Supportive Housing facilities since 2022, causing an ongoing known public nuisance to neighbors. Public Records show the Historic homes contain uncorrected lead paint hazards and do not have current Certificates of Occupancy, in violation of HUD requirements. Those conversions further alter the residential redevelopment program, reduce available residential inventory, and improperly dedicated Alameda Point assets.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
119
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 635. Governmental Emergency Homeless Services Expansion Prohibited at Alameda Point.
The City has increasingly established and funded governmental homelessness-emergency support facilities and services throughout Alameda Point, including the Day Center, Safe Parking Program, and related homelessness-response functions in buildings and on parcels dedicated to revenue generating purposes (See 2025-2026 City operational records; CDBG allocations)
636. Public records show evidence of bloated budgets and scant auditing and reporting for these programs, leaving questions not only about permitted uses and proper use of funds but proper fiscal management.
637. By locating and integrating these governmental support-service facilities within Alameda Point, Respondents positioned the redevelopment to qualify for governmental funding, grants, and other public financial assistance that may not otherwise have been available had those facilities remained separate from the broader redevelopment program. 638. To the extent public resources are used to reduce redevelopment costs or enhance the value of adjacent private development, such practices appear inconsistent with the Base Reuse Plan's express objective that Alameda Point's redevelopment be driven by economic development for the benefit of the community rather than the diversion of public assets to subsidize private redevelopment.
639. The subsequent allocation and use of those public funds, and the extent to which they subsidize infrastructure, facilities, or services benefiting surrounding private redevelopment, warrant further examination through discovery for further investigation.
Cumulative Impacts Have Not Been Evaluated
640. These cumulative changes also alter land-use patterns, public-service demands, transportation, parking, infrastructure, and the overall redevelopment condition presently existing at Alameda Point.
641. They therefore form part of the cumulative redevelopment independently required to be evaluated under CEQA in connection with the approvals challenged by this Petition.
F. OTHER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS EXCEEDING RESPONDENTS' AUTHORITY 642. Although redevelopment projects discussed below are not components of the approvals challenged herein, these projects further demonstrate the continuing pattern of 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
120
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE redevelopment exceeding Respondents' lawful authority and nevertheless arise from the same continuing redevelopment program and implicate legal duties independent of CEQA and the governing redevelopment framework.
643. Further, in addition to their responsibilities as the Local Redevelopment Authority, Respondents serve as a Certified Local Government responsible for protecting historic resources and administer lands subject to the State Lands Trust and Public Trust Doctrine, or otherwise demonstrate the interdependence of the continuing redevelopment program; and implicate the independent oversight responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officer ("SHPO"), the California State Lands Commission, and other governmental agencies, in addition to judicial review by this Court.
1. Historic District Alterations — Radium Theater and Historic Taxiway 644. As earlier described herein, the former Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District is protected by federal, state, and local historic-preservation requirements incorporated into the governing redevelopment framework. Respondents nevertheless continue approving projects that alter contributing historic resources and the historic setting without evaluating their cumulative effects upon the Historic District. 645. The proposed Radium Theater redevelopment and related alterations to the Historic Taxiway illustrate the continuing redevelopment of contributing historic resources occurring throughout Alameda Point. Petitioners allege those projects implicate Respondents' independent obligations as a Certified Local Government, require review by the State Historic Preservation Officer, and further demonstrate the inadequacy of fragmented governmental review. (See Petitioners’ contemporaneous public comments)
2. Public Trust Violation Project — Enterprise Surf Park 646. Respondents likewise continue pursuing redevelopment affecting lands subject to the State Lands Trust and the Public Trust Doctrine governing Alameda Point. Those legal obligations independently restrict the permissible use of trust lands regardless of CEQA compliance.
647. The proposed artificial surf park within Enterprise Shoreline Park illustrates redevelopment that Petitioners allege is inconsistent with the State Lands Trust, the Public Trust Doctrine, adopted open-space planning, and the governing redevelopment framework. The project therefore provides an additional example of continuing 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
121
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE redevelopment requiring review by the California State Lands Commission in addition to judicial review by this Court. (State Lands Trust documents; Public Trust documents; Surf Park proposals, City Press releases)
3. Financial Interdependence of the Continuing Redevelopment Program — Building 92 648. Respondents acknowledged that Building 92 was designated for commercial redevelopment and that implementation of that objective required relocation of the Alameda Food Bank and the American Red Cross. To facilitate that redevelopment, Respondents terminated APC's long-term lease, replaced existing subleases with temporary month-to-month license agreements, paid APC approximately $850,000 to vacate Building 92, and relocated the Food Bank to its present site. Respondents' own approval documents therefore recognize that the Building 92 occupancy was temporary and that the relocation was undertaken to facilitate economic redevelopment. 649. Respondents subsequently selected Ernst Development Partners to purchase Building 92 for commercial redevelopment. The same developer also prepared and donated architectural services for the Alameda Food Bank relocation project, directly linking the Building 92 disposition, the Food Bank relocation, and the continuing implementation of the broader Alameda Point redevelopment program.
650. Public comments from Petitioners further identified the purchaser's service on the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Committee and requested independent review of the transaction before approval, given the substantial discount on the cost per acre.
City of Alameda Failed to Proceed in the Manner Required By Law 651. This Petition alleges that the City fundamentally transformed the governing redevelopment framework by reallocating obligations, benefits, and land uses among projects and parties, and then improperly treated those transformations as if nothing legally significant had changed, in violation of federal, state, and local law and in excess of lawful authority.
G. ABSENCE OF LAWFULLY ADOPTED CEQA PROCEDURES REQUIRES
JUDICIAL REVIEW
652. The redevelopment activities described throughout this Petition reveal more than isolated CEQA errors. Collectively, they demonstrate a continuing pattern of discretionary governmental decision-making implemented through inconsistent project descriptions, 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
122
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE fragmented environmental review, unstable environmental baselines, evolving redevelopment assumptions, conflicting CEQA determinations, and unsupported assertions of CEQA compliance.
653. Public Resources Code § 21082 and CEQA Guidelines § 15022 require local agencies to adopt objectives, criteria, and procedures governing the implementation of CEQA. Despite repeated public requests and review of the administrative record, Petitioners have identified no evidence that Respondents have adopted or presently maintain such procedures governing project definition, related projects, cumulative impacts, baseline determination, exemption eligibility, consistency review, subsequent environmental review, or the delegation and exercise of CEQA authority. 654. Nor have Petitioners identified any lawfully adopted delegation authorizing the Planning Board or City staff to independently exercise CEQA discretion outside procedures adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21082 and CEQA Guidelines § 15022. Instead, the administrative record reflects successive project-specific CEQA determinations based upon ad hoc administrative assertions rather than identified standards adopted by the City. 655. The inconsistent project descriptions, conflicting governmental representations, evolving redevelopment assumptions, fragmented approvals, lack of staff expertise, and varying CEQA determinations described throughout this Petition are consistent with the absence of lawfully adopted procedures governing the exercise of CEQA discretion. Those inconsistencies permeate the continuing Alameda Point redevelopment program and undermine the validity of the challenged approvals.
656. Judicial review is therefore necessary not only to determine the legality of the approvals challenged herein, but also to determine whether Respondents have exercised discretionary CEQA authority without the objectives, criteria, and procedures required by Public Resources Code § 21082 and CEQA Guidelines § 15022. Resolution of that issue is necessary to determine the validity of the challenged governmental actions and to ensure that future redevelopment proceeds in the manner required by law.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
657. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
123
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION--Failure to Proceed in the Manner Required by Law Under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5)
658. Petitioners allege Respondents failed to proceed in the manner required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by, among other things:
a. Failing to maintain legally sufficient CEQA procedures and governance mechanisms;
b. Employing an improper project definition that failed to identify the full scope of the redevelopment undertaking;
c. Failing to evaluate the whole of the action and the interrelated redevelopment activities comprising Tract 8696;
d. Impermissibly fragmenting and piecemealing environmental review; e. Failing to prepare required subsequent, supplemental, or additional environmental review despite material project changes and new information; f. Relying upon an unstable and evolving redevelopment baseline rather than an accurate environmental baseline;
g. Making findings and consistency determinations unsupported by substantial evidence in the administrative record;
h. Improperly relying upon exemptions, ministerial determinations, streamlining provisions, and related procedural devices where discretionary environmental review was required; and
i. Otherwise failing to comply with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and applicable law.
659. Petitioners therefore seek issuance of a writ directing Respondents to vacate the challenged approvals and conduct legally adequate environmental review.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION--Failure to Review the Whole of the Action and Improper Project Definition (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15165, 15378)
660. Petitioners allege Respondents unlawfully defined and evaluated individual approvals as stand-alone actions rather than components of an integrated redevelopment program encompassing Tract 8696 and its interdependent land uses, infrastructure, affordable housing obligations, RESHAP facilities, West Midway development, Food Bank facilities, and related governmental actions.
661. By failing to evaluate the whole of the action, Respondents violated CEQA and deprived decisionmakers and the public of legally required environmental review.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
124
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION--Improper Fragmentation and Piecemealing of Environmental Review (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15165, 15378)
662. Petitioners allege Respondents unlawfully segmented interconnected redevelopment approvals into separate administrative actions and environmental determinations despite their functional, geographic, and operational interdependence. 663. The resulting piecemeal review concealed cumulative effects, obscured project relationships, and prevented meaningful consideration of the integrated redevelopment condition as required by CEQA.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION--Failure to Conduct Required Subsequent, Supplemental, Program-Level, and Cumulative Environmental Review(Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162–15164)
664. Petitioners allege that material changes to the redevelopment program, changed circumstances, evolving project relationships, unstable baseline conditions, and substantial new information required additional environmental review that Respondents failed to perform.
665. Respondents therefore violated CEQA by relying upon prior environmental documentation that no longer reflected the redevelopment condition being implemented.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION--Improper Reliance on Exemptions, Ministerial Determinations, and Streamlining Provisions
666. Petitioners allege Respondents improperly invoked ministerial determinations, exemptions, and streamlining provisions, including reliance upon Government Code § 65583.2, CEQA Guidelines § 15268, and related authorities, notwithstanding the discretionary and interdependent nature of the challenged redevelopment actions. 667. Those determinations improperly avoided environmental review required by CEQA and therefore constitute an abuse of discretion.
F. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION---Inconsistency with the Governing Redevelopment Framework
668. Petitioners allege the challenged approvals materially depart from and are inconsistent with the governing redevelopment framework established by applicable federal conveyance requirements, the Community Reuse Plan, the Specific Plan, Amendment No. 2, and related governing planning documents.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
125
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 669. Respondents' approvals therefore exceed the redevelopment framework upon which prior planning and environmental review were based.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION--Ultra Vires Exercise of Redevelopment Authority (Government Code sections 65100 et seq., 65454–65457, 65455, 65901, and 37350; Public Resources Code section 21082; and CEQA Guidelines section 15022, Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) 670. Petitioners allege rather than implementing the governing federal, state, and local redevelopment framework, Respondents fundamentally transformed that framework by materially restructuring land uses, redevelopment assumptions, project relationships, implementation mechanisms, and governmental obligations without statutory or delegated authority.
671. Respondents thereby exercised powers not conferred by law and implemented a redevelopment condition that was never lawfully authorized under the governing redevelopment framework. Such ultra vires governmental action is reviewable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION--Lack of Authority to Restructure Federally Constrained Obligations (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085)
672. Petitioners allege Respondents lacked lawful authority to restructure obligations arising under the federal conveyance documents, BRAC framework, EDC requirements, federal homeless assistance obligations, and the RESHAP entitlement structure through local redevelopment approvals.
673. The challenged restructuring exceeds Respondents' delegated authority and is therefore unlawful.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION--Lack of a Lawful Approval Pathway Within the Governing Redevelopment Framework (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) 674. Petitioners allege the redevelopment transformation challenged herein was not approved through any lawful pathway recognized under the overlapping federal, state housing, and local redevelopment governance structure applicable to Alameda Point. 675. Respondents failed to identify the necessary approval authorities, findings, instruments, or administrative record demonstrating lawful authorization for the challenged redevelopment condition.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
126
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION-- Exercise of CEQA Authority Without Lawfully Adopted Procedures (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082; CEQA § 15022; Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) 676. Petitioners allege Respondents failed to adopt and maintain the objectives, criteria, procedures, and lawful delegations required for implementation of CEQA. 677. Respondents nevertheless exercised discretionary CEQA authority through staff and Planning Board determinations unsupported by lawfully adopted procedures, constituting an abuse of discretion and ultra vires administrative action reviewable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526a (Illegal Gift of Public Funds and Waste of Taxpayer Assets)
678. Petitioners allege Respondents transferred or committed valuable public property, redevelopment rights, public funding, infrastructure, and other taxpayer assets for the primary benefit of private parties without adequate consideration and in a manner prohibited by Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 679. Petitioners further allege Respondents have expended, committed, or authorized the expenditure of public funds and taxpayer assets in excess of their lawful authority, constituting waste within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. 680. Because neither the Planning Board nor other local administrative bodies possess authority to adjudicate or cure violations of Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution, judicial intervention is necessary to determine the legality of the challenged governmental actions and to prevent further unlawful expenditures of public funds.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
681. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray for judgment as follows:
A. For issuance of a writ of mandate directing Respondents to vacate and set aside the challenged approvals, environmental determinations, exemptions, ministerial determinations, consistency findings, tract actions, phased approvals, delegated approvals, and all related governmental actions challenged herein; B. For issuance of a writ directing Respondents to suspend and enjoin further implementation of the challenged redevelopment program unless and until Respondents have fully complied with CEQA and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws; 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
127
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE C. For orders requiring Respondents to conduct legally adequate environmental review of the whole of the action, including the integrated redevelopment activities within Tract 8696 and their relationship to the broader Alameda Point redevelopment framework, utilizing a stable and legally sufficient baseline and evaluating cumulative, phased, and reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts;
D. For declarations that the challenged approvals and redevelopment actions are unlawful, exceed Respondents’ lawful authority, are inconsistent with governing federal, state, and local redevelopment requirements, and therefore constitute ultra vires governmental conduct;
E. For temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive and other equitable relief as necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent further implementation of the challenged redevelopment activities pending compliance with applicable law; F. For costs of suit incurred herein;
G. For attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs as authorized by applicable law, including but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and H. For such other, further, and different legal, equitable, declaratory, injunctive, or extraordinary relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any relief necessary to effectuate the purposes of the writ and without prejudice to any other claims or remedies Petitioners may have under applicable law.
VERIFICATION OF PETITIONERS
I, Shelby Sheehan, am a Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 17
th , 2026, at Alameda, California.
_______________________
Shelby Sheehan, Petitioner, In Pro Per
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
128
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA CCP §1085 VERIFIED PETITION TRACT 8696 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE
I, Tod Hickman, am a Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 17
th , 2026, at Bangor, California.
________________________
Tod Hickman, Petitioner, In Pro Per
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
I certify that this Petition contains no more than 37,342 words, excluding the caption, tables, signature blocks, this Certificate of Compliance, the Verification, and any exhibits or attachments. I relied on the word-count feature of the word-processing program used to prepare this Petition.
Dated: July 17, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Shelby Sheehan
Petitioner, In Pro Per
ATTACHMENT 1.
NOTICE OF INTENT
January 5, 2026
/0 /1 /2 /3 /1 /4 /5 /i255 /7 /8 /i255 /9 /10 /9 /11 /i255 /12 /13 /14 /i255 /16 /17 /18 /5 /i255 /16 /19 /20 /4 /21 /i255 /1 /2 /22 /i255 /16 /17 /18 /5 /i255 /23 /18 /18 /24 /4 /2 /20 /5 /i255 /25 /17 /26 /17 /2 /i255 /27 /28 /20 /2 /8 /i255 /16 /17 /18 /5 /i255 /24 /29 /i255 /23 /19 /1/30/20/22 /1 /i255 /i255 /9 /9 /11 /31 /i255 /27 /1 /2 /18/1 /i255 /16 /19 /1 /4 /1 /i255 /23 /32 /20 /i255 /23 /19 /1/30/20/22 /1 /8 /16 /23 /i255 /33 /34 /7 /10 /35 /i255 /i255 /36 /17 /1 /i255 /20/30/1/17 /19 /37/i255 /38 /19 /20 /4 /21/39/1/19 /1/30/20/22 /1 /38 /1 /40 /41 /24 /32 /42 /i255 /5 /43 /28 /20 /2/39/1/19 /1/30/20/22 /1 /38 /1 /40 /41 /24 /32 /i255 /44 /45 /13/46/37/i255 /47 /24/22 /i255 /48 /17 /38 /21/30/1/2 /i255 /1 /2 /22 /i255 /27 /28 /20 /19 /26 /5 /i255 /27 /28 /20 /20 /28 /1 /2 /i255 /49 /50 /51 /20 /18 /17 /18 /17 /24 /2 /20 /4 /43 /50 /52 /i255 /53 /54 /55 /56 /57 /58 /12 /14/i255 /59 /60 /47 /61 /16 /62 /i255 /60 /63 /i255 /61 /59 /47 /62 /59 /47 /i255 /47 /60 /i255 /63 /61 /64 /62 /i255 /16 /62 /65 /23 /i255 /51 /62 /47 /61 /47 /61 /60 /59 /i255 /66 /62 /65 /67 /62 /27 /47 /i255 /63 /60 /66 /i255/68/66/61 /47 /i255 /60 /63 /i255/69/23/59 /70 /23 /47 /62 /i255 /i255 /45 /57 /14 /i255 /71 /72 /73 /74/75 /76 /77 /74 /75 /78 /i255/79/80/81 /82 /i255/46/83/84/85/86/87 /i255 /71 /88 /86 /81 /80 /i255 /89 /i255 /86 /82 /i255 /89 /90 /86/91/80/84 /86 /i255 /71 /92 /83 /93 /82 /i255 /94 /73 /13 /95 /i255 /84 /86 /82 /80 /84 /i255 /96 /74 /97 /96 /77 /97 /74 /75 /98 /i255 /73 /13 /12 /99 /58 /57 /i255 /12/13 /i255 /89 /100 /57 /73 /58 /101 /14 /i255 /71 /72 /57 /89 /53 /57 /i255 /12/89 /102 /57 /i255 /73 /13 /12 /99 /58 /57 /i255 /18 /28 /1 /18 /i255 /103 /3 /4 /43 /3 /1 /2 /18 /i255 /18 /24 /i255 /16 /1 /19 /17 /29 /24 /4 /2 /17 /1 /i255 /51 /3 /26 /19 /17 /38 /i255 /66 /20 /43 /24 /3 /4 /38 /20 /43 /i255 /16 /24 /22 /20 /i255 /104 /i255 /104 /i255 /9 /35 /35 /11/105 /40 /7 /i255 /1 /2 /22 /i255 /106 /107 /107 /108 /109 /110 /i255 /112 /113/114 /115 /114 /115 /116 /117 /113 /118 /119 /i255 /115 /117 /114 /113 /117 /120 /i255 /114 /116 /i255 /121 /122 /113 /i255 /123 /i255 /124 /113 /114 /115 /114 /115 /116 /117 /i255 /125 /116 /118 /i255 /126 /118 /115 /114 /i255 /116 /125 /i255/127/123/117 /120 /123 /114 /113 /i255 /128 /117 /120 /113 /118 /i255 /129 /116 /120 /113 /i255 /116 /125 /i255 /129 /115 /130 /115 /122 /i255 /112/118 /116 /131 /113 /120 /128 /118 /113 /i255 /i255 /104 /35 /10 /132 /7 /8 /i255 /1 /2/22 /i255 /29 /24 /4 /i255 /24 /18 /28 /20 /4 /i255 /1 /103 /103 /4 /24 /103 /4 /17 /1 /18 /20 /i255 /4 /20 /19 /17 /20 /29 /8 /i255 /38 /28 /1 /19 /19 /20 /2 /41 /17 /2 /41 /i255 /18 /28 /20 /i255 /16 /17 /18 /5 /i255 /24 /29 /i255 /23 /19 /1/30/20/22 /1 /133 /43 /i255 /1 /103 /103 /4 /24 /32 /1 /19 /i255/24 /29 /i255 /18 /28 /20 /i255 /124 /118 /116 /134 /113 /131 /114 /i255 /123 /119/119 /116 /131 /115 /123 /114 /113 /120 /i255 /126 /115 /114 /135 /i255 /112 /122 /123 /117 /117 /115 /117 /136 /i255 /137 /124 /124 /122 /115 /131 /123 /114 /115 /116 /117 /i255 /138 /116 /139 /i255 /112 /140 /138 /106 /141 /142 /10 /9 /141 /108 /i255 /143/144/113/119 /114 /i255/145/115/120 /126 /123 /146 /i255 /112 /135 /123 /119 /113/i255 /137 /147 /40 /i255 /112 /113 /114 /115 /114 /115 /116 /117 /113 /118/119 /i255 /123 /122 /122 /113 /136 /113 /i255 /114 /135 /123 /114 /i255 /114 /135 /113 /i255 /129 /115 /114 /146 /i255 /125 /123 /115 /122 /113 /120 /i255 /114 /116 /i255 /124 /118 /116 /131 /113 /113 /120 /i255 /115 /117 /i255 /114 /135 /113 /i255/127/123/117 /117 /113 /118 /i255 /118 /113 /148 /128 /115 /118 /113 /120 /i255 /149 /146 /i255 /122 /123 /126 /110 /i255 /115 /117 /131 /122/128 /120 /115 /117 /136 /i255 /32 /17 /24 /19 /1 /18 /17 /24 /2 /43/i255 /24 /29 /i255 /18 /28 /20 /i255 /16 /1 /19 /17 /29 /24 /4 /2 /17 /1 /i255 /62 /2 /32 /17 /4 /24 /2/30/20/2 /18 /1 /19 /i255 /65 /3 /1 /19 /17 /18 /5 /i255 /23 /38 /18 /i255 /49 /51 /3 /26 /19 /17 /38 /i255 /66 /20 /43 /24 /3 /4 /38 /20 /43 /i255 /16 /24 /22 /20 /i255 /104 /i255 /9 /35/10 /10 /10 /i255 /20 /18 /i255 /43 /20 /150 /40 /52 /142 /142 /17 /2 /38/19 /3 /22 /17 /2 /41 /i255 /26 /3 /18 /i255 /2 /24 /18 /i255 /19 /17/30/17/18 /20 /22 /i255 /18 /24 /142 /142 /103 /17 /20 /38 /20/30/20/1 /19 /17 /2 /41 /i255 /24 /29 /i255 /4 /20 /19 /1 /18 /20 /22 /i255 /103 /4 /24 /151 /20 /38 /18 /43 /i255 /1 /18 /i255 /23 /19 /1/30/20/22 /1 /i255 /51 /24/17 /2 /18 /8 /i255 /1 /2 /22 /i255 /114 /135 /123 /114 /i255 /123 /117 /146 /i255 /138/116 /114 /115 /131 /113 /i255 /116 /125 /i255 /152 /113 /114 /113 /118/127/115/117 /123 /114 /115 /116 /117 /i255 /121 /122 /113 /120 /i255 /116 /117 /i255 /116 /118 /i255 /123 /149 /116 /128 /114 /i255 /152 /113 /131 /113/127/149/113 /118 /i255 /107 /153 /110 /i255 /106 /153 /106 /141 /i255 /115 /119 /i255 /124 /118 /116 /131 /113 /120 /128 /118 /123/122 /122 /146 /i255 /120 /113 /125 /113 /131 /114 /115 /130 /113 /i255/123 /117 /120 /i255 /122 /113 /136 /123 /122 /122 /146 /i255 /115 /117 /113 /154 /113 /131 /114 /115 /130 /113 /110 /i255 /135 /123 /130 /115 /117 /136 /i255 /149 /113 /113 /117 /i255 /115 /119 /119 /128 /113 /120 /i255 /126 /115 /114 /135 /116 /128 /114 /i255 /131 /116/127/124/122 /115 /123 /117 /131 /113 /i255 /126 /115 /114 /135 /i255/127/123/117/120 /123 /114 /116 /118 /146 /i255 /43 /18 /1 /18 /3 /18 /24 /4 /5 /i255/1 /2 /22 /i255 /4 /20 /41 /3 /19 /1 /18 /24 /4 /5 /i255 /103 /4 /20 /4 /20 /150 /3 /17 /43 /17 /18 /20 /43 /40 /i255 /51 /20 /18 /17 /18 /17 /24 /2 /20 /4/43 /i255 /29 /3 /4 /18 /28 /20 /4 /i255 /1 /19 /19 /20 /41 /20 /i255 /18 /28 /1 /18 /i255 /18 /28 /20 /i255 /16 /17 /18 /5 /i255 /1 /38 /18 /20 /22 /i255 /17 /2 /i255 /20 /155 /38 /20 /43 /43 /i255 /24 /29 /i255 /17 /18 /43 /i255 /151 /3 /4 /17 /43 /22 /17 /38 /18 /17 /24 /2 /i255 /17 /2 /i255 /1 /103 /103 /4 /24 /32 /17 /2/41 /i255 /18 /28 /20 /i255 /124 /118 /116 /134 /113 /131 /114 /110 /i255 /123/117 /120 /i255 /114 /135 /123 /114 /i255 /123 /124 /124 /118 /116 /130 /123 /122 /119 /i255 /115 /119 /119 /128 /113 /120 /i255 /126 /115 /114 /135 /116 /128 /114 /i255 /114 /135 /113 /i255 /122 /113 /136 /123 /122 /i255 /124 /118 /113 /120 /115 /131 /123 /114 /113 /119 /i255 /117 /113 /131 /113 /119 /119 /123 /118 /146 /i255 /114 /116 /i255 /113 /156 /113 /118 /131 /115/119 /113 /i255 /122 /113 /123 /120 /142 /123 /136 /113 /117 /131 /146 /i255 /123 /128/114 /135 /116 /118 /115 /114 /146 /i255 /123 /118 /113 /i255 /128 /122 /114 /118 /123 /i255 /130 /115 /118 /113 /119 /110 /i255 /130 /116 /115 /120 /i255 /123 /149 /i255 /115 /117 /115 /114 /115 /116 /110 /i255 /123 /117 /120 /i255 /126 /115 /114 /135 /116 /128 /114 /i255 /125 /116 /118 /131 /113 /i255 /116 /118 /i255 /113 /154 /113 /131 /114 /110 /i255 /115 /118 /118 /113 /119 /124 /113 /131 /114/115 /130 /113 /i255 /116 /125 /i255 /123 /117 /146 /i255 /129 /157 /158 /137/i255 /120 /116 /131 /128/127/113/117 /114 /123 /114 /115 /116 /117 /i255 /114 /135 /113 /i255 /129 /115 /114 /146 /i255 /121 /122 /113 /43 /40 /i255 /68/28/20 /4 /20 /i255 /1 /2/i255 /1 /103 /103 /4 /24 /32 /1 /19 /i255 /17 /43 /i255 /32 /24 /17 /22 /8 /i255 /2 /24 /i255 /103 /4 /24 /38 /20 /22 /3 /4 /1 /19 /i255 /103 /4 /24 /18 /20 /38 /18 /17 /24 /2 /43 /8 /i255 /103 /4 /20 /43 /3/30/103/18 /17 /24 /2 /43 /8 /i255 /43 /18 /1 /18 /3 /18 /20 /43 /i255 /24 /29 /i255 /19 /17 /30/17 /18 /1 /18 /17 /24 /2 /8 /i255 /24 /4 /i255 /20 /155 /28 /1 /3 /43/18 /17 /24 /2 /i255 /4 /20 /150 /3 /17 /4 /20/30/20/2 /18 /43 /i255 /1 /18 /18 /1 /38 /28 /8 /i255 /1 /2 /22 /i255 /1 /i255 /22 /20 /29 /20 /38 /18 /17 /32 /20 /i255 /59 /24 /18 /17 /38 /20 /i255 /24 /29 /i255 /70 /20 /18 /20 /4/30/17/2 /1 /18 /17 /24 /2 /i255 /38 /1 /2 /2 /24/18 /i255 /38 /24 /2 /29 /20 /4 /i255 /32 /1 /19 /17 /22 /17 /18 /5 /i255 /24 /4/i255 /18 /4 /17 /41 /41 /20 /4 /i255 /19 /17/30/17/18 /1 /18 /17 /24 /2 /43 /i255 /103 /20 /4 /17 /24 /22 /43 /40 /i255 /112 /113 /114 /115 /114 /115 /116 /117 /113 /118/119 /i255 /126 /115 /122 /122 /i255 /119 /113 /113 /159 /i255 /118 /113 /122 /115 /113 /125 /i255 /115 /117 /131 /122 /128 /120 /115 /117 /136 /110 /i255 /149 /128 /114 /i255 /117 /116 /114 /i255 /122 /115/127/115/114 /113 /120 /i255 /114 /116 /110 /i255 /130 /123 /131 /123 /114 /128 /118 /i255 /116 /125 /i255 /123 /122 /122 /i255 /124 /118 /116 /134 /113 /131 /114 /i255 /123 /124 /124 /118 /116 /130/123 /122 /119 /110 /i255 /17/30/30/20/22 /17 /1 /18 /20 /i255 /43 /3 /43 /103 /20 /2 /43 /17 /24 /2 /i255 /24 /29 /i255 /103 /4 /24 /151 /20 /38 /18 /i255 /1 /38 /18 /17 /32 /17 /18 /17 /20 /43 /8 /i255 /1 /2 /22 /i255 /1 /19 /19 /i255 /4 /20/30/20/22 /17 /20 /43 /i255 /1 /3 /18 /28 /24 /4 /17 /160 /20 /22 /i255 /3 /2 /22 /20 /4 /i255 /51 /3 /26 /19 /17 /38 /i255 /161 /113 /119 /116 /128 /118 /131 /113 /119 /i255 /129 /116 /120 /113 /i255 /119 /113 /131 /114 /115 /116 /117 /i255 /106 /107 /107 /108 /162 /139 /163 /i255 /123 /117 /120 /i255 /116 /114 /135 /113 /118 /i255 /123 /124 /124 /122 /115 /131 /123 /149 /122 /113 /i255 /122 /123 /126 /139 /i255 /0 /1 /2 /3 /0 /4 /4 /i255 /6 /7 /6 /8/9/10/11 /12 /0 /3 /i255 /13 /14 /15 /16 /i255 /18 /19 /20 /15 /21 /22 /i255 /15 /16 /i255 /23 /24 /19 /25 /15 /26 /22 /26 /i255 /23 /27 /24 /16 /27 /28 /29 /20 /i255 /20 /19 /i255 /2 /30 /31 /32 /33 /34 /i255 /3 /35 /36 /37 /30 /38 /34 /35 /36 /i255 /39 /37 /40 /35 /i255 /36 /35 /34 /41 /33 /37 /42 /i255 /43 /44 /44 /45 /46 /47 /48 /i255 /28 /29 /26 /i255 /15 /16 /i255 /29 /19 /20 /i255 /49 /50 /51 /52 /50 /53 /52 /53 /i255/51 /55 /56 /i255 /57 /50 /53 /i255 /58 /59 /57 /60 /60 /i255 /50 /55 /51 /56 /i255 /61 /57 /49 /62 /52 /i255 /57 /50 /63 /i255 /64 /60 /57 /49/65/58/56 /i255 /57 /66 /67 /68/65/52/50 /51 /58 /56 /i255 /55 /66 /i255 /64 /57 /68 /58 /52 /58 /i255 /55 /69 /i255 /57 /64 /51 /49 /55 /50 /56 /i255 /49 /50 /64 /60 /68/53 /49 /50 /67 /i255 /70 /68 /51 /i255 /29 /19 /20 /i255 /71 /15/72/15/20 /22/26 /i255 /20 /19 /i255 /21 /71 /28 /15/72/16/i255 /20 /14 /28 /20 /i255 /20 /14 /22 /i255 /18 /19 /20 /15 /21 /22 /i255 /19 /73 /i255 /74 /22 /20 /22 /24/72/15/29 /28 /20 /15 /19 /29 /i255 /15 /16 /i255 /15 /29 /26 /22 /23 /22 /29 /26 /22 /29 /20 /71 /75 /i255 /26 /22 /73 /22 /21 /20 /15 /25 /22 /76 /i255 /20/14 /28 /20 /i255 /20 /14 /22 /i255 /77 /15 /20 /75 /i255 /71 /28 /21 /78 /22/26 /i255 /71 /22 /79 /28 /71 /i255 /28 /27 /20 /14 /19 /24 /15 /20 /75 /i255 /20 /19 /i255 /28 /23 /23 /24 /19 /25 /22 /i255 /20 /14 /22 /i255 /23 /24 /19 /80 /22 /21 /20 /76 /i255 /20 /14 /28 /20 /i255 /20 /14 /22 /i255 /28 /23 /23 /24 /19 /25 /28 /71 /16 /i255 /28 /24 /22 /i255 /25 /19 /15 /26 /i255 /73 /19 /24 /i255 /73 /28 /15/71 /27 /24 /22 /i255 /20 /19 /i255 /64 /55/65/81/60 /63 /i255 /61/49 /51 /59 /i255 /67 /55 /62 /52 /66 /50 /49 /50 /67 /i255 /60 /57 /61 /56 /i255 /55 /66 /i255 /51 /59 /57 /51 /i255 /57 /53 /53 /49 /51 /49 /55 /50 /57 /60 /i255 /66 /52 /60 /49 /52 /69 /i255 /49 /58 /i255 /57 /62 /57 /49 /60 /57 /70 /60 /52 /i255 /68 /50 /53 /52 /66 /i255 /58 /51 /57 /51 /52 /i255 /55 /66 /i255 /69 /52 /53 /52 /66/57 /60 /i255 /60 /57 /61 /82 /i255 /83 /22 /16 /23 /22 /21 /20 /73 /27/71 /71 /75 /76 /i255 /i255 /i255
/i255
/13 /84 /74 /i255 /85 /86 /77 /87/88/89/18 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /90 /85 /91 /92 /93 /94 /i255 /90 /85 /91 /91 /85 /89 /18 /i255 /i255
/i255
EXHIBIT 1
1997 ARRA "Daysog" No-Emergency Shelters Memo
still east
EXHIBIT 2
2012 EDC MOA Amendment No. 2
Attached to "Russo Memo"
=1,425 total residential units at Alameda Point
(January 10, 2012)
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: John A. Russo
Executive Director
Date: January 4 2012
Re: Approve Amendment NO. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the United States Navy for the Economic Development Conveyance of Portions of the Former Naval Air Station Alameda
BACKGROUND
As part of the process to attract the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus to Alameda Point, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) staff and ARRA's private development partner, Alameda Point Lab Partners (APLP), met with staff from the Department of the Navy (Navy) in San Diego on Thursday, June 16 2011 , to request a no-cost conveyance of the proposed 45-acre LBNL site at Alameda Point. Alameda Point consists of 918 acres of the former Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda). The ARRA's request was made pursuant to the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan) adopted in 1996 (Exhibit 1), and the ARRA and Navy Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed in 2000 , as amended (Exhibit 2). The EDC MOA authorized a no-cost conveyance of major portions of the former NAS Alameda property, including Alameda Point and Bayport, to the ARRA consistent with the Reuse Plan. (The property to be conveyed to ARRA shall be referred to as the "EDC Property.
Soon after the June meeting, the Navy agreed to move forward and convey not only the proposed LBNL Second Campus site, but the whole of the EDC Property, pursuant to the 2000 no-cost EDC MOA, subject to the ARRA agreeing to certain conditions. These conditions include ARRA's confirmation of its commitment to the Reuse Plan, to existing aspects of the EDC MOA, and to coordination on ongoing environmental clean-up issues. The Navy also requested an amendment to the EDC MOA that memorializes an enforcement mechanism in the event that ARRA develops the EDC Property in a manner inconsistent with the Reuse Plan. ARRAstaff discussed these conditions with the Navy last summer; the result is an agreed-upon Term Sheet between the Navy and ARRA (Term Sheet) that provides for the no-cost conveyance of the entire EDC Property to the ARRA pursuant to the 2000 EDC MOA (Exhibit 3). The Term Sheet was approved by the ARRA on October 5 2011.
ARRA
Agenda Item #4-
01-04-
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 4 , 2012